An Argument for Objective morality withoout God

[FinalEnigma]

In another thread, a member provided an enumerated argument for objective morality that does not rely on the existence of God. I wanted to give the argument it's own thread so that it can be discussed on it's own, without all the distractions of the rest of the thread.

So here is the argument in it's entirely, courtesy of Jgh7:

Argument of Objective morality without God existing: What it is in this case, and why it exists

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

***
If you can propose how anything besides happiness can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.
***

2) Objective morality has been previously defined as a system of guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for thinking entities to interact with others in a certain way.
4) I state now that the only logical reason for a thinking entity to interact in a certain way with others is to achieve what matters to them. Since the only thing that can matter to each individual is their happiness, achieving happiness is the only logical reason for how each individual should act towards others.

***
If you can propose a reason for a thinking entity to interact with others that is in no way related to achieving what matters to that thinking entity, then I will no longer hold (4) to be a fact. Please let me know if you can.
***

5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.

* One way that objective morality does not exist is if there are zero reasons for any and all happiness increases and thus zero possible guidelines that could be followed. All happiness increase is therefore completely random and with no cause in this case. I feel no need to argue the impossibility of this. It should be apparent.

I like this argument. it's well presented and well thought out. So what do you think? is this argument valid? is it sound?

If you believe this argument is invalid or unsound, Please address the specific numbered points with which you disagree and explain why(I will post my assessment later today)

For reference, this was the currently being used definition of objective in the thread at the time:

Objective: Something which has the state or quality of being true regardless of a subject's feelings.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

A standard that exist for only one person and nobody else, is surely subjective to that person. The standard in question, also depends entirely on that person's happiness, a subset of feelings. To label said standard as objective is incoherent.

The argument takes advantage over the confusion over what is an opinion, and what is a statement about an opinion: a) ice-cream is tasty in my opinion; b) it is an objective fact that Bust Nak finds ice-cream tasty. In this sense b) is true, even if someone feel it is not true, as long as that someone isn't Bust Nak.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

A standard that exist for only one person and nobody else, is surely subjective to that person. The standard in question, also depends entirely on that person's happiness, a subset of feelings. To label said standard as objective is incoherent.

The argument takes advantage over the confusion over what is an opinion, and what is a statement about an opinion: a) ice-cream is tasty in my opinion; b) it is an objective fact that Bust Nak finds ice-cream tasty. In this sense b) is true, even if someone feel it is not true, as long as that someone isn't Bust Nak.

so are you disagreeing with premise 1) that happiness is the only thing that matters for you, a human?

If not, could you please explain where this argument takes said advantage as if to someone with little or no understanding?

[Bust Nak]

so are you disagreeing with premise 1) that happiness is the only thing that matters for you, a human?

If not, could you please explain where this argument takes said advantage as if to someone with little or no understanding?

No, premise 1) is fine.

I disagree with 7), in conjunction with 2) and 3). Which is quite wordy in itself. I would break it down / rephrased so:

2) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for doing something.

3.5) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

...

7.1) there exists for each thinking entity a certain way of interacting with others that maximizes their happiness.
7.2) happiness increase, is a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way.
7.3) there exists guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
7.4) this qualify as objective morality as outline in 3.5).

What I object to, is 7.3). The guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way in 7.2) applies to only one person, and isn't true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

[FinalEnigma]

My first question to the originator of the argument relates to P1)

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

If everything that matters to you only does so because it relates to an attempt to increasing your happiness, then is it ever possible to deliberately act contrary to your own happiness?

Let me propose an argument:

P1) actions which are not under one's control or impetus have no moral component. (getting sick, having a stroke, continuing to breathe while asleep, etc.)
P2) In order for an action to be under one's control or impetus, one must at the least intend to initiate some action
P3) In order to intend to initiate some action, one must make a decision to do so.
P4) One cannot decide to initiate some action if the predicted effect of attempting to initiate the action does not matter to oneself to some degree.

if we bring in your statement of

J1)"Anything else[Other than happiness] that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness."

(bracketed addition mine, for clarity)
Then The resulting conclusion would be:

C1) It is impossible to intentionally act in a way to decrease your own happiness.

I believe your conclusions also are:
JC1) Objective Morality exists
JC2) The purpose of the guidelines of this objective morality is to increase one's happiness.

C2) If C1 is true, and JC1 and JC2 are also true, then it is impossible to behave immorally.



Is my argument invalid or unsound anywhere?

[Divine Insight]

If you believe this argument is invalid or unsound, Please address the specific numbered points with which you disagree and explain why(I will post my assessment later today)

I see several problems with this argument. Although, I suppose they really boil down to one single problem, and that is that "happiness" itself is subjective.

I might add the following explanation as well. The concept of "Happiness" that Jgh7 is attempting to reference could be said to be "objective" relative to each subjective individual. However, in this sense all this does is make "Happiness" (a subjective view), objective in the sense that everyone's subjective happiness is "real".

In fact, I've been through these types of arguments many times before. And so has Sam Harris. We can say with confidence that our subjective morality is "objective", but only in the sense that it is "real" to each of us individually. In other words in this way we can say that "morality is objective", but only in the sense that it is "subjective". In other words, morality can be said to be "objective" with respect to individual opinions, but not "absolute" in any concrete way that would make it "objective" relative to anything beyond subjective opinion.

And now I'll try to address precisely what I mean by this:

1) Happiness can be the only thing that matters for you, a human. Anything else that matters to you is so because it relates in a way to your attempt at maintaining or increasing your happiness. Other's happiness mattering to you is just another way of saying that your own happiness matters to you, and it brings you happiness to care about other's happiness. Happiness is the all-inclusive word I use for positive emotions.

The problem here should be obvious I would think. And that's because of the obvious reason that the same things don't make everyone happy. Therefore just because individual happiness is "real" and therefore could be said to be "objective", it's not absolute in any concrete way since everyone has their own subjective ideas and perceptions of what constitutes "happiness".

I would go further and suggest that there exists objective cases of psychopaths who appear to prefer to bring harm and unhappiness to other people. We might try to say that these psychopaths are still attempting to further their happiness, since we could argue that it makes them happy to see other people hurt. I personally think that's a stretch. And in any case, this would demonstrate clearly that everyone subjective idea of "happiness" is certainly not absolute, even though it might be "real". So this shows that here we are using the "objective" to simply mean "real" rather than "absolute" or carved in stone like say the Laws of Physics. In other words, this kind of "moral basis" would not have the same kind of objectivity as physics. And therefore would not be "objective" in the same sense. It would still be relative to the subjective view of individuals since every individual would have their own personal subjective view of what "happiness" means.

***
If you can propose how anything besides happiness can matter to you, then my entire argument is invalid from this point on. Please let me know if you can.
***

I don't need to do this because I have already given ample reasons why we should not view everyone's ideal of "Happiness" to be "objective" in any absolute sense. It can only be said to be "objective" in the sense that it is real but not absolute.

So this could not be said to be defining any "Absolute Morality".

When theists try to argue for an "Objective Morality", they are really trying to argue for an "Absolute Morality". A morality that is carved in stone and is objective in the same way the laws of physics are objective. But that's not the case here since everyone's sense of happiness is still subjective and not absolute.

2) Objective morality has been previously defined as a system of guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for thinking entities to interact with others in a certain way.
4) I state now that the only logical reason for a thinking entity to interact in a certain way with others is to achieve what matters to them. Since the only thing that can matter to each individual is their happiness, achieving happiness is the only logical reason for how each individual should act towards others.

This fails for the same reasons given about. It assumes that everyone's happiness is based on precisely the same desires, thus leading to precisely the same "logical reasoning". But that's not going to be the case since every individual will have a different criteria for what they subjectively mean by "happiness".

The concept of Happiness itself is going to be the subjective concept here. Yet it is this subjective concept that is being used as a basis for an Objective morality.

***
If you can propose a reason for a thinking entity to interact with others that is in no way related to achieving what matters to that thinking entity, then I will no longer hold (4) to be a fact. Please let me know if you can.
***

This doesn't matter because in (4) it is being defined that what matters to a thinking entity is their "happiness", yet every individual will have a subjective ideal of what constitutes "happiness".

So there's nothing concrete to put our finger on in terms of any "Absolute Morality". At best we can only say that each individual's sense of morality is "subjectively real for them", and then claim that this makes subjective morality "objective" simply because it is "real".

In other words, does the term "Objective" simply mean "real"?

Or does it mean, "Absolute" and independent of human subjective ideals?

If it simply means the former then of course everyone's subjective opinions are "real" and therefore "objective" in that sense. But they are still subjective to the individual.

Is the latter definition of "objective' to mean "absolute" is considered, then these arguments no longer hold true because everyone's sense of happiness is not going to be absolute.

Like I say, Theists typically argue for an Absolute Morality, they call it "objective morality" playing off the scientific meaning of "objective" (as in the laws of physics". But the arguments given here are still subjective arguments and do not represent an "Absolute Morality" that everyone would agree upon. After all, we already know full well that everyone does not agree on what makes them happy.

In fact, just look at current affairs. Many heterosexual couples are passionately against homosexual relationship and just the thought of homosexual relationships being permitted in their society makes them extreme unhappy. Yet, clearly for other people being permitted and respected for having homosexual relationship is extremely important for them and this is what would make them happy. So happiness is subjective, even though it may be real and therefore objective in that sense of the term.

5) It is commonly known that happiness has different degrees. Examine your own happiness to prove this. Was there a time when you were happier compared to another time?
6) Since each individual’s happiness has different degrees, there must exist some way of living that will bring their happiness to the highest degree for the most amount of time.
7) Since there exists for each individual a way of living that maximizes their happiness, and as long as there is a definite reason for that happiness increase, objective morality exists. Whether the guidelines for objective morality are known by that individual is irrelevant. The way of living exists, and the guidelines (reasons) for that way of living exist.

Once again, all that is being said here is that if something is "real" to anyone, then it must be "objective". In other words, it's "objectively real".

But the problem still remains that everyone's ideal of "Happiness" is going to be different. Therefore even though their happiness may be "real" to them and therefore "objective" for them, this does not make it "Absolute" as Theists need morality to be.

In other words, all that has been said in this argument is that something like Heterosexual couples have 'objective happiness' in being heterosexual, therefore this represents 'objective morality' to them.

However, then it must also be true that for some in individuals happiness is found in being homosexual, therefore this represents 'objective morality' to them.

So we end up with both heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships being "Objectively Moral" depending upon the subjective views of what individuals consider to be "Happiness".

So this still ends up being a "Subjective basis for Morality" in the end.

* One way that objective morality does not exist is if there are zero reasons for any and all happiness increases and thus zero possible guidelines that could be followed. All happiness increase is therefore completely random and with no cause in this case. I feel no need to argue the impossibility of this. It should be apparent.

Again, this argument at the end is irrelevant, because what has been proposed as a basis for "Objective Morality" is really nothing more than an attempt to recognize that every individual's subjective happiness is "real".

This argument doesn't lead to any "Absolute Morality", as theists so desperately need.

All it does is argue that everyone's subjective views are "real". And then claiming that since they are real they must be "objective". But that's a totally different kind of "objectivity" than the "Absolute Objectivity" that Theists need for their religions to be true.

I like this argument. it's well presented and well thought out. So what do you think? is this argument valid? is it sound?

It is a good argument that everyone's subjective happiness is "Real". And if we want to say then that this makes their subjective happiness "Objectively Real" it's fine.

But it's not an argument for any "Absolute Objective Morality" that exists beyond the individual subjective notions of "Happiness".

In other words this argument would fail if it were put up as an argument for "Theological Absolute Morality". It doesn't support that concept.

All this argument does is argue that subjective experience and opinions are "real" and then claims that since they are "real" they must then be "objective". But that's a totally different kind of 'objective' from what theists need for their "Absolute Objective Morality".

For reference, this was the currently being used definition of objective in the thread at the time:

Objective: Something which has the state or quality of being true regardless of a subject's feelings.

Well, this argument then fails for this meaning of "Objective" because everyone's individual happiness is totally dependent upon their own subjective feelings.

So by the above definition then this argument for morality cannot be said to be "objective" even though it may be subjectively "real".

Being subjectively "real" does not constitute being "objective" by the above definition.

In fact, look at this definition closely:

Objective: Something which has the state or quality of being true regardless of a subject's feelings.

Yet this entire line of argument is attempting to make a case for objective morality based entirely on the subjective feelings of happiness.

It's a direct violation of this very definition of "Objective".

[FinalEnigma]

so are you disagreeing with premise 1) that happiness is the only thing that matters for you, a human?

If not, could you please explain where this argument takes said advantage as if to someone with little or no understanding?

No, premise 1) is fine.

I disagree with 7), in conjunction with 2) and 3). Which is quite wordy in itself. I would break it down / rephrased so:

2) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for doing something.

3.5) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

...

7.1) there exists for each thinking entity a certain way of interacting with others that maximizes their happiness.
7.2) happiness increase, is a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way.
7.3) there exists guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
7.4) this qualify as objective morality as outline in 3.5).

What I object to, is 7.3). The guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way in 7.2) applies to only one person, and isn't true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

Ahh, I see! Beautifully explained! Thank you.

So the problem is that the guidelines are specific to each person, thus making them subjective. This seems to be Divine Insight's objection as well.

However, I'll take a possibly strange and unpopular stance, here, and argue that if his conclusion is this:

C) There is a set of guidelines specific to each individual which will increase their happiness.

C2) The one and only Objective moral rule is as follows: Follow the arbitrary set of guidelines which increase your happiness.

Then I would argue that this rule DOES qualify as objective. It's not very useful, but it's not subject-dependent.

[Divine Insight]

so are you disagreeing with premise 1) that happiness is the only thing that matters for you, a human?

If not, could you please explain where this argument takes said advantage as if to someone with little or no understanding?

No, premise 1) is fine.

I disagree with 7), in conjunction with 2) and 3). Which is quite wordy in itself. I would break it down / rephrased so:

2) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for doing something.

3.5) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

...

7.1) there exists for each thinking entity a certain way of interacting with others that maximizes their happiness.
7.2) happiness increase, is a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way.
7.3) there exists guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
7.4) this qualify as objective morality as outline in 3.5).

What I object to, is 7.3). The guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way in 7.2) applies to only one person, and isn't true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

Ahh, I see! Beautifully explained! Thank you.

So the problem is that the guidelines are specific to each person, thus making them subjective. This seems to be Divine Insight's objection as well.

However, I'll take a possibly strange and unpopular stance, here, and argue that if his conclusion is this:

C) There is a set of guidelines specific to each individual which will increase their happiness.

C2) The one and only Objective moral rule is as follows: Follow the arbitrary set of guidelines which increase your happiness.

Then I would argue that this rule DOES qualify as objective. It's not very useful, but it's not subject-dependent.

By what definition of "objective"?

Remember this was the definition given in the OP:

Objective: Something which has the state or quality of being true regardless of a subject's feelings.

Yet this argument for "objective morality" is complete dependent upon "happiness" which would indeed be the state of someone's subjective feelings.

It seems to me that something is broken here. Something between the definition given for "Objective" (as given above) and the conclusion that this argument for objective morality is based on a subject's feelings (i.e. their happiness)

This seems to be in direct violation with the definition for "Objective".

Therefore, there must be something grossly wrong with the reasoning here.

And my guess is that the very term "Objective" is being used in more than one way here.

[FinalEnigma]

so are you disagreeing with premise 1) that happiness is the only thing that matters for you, a human?

If not, could you please explain where this argument takes said advantage as if to someone with little or no understanding?

No, premise 1) is fine.

I disagree with 7), in conjunction with 2) and 3). Which is quite wordy in itself. I would break it down / rephrased so:

2) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities should interact with one another, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
3) The word “should� in the prior statement means that there is a logical reason for doing something.

3.5) Objective morality is defined as guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

...

7.1) there exists for each thinking entity a certain way of interacting with others that maximizes their happiness.
7.2) happiness increase, is a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way.
7.3) there exists guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way, which is true regardless of the opinions of any subject.
7.4) this qualify as objective morality as outline in 3.5).

What I object to, is 7.3). The guidelines by which thinking entities have a logical reason to interact with others in a certain way in 7.2) applies to only one person, and isn't true regardless of the opinions of any subject.

Ahh, I see! Beautifully explained! Thank you.

So the problem is that the guidelines are specific to each person, thus making them subjective. This seems to be Divine Insight's objection as well.

However, I'll take a possibly strange and unpopular stance, here, and argue that if his conclusion is this:

C) There is a set of guidelines specific to each individual which will increase their happiness.

C2) The one and only Objective moral rule is as follows: Follow the arbitrary set of guidelines which increase your happiness.

Then I would argue that this rule DOES qualify as objective. It's not very useful, but it's not subject-dependent.

By what definition of "objective"?

Remember this was the definition given in the OP:

Objective: Something which has the state or quality of being true regardless of a subject's feelings.

Yet this argument for "objective morality" is complete dependent upon "happiness" which would indeed be the state of someone's subjective feelings.

It seems to me that something is broken here. Something between the definition given for "Objective" (as given above) and the conclusion that this argument for objective morality is based on a subject's feelings (i.e. their happiness)

This seems to be in direct violation with the definition for "Objective".

Therefore, there must be something grossly wrong with the reasoning here.

And my guess is that the very term "Objective" is being used in more than one way here.

I'm not quite understanding why you have an objection here. This is why I'm so much into discussing specific points in the arguments. Can you show me exactly what points you disagree with or where between the points, as Bust Nak so elegantly did, so that I can better know where the issue lies?

do you disagree with the following?
1) It is objectively true that people have happiness.
2) It is possible for happiness to increase.

[Divine Insight]

do you disagree with the following?
1) It is objectively true that people have happiness.

I would argue that this very statement is misleading.

I would argue that it should be stated as follows:

1) It is objectively true that people have subjective happiness?

To this I would agree, but we can't ignore the fact that happiness itself it still a subjective feeling.

The error here appears to be an attempt to treat "happiness" as though it can be viewed as an objective object when it's actually a subjective feeling.

We need to be very careful that we aren't ignoring the meanings of words in an attempt to objectify subjective feelings.

2) It is possible for happiness to increase.

It is possible for a person to subjectively feel happier, yes.

Although, several things to note here. Their happiness may be unstable, potentially fleeting, and could change depending on their subjective mood.

Therefore, when you ask, "It is possible for happiness to increase?", you already seem to be assuming that happiness can be treated as some sort of solid objective thing when in fact it isn't.

Example:

A child is unhappy because he wants a particular toy.

The parent buys the toy for the child.

The child is happy for a short time, until he becomes bored with the toy.

The parent doesn't understand why the child is once again unhappy. After all, they had already purchased an objective object to make the child objectively happy.

The child explains to the parent, "But mom, my happiness is totally subjective and I'm no longer happy with this objective toy."

~~~~~

Therefore, having given this example I would answer your question as follows:

2) It is possible for happiness to increase.

Not in any objective way. Apparently almost all happiness is fleeting and entirely dependent upon a person's subjective mood and interests at any given moment.

Therefore happiness may increase or decrease randomly depending entirely upon a subject's feelings.

And that defies the definition of "Objective" as given in the OP.

So any attempt to try to construct an "objective morality" based entirely on the "subjective feelings of Happiness" would seem futile. Especially if we are seeking to establish any sort of "Absolute Objective Morality" that we could point to as being "Objective" as per the definition of "Objective" given in the OP.

In short, this kind of argument for "Objective Morality" most certainly isn't going to satisfy a theological need for an "Absolute Morality".

And therefore what would be the point of it?

~~~~~

The entire argument that has been given seems to boil down to a very simple argument that, since human feelings are "real" that makes them "objective" in the sense that they are "real".

But it doesn't make them "Objective" as per the definition for "Objective" as given in the OP.

It also doesn't make them "Absolute". What might make a person happy today, may not make them happy tomorrow. So there isn't even any consistency to human happiness. It's not something we can put our finger on in any meaningful objective way.