Subjective Morality

[The Tanager]

I started this post out of another discussion with Divine Insight. DI has made some arguments for morality being subjective. I'm still trying to get the terminology straight.

If morality is not absolute, then it can only be subjective. A matter of opinion.

We need to get our terms straight when talking about our human morality. I agree with you concerning 'subjective' being a matter of opinion. Objective, then, would mean not being a matter of opinion. Just like the shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion. X is good or bad for everyone.

Absolute vs. situational is a sub-issue concerning objectivism. The absolutist would say X is good or bad for everyone (and thus objectivism) no matter the situation. The situationalist would say X is good or bad for everyone but qualified by the situation.

In this phrasing, morality can be objectivist without being absolute. Now, I don't care if these are the terms we agree upon or not, but there must be some term for each concept I've presented. If you want to use "absolute" for "objective" above, that's fine. But you've got to tell me what two terms you want to use for what I termed the "absolute vs. situational" sub-issue.

[Divine Insight]

I have never said that it is objectively wrong in all situations to kill a human. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting me and putting words in my mouth? How about you stop arguing against your own straw men?

But wait, according to your previous arguments harming a humans is "objectively immoral".

You have been trying to argue for the idea of "objective" good or bad things.

But all notions of good or bad are human subjective opinions.

Your argument appears to be that since a human is a biologically functioning entity then to destroy or harm a human must be "objectively bad".

But as I point out, nature herself doesn't have a problem harming or destroying humans. Therefore it can't be "objectively bad"

It's only judged to be "bad" by humans who hold that opinion.

How can you say that anything is objectively "good or bad"? Good and bad are human created value assessments. If there were no humans there would be no such thing as "good or bad". Whatever happens happens and no one is around to judge whether it's "good or bad".

The very notion of categorizing something as "good or bad" requires that someone exists to hold that subjective opinion.

Even religious people recognize this. This is why they point to a God who makes that evaluation. Keep in mind that Gods are said to"judge" moral behavior.

What is there that exists in an objective secular world that can make such a moral judgement?

Insofar as we know, humans are the only ones who make these types of subjective judgements. And humans can't even agree among themselves what what constitutes "good behavior" versus "bad behavior".

So how can these judgements be said to be objective when they are clearly dependent on human subjective opinions?

You are making a wrong assumption by assuming the premise that harming a human must be objectively "bad" simply because the human has been harmed and you consider something that has been harmed to not be a "good" as something that hasn't been harmed.

But that's already a subjective human opinion.

It doesn't appear that nature (i.e. the objective world) gives a hoot.

Not only does the objective world not give a hoot, but apparently it doesn't even give a hoot what humans think about it. Objective reality couldn't care less if you think that an erupting volcano killing innocent tourists is a "bad" thing. Apparently objective reality doesn't agree with your subjective opinion on the matter.

The idea that this is "not good" is entirely a human subjective judgement.

Would almost all humans agree with this subjective judgement? Probably. But that doesn't make it objective. That just makes it a consensual subjective opinion. That's all.

[Artie]

But wait, according to your previous arguments harming a humans is "objectively immoral".

Misrepresenting me yet again. Harming humans are not necessarily objectively immoral and I have never said so. I am sick and tired of you misrepresenting me and building straw men for yourself to shoot down instead of actually responding to what I write so goodbye.

[Divine Insight]

So there's definitely no objective morality to be found in societies.

Of course there is. Every time a moral person makes a moral decision he looks at the situation from an objective point of view and tries to do what is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental act for the society and the people in it regardless of his own subjective opinion. That is what objective means you see.

But here you keep making the same mistake.

Different people in different societies are going to conclude that different things are "moral" based on what they believe to be "objective" information.

So the information they are judging things by is already subjective.

Not only this, but you keep returning to this idea:

tries to do what is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental act for the society and the people in it

Even that ends up becoming nothing more than human subjective opinion.

How about the question of whether gay people should be allowed to remain within the society? People have different subjective opinions on whether this is detrimental for the society or not.

What about the abortion issue? People have different subjective opinions on that as well.

How about allowing people to continue to drive cars? Road accidents take the lives of millions of innocent people. Perhaps we should insist that cars be banned based on your idea of "objective morality" and what's best for society.

It seems to me that you are assuming that there are objective answers to these questions that no one could possibly argue with. But there simply isn't.

It's all a matter of human subjective opinion.

No matter how hard you try to point to something you consider to be objectively moral or immoral, whatever you point to boils down to nothing more than human subjective opinion.

Even the idea that it's "good" to do what's best for a human society, is already a human subjective opinion.

You are making the mistake of having already accepted as a premise that it's objectively "good" to benefit human societies and "bad" to do things that might harm the society.

But those judgements of "good and bad" are already a human construct.

Show me where objective reality gives a hoot about human societies.

[Divine Insight]

But wait, according to your previous arguments harming a humans is "objectively immoral".

Misrepresenting me yet again. Harming humans are not necessarily objectively immoral and I have never said so. I am sick and tired of you misrepresenting me and building straw men for yourself to shoot down instead of actually responding to what I write so goodbye.

So what are you saying? That it's objectively moral to harm some humans as long as you don't kill off so many that it threatens to bring an entire society to extinction?

What makes the extinction of an entire society objectively immoral, but the harming of individual humans not objectively immoral?

[The Tanager]

Right off the bat we have come to the problem. Is moral goodness/rightness absolute or a human subjective construct?

If it's absolute then the answer to the above question is "No".

If morality is a human subjective construct then the answer to the above question is "Yes".

So how can we answer this question with first agreeing on whether or not morality is absolute, or a human subjective construct?

I don't see how those are two different questions; they are the same. I was just laying out the options because there was confusion of terms between us. You have claimed that morality is a human subjective construct and offered reasons to support that claim. If we have gotten through the confusion of terms, I'm ready to analyze your reasons for believing morality is a human subjective construct, which I will begin doing in the next post.

[The Tanager]

I'll start with (what I saw as) your arguments from the other thread. Please correct any misunderstandings on my part or clarifications that you need to make.

Argument #1: The existence of the suffering and death of innocent people shows morality to be a human subjective construct.

The fact is that our universe shows us that there is no absolute morality. Our universe is filled things that cause the suffering and death of innocent people. Therefore if it's absolutely immoral to cause the suffering and death of an innocent person and God designed the universe, then God himself would be guilty of violating absolute morality.

You need to further support at least two things here. One, why it is immoral to cause the suffering and death of an innocent person. Two, that there are innocent people who suffer and die. What are those supports?


Argument #2: That the majority of humans are okay with killing species other than their own shows morality to be a human subjective construct.

The very concept of moral principles are a subjective human invention.

In fact, think about it. How many humans would think it is immoral to kill a baby rat? Probably not too many. How about a baby monkey? There would no doubt be more humans who feel it isn't right to kill baby monkey because they're cute. But probably no one would suggest that the penalty for killing a baby monkey should be death.

But a baby human? Oh, yeah, almost all humans would agree that killing a baby human is extremely immoral and deserves the death penalty for the person who kills human babies.

It's possible you mean something else, but I think the emphasis of your point is about the species-ism present in human expressions of moral opinions. I fail to see why that proves morality to be subjective. It fits with subjectivism, but it also fits with non-subjectivism. The majority of humans could be correct that humans have a special status. Or the majority of humans could just be wrong about it.


Argument #3: If killing isn't wrong across the board, then morality is a human subjective concept.

If there such a thing as absolute m orality then humans would be just as guilty for murder when they kill a mosquito as they would be if they killed another human. The reason we consider killing other humans to be immoral is precisely because we are humans.

This seems to me to still confuse the two kinds of questions I laid out earlier. Does the change in elevation make the temperature water boils at a subjective fact? No. The temperature water objectively boils at depends upon situational facts (such as elevation). Killing may depend upon situational facts (whether a mosquito is killed or a human or in self defense or whatever), yet still not be a subjective fact.


And now from this thread:

Argument #4: Moral disagreements show that morality is a human subjective concept.

Instead I simply point to the fact that everything we know about human moral opinions points to this being the case. No two humans agree on every moral question. This certainly appears to reveal that human ideas of morality are indeed nothing other than human opinions. Not only do individual humans have different ideas of what they think should constitute moral values, but even entire human cultures differ dramatically in their cultural ideas on morality.

Does the fact that people disagree on the shape of the earth show that there is no objective truth on the matter? If not, then what is the difference?


Argument #5: If morality does not apply to inanimate objects, then morality is a human subjective concept.

What about the universe itself? Does it appear to be constructed according to any objective or absolute rules of morality? I would say no. The world doesn't appear to be based on any objective moral principles. Natural disasters will kill and maim innocent people without regard to any apparently moral rules. Animals will eat each other, and their babies, as well as even eating humans and their babies if given the opportunity. So again, we see no objective morality revealing itself in life on earth. Same thing holds true for biology itself. There doesn't appear to be any objective moral rules built into biological systems. Birth defects occur at random, deadly viruses and bacteria will infect innocent humans causing them great suffering, damage, or even death.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your reasoning here clearly, but it seems like that is what you are saying. That there can't be moral agents and non-moral things, it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. What is your support for that?


Argument #6: If no evidence can be given for morality being non-subjective/objective/real/absolute, then morality is a human subjective concept.

Since there is absolutely no evidence anywhere for any objective morality, ... why should we think that any objective or absolute moral values exist at all?

I would propose that we take one side at a time. I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning, so that I can then hold it up against why I believe in non-subjective morality. It helps me to think most clearly, if no one else.

[The Tanager]

]If all the people in a society help each other it leads to a prosperous and well-functioning society with happy people. If all the people in a society murder each other you have only one person and no society left. So we say that helping is good and right and moral behavior and murdering each other is bad and wrong and immoral behavior. If you were of the subjective opinion that it would be good for a society if everybody murdered each other you would be objectively wrong. People can have subjective opinions about what is the objectively right thing to do in each situation but that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we want to do what is objectively moral in each situation but disagree on what that is.

Others are saying similar things, so I only offer this as another way to word some of the critiques. I think you have given an objective truth on how best to achieve a specific goal, but not explained why that is what our goal should be. Even if evolution gave us that goal, you still need to explain why everyone ought to pursue that goal.

[Divine Insight]

Argument #1: The existence of the suffering and death of innocent people shows morality to be a human subjective construct.

You need to further support at least two things here.

One, why it is immoral to cause the suffering and death of an innocent person.

Isn't it a given that everyone who discusses morality would agree to this principle of morality no matter what position they take on morality being objective, subjective, absolute or otherwise?

I think you are the one who would need to support the idea that any sane person would try to claim that causing innocent people is not immoral. Who's going to argue that torturing babies should be considered to be a moral thing to do?

What's the point in discussing a concept called "morality" if you're going to start demanding support for the most basic moral concepts that everyone pretty much agrees on?

Two, that there are innocent people who suffer and die. What are those supports?

We know that innocent babies have been tortured both, by natural disasters and disease, as well as at the hands of sick humans.

So is it your intent to argue that every baby that is ever tortured must not be innocent? And must therefore deserve to be tortured?

That's a dangerous position to take because if someone came into your home and started torturing your baby you could not object. You'd have to take the position that since the baby is being tortured it must deserve it.

Do you really want to back yourself into those kinds of corners?

Argument #2: That the majority of humans are okay with killing species other than their own shows morality to be a human subjective construct.

It's possible you mean something else, but I think the emphasis of your point is about the species-ism present in human expressions of moral opinions. I fail to see why that proves morality to be subjective. It fits with subjectivism, but it also fits with non-subjectivism. The majority of humans could be correct that humans have a special status. Or the majority of humans could just be wrong about it.

It seems to me that you are heading to thin ice by suggesting that there should be an "objective morality" that only applies to humans.

Also if moral concepts don't extend to the animal kingdom, then how could you make a moral argument against animal abuse?

I'm mean, sure you can do down that path if you want, but it seems to me that it would be a very rocky path potentially leading to a dead end.

Argument #3: If killing isn't wrong across the board, then morality is a human subjective concept.

If there such a thing as absolute m orality then humans would be just as guilty for murder when they kill a mosquito as they would be if they killed another human. The reason we consider killing other humans to be immoral is precisely because we are humans.

This seems to me to still confuse the two kinds of questions I laid out earlier. Does the change in elevation make the temperature water boils at a subjective fact? No. The temperature water objectively boils at depends upon situational facts (such as elevation). Killing may depend upon situational facts (whether a mosquito is killed or a human or in self defense or whatever), yet still not be a subjective fact.

My argument is that it couldn't be a naturally objective morality.

It appears to me that you might be thinking in terms of some sort of religious morality where some God has subjectively decided that humans are more valuable then other animals.

But then you need to bring int0 the mix yet another conscious entity (i.e. a God) who has his own subjective opinions about morality. That ends up bringing subjectivity right back into the mix.

And now from this thread:

Argument #4: Moral disagreements show that morality is a human subjective concept.

Does the fact that people disagree on the shape of the earth show that there is no objective truth on the matter? If not, then what is the difference?

This one is actually quite trivial. We have a physical earth to settle the disagreements humans have about the shape of the earth. Those who refuse to accept the facts of reality are simply unreasonable people. It's that simple.

So your attempt at an an analogy here breaks down in the worst possible way.

Where are you going to find any objective morality that you can hold up in the same way as a physical planet earth?

You've made a false analogy that has no merit.

Argument #5: If morality does not apply to inanimate objects, then morality is a human subjective concept.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your reasoning here clearly, but it seems like that is what you are saying. That there can't be moral agents and non-moral things, it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. What is your support for that?

I'm just being reasonable. I've already made the point that this is what we currently have:

Morality as a subjective human construct = overwhelming evidence

Morality as an objective absolute = zero evidence.

What can you point to as evidence for these proposed "moral agents"?

Any why does morality only apply to humans and nothing else?

And does a human-centric system of morality even make any sense?

I think it doesn't. We are already discovering that if we don't take care of our space ship Mother Earth we will soon be unable to survive on her anymore. So humans should be concerned with the morality of destroying our own planet.

Not only are humans in bulk unconcerned with this but clearly there is no sign that any imagined "moral agents" are concerned about it either.

For me the bottom line is simple. The evidence that morality is an invented human construct is overwhelming. The evidence for the existence of any moral agents external to humanity is simply non-existent.

So which is more reasonable to believe to be true?

If you are demanding that I "prove" that morality is a subjective moral construct, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

However, one thing that no one can deny is that if there is an objective morality, then very few, if any, humans are aware of it or have a clue what it might be.

So what's even the point in trying to argue for an objective morality if you can't even point to it?

No one would have a clue what it might even be.

Argument #6: If no evidence can be given for morality being non-subjective/objective/real/absolute, then morality is a human subjective concept.

Since there is absolutely no evidence anywhere for any objective morality, ... why should we think that any objective or absolute moral values exist at all?

I would propose that we take one side at a time. I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning, so that I can then hold it up against why I believe in non-subjective morality. It helps me to think most clearly, if no one else.

The core of my reasoning is this.

Let's assume for the sake of argument and curiosity that an objective morality exists.

Where does it exist?

Can you point me to it?

If you can't even point to an objective system of morality then why would it even matter if such a thing existed? No one could have a clue what it is anyway.

An objective morality that no one can point to, is as meaningless as a non-existent objective morality.

So where is this objective morality?

If you can't point to it, then what's the point in even trying to argue that it might exist?

And I certainly hope that you wouldn't point to some religious Holy Books as the place where this objective morality is supposedly hiding. That's been tried for millennia and has never worked. Even those who claim to have found "objective morality" in their Holy Books cannot even agree with each other on what that morality actually entails. And often times the moral principles they claim to have found in such books has been called "terrorism" by other humans who disagree with those moral principles.

You used the physical earth as an analogy above. Well, we can point to planet earth.

Where is this objective morality? If you can't even point to it then what is it are we even discussing?

Shouldn't you need to first produce an "objective morality" that we can test to see if it truly can be validated as being genuinely objective?

We have planet earth to argue about. And as far as I'm concerned the evidence is already in on that one. Anyone refusing to accept the evidence is simply being irrational and unrealistic.

But where is this objective morality? I don't see it.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 36 by The Tanager]

I think you truly broke this thing wide-open when you made an analogy to people arguing about the shape of the earth.

You would like to argue for an objective morality. But where is it? Where can it be found?

If you can't point to it then of what use is the concept?

We'd be right back to square one anyway with nothing left to discuss but human subjective opinions and guesses about what they think "objective moral principles" should be.

If you can't produce an objective moral code, then what value could there be in arguing that such a thing might exist? No one could have clue what it has to say anyway.

So the whole subject appears to be nothing more than an exercise in philosophical futility.

If we can't produce this proposed objective morality, then of what value could it possibly be?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 36 by The Tanager]

...

You would like to argue for an objective morality. But where is it? Where can it be found?

Utilitarianism comes to mind.

I hesitate to say that, because "objective" is so often used as a weasel word, but there are common meanings of "objective" according to which utilitarianism qualifies as objective.

If you can't point to it then of what use is the concept?

For one thing, if we didn't have the concept, then you couldn't argue that morality is subjective.

...

If we can't produce this proposed objective morality, then of what value could it possibly be?

I don't understand the emphasis on objectivity myself. If we had to choose a subjective morality that discouraged rape or an objective morality that encouraged rape, then we should choose the subjective one.