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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 15 by enviousintheeverafter]

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.

I wouldn't stake my life on the accuracy.
I'm going by my very faulty memory. It can't be trusted.
However, I'd say that it's what I have gathered from listening to audio books and videos and the like.

Harris advances objective criteria.

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?

If we have a sound criteria is how.
If you say, deny that being bashed on the head should NOT happen, I can help you with that. The pain that lingers might be a factual basis for knowing that it's "wrong".

But if you disagree that it's wrong.. I can offer you more.
And then my whole line of reasoning goes OUT the door.

You might die, but I think you proved your point.

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?

I'd bash them on the head.. hey.. it's my thing.

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)?

Do I have to bash YOU on the head now?
Would you like me to demonstrate that objectively speaking, bashing people on the head isn't a good thing?

You can then evaluate if you would like to flourish or not.
After all, I CAN keep bashing you in the head if you don't think that your human flourishing isn't really all that pertinent.

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?

First, I'd bash them on the head.
How's that for a fact of life?

NEXT.... I'd sigh, and use a bit of logic.

IF he doesn't care what he OUGHT or OUGHT not do.. then he is out of the moral ballpark. THAT Elvis has LEFT the moral building.
He might be in some moral relativity land singing "Love Me Moral".
Who cares?

The point is that if he is AMORAL he isn't taking part in a MORAL DISCUSSION, and hence is completely irrelevant to any.

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.

Well, almost all of ethics ( not to mention META Ethics ) is above my pay grade, that's for sure. I try my best at learning bit by very painful bit.

You are certainly helping me in this regard.

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.

I am not so enthusiastic about the opinion that Harris is "unsuccessful".
I will take opinions into account, but not too much.

I'd rather inspect their... wonderful reasoning.
As I do yours.

Thank you for your considerable efforts in this regard.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 20 by Blastcat]
How about the following alterations?

2) Value cannot exist without an evaluator's perception.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's perception.
4) Something that depends on an individual's perception is relative to that person.
4.1) Something that is relative to a person is subjective.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 20 by Blastcat]
How about the following alterations?

2) Value cannot exist without an evaluator's perception.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's perception.
4) Something that depends on an individual's perception is relative to that person.
4.1) Something that is relative to a person is subjective.

Ok.. wow.. fast and furious.
What a MEATY conversation.

Ok, your original argument is as follow:

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.

I am going to add your amendments and see how that goes for you.

1) Morality is a matter of value.
2) Value cannot exist without an evaluator's perception.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's perception.

I am not sure that values are "perceivable". I think that values are "judgements" on what is being, perhaps perceived. Although, we could also pass judgement on entirely imaginary scenarios.

If someone were to tell me that they were "perceiving" a value..I would be able to perceive it too. But I if I could verify it byway of perception, the value would be an objective fact. That's how empiricism works, right?

So, I would avoid the use of the word "perception" like the plague when trying to prove that something is "subjective" only.

I would even go out on a limb and tentatively say that "subjective" means... unobservable or unverifiable. How can I LOOK at the value that you place on your favorite ice cream flavor, for example?

I made a claim here.. shoot it down if you can.
Maybe a counter-example could.

Right now, I'm working on a bad case of sleep dep I can't seem to think of any.

4) Something that depends on an individual's perception is relative to that person.

Yeah, that doesn't work at all for me.
Something that depends on an individual's perception MIGHT be relative to that person, but it doesn't mean that we can't verify the perception, so that it might be relative to everyone else. If it's perceivable to everyone else, then it's what I would call something "objective".

Perceptions are perceptible, after all. So it doesn't have to STAY only relative to the person.

4.1) Something that is relative to a person is subjective.

I'd amend this one to sat that

4.1) Something that is relative to a person MAY be subjective.

5) Therefore morality is subjective.

Since 4.1 is conditional, 5 would have to be conditional too.

If we accept my amendment to your 4.1, 5 should read :
5) Therefore morality may be subjective.

6) What is subjective cannot be objective.
7) Therefore morality cannot be objective.

Never had a problem with 6 or 7.
If all the other premises follow, then 6 and 7 follow.

IMHO

Your amendments made your case ... well not only weaker but make it fail, frankly.

So, no.. adding the word "perception" to some of the premises don't help one bit.
Sorry.

I think that your argument is a really difficult one to prove.
I can't really make it for you.

But I hope you appreciate my efforts in criticizing your efforts.
I'm sure you want an argument that really works.

Hope you get one.
I'd take some of the credit, for sure.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 23 by Blastcat]
Perhaps I should insert the word, depends just on perception. The idea I was trying to convey is that objective things can be measured, say the the sugar content of some food. Subjective thing can only be perceived, such as how good it taste.

As for your objection against step 4), If you accept the distinction I am making with the measurable and what can only be perceived, I think it's easy to see that something that is relative to everyone is still not objective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if every beholder agrees.

[enviousintheeverafter]

If we have a sound criteria is how.
If you say, deny that being bashed on the head should NOT happen, I can help you with that. The pain that lingers might be a factual basis for knowing that it's "wrong".

It might be, but would need more development. So the person grants that being bashed in the head hurts, but disagrees that it is therefore wrong. What next?

Do I have to bash YOU on the head now?
Would you like me to demonstrate that objectively speaking, bashing people on the head isn't a good thing?

Sure- how would you demonstrate, objectively, that it isn't a (morally) good thing instead of it just being a painful or unpleasant thing?

First, I'd bash them on the head.
How's that for a fact of life?

NEXT.... I'd sigh, and use a bit of logic.

IF he doesn't care what he OUGHT or OUGHT not do.. then he is out of the moral ballpark.

It isn't that they don't care what they ought or ought not to do, they just aren't willing to take anyone's word for it- they want you to them to show them a factual basis for determining what they ought to do. The problem isn't just coming up with the specific facts that could do this, but imagining what sort of facts those could even be, just in principle.

I am not so enthusiastic about the opinion that Harris is "unsuccessful".
I will take opinions into account, but not too much.

I'd rather inspect their... wonderful reasoning.
As I do yours.

Thank you for your considerable efforts in this regard.

Here are a few examples of Harris' critics.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 24 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 23 by Blastcat]
Perhaps I should insert the word, depends just on perception.

I still think that using the word perception is misleading, because it is so ambiguous.
When we commonly use the word perceive, we are usually referring to our 5 senses. This is what we use for empirically testable hypotheses.

What you are referring to is an equivocation.
You seem to be able to "perceive" something that no other can verify using the 5 senses at our disposal.

In effect, what you are claiming is that you can perceive what is unperceivable.
Well, by definition, that would be impossible.

I can't get to "perceive" your values because values are not perceivable by definition.

Values aren't objective objects that we can observe in any way. ( at least, not to my knowledge )

By what sense are you "observing" or not observing this value?
Your sight?.. Your IMAGINATION or your THOUGHTS?..if it's one of the latter, then you should state that.

So it's of no use to say that we can't JUST use our perception, because, that's what we JUST use to test for any empirical claim.

I have to JUST use my senses to perceive an object.
I can't use anything ELSE.
My intuition isn't going to help me establish the truth of a claim.
My feelings wont either.
Nor my thoughts.

If something is REAL, then we should be able to see it, to perceive it.

The idea I was trying to convey is that objective things can be measured, say the the sugar content of some food. Subjective thing can only be perceived, such as how good it taste.

Right.

I can easily perceive sugar AND measure certain aspects of it .

So, perceiving just seems like a redundancy here. What is REALLY important is the measurement, and NOT the perception. You seem to be saying that your criteria is actually being able to measure something .

So.. you are saying that if we can not measure something then it is subjective?
I'd go with that one. And we don't need to talk about perception at all for that.

You seem to want to use the word perception for something that CAN be measured and also for something that cannot be measured.

That's too ambiguous for me.
NOW, you need to qualify.

As for your objection against step 4), If you accept the distinction I am making with the measurable and what can only be perceived, I think it's easy to see that something that is relative to everyone is still not objective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, even if every beholder agrees.

I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that dichotomy. Apples and oranges.
Mental perceptions are not physical perceptions.

It seems to me that you always have to QUALIFY the word "perception" to make your point. Why not use a word that doesn't need so much qualification and further explanation?

And IF you are going to qualify or define a word in an unique way, you should spell it out in the argument. One more of those definitions would be needed so we can keep up with you. It's not good if you have a SECRET definition that you don't tell anyone about.

Going to the dictionary helped me.

The word "perceive" can be used to replace THINK or the term USE ONE OF OUR 5 SENSES. We can measure things by way of our 5 senses, but I don't know what it means to measure by way of thought.

How do we measure beauty, for example?
But we can measure the light bouncing off the moon.

So, it just gets too messy for me.
If I can use a word to mean.. it's complete opposite like that.. it's a bad word.

But sure, you can define your terms any way you like.

But if you really MEAN measure.. you should USE the word measure, and not some other word that doesn't always mean the same thing.

PERCEPTION needs a qualifier. MEASUREMENT doesn't.

Measurement is a better term.
It's much less ambiguous in that it doesn't NEED a qualifier.

You have a very interesting argument.
It would be a better one if it wasn't using ambiguous terms that need to be qualified before being understood.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 26 by Blastcat]
Well, I am interested in what verb you would use to describe the act of finding something beautiful, or finding something tasty. What word would you substitute in "I [strike]perceive[/strike] beauty in this face," or "I [strike]perceive[/strike] tastiness in this pizza?" Perhaps "feel?"

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 27 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 26 by Blastcat]
Well, I am interested in what verb you would use to describe the act of finding something beautiful, or finding something tasty. What word would you substitute in "I [strike]perceive[/strike] beauty in this face," or "I [strike]perceive[/strike] tastiness in this pizza?" Perhaps "feel?"

I usually use that word, yes... A lot of the time I don't even USE a verb. I say something like "Your face is beautiful" or.. "Look at that beautiful sunset"... or "Isn't that deer on the side of the road beautiful?" Weird, huh?

It's like beauty is just a "thing".. it's just "there".... it's IN somehow the face or the sunset or the deer. But of course, beauty isn't IN anything.. beauty is how we describe something that initiates our internal, mental "beauty" pattern.

For example, I think we are hard wired to see a V shaped column of geese flying over our heads and have some positive response. I keep asking people in the spring and in the fall.. "why is that so beautiful?".. WHY do most people think those geese up there are a thing of beauty?"

Even very young kids jump for joy when it's pointed out to them. I had two kids.. somehow the geometric pattern, the sounds... are INSTANTLY galvanizing. As soon as they could focus and understand full sentences.. they were able to really get INTO that...

So, I think it starts off with a physical sensation of some sort, emotions, but yeah, some kind of a FEELING for sure. Then, of course, we can and do THINK about the experience, and those are thoughts. But I would say that the thoughts would be secondary to the feelings.

Now, what those feelings ARE, and how that all happens... I usually shrug and mumble the word "evolution"... and HOPE nobody challenges me.. I am not a scientist.

I'm the world's most brilliant thinker for SURE, but not really into science or math.

So, yeah, I'd love to see what happens if you were to substitute the word "perceive" for the word "feel" in your argument. Could you do me the favor if trying that out in here? ( oh, and if you do.. can you post the whole new revised argument? )

I need to see it.

Thanks

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 28 by Blastcat]
Lets simply the ending since it's trivial.

1) Morality is a matter of value judgement.
2) Value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's feelings.
4) A person's feelings is a characteristic of said person.
5) Something that depends on the characteristic of an evaluator is subjective.
6) Therefore morality is subjective and not objective.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 29 by Bust Nak]

Lets simply the ending since it's trivial.

1) Morality is a matter of value judgement.

agree

2) Value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings.

This seems reasonable, but what about logic and reasoning? I value my car. I have MANY logical and reasonable er.. reasons to value, or "like" my car. Sure, I "like" the feeling I get .. but the value that I attribute to the car isn't ONLY based on feelings, surely.

So.. yeah. Bit of a problem if you ONLY include feelings in your evaluator. Take a judge in a court. Would we say he is a good evaluator if he were to base his judgements on only FEELINGS?.. I would say no.

In fact, I would say that using feelings at ALL would disqualify him from being a good evaluator. Unless, of course, he was merely evaluating his OWN feelings. He can surely evaluate THOSE. But that would only BE in the purely subjective realm, and NOT the objective one.

3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's feelings.

Fails by 2, I'm afraid. You would have a very BAD kind of morality if it were based on feelings, or feelings alone. We can do better than that.

4) A person's feelings is a characteristic of said person.

Well.. yes. Agree

5) Something that depends on the characteristic of an evaluator is subjective.

OH yes, agree.

6) Therefore morality is subjective and not objective.

It would be good if you would have had a more rigorous definition of "objective" so we can compare it to subjective. You did a good job of describing the subjective, I'd really like to know what you mean by objective, too.

But the conclusion fails by 2 again.

Do you mean that you think the ENDING of the argument, or the conclusion is trivial, or that your entire ARGUMENT is trivial, and you want to abandon it?

You spent a considerable amount of mental effort and time on it... I would not give up on it just because we are having trouble ... logic is trouble. Sorry for making you go through the "feeling" exercise, but I'm visual. It really helps for me to see the argument... I'm actually surprised how it didn't work. I really thought that it could. Go figure.

Hope you choose to continue honing this fine argument.
I love the collaboration.

Cheers