Objective Morality?

[enviousintheeverafter]

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

[Divine Insight]

The phrase "objective with respect to human subjectivity" seems just wrong headed to me.

Why?

Look at what you write yourself further down in your own post:

WHEN we are talking about HUMAN morality, how is saying that it is subjective TO humans, useful in any way?

What ELSE can it possibly be subjective to?

HUMAN morality?

That would already be a sense of morality that applies only to humans.

In fact, I hold that "Human morality" is the only morality that exists. It's an idea that is unique to humans. We invented the concept and defined it.

ANIMAL morality, or how humans should treat animals, to me is a different KIND of morality. We should behave morally towards animals, but that's a different topic.

ANIMAL morality? Sorry I never heard of that concept before. It's news to me.

WE can have objective facts about humans. We can use logic to discuss morality.
Now, if you say that LOGIC itself isn't objective, they I'm afraid my argument fails.

But I think that logic is a pretty objective kind of a tool.
Topic of another debate, perhaps.

Yes that would definitely be a topic for another debate, and my position would be the logic is definitely NOT objective. Although, I will agree that we have indeed tried to make is as objective as we possibly can.

It's a bit of a red herring to throw in animals when we are really dealing with just the humans. I think there could be other rules concerning animals. In fact, I'd venture to say that the rules should be different.. that the criteria SHOULD be different.

If that's the case then all morality would be relative. However, relative and subjective aren't necessary the same things.

But what about animal rights? It is moral then to torture a cat or dog? Well, based on Harris' model it would only be immoral if any humans find that to be emotionally disturbing to them.

And yet, apples are not oranges. Bugs aren't people. Soylent Green might be people, but bugs aren't.

We shouldn't use OUR moral standards for animals. We can't assume that what is good for humans is good for other organisms.[/quote]

Why not? We assume zillions of other things. In fact, most of what we think we know is really nothing more than unproven assumptions.

We aren't SAYING that animals should have the same rights as humans.
We aren't TALKING about animal rights.

No, we're supposed to be talking about "objective morality". But shouldn't an objective morality apply to everything if it's going to be truly objective?

That's a whole different topic.

Well, we aren't TALKING about the morality of the universe.
That's a start...

We aren't CLAIMING that human morality should be the same for any other organisms.
I think what we are talking about is HUMAN morality.

Well, you'd need to have a reason why humans should be separated from all other animals then when it comes to what's ultimately right or wrong objectively speaking.

We don't have to throw in every possible critter in the universe AND the universe, too.
One thing at a time, buckaroo.

If you're going to speak about an "absolute objective morality" as theists claim exist then we have no choice but to toss in the whole universe, buckaroo.

And if we're going to claim a "righteous God" exists then that God would need to abide by that same objective morality as well.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

I agree with you, and Sam Harris, in principle. However, what I am objecting to is call this "objective morality".

For theists, this means that there exists a single correct answer to every moral question. For them there is no difference between the terms "Objective Morality" and "Absolute Morality". They believe that if morality is objective, then it must also be absolute.

We can't account for why they might think that something is objective it must be "absolute".. we can't even get them to explain what "absolute" anything IS. Nor do we have to subscribe to their BELIEFS that there is an "absolute" anything out there.

Pie in the sky.
I am not interested in encouraging that.

So, if that IS what some Christians say, then I say "too bad for you, you have no leg to stand on".

I have logic and reason.
THEY have to prove that an absolute morality exists, that their god exists, and that their god IF if exists has anything to DO with their beliefs, or their misguided ideas about morality.

If their morality WAS absolute, it wouldn't CHANGE very much. Or are you with them on how absolutes can change from time to time.

Seems very WEIRD to me.

Is Sam Harris simple argued that we can create sufficient morality using nothing other than well-rationalized reason, then I agree with him completely.

Why is using good thinking a bad thing all of a sudden?
We should use BAD reasoning, instead?

We can't reason things out using our best reasoning?
We need God to reason things out with?

But calling that "objective morality" is a BIG MISTAKE.

Because for theists, if morality can be seen to be "objective" (i.e. carved in stone in reality), then for them that's evidence that there must be a God.

Yeah, circular stupidity, if that's the case.
I don't see how that's a mistake. Maybe you can elaborate on that a bit.

I've heard Willy Craig talk like that.
We don't have to buy his particular brand of snake oil.

He makes claims he can't prove.
But anyone and his monkey can do THAT.

[Divine Insight]

Why is using good thinking a bad thing all of a sudden?

I never suggested that it was.

We should use BAD reasoning, instead?

No, of course not.

[Hamsaka]

Now of course I don't have the books with me, but Harris' "The End of Faith" and in "Waking Up" he goes on at length to include the experiences of sentient nonhuman creatures. This still leaves a lot of living beings out in the cold, but from what I understand of Harris' zeitgeist, he extends his methodology far beyond 'just humans'.

The morality is entirely human-based, rather than somehow implicit in all expressions of life; but it can be extended, by humans, on behalf of whom we share the planet with.

It's more of a gut-level reaction when I look askance at using science to determine or flesh out morals. That's because I live in a culture that is similarly split, but Harris makes some good points, and in spite of a weird emotional reluctance on my part, applying the scientific process to morals and their development sounds very reasonable.

I agree with you, and Sam Harris, in principle. However, what I am objecting to is call this "objective morality".

For theists, this means that there exists a single correct answer to every moral question. For them there is no difference between the terms "Objective Morality" and "Absolute Morality". They believe that if morality is objective, then it must also be absolute.

Is Sam Harris simple argued that we can create sufficient morality using nothing other than well-rationalized reason, then I agree with him completely.

But calling that "objective morality" is a BIG MISTAKE.

Because for theists, if morality can be seen to be "objective" (i.e. carved in stone in reality), then for them that's evidence that there must be a God.

Maybe it is? Not anything like their god(s) of course.

I feel myself reacting to the term 'objective morality' for the reasons you list as well. Theist arguments for the existence of a god (regardless of what kind of argument) are incoherent and will continue to be so even if they climb onboard Harris' use of 'objective morality'. I don't see how any twist or bit of information is going to improve the general quality of arguments for the existence of a god. I don't see theist arguments evolving or gaining further ground unless their god actually shows up.

If theists hope to use something thought up by Sam Harris for their own arguments, the sheer irony might collapse the universe. They would be forced to reckon with secularizing their own teleologies.

The thing Harris can do that they can't is support the idea of 'objective morality' with empirical evidence (in theory). I still dislike his use of the term, but I can't deny that it is logical.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I think Harris answers that he can't conceive that the opposite can be true. Not his words, I'm paraphrasing using my very bad memory.

Well, but if this is accurate obviously this is a very poor argument, one that doesn't amount to much more than that its a deeply held conviction. We still have to have some objective basis for evaluating the truth/falsity of moral claims, and what we, or Harris, cannot imagine otherwise is not one.

If we say that we OUGHT to do things that make sense and follow what is TRUE and avoid to do what doesn't make sense and is FALSE, then I think we can get to answering your question.

Now, if you question why we OUGHT to do true things.. and so on.. then you got me for the time being.

How can we say that NOT maximizing well human well being is a good thing, IN what WAY is that good?

Let's say.. a bash on the head with a hammer. How does this maximize the well being of a human being? How can this be a good thing? Why should we ought not to do the bashing?

For the sake of the argument, let's say that it doesn't maximize the well being of a human being. I don't know HOW it could be a good thing, but let's just go with that a bit.

It's not. (FTSOTA )

Let's say.. ten pretty good bashes... This might KILL the human being.

In what way is this maximizing the human's well being? I don't know how it CAN.

So we OUGHT not do that because it DOESN'T seem to maximize the well being of our test human subject.

But here's the problem- if someone denies the value statement, the ought, what factual basis can we use to show them they're wrong? Suppose someone just says that they don't see why they ought to maximize anyone's well-being, what facts can we appeal to show them they're wrong? And if there are no such facts, how can we speak of any objective morality, i.e. something like moral truths (i.e. moral claims that correspond to facts)?

This is the classic is/ought, fact/value problem in a nutshell.

Goodness can't be about what isn't good, after all. And if we define "good" here to mean maximizing human flourishing and so forth, then pretty much by definition, we get the "ought".

But as above, suppose someone says that they agree that moral good consists in maximizing human flourishing or well-being, but don't think they should, or ought to, try to achieve the good. What sort of facts could we cite against them? Any?

I don't this this has to do with an objective fact. I think it rests on logic. Some folks might say that logic reflects reality in an OBJECTIVE way.

1. A rather circular premise ( and subjective ) that humans ARE intrinsically worth bothering about in this regard.
2. A rather banal tautology that what is good for human beings is good for human beings. What we call "what we ought to" do IS what is good for human beings.
3. We can't possibly say that we call "what we OUGHT to do" IS BAD for humans, after all. That just doesn't make word sense.

If I can elaborate on 2 and 3 for a bit?

2a. The term "What we ought to do" means the same as "what is good to do".
We ought only do what is good.
2b. Otherwise, the word "good" is too vague to be meaningful.

3a. We just can't say that we "ought do do" means to do something bad when it comes to morality.
3b. Otherwise, the word "morality" loses it's meaning.

( OK, I have NO idea if any of this works, so please.. if it doesn't.. don't let me drown in my own mental vomit. It looks good to me. I am willing to revise. I should READ some Harris )

Don't worry, you're bumping up against one of the very toughest, least tractable issues in ethics and philosophy over the last few centuries, if not ever. From what I hear about Harris' latest work in ethics (haven't read it myself), and its reception among other professionals, Harris is merely the most recent in a very long line of philosophers who have attempted- unsuccessfully- to bride Hume's chasm and give objective morality some sort of sense.

[H.sapiens]

Now of course I don't have the books with me, but Harris' "The End of Faith" and in "Waking Up" he goes on at length to include the experiences of sentient nonhuman creatures. This still leaves a lot of living beings out in the cold, but from what I understand of Harris' zeitgeist, he extends his methodology far beyond 'just humans'.

The morality is entirely human-based, rather than somehow implicit in all expressions of life; but it can be extended, by humans, on behalf of whom we share the planet with.

It's more of a gut-level reaction when I look askance at using science to determine or flesh out morals. That's because I live in a culture that is similarly split, but Harris makes some good points, and in spite of a weird emotional reluctance on my part, applying the scientific process to morals and their development sounds very reasonable.

I agree with you, and Sam Harris, in principle. However, what I am objecting to is call this "objective morality".

For theists, this means that there exists a single correct answer to every moral question. For them there is no difference between the terms "Objective Morality" and "Absolute Morality". They believe that if morality is objective, then it must also be absolute.

Is Sam Harris simple argued that we can create sufficient morality using nothing other than well-rationalized reason, then I agree with him completely.

But calling that "objective morality" is a BIG MISTAKE.

Because for theists, if morality can be seen to be "objective" (i.e. carved in stone in reality), then for them that's evidence that there must be a God.

No, if it represents an E.S.S. then it can be "objective morality" without any need for god(s).

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

1) Morality is a matter of value.
2) Value cannot exist without an evaluator.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor.
4) Something that depends on an evaluator is subjective.
5) Therefore morality is subjective.
6) What is subjective cannot be objective.
7) Therefore morality cannot be objective.

1 and 2 are my premises. 4 and 6 are definitions.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

The phrase "objective with respect to human subjectivity" seems just wrong headed to me.

Why?

Look at what you write yourself further down in your own post:

"WHEN we are talking about HUMAN morality, how is saying that it is subjective TO humans, useful in any way?

What ELSE can it possibly be subjective to?"

HUMAN morality?

Yes, but I asked you what ELSE could it be about, not what it was about.

Human morality can only BE ABOUT humans.
You DO mean pertaining to.. or morality as it applies to humans, right?

Because if we say that human morality is RELATIVE or subjective, you IMPLY that there IS another possible thing out there that it can be relative TO or that there are other kinds of subjects that can we can COMPARE TO and be subjective ABOUT.

But that's not the case here. We can't compare any OTHER kind of morality to our human kind. So, there is NO relativity going on here. There is only ONE kind of morality going on here. We are trying to decide if we can call it objective or subjective.

So we REALLY have to do a way better job defining those terms. Getting mixed up in the use of them isn't going to help.

"Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

That's how Harris defines an objective morality.
I like his definition because it seems to be pretty clear, and it makes sense to me. I don't think that the discussion is over, but for now, he has convinced me of his position.

What do you think about his definition of "objective morality"?

That would already be a sense of morality that applies only to humans.

Yes, I think that is almost OBVIOUS that human morality is about humans.
We agree.

In fact, I hold that "Human morality" is the only morality that exists.

Well, if there were sentient aliens, there may be a different morality of THAT kind based on the new objective facts.

So, if you're saying that only HUMANS can think about morality in the entire universe, I would have to ask you how you got all of that data about the universe.

But it may be safe to say that the only sentient beings able to think about morality in the universe that we know of are humans.

It's an idea that is unique to humans. We invented the concept and defined it.

Yes, and morality can be objective if we don't get ourselves overwhelmed by word mess.
Saying that morality is subjective seems to imply to me that we really can't reason about it very well. I don't think that's the case at all. I think we can reason about morality very well, and that we do in a lot of cases, and that we can, by and large get a very large consensus on moral issues using reasoning and logic.

Example.. slavery. Nowhere now in the world is it said to be moral or legal for one person to own another as property.

I'd call that pretty objective.
I have no idea right now what you might say.

ANIMAL morality, or how humans should treat animals, to me is a different KIND of morality. We should behave morally towards animals, but that's a different topic.

ANIMAL morality? Sorry I never heard of that concept before. It's news to me.

Yes, morality as it PERTAINS to animals. Our moral rules about the treatment of animals. Animals are not the same as human beings. We have needs that they don't have and vice versa.

See the word "pertains".. you use the term "relative to" instead.
But that doesn't mean subjective morality concerning animal rights.

We can have a different set of rules ( or a morality ) for the treatment of animals than we have for the treatment of humans.

Does that clear things up a bit?

WE can have objective facts about humans. We can use logic to discuss morality.
Now, if you say that LOGIC itself isn't objective, they I'm afraid my argument fails.

But I think that logic is a pretty objective kind of a tool.
Topic of another debate, perhaps.

Yes that would definitely be a topic for another debate, and my position would be the logic is definitely NOT objective. Although, I will agree that we have indeed tried to make is as objective as we possibly can.

Ahhh so logic isn't objective as we would LIKE. Well, OK.
Do we know ANYTHING at all as much as we would LIKE?

Nobody here is claiming super powers. We aren't ABSOLUTE creatures being able to have all data points in the universe. So, our knowledge is going to be a little limited

But conflating OBJECTIVE with ABSOLUTE doesn't help.

It's a bit of a red herring to throw in animals when we are really dealing with just the humans. I think there could be other rules concerning animals. In fact, I'd venture to say that the rules should be different.. that the criteria SHOULD be different.

If that's the case then all morality would be relative. However, relative and subjective aren't necessary the same things.

Relative only in the sense that if something is relative to something else, we can use the term PERTAINS to something else without loosing any meaning.

Using the word "relative" in this context messes with our thinking. It's easy to conflate relative with subjective.

I would say that how you are attempting to use the words they are NOT the same, as "pertaining to " isn't the same as subjective as opposed to objective.

Pertaining to is NOT the opposite of objective. We can't be "objective to" something. It's a messy possible conflation.

I would AVOID the words 'relate" and "relative". They muddy up the water.

But what about animal rights? It is moral then to torture a cat or dog? Well, based on Harris' model it would only be immoral if any humans find that to be emotionally disturbing to them.

And yet, apples are not oranges. Bugs aren't people. Soylent Green might be people, but bugs aren't.

We shouldn't use OUR moral standards for animals. We can't assume that what is good for humans is good for other organisms.[/quote]

Why not? We assume zillions of other things. In fact, most of what we think we know is really nothing more than unproven assumptions.

Oh, we can go ahead and assume anything at all for any reason imaginable. HOWEVER, I would suggest that we only assume the bare minimum. Let's not start off by assuming everything and anything is true. That makes sense hard to reach.

Think of the poor rutabagas!

Rutabaga don't think about slavery in the same way that humans do.
Some moral categories might not apply across the board for all organisms.

Too much noise might not apply to an organism with no ears.
Some things that are too hot for humans might be just the thing for bacteria.

When it comes to the higher mammals.. yeah more categories would be similar. But we should not think that some means all.

It might be the moral thing to do to throw a fish into the middle of the South Pacific ocean, and NOT so good to do the same thing with a human being.

We aren't SAYING that animals should have the same rights as humans.
We aren't TALKING about animal rights.

No, we're supposed to be talking about "objective morality". But shouldn't an objective morality apply to everything if it's going to be truly objective?

Well, I always have to ask.. what is this thing you call objective?
What do we even mean by the word?

I am not sure that using the word objective to mean that it should "apply to everything " is a very useful notion.

It's important that we get really clear as to the MEANING of the words we want to debate about. I can't agree with your definition above. It makes no sense to me.

How can any kind of morality possibly BE about everything?

Do you think that we should consider comfort needs of the Precambrian shield any time soon? What if it were to be too dry, or too cold?... What if it murdered someone?

No. Morality really ONLY applies to humans.
I can't even imagine how morality is supposed to be applied to inanimate objects.

Maybe you meant that morality should apply equally across the board in every way as applied to organisms? But that would very problematic, too.

What might be good for a virus might be quite deadly to an elk.
I don't think we can be "fair" like that.

In any case.. I don't even KNOW what it means to be fair to the Rushmore Monument. Or the Crab Nebula or to an amoeba. SHOULD we be fair?... hard for me to even guess. Hard for me to get stimulated imagining that kind of thing. Sounds like the kind of subject I used to read in my favorite science fiction novels, when I was a kid.

Sounds like the kind of grist for an episode of Star Trek.
But we aren't currently dealing with silicone based life.

THINGS need not apply.

So, morality can't be about ( or pertain to ) EVERYTHING...
It's got to only be about sentient organisms.

Well, we aren't TALKING about the morality of the universe.
That's a start...

We aren't CLAIMING that human morality should be the same for any other organisms.
I think what we are talking about is HUMAN morality.

Well, you'd need to have a reason why humans should be separated from all other animals then when it comes to what's ultimately right or wrong objectively speaking.

I don't see why I'll be needing that along the voyage.
Why should moral rules that apply to humans also have to apply to anything else?

I just don't consider myself a bug. I think I am already a bit separated.

We don't have to throw in every possible critter in the universe AND the universe, too.
One thing at a time, buckaroo.

If you're going to speak about an "absolute objective morality" as theists claim exist then we have no choice but to toss in the whole universe, buckaroo.

And if we're going to claim a "righteous God" exists then that God would need to abide by that same objective morality as well.

But I don't claim that.
If you do, that's fine... But I don't know and I don't frankly care.
I don't need a God to be good, or to have a morality based on objective reality.

I'll leave worrying about all that God stuff to those who believe in a god.
Fair enough?

[Blastcat]

Why is using good thinking a bad thing all of a sudden?

I never suggested that it was.

We should use BAD reasoning, instead?

No, of course not.

Ok, good to hear.

Why is calling morality objective a big mistake.. because some theist uses the term in some weird and ridiculous way?

They don't own the term.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 17 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

1) Morality is a matter of value.
2) Value cannot exist without an evaluator.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor.
4) Something that depends on an evaluator is subjective.
5) Therefore morality is subjective.
6) What is subjective cannot be objective.
7) Therefore morality cannot be objective.

1 and 2 are my premises. 4 and 6 are definitions.

Ok, first off, I'd like to say bravo.
This is the kind of thing that I look for in here.

A structured argument that isn't word salad.
THANK YOU for this.

I would like to critique it, if I may:

1 is a definition and a premise.
"1) Morality is a matter of value."
I don't see how I could disagree with that.

Webster defines morality ( among other things ) as
4: moral conduct : virtue

2 is most certainly a premise, it's worded as a claim.
"2) Value cannot exist without an evaluator.

I would agree with this premise. It hardly seems controversial.

3 is a conclusion, as it uses the word "therefore"
"3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor."

I would totally agree that an evaluation depends on an evaluator by definition of the word "evaluation".

4 is a definition.
"4) Something that depends on an evaluator is subjective."

I slow down here. Although your definition is acceptable, it seems a bit limited to me.
I would elaborate it thus:

4)"Something that depends on an evaluator might be arrived at using a subjective criteria.

Because for example, ice cream flavor preferences is a subjective evaluation, deciding the outcome of 2+2 isn't.

5 is a conclusion and it's true as far as your definition in 4 goes.. but I don't think you go far enough in the definition of subjective.

6 and 7 are rephrasing 5

Can you address my objection to 4 and preserve your conclusion?
I'd be interested in your efforts in that regard.