Is Morality Objective?

[vulcanlogician]

Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology. 

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?

It doesn't.

I agree. The objectivity of biologists' categorizations is not particularly relevant to moral objectivity... BUT if you are not convinced that science refers to an objective reality, then it will be impossible to convince you that moral judgements do. So we must settle that matter first if we are to move on.

Let's get back to the question of objective morality.  Provide a basis for it as no one has done so yet.

My basis for moral objectivism is not the same as the other moral realists in this thread. I am a moral non-naturalist. You can refer to the flowchart below to see my exact position. (Where do you end up, btw?) I disagree with others' assertion that because ants do want to survive that means they ought to survive. As I see it, there are two contexts for the word "good"... an objective one and a subjective one. To me, moral statements refer to "good" in an objective sense. (Although people certainly inject opinions into the matter. Ignore this fact. It is irrelevant.) My approach to ethics avoids the naturalistic fallacy, but it suffers from ambiguities (vagueness) of its own.

Show ContentSpoiler:

[vulcanlogician]

"In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures."

http://www.differencebetween.net/languag...ubjective/

Agreed. 

So if I am going to convince you of moral objectivism, I'll have to stick to logic. I'll have to avoid appeals to emotion as well (because if I convince you that way, I have manipulated you, not reasoned with you). And last but not least: I'll have to be indifferent to whether you agree with me or not. I hold my position because I find it plausible, and I could care less who agrees with me.

There are GOOD arguments for moral subjectivism/nihilism that I find very appealing. The matter is far from settled. (I would be dishonest to say otherwise.)

Debate can be done for two purposes: to convince others to agree with you at any cost -OR- to clarify the issue by challenging assertions. I debate for the latter reason.

[Alan V]

Vulcanlogic,

Perhaps you can explain to me what this sentence in your chart means:

"Are there surface-level analytic connections between moral predicates and naturalistic predicates?"

Thanks

[Yonadav]

Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology. 

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?

It doesn't.

I agree. The objectivity of biologists' categorizations is not particularly relevant to moral objectivity... BUT if you are not convinced that science refers to an objective reality, then it will be impossible to convince you that moral judgements do. So we must settle that matter first if we are to move on.

Let's get back to the question of objective morality.  Provide a basis for it as no one has done so yet.

My basis for moral objectivism is not the same as the other moral realists in this thread. I am a moral non-naturalist. You can refer to the flowchart below to see my exact position. (Where do you end up, btw?) I disagree with others' assertion that because ants do want to survive that means they ought to survive. As I see it, there are two contexts for the word "good"... an objective one and a subjective one. To me, moral statements refer to "good" in an objective sense. (Although people certainly inject opinions into the matter. Ignore this fact. It is irrelevant.) My approach to ethics avoids the naturalistic fallacy, but it suffers from ambiguities (vagueness) of its own.

Show ContentSpoiler:

Interesting chart.  I am judgment-dependent.

[Alan V]

Debate can be done for two purposes: to convince others to agree with you at any cost -OR- to clarify the issue by challenging assertions. I debate for the latter reason.

I can think of at least one other purpose people have for debate: to dismiss opposing views out-of-hand.  Some people (especially trolls) set-'em-up to knock-'em-down as a kind of sport.

[vulcanlogician]

Vulcanlogic,

Perhaps you can explain to me what this sentence in your chart means:

"Are there surface-level analytic connections between moral predicates and naturalistic predicates?"

Thanks

Yo! That's a head scratcher for me too. Lol! 

Luckily, I don't have to know because, to me, moral facts are not natural facts.

If anyone finds the rest of the chart confusing, though, I fully understand the rest of it (and can explain it if asked). And I wouldn't be opposed to puzzling out the naturalistic predicates thing in this thread if you're interested in that.

[vulcanlogician]

Debate can be done for two purposes: to convince others to agree with you at any cost -OR- to clarify the issue by challenging assertions. I debate for the latter reason.

I can think of at least one other purpose people have for debate: to dismiss opposing views out-of-hand.  Some people (especially trolls) set-'em-up to knock-'em-down as a kind of sport.

Let's not acknowledge the trolls, then.

I mean, I suppose if you aren't considering the typical purposes for debate, you could come up with a plethora of reasons. Maybe you think you look sexy behind a lectern, so you stand behind one at every opportunity to impress the ladies

(That's about at the level of significance as "trolling" anyway.)

[Snoopy]

"In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures."

http://www.differencebetween.net/languag...ubjective/

Agreed. 

So if I am going to convince you of moral objectivism, I'll have to stick to logic. I'll have to avoid appeals to emotion as well (because if I convince you that way, I have manipulated you, not reasoned with you). And last but not least: I'll have to be indifferent to whether you agree with me or not. I hold my position because I find it plausible, and I could care less who agrees with me.

There are GOOD arguments for moral subjectivism/nihilism that I find very appealing. The matter is far from settled. (I would be dishonest to say otherwise.)

Debate can be done for two purposes: to convince others to agree with you at any cost -OR- to clarify the issue by challenging assertions. I debate for the latter reason.

Opinions and vagueness can be misleading.
It seems to me that all of life is working together as a single unit.
So is participation assisting in the expansion and adaption of life objective morality?

[Chas]

The concept of "desk" exists only in the mind, it has no independent existence.  

You are assuming epistemological idealism. 

definition: Epistemological idealism is a subjectivist position in epistemology that holds that what one knows about an object exists only in one's mind

No, that is not anything like what I'm saying.  I said the concept exists only in the mind, not the desk.

This makes further discussion on almost any issue unfeasible. Unless you are willing to follow the premise of realism, that objects exist independent of the mind.

Any given desk exists. There is no ideal desk.  There is no single conception of desk on which we all agree.

Objects have physical reality.  Concepts exist only in the mind.
I am some sort of moral skeptic.  Morality has no existence outside of minds.

[Chas]

Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology. 

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?

It doesn't.

I agree. The objectivity of biologists' categorizations is not particularly relevant to moral objectivity... BUT if you are not convinced that science refers to an objective reality, then it will be impossible to convince you that moral judgements do. So we must settle that matter first if we are to move on.

You completely misread what I wrote.  

Nowhere do I deny physical existence or the role of science.

[vulcanlogician]

Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology. 

But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species.  How does this help us with the question of morality?

It doesn't.

I agree. The objectivity of biologists' categorizations is not particularly relevant to moral objectivity... BUT if you are not convinced that science refers to an objective reality, then it will be impossible to convince you that moral judgements do. So we must settle that matter first if we are to move on.

You completely misread what I wrote.  

Nowhere do I deny physical existence or the role of science.

I didn't misread you, dude. I think you respect science. I was merely using science to make a point about objective reality.

[Chas]

I agree. The objectivity of biologists' categorizations is not particularly relevant to moral objectivity... BUT if you are not convinced that science refers to an objective reality, then it will be impossible to convince you that moral judgements do. So we must settle that matter first if we are to move on.

You completely misread what I wrote.  

Nowhere do I deny physical existence or the role of science.

I didn't misread you, dude. I think you respect science. I was merely using science to make a point about objective reality.

Why?  No one has disputed objective reality.  Move on to how things that exist only in the mind are objective.

[GirlyMan]

I am a moral non-naturalist. You can refer to the flowchart below to see my exact position. (Where do you end up, btw?)

I like this chart better, it deals with far more fundamental and critical issues in my esteem. Concerns about morality and ethics feel somehow ... ... premature except as a practical social matter.   I think I end up as absurdist. (Where do you end up, btw?)

[Chas]

I am a moral non-naturalist. You can refer to the flowchart below to see my exact position. (Where do you end up, btw?)

I like this chart better, it deals with far more fundamental and critical issues in my esteem. Concerns about morality and ethics feel somehow ... ... premature except as a practical social matter.   I think I end up as absurdist. (Where do you end up, btw?)

I think I may be an absurd atheist. 

[exodus]

Any given desk exists

By this statement you mean the referent of the word desk exists. It that right? Otherwise desk is simply a string of letters.

You said earlier:

No, the referent [of species] does not exist 

Please clarify why the referent of the word "species" does not exist but the referent of the word "desk" does exist. 

Also:

Objects have physical reality.  Concepts exist only in the mind.

1. "Object" is a concept, if you disagree, please explain why
2. According to your statement concepts exists only in mind
3. According to your statement objects have physical (objective?) reality.
4. Therefore there is a concept, namely "object" that exists independent of the mind.
5. 4 and 2 are contradictory.

Please clarify the contradiction.

[exodus]

I am a moral non-naturalist. You can refer to the flowchart below to see my exact position. (Where do you end up, btw?)

I like this chart better, it deals with far more fundamental and critical issues in my esteem. Concerns about morality and ethics feel somehow ... ... premature except as a practical social matter.   I think I end up as absurdist. (Where do you end up, btw?)

The absurdist position is actually premature, since infants and children do not identify any meaning and value. On the contrary, identifying moral values and adhering to them are widely considered to be the most mature stage of personal development.

[exodus]

Vulcanlogic,

Perhaps you can explain to me what this sentence in your chart means:

"Are there surface-level analytic connections between moral predicates and naturalistic predicates?"

Thanks

It means moral predicates arise by definition when naturalistic propositions are analyzed, without any need to refer to experience or making any objective or subjective judgements. In other words, moral predicates are contained in naturalistic propositions, they must merely be extracted by analyzing the meaning of naturalistic propositions.

[vulcanlogician]

I am a moral non-naturalist. You can refer to the flowchart below to see my exact position. (Where do you end up, btw?)

I like this chart better, it deals with far more fundamental and critical issues in my esteem. Concerns about morality and ethics feel somehow ... ... premature except as a practical social matter.   I think I end up as absurdist. (Where do you end up, btw?)

Nice. 

edit: I suppose I'm an atheistic existentialist.

[vulcanlogician]

Objects have physical reality.  Concepts exist only in the mind.
I am some sort of moral skeptic.  Morality has no existence outside of minds.

Logic has no existence outside minds. That doesn't make it subjective. That doesn't mean that things are logical/illogical depending on your opinion. 

[Chas]

Any given desk exists

By this statement you mean the referent of the word desk exists. It that right? Otherwise desk is simply a string of letters.

Yes.

You said earlier:

No, the referent [of species] does not exist 

Please clarify why the referent of the word "species" does not exist but the referent of the word "desk" does exist. 

These are issues on different levels.  'Desks' exist in the real world, 'species' don't exist because they aren't real.  The word is a human-created categorization that has no precise definition.  What you might consider the referent of e.g. H. pylori isn't a clearly bounded group of organisms - it is a cloud with very fuzzy boundaries.  One can impose a classification but that doesn't make it real.

Also:

Objects have physical reality.  Concepts exist only in the mind.

1. "Object" is a concept, if you disagree, please explain why

This is a silly point.  You are veering off into word games.

2. According to your statement concepts exists only in mind
3. According to your statement objects have physical (objective?) reality.
4. Therefore there is a concept, namely "object" that exists independent of the mind.
5. 4 and 2 are contradictory.

Only because you defined them so.  You are conflating the word 'object' which is a label with things that are objects.

Please clarify the contradiction.

There is no actual contradiction.

[Chas]

Objects have physical reality.  Concepts exist only in the mind.
I am some sort of moral skeptic.  Morality has no existence outside of minds.

Logic has no existence outside minds. That doesn't make it subjective. That doesn't mean that things are logical/illogical depending on your opinion. 

Logic is a human construct that exists only in minds and has no physical reality.  
Its rules are whatever we say they are.
Just like morality.

[vulcanlogician]

Logic is a human construct that exists only in minds and has no physical reality.  
Its rules are whatever we say they are.
Just like morality.

Then you are a nihilist... NOT a subjectivist.

[Chas]

Logic is a human construct that exists only in minds and has no physical reality.  
Its rules are whatever we say they are.
Just like morality.

Then you are a nihilist... NOT a subjectivist.

I never claimed to be anything.  

Let's get back to the actual discussion.

[vulcanlogician]

Then you are a nihilist... NOT a subjectivist.

I never claimed to be anything.  

Let's get back to the actual discussion.

It's fine if you would rather identify yourself generally as a moral skeptic. After all, atheists don't need to posit that God doesn't exist; they are merely skeptics about God's existence.

But by advancing the argument that morality is "just something we made up" you are placing yourself in the nihilist's camp. As such, if I launch mortars at the nihilist's camp, you have a danger of being hit by one--- since you have placed yourself there.

Fair warning: lobbing shells at the nihilist's camp is a hobby of mine. And I'm quite good at it, if I may say. Just food for thought in the instance that you feel like "morality is just something we made up" is an argument worth defending.

I don't want to give you the impression that I hate nihilists, though. I don't. 

In fact, I LOVE nihilists. If you were to ever admit to being a nihilist, the first thing I'd have to do is concede that you think about morality more deeply than I do.

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.

Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human construction and thus artificial, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, or bad independently from our moral beliefs, because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy. What is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are void of any truth value. An alternative scholarly perspective is that moral nihilism is a morality in itself. Cooper writes, "In the widest sense of the word 'morality', moral nihilism is a morality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Moral

[vulcanlogician]

Also, I'm glad we agree that morality is not subjective. That's another thing I like about nihilists: we agree on that.