Objective Morality?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Objective Morality?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Objective Morality?

Post #2

Post by H.sapiens »

[Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

Sam Harris defines ‘moral’ as that which concerns well-being (and not just human well-being), but that of all conscious creatures."

He further posits that: “maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures… [is] the only thing we can reasonably value.�

Seems pretty objective to me.

enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Re: Objective Morality?

Post #3

Post by enviousintheeverafter »

H.sapiens wrote: [Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

Sam Harris defines ‘moral’ as that which concerns well-being (and not just human well-being), but that of all conscious creatures."

He further posits that: “maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures… [is] the only thing we can reasonably value.�

Seems pretty objective to me.
I agree that "well-being" can be specified in terms that are objective. But how do we get to the (moral) claim that we ought to maximize well-being of conscious creatures? What warrants this "ought"? Presumably something like an objective fact? What would that fact look like? (we're looking for something in virtue of which we can move from "X is conducive to the well-being of conscious creatures" to "we ought to do X")

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #4

Post by H.sapiens »

Paraphrasing and quoting Bill Meacham's tepid review of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape:
Bill Meacham wrote:Harris wants us to consider two lives:

Life A: Imagine that you are an illiterate and homeless African woman whose husband has disappeared. You have just seen your seven-year-old daughter raped and murdered at the hands of drug-crazed soldiers, and now you’re fearing for your life. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual predicament for you. From the moment you were born, your life has been marred by cruelty and violence.

Life B: Imagine that you are a respected professional in a wealthy country, married to a loving, intelligent and charismatic mate. Your employment is intellectually stimulating and pays you very well. For decades your wealth and social connections have allowed you immense personal satisfaction from meaningful work which makes a real difference in the world. You and your closest family will live long, prosperous lives, virtually untouched by crime, sudden bereavements, and other major misfortunes.

Which is the better life? We would all no doubt say Life B. Harris takes this as evidence that there is an objective way to determine what is morally good and bad. In fact, as the subtitle of the book indicates, he claims that scientific inquiry can tell us what we should and should not value.

Harris feels he can say this because he thinks that the proper meaning of ‘value’ with respect to human life – that is to say, the proper meaning of morality – is that which leads to human flourishing, which means, living a satisfying life. Once he has made that move, the rest of his argument is straightforward and cogent: careful observation of what in fact fulfils people is not a matter of philosophical or religious debate, it is a matter of scientific inquiry. We can tell, objectively, what leads to happiness and what leads to misery. Facilitating good lives is what morality is about, says Harris, and that’s why science can tell us what we should value and what we should not. As Harris says:

“human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about it. ... Once we see that a concern for well-being (defined as deeply and as inclusively as possible) is the only intelligible basis for morality and values, we will see that there must be a science of morality… As we come to understand how human beings can best collaborate and thrive in this world, science can help us find a path leading away from the lowest depths of misery and toward the heights of happiness for the greatest number of people.�

There may be problems about the details, but the overall goal of peaks of happiness is quite achievable, says Harris.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Objective Morality?

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

H.sapiens wrote: [Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

Sam Harris defines ‘moral’ as that which concerns well-being (and not just human well-being), but that of all conscious creatures."

He further posits that: “maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures… [is] the only thing we can reasonably value.�

Seems pretty objective to me.
This sounds more like Sam Harris' personal subjective definition of how he feels the concept of morality should be defined.

The problem I have with this is that even if we accept this human definition, and even if we obtain 100% human consensus on this definition, there is still no evidence in nature that nature herself recognizes this human concept.

After all, just look around at what nature does? Clearly the natural world has no "concept of morality", nor does it appear to have been designed by an entity who had our concept of morality in mind.

In fact, if we accept Sam Harris' definition of morality, then we would have no choice but to definitely reject the Biblical God as being grossly immoral by that definition.

And, in fact, Sam Harris does precisely that. ;)

So using Sam Harris' definition of morality (which may very well be the best definition humans can come up with), we still end up seeing no morality in nature, or religion, especially not the Abrahamic religions.

We might be able to see moral vindication in some other religious philosophies, I think even Sam Harris recognizes Jainism as making a really great effort toward moral perfection (by his definition of the concept).

But still, we clearly don't see this in nature, so it's clearly not objective in any ontological sense. At best, it could be a subjective human consensus.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #6

Post by Divine Insight »

H.sapiens wrote:
Bill Meacham wrote:Harris feels he can say this because he thinks that the proper meaning of ‘value’ with respect to human life – that is to say, the proper meaning of morality – is that which leads to human flourishing, which means, living a satisfying life.
By the way, I agree with the foundations of what Sam Harris is proposing. However, there's no getting past the fact that his entire philosophy is indeed human-centric. That makes it subjective specifically from the perspective of humans.

In this way he can define a somewhat "objective morality" relative to humans.

In a sense this could be viewed as "objective" with respect to human subjectivity.

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.

With dogs and cats we can probably find a lot of sympathetic humans. But what about crocodiles and snakes and spiders, etc.? Many humans may have little sympathy for those critters.

If it's ok to splat a spider but not ok to splat a human, then isn't that already subjective in favor of humans?

How could that be seen as an objective morality of the universe?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Hamsaka
Site Supporter
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Post #7

Post by Hamsaka »

Divine Insight wrote:
H.sapiens wrote:
Bill Meacham wrote:Harris feels he can say this because he thinks that the proper meaning of ‘value’ with respect to human life – that is to say, the proper meaning of morality – is that which leads to human flourishing, which means, living a satisfying life.
By the way, I agree with the foundations of what Sam Harris is proposing. However, there's no getting past the fact that his entire philosophy is indeed human-centric. That makes it subjective specifically from the perspective of humans.

In this way he can define a somewhat "objective morality" relative to humans.

In a sense this could be viewed as "objective" with respect to human subjectivity.

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.

With dogs and cats we can probably find a lot of sympathetic humans. But what about crocodiles and snakes and spiders, etc.? Many humans may have little sympathy for those critters.

If it's ok to splat a spider but not ok to splat a human, then isn't that already subjective in favor of humans?

How could that be seen as an objective morality of the universe?
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.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Objective Morality?

Post #8

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 3 by enviousintheeverafter]
enviousintheeverafter wrote:I agree that "well-being" can be specified in terms that are objective. But how do we get to the (moral) claim that we ought to maximize well-being of conscious creatures? What warrants this "ought"?
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.

If the positive is true, and the negative can't be true, then it's just true. And we OUGHT to do what is true, and not what is false.

Seems to me.

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.

If the human lies dead in a pool of his own blood and brain matter , how is this maximizing his well being?

He ought to avoid the bashing because it harms a human being.
Bashing ought not be done.

IF we start off with the humanistic suggestion that humanity is of any value, that is.

Or that human life has.
Again, I lack the imagination how that could BE when we are deciding about HUMAN well being. We aren't talking about ROCK well being here....

I can't IMAGINE a moral argument that would NOT include the presupposition that humans are intrinsically worth preserving. I'm going to presuppose here that we kinda sorta want to maybe maximize the well being of humans, because that's what morality is about.

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".

Imagine a world where every possible human being was bashed upon the head to death somehow.. some aliens come and do that.

How is that GOOD for humanity, exactly?
Can we say that we "ought" minimize as much human well being to the point of extinction?

Is the most MINIMIZING of human flourishing a "good" thing?
Our extinction is a "good" thing for US?

It just can't be.
At least I can't see how it could.

So, if we have no CHOICE, then that's where we get our "ought".. We "ought" to do whatever it is we cannot but chose to do.. it's tautological.

We just can't DO anything else.
enviousintheeverafter wrote:Presumably something like an objective fact? What would that fact look like? (we're looking for something in virtue of which we can move from "X is conducive to the well-being of conscious creatures" to "we ought to do X")
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 )

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #9

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]
Divine Insight wrote:By the way, I agree with the foundations of what Sam Harris is proposing. However, there's no getting past the fact that his entire philosophy is indeed human-centric. That makes it subjective specifically from the perspective of humans.

In this way he can define a somewhat "objective morality" relative to humans.

In a sense this could be viewed as "objective" with respect to human subjectivity.
The phrase "objective with respect to human subjectivity" seems just wrong headed to me.

I think you made a mistake when you went from "relative to" ... meaning I think, PERTAINING TO.. and got that conflated with "subjective" to humans in the next sentence..

But you did mean "pertaining to" didn't you?

I THINK you imply that something that PERTAINS to humans is SUBJECTIVE.. but it doesn't have to be subjective.

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.

So, to re-iterate.. ( don't ask me why I do.. it's an editing thing )

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?

Maybe this is a weird hidden form of false dichotomy.

In other words, you seem to be implying that human morality could be about something else THAN humans. Human morality is FOR humans, ABOUT humans, and nothing else.

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.

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.

Haven't thought of it much, not arguing that... don't ASK me to defend the weird statement.
Divine Insight wrote: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.

Case by case, there.
Case of apples and cases of oranges, I'm afraid.

I don't think that all organisms ARE like humans..

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

That's a whole different topic.
Divine Insight wrote:With dogs and cats we can probably find a lot of sympathetic humans. But what about crocodiles and snakes and spiders, etc.? Many humans may have little sympathy for those critters.

If it's ok to splat a spider but not ok to splat a human, then isn't that already subjective in favor of humans?

How could that be seen as an objective morality of the universe?
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.

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

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

Hamsaka wrote: 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.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply