Arguments for Non-Subjective Morality

[Divine Insight]

In another thread The Tanager has requested a separate thread for his argument for the existence of a Non-Subjective morality.

You made the claim that subjective morality exists in that other thread and this one. I am responding to that claim. I'm also willing afterwards to offer my own reasons for believing in non-subjective morality. If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question, but it does not settle this one that we are talking about because of the claims you have made. After this discussion, start a thread on that and I'll share my thoughts.

I would be very interested to hear these arguments.

If and/or how would one come to know what the non-subjective morality is would be an additional question

I agree. First we need to have reasons to even suspect that such a thing exists. I would like to hear those arguments first.

But yes, if those initial arguments are compelling (which I confess to being skeptic about already), a far more important question would be the question of how we could come to know what those moral rules are.

Without this additional knowledge the existence of a non-subjective morality would be useless. A system of morality whose content cannot be known would be meaningless.

So yes, we not only need to have arguments for the existence of a non-subjective morality, but we then need to know precisely what it contains without ambiguity.

Any ambiguity would bring us right back to having to subjectively guess what we think it might contain anyway. So that would hardly be useful and would instantly return us right back to a state of subjective morality.

So yes, we don't just need to know that an objective morality exists, but we also need to know precisely what it contains.

[Artie]

Now similar questions for you:

Do you have anything stopping you from committing atrocities except for some calculus as to what is most beneficial to society?

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities. If something happened to my brain such as disease or injury I might or might not lose my ability to distinguish between moral and immoral behavior and I might also lose my ability to look at my actions objectively. Then others might have to stop me from committing immoral acts.

Do people around you know that if it was more beneficial to start shooting people haphazardly then you would have nothing telling you it would be wrong?

Why would it be wrong if it was more beneficial?

Perhaps more importantly, does my testimony here, convince you that there is at least one moral person who does not live with objective morality?

How do you define a person to be a "moral person" if you have no objective definition of what makes a person moral or immoral?

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 30 by Artie]


Evolution and morality are not identical concepts since the concept of morality goes beyond evolution. Evolution does not involve justice and purpose but morality does.

The purpose of morality is to ensure order and survival. To say that a moral system exists "objectively" is to presume that life is supposed to be with order and flourish. But what we find is that life is not simply governed by biology. There are also physical forces. These cause bad events to occur regardless of morality.

If life doesn't have to be good or the good and bad are wiped out alike, what point is there in morality? There is none.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 30 by Artie]Evolution and morality are not identical concepts since the concept of morality goes beyond evolution. Evolution does not involve justice and purpose but morality does.

Evolution and natural selection evolved brains wired for behavior beneficial to the well-being and survival of societies. Evolution and natural selection didn't have any "purpose" when they did that, they're just natural processes.

The purpose of morality is to ensure order and survival.

Certain behaviors result in order and survival of societies.

To say that a moral system exists "objectively" is to presume that life is supposed to be with order and flourish.

Nope. To say that a moral system exists "objectively" is to say that evolution and natural selection didn't subjectively decide to produce brains wired for certain behaviors we call "moral". It's just a result of objective natural processes.

But what we find is that life is not simply governed by biology. There are also physical forces. These cause bad events to occur regardless of morality.

If life doesn't have to be good or the good and bad are wiped out alike, what point is there in morality? There is none.

Never said there was a point to morality. Some behaviors are beneficial for the well-being and survival of societies, some aren't. We call those moral and immoral. That's it. I behave morally because it's in everybody's best interest including my own. Otherwise there's no "point".

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 43 by Artie]

The measure of objective morals is not simply behavior but actual "good" and "bad" outcomes to it. I see no assurances of good outcomes when I explained how physical forces wipe out the good and bad alike. This would show that objective reality is amoral.

[Bust Nak]

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities.

So basically your own persoanl wants and tastes then? Why do you even need to figure out what is beneficial to society at all when your brain is already wired for moral behavior?

Why would it be wrong if it was more beneficial?

Because it went against my preference.

How do you define a person to be a "moral person" if you have no objective definition of what makes a person moral or immoral?

By appealing to a subjective definition of what makes a person moral, of course. But your answer wouldn't depend on how I define things, right? So do you accept that not every moral person live by objective morality or not?

[Divine Insight]

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities.

Please explain why this isn't the case for all humans?

What makes you so special?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 43 by Artie]

The measure of objective morals is not simply behavior but actual "good" and "bad" outcomes to it. I see no assurances of good outcomes when I explained how physical forces wipe out the good and bad alike. This would show that objective reality is amoral.

Some behaviors were beneficial for the well-being and survival of societies, some were not. We call those beneficial behaviors good, right and moral, the detrimental ones bad, wrong and immoral. The reason we call it objective morality is because whether those behaviors are actually objectively good or bad for society does not depend on human subjective opinion.

[Artie]

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities.

So basically your own persoanl wants and tastes then? Why do you even need to figure out what is beneficial to society at all when your brain is already wired for moral behavior?

Because of course my brain could have been altered by injury or disease so I have to double check that my wiring corresponds to what is actually objectively moral.

How do you define a person to be a "moral person" if you have no objective definition of what makes a person moral or immoral?

By appealing to a subjective definition of what makes a person moral, of course.

Like defining the earth to be flat by appealing to the subjective opinion of flat earthers. That is not how rational people determine objective truth.

But your answer wouldn't depend on how I define things, right? So do you accept that not every moral person live by objective morality or not?

To be a moral person means to do what is objectively moral in each situation. Not to do what he subjectively thinks is moral without checking first whether it's actually objectively moral. Just because he subjectively might think it would be moral doesn't make it objectively moral.

[Artie]

My brain is wired for moral behavior which is stopping me from committing atrocities.

Please explain why this isn't the case for all humans?

What makes you so special?

Never said I was special. I'm one of the vast majority. Notice how DI puts words in my mouth I never said.

[Artie]

All moral people live with objective morality. In every situation they try to objectively evaluate what would be the most beneficial and/or least detrimental act to our society and the people in it and do it. You have so many questions... I suggest you simply ask yourself those questions, look at them from an objective point of view and try to do what is the objectively best course of action. Surely you are capable of using logic, reason and common sense to figure it out? Right?

I was asking you these question, that doesn't mean that I don't already have my own answers for them.

You say:

And since you appear to have thought this out very thoroughly I just throw all your questions and statements back at you. Please answer each and every one of them using your own morals or system of morality if you have one. Because if your approach is better I would love to know what it is.

I don't claim to have a system of morality. In fact, I hold that morality is entirely a human subjective construct. So what we individually think of as right or wrong is nothing other than our own subjective opinions.

But let's take a look at how I might answer some of my own questions if you like:

I'll go back over my previous posts and answer my own questions:

My Question:

For example is allowing gay marriage and gay family units "beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society". Valid arguments can be made on both sides of this question. At the very best we would need to throw our hand up in the air and proclaim the question to be an "amoral" question. In other words, there is no clear-cut objective answer as you seem to think.

My Answer: IMHO the question of gay marriage and gay family units is neither beneficial nor detrimental to the well-being of society. Therefore this question that many people deem to be a question of morality is actually an amoral question. In other words, as far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771005/
The actual question is: What is more beneficial and/or less detrimental to society? Having gay marriages and gay family units or trying to dissolve them and not have them with all the negative consequences that would entail?

My Question:

Same thing goes for the termination of unwanted pregnancy. It is really "beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society" to bring unwanted children into the society?

My Answer: I already answered it. It's impossible to evaluate this question in terms of the moral principles you have suggested. Therefore based on your system of morality the question is amoral. There is no moral right or wrong for this question.

What is more beneficial and/or least detrimental for society? Termination of unwanted pregnancy or bringing unwanted children into the society? Or do we have alternative options or additional options that influences what is more beneficial or detrimental? Those are the moral questions.

My Question:

Oh by the way, what about the question of overpopulation of the planet we live on?

The moral question is: What are the most beneficial and/or least detrimental actions we can take to make sure that the greatest number of people and societies thrive and prosper?

Also what about the question of polygamy?

My Answer: I believe I have already answered this. IMHO it's an amoral question. The question has nothing to do with a concept of right or wrong.

Based on your proposed objective morality this question would also need to be seen as being an amoral question. Polygamy then is not a moral issue at all.

If you want to argue that it should be, then all that would amount to are your own person subjective argument concerning what you personally think should be considered beneficial or detrimental to society.

I suggest people just look up polygamy and read about it. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... gamy[quote] My Question:

Also Artie, what about the value of individuals in your proposed moral system?

My Answer: I personally place the welfare of individuals on very high priority. But I confess that this is just my personal subjective opinion.

You're demand for an objective morality based on the state instead of on the individuals could bring about extreme duress for many individuals.

So I wouldn't vote to support your subjective opinion to define an objective morality based on what's best for the state.

Well, there you are mocking all those individuals who have sacrificed their health or lives for the good of their society…

My Question:

What if a society sees a certain section of its population as not being "beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society" would it then be morally okay for them to exterminate that part of their society that is not contributing to the well-being of the whole?

Irrational and unanswerable question. What do you mean by “a society�? Do you mean for example a country, every individual in it, certain individuals in it, just the leaders or who? Please elaborate and make the question answerable.

My Question:

If you're going to propose an objective system of morality, then you had better be prepared to answer every moral question thrown at you in a very precise and unambiguous way that no one can even argue with.

LOL. I don’t propose an “objective system of morality�. I propose that we can look at every moral question from an objective point of view and try to do whatever is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to our society in every situation.

Try to read your questions several times and check that they are logical and rational and answerable before you post them.