What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[David Mo]

I think you simply didn't understand what I meant, or what the question was. We already ARE genetically programmed to be empathic toward one another. That was what I meant.

Yes. I believed you was proposing a genetic manipulation to improve our moral answers.

Our genetic background is clearly insufficient to prevent amoral behaviours. And we don't know how to implement a large scale learning to improve moral behaviours of the people. There are social and psychological blockages. This blockages imply that we can only imagine how they could be applied in a society very different than ours. This is what I intended to say by "hypothetical".

 

[David Mo]

So I don't think that is any way outside of or beyond the scope of science at all. If you just say "this is what we ought to do" or say "this is what I think we should do" etc., then statements like that are incomplete and fail to say what the purpose or aim is. That is - the statement should say "this is what I think we should/ought to do, providing we want X to be the outcome" ... but that's where science clearly does come in to it ... if you complete your sentence by saying what your actual aim is, then science can very easily tell you what you "should" or "ought" to do.

Are you saying that all moral imperatives are instrumental or conditional?

If yes: you cannot go with instrumental sentences till the infinite. Therefore you need at least one "outcome" that is valuable in itself, not conditional. What is the final "outcome" that we are pointing with the moral judgements?

 

[tsig]

I think I have post one of them. And there are some threads in this forum with some questions related to Christian beliefs that I find interesting; don’t you?

So we are left to guess what Christian questions you find interesting and no matter what we guess you can always disclaim it.

 

[David Mo]

So we are left to guess what Christian questions you find interesting and no matter what we guess you can always disclaim it.

Existence of God: Descartes, Rousseau, Pascal
Cultural value of Christianity: Dostoevsky
Historical Jesus: Meier, Sanders, Dunn, Crossant
Meaning of the life: Kierkegaard
Social Christianity: Tolstoy, Kazantzakis.
Scepticism and Christian beliefs: Montaigne.
Guilt: Ricoeur
Ethics: Kant

These are some Christians readings that I find interesting. I have put it here without too much systematization. Obviously there are more.

 

[Pup]

1. Note that Nadifa never refers to social pressure. She is feeling responsible for her moral assertions.

If you can identify typical thoughts so well that you can use them to illustrate a typical fictional person from another culture, then I'd say such thoughts were indeed brought about by social pressure in that culture, rather than just random ideas that occurred to some individual.

2. The social pressure against ablation is as strong in our culture as the contrary pressure in Somalia. Note that in Somalia there is not any political or legal pressure in favour as in our Western countries exist against. Why is the social pressure in Somalia “arbitrary” and not in our Western countries?

You quoted me: "...but I see no reason to pretend a great deal of arbitrary social pressure doesn't go on in every culture, whether my own or another." If the double negative was unclear, I was saying that arbitrary social pressure occurs in all cultures including my own western one.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Then what is it synonymous with?

No seriously... what is it?

What exactly is "objective morality"?

What is it? Is it akin to a force field like gravity or electromagnetism?

Where is it? Is it like dark matter or like neutrinos or light?

Is it what penetrates human brains and instructs them as to the answers to the questions listed below?

Or does it possess humans and resides inside them like demons?

Or is it aliens sending the information via psychic frequencies?

• Is homosexuality an immoral act?
• Is anal sex an immoral act?
• Is oral sex an immoral act?
• Is incest an immoral act?
• Is eating pork or meat on Friday an immoral act?
• Is musterbation immoral?

• Is genociding entire peoples and using their little girls as sex objects and slaves a moral act?
• Is slavery a moral act?
• Is killing the neighbors' children and taking their land in the name of the King and country and god a moral act?
• Is denying entry to neighbors trying to make a living and find better places to live a moral act?
• Is making a movie about illegal wars and raking money from selling death to people a moral act?
• Is watching movies about our side swatting the nasties of other countries and enjoying them a moral act?

Who or what decided the answers to all the above and where and when and how?

Sam Harris has an easy-to-understand method of addressing morality, which I will paraphrase here: Compare two hypothetical societies. In one of them, everyone is suffering immensely. Death, torture, and rape run rampant. In the other one, everyone's life is extremely pleasurable. Everyone is happy, productive, and cooperative. From this, we can further imagine a gradient of "societal value" that every real-world community must rest upon. We can also infer that certain actions will have an effect on how a community moves upon that continuum. For example, terrorism and disease will move us closer to the "bad side," whereas curing diseases and ending wars will move us closer to the "good side." We can label these actions immoral and moral respectively. And that's not just a matter of opinion. These are predictable real-world results that can be analyzed scientifically.

Based on this model, we can say with a great deal of certainty that the answer to every single one of your questions on the list is "no."

An analogy can be drawn with health. It is objectively true that eating vegetables is healthier than eating Twinkies. In order for that previous sentence to make sense, we don't have to appeal to some kind of "divine health commands" nor do we have to measure "health particles" or anything of the sort. If we can accept that there is objective truth to questions of health, then there is no need to invent a new standard for other issues, either.

---

There's plenty of room for criticism in what I just wrote. After all, Sam gave it a whole book, and I only have a few sentences. But that should give you a very basic understanding of just one model of secular, objective morality. I'm not terribly interested in proving that this model is flawless or even true. Rather, I'm just showing how objective morality is not inherently intertwined with God.

 

[annnnoid]

Then what is it synonymous with?

No seriously... what is it?

What exactly is "objective morality"?

What is it? Is it akin to a force field like gravity or electromagnetism?

Where is it? Is it like dark matter or like neutrinos or light?

Is it what penetrates human brains and instructs them as to the answers to the questions listed below?

Or does it possess humans and resides inside them like demons?

Or is it aliens sending the information via psychic frequencies?

• Is homosexuality an immoral act?
• Is anal sex an immoral act?
• Is oral sex an immoral act?
• Is incest an immoral act?
• Is eating pork or meat on Friday an immoral act?
• Is musterbation immoral?

• Is genociding entire peoples and using their little girls as sex objects and slaves a moral act?
• Is slavery a moral act?
• Is killing the neighbors' children and taking their land in the name of the King and country and god a moral act?
• Is denying entry to neighbors trying to make a living and find better places to live a moral act?
• Is making a movie about illegal wars and raking money from selling death to people a moral act?
• Is watching movies about our side swatting the nasties of other countries and enjoying them a moral act?

Who or what decided the answers to all the above and where and when and how?

Here’s a clue Leumas. Remember all those questions you keep refusing to answer…these are the same.

No one knows where answers come from. And just for good measure, science hasn’t a clue how science is created.

Thus, you can get off your high horse and cease with your pointless pontificating. No one has any answers and in all likelihood, no one will for a very very very long time, if at all.

Thus, we apply what is called reason, adjudicated through the discipline we refer to as philosophy, measured against the ‘thing’ we call feelings. IOW…the Catholics basically got it right. It is what is called a ‘mystery’.

Basically, Leumas, what it comes down to is this: When you can answer those questions that you keep pretending are not there (7 times now!), then there will be answers to the questions you have presented. Until then it is all:

…faith.

So…the simple answer to your questions is: ‘YOU’ decided the answers to all those questions whenever you did (just like everybody else). ‘YOU’ haven’t a clue how that happened (and nor does anyone else). But…it quite obviously did happen. Interesting, isn’t it…that people can do things without having an explicit understanding of how. You, in fact, do this all the time (it’s what marpolts refers to as ‘heurisitcs’). It is why you keep avoiding those questions…cause you know they’re facts, but you don’t want to admit it.

What do you suppose that means?

So we are left to guess what Christian questions you find interesting and no matter what we guess you can always disclaim it.

You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.

 

[tsig]

Here’s a clue Leumas. Remember all those questions you keep refusing to answer…these are the same.

No one knows where answers come from. And just for good measure, science hasn’t a clue how science is created.

Thus, you can get off your high horse and cease with your pointless pontificating. No one has any answers and in all likelihood, no one will for a very very very long time, if at all.

Thus, we apply what is called reason, adjudicated through the discipline we refer to as philosophy, measured against the ‘thing’ we call feelings. IOW…the Catholics basically got it right. It is what is called a ‘mystery’.

Basically, Leumas, what it comes down to is this: When you can answer those questions that you keep pretending are not there (7 times now!), then there will be answers to the questions you have presented. Until then it is all:

…faith.

So…the simple answer to your questions is: ‘YOU’ decided the answers to all those questions whenever you did (just like everybody else). ‘YOU’ haven’t a clue how that happened (and nor does anyone else). But…it quite obviously did happen. Interesting, isn’t it…that people can do things without having an explicit understanding of how. You, in fact, do this all the time (it’s what marpolts refers to as ‘heurisitcs’). It is why you keep avoiding those questions…cause you know they’re facts, but you don’t want to admit it.

What do you suppose that means?

Why do you continue to demand answers to questions when you don't know were any answers come from?

I have some idea where the questions come from.

 

[phiwum]

Unless there are some sort of imposed moral standard the rational man discards morals and acts as he pleases.

This is nothing more than the theist canard that without god's morals atheists are completely amoral.

No, I didn't say "imposed" standards but objective standards.

And, yes, if there is no standard that all rational persons must accept, then it does indeed seem to me that the ideally rational person, one who aims to maximize utility for himself, would try to discard his moral intuitions.

I don't say that to conclude that God must exist, or that there must be an objective morality, but just because it appears to me to be an obvious conclusion. If I'm mistaken, you'll have to show me why, rather than just tell me that I sound like a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Pup]

Sam Harris has an easy-to-understand method of addressing morality, which I will paraphrase here: Compare two hypothetical societies. In one of them, everyone is suffering immensely. Death, torture, and rape run rampant. In the other one, everyone's life is extremely pleasurable. Everyone is happy, productive, and cooperative. From this, we can further imagine a gradient of "societal value" that every real-world community must rest upon. We can also infer that certain actions will have an effect on how a community moves upon that continuum. For example, terrorism and disease will move us closer to the "bad side," whereas curing diseases and ending wars will move us closer to the "good side." We can label these actions immoral and moral respectively. And that's not just a matter of opinion. These are predictable real-world results that can be analyzed scientifically.

Based on this model, we can say with a great deal of certainty that the answer to every single one of your questions on the list is "no."

An analogy can be drawn with health. It is objectively true that eating vegetables is healthier than eating Twinkies. In order for that previous sentence to make sense, we don't have to appeal to some kind of "divine health commands" nor do we have to measure "health particles" or anything of the sort. If we can accept that there is objective truth to questions of health, then there is no need to invent a new standard for other issues, either.

---

There's plenty of room for criticism in what I just wrote. After all, Sam gave it a whole book, and I only have a few sentences. But that should give you a very basic understanding of just one model of secular, objective morality. I'm not terribly interested in proving that this model is flawless or even true. Rather, I'm just showing how objective morality is not inherently intertwined with God.

When people say that science can't address the "oughts" of morality, the above is an excellent example. Note the assumption: that happiness, health, freedom from human suffering, etc. are all assumed to be the goal of moral choices.

Sure, one can prove scientifically that Behavior A will lead to more long-term happiness than Behavior B, but how does one prove scientifically that happiness is better than suffering?

That's why I think one needs to look at why we so naturally accept such assumptions about the basis of morality.

 

[marplots]

When people say that science can't address the "oughts" of morality, the above is an excellent example. Note the assumption: that happiness, health, freedom from human suffering, etc. are all assumed to be the goal of moral choices.

Sure, one can prove scientifically that Behavior A will lead to more long-term happiness than Behavior B, but how does one prove scientifically that happiness is better than suffering?

That's why I think one needs to look at why we so naturally accept such assumptions about the basis of morality.

It's even worse than that. We don't even agree on what the terms mean. I think it's moral to suffer for some moral cause, foregoing happiness.

I'd also disagree with the way Harris assumes there's a linear scale of some sort. With moral questions so intertwined, perhaps a multi-dimensional landscape is a better picture - one full of local minima and maxima.

"I will be unhealthy now in the hope (not the certainly, but the chance), that all will go well and I will have a nice baby to pass on my genes."

The landscape may be too chaotic to admit Harris' style of objectivity.

 

[phiwum]

OK, well first of all "normative" is a very strange word ... if you ask people in the street what that word means, or more specifically perhaps what any particular philosophers mean by "normative", then I doubt if many people will know what on earth you are talking about. And I'm not sure they should be bothered to know either. But, if by normative in philosophers language you mean how anything"should" be, "ought" to be, or how we should "value" personal preferences or personal ideas as either "right or wrong", then I don't think we are talking about anything real at all, are we?

I'm with you until your final line.

That seems to be a discussion about what anyone claims to be their own personal subjective preferences, ideas or interpretations of anything - i.e. what they personally think they "ought" to do, think they "should" do, or what they think is "right" for them & what "values" they think should hold (whatever they might mean by their "values"). And that just amounts to their own personal set of subjective personal beliefs.

So I don't think that is any way outside of or beyond the scope of science at all. If you just say "this is what we ought to do" or say "this is what I think we should do" etc., then statements like that are incomplete and fail to say what the purpose or aim is. That is - the statement should say "this is what I think we should/ought to do, providing we want X to be the outcome" ... but that's where science clearly does come in to it ... if you complete your sentence by saying what your actual aim is, then science can very easily tell you what you "should" or "ought" to do.

It would be the same if we were talking about personal "values". You have say what the aim or expectation is when you talk about such "values". In which case it's perfectly obvious that you can make a scientific study to tell you what values you should adhere to or pursue.

IOW - I think that's just an incomplete semantic ruse or deception to talk about "should", "ought", "values" etc. in that way without stating what you are actually talking about as your aim in anything you "should" or "ought" to do.

Not every norm depends on the existence of a prior desire or goal, contrary to what you say above. Many do, of course, but not all.

It is clear that if there are any fundamentally moral norms, then these are examples that are not conditional on a particular desire or need, but of course the existence of these are at issue.

There are some non-moral objective norms that I think we would all accept, a few of which I mentioned up-thread. I've reworded the second one to avoid the unnecessary appearance of conditionality.
(1) It is better to believe truth that falsehood, generally speaking.
(2) One ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to.
(3) One ought not, insofar as it is possible, accept an inconsistent set of beliefs.
I think that each of these statements is objective, not conditional on one's desires, and true. They apply to all rational beings, regardless of any subjective features, such as desires, wants, preferences, etc.

Finally, science still has a limited role in norms that are conditional. You've expressed these as hypothetical statements, but they can also be represented in syllogistic form, with one example below.

I want to bring about X.
Doing Y is necessary in order to bring about X.
Therefore, I ought to do Y.
​

We can see here that the conclusion is dependent on two premises. Science is the best method we know for coming up with reliable data about the second premise, but science really doesn't play any role in the first premise. Thus, this argument isn't really a scientific argument, since it contains features that are outside the scope of science. Nonetheless, science plays an important role in reliably figuring out what we ought to do, because science is extremely good at determining causal relations.

 

[Leumas]

...
Not every norm depends on the existence of a prior desire or goal, contrary to what you say above. Many do, of course, but not all.

42

By definition normative is a subjective term... there is nothing objective about normative since it is normative in relation to something and therefore it becomes subjective to whatever it is normative in comparison to.

It is clear that if there are any fundamentally moral norms, then these are examples that are not conditional on a particular desire or need, but of course the existence of these are at issue.

By definition normative is in comparison to something or another... i.e. subjective.

There are some non-moral objective norms that I think we would all accept, a few of which I mentioned up-thread.

What does objective noms mean????

Normative

establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior.​

Norm

something that is usual, typical, or standard.​

Standard

• a level of quality or attainment.
• a required or agreed level of quality or attainment.
• an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

By its very essence and definition in the English language normative is a subjective term.

There is no such thing as "objective norms"... this is like saying "square circle" or "bombastic humility".

I've reworded the second one to avoid the unnecessary appearance of conditionality.
(1) It is better to believe truth that falsehood, generally speaking.
(2) One ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to.
(3) One ought not, insofar as it is possible, accept an inconsistent set of beliefs.
I think that each of these statements is objective, not conditional on one's desires, and true.

What nonsense... how on earth do you not see that when one decides that he

ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to.
​

Is most definitely and totally

conditional on one's desires.​

They apply to all rational beings, regardless of any subjective features, such as desires, wants, preferences, etc.

What nonsense.... how on earth can one maintain that when one

does what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to.​

It has nothing to do with

desires, wants, preferences​

Finally, science still has a limited role in norms that are conditional. You've expressed these as hypothetical statements, but they can also be represented in syllogistic form, with one example below.

There we go again... using word chicanery to confound and confuse.

Normative is a subjective term... "objective norms" means absolutely nothing... this is a nonsensical phrase by the very definitions of its constituent words.

The only way the term "objective norms" could possibly be wrung out for any trickle of possible not total nonsense meaning is by reference to the human race as a whole and not the individuals.

But even then, that still means that it is not objective... objective in reference to the individual maybe... but extremely subjective in reference to the society and biological and genetic evolutionary substance of the human race.

I want to bring about X.
Doing Y is necessary in order to bring about X.
Therefore, I ought to do Y.
​

We can see here that the conclusion is dependent on two premises. Science is the best method we know for coming up with reliable data about the second premise, but science really doesn't play any role in the first premise. Thus, this argument isn't really a scientific argument, since it contains features that are outside the scope of science. Nonetheless, science plays an important role in reliably figuring out what we ought to do, because science is extremely good at determining causal relations.

Again with the IPSE DIXIT that science has no purview over nonsensical gobbledygook phrases.

You are right... so long as you insist on defining nonsensical claptrap as something of profound importance and magical qualities then science indeed cannot do anything about that in the very same way that science cannot do anything about people who persist and insist on believing in other equivalent nonsense like souls and spirits and ghosts and ill begotten zombie sons of sky daddies.

But the moment your terms and definitions start being based on reason and logic and rationality and REALITY then science has all the purview it needs.

I think the problem lies in you not really understanding science or evolution or indeed even the terms you are trying to define or the questions you are trying to ask let alone the answers when ones can be given.

42

Why do you continue to demand answers to questions when you don't know were any answers come from?

I have some idea where the questions come from.

 

[Leumas]

Sam Harris <snip ... Harris' stuff>

In post #6 I said

That is not the same "objective" as the theists try to argue.

He is arguing "objective" as in not personal or even societal but rather instinctive as part of genetic evolution of the human species... so it is still subjective in that it relates to the species but objective in how it relates to any members of the species.

Similar to the instinct that allows birds to build elaborate nests or perform ritualistic dances they have never been taught by any other member of the species.

There's plenty of room for criticism in what I just wrote. After all, Sam gave it a whole book, and I only have a few sentences. But that should give you a very basic understanding of just one model of secular, objective morality. I'm not terribly interested in proving that this model is flawless or even true. Rather, I'm just showing how objective morality is not inherently intertwined with God.

That is not the same "objective" as the theists try to argue.

He is arguing "objective" as in not personal or even societal but rather instinctive as part of genetic evolution of the human species... so it is still subjective in that it relates to the species but objective in how it relates to any members of the species.

Similar to the instinct that allows birds to build elaborate nests or perform ritualistic dances they have never been taught by any other member of the species.

 

[I Am The Scum]

When people say that science can't address the "oughts" of morality, the above is an excellent example. Note the assumption: that happiness, health, freedom from human suffering, etc. are all assumed to be the goal of moral choices.

Sure, one can prove scientifically that Behavior A will lead to more long-term happiness than Behavior B, but how does one prove scientifically that happiness is better than suffering?

I agree, and this is an interesting philosophical question, but from a practical perspective, not terribly important. 99% of the world's population will choose the "good" society over the "bad" one, and after that, all we need is facts and evidence to take us the rest of the way. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to win over that last 1%.

If, however, I used a divine command model of morality, then there is instant, sharp disagreement all over the world.

It's even worse than that. We don't even agree on what the terms mean. I think it's moral to suffer for some moral cause, foregoing happiness.

I'd also disagree with the way Harris assumes there's a linear scale of some sort. With moral questions so intertwined, perhaps a multi-dimensional landscape is a better picture - one full of local minima and maxima.

"I will be unhealthy now in the hope (not the certainly, but the chance), that all will go well and I will have a nice baby to pass on my genes."

The landscape may be too chaotic to admit Harris' style of objectivity.

If you haven't done so already, check out one of Harris' talks on the subject. He goes into this in more detail.

 

[abaddon]

Here’s a clue Leumas. Remember all those questions you keep refusing to answer…these are the same.

No one knows where answers come from. And just for good measure, science hasn’t a clue how science is created.

Maybe you simply didn't like the answers.

Thus, you can get off your high horse and cease with your pointless pontificating. No one has any answers and in all likelihood, no one will for a very very very long time, if at all.

You therefore agree that answers will be found, we just have not yet found them. OK by me. If science had all the answers it would simply stop. Science keeps going BECAUSE there are unanswered questions, not because of some imagined contrary nature of the scientific community.

Thus, we apply what is called reason, adjudicated through the discipline we refer to as philosophy, measured against the ‘thing’ we call feelings. IOW…the Catholics basically got it right. It is what is called a ‘mystery’.

Yay. Here comes the god of the gaps argument. Catholicism got nothing right.

Basically, Leumas, what it comes down to is this: When you can answer those questions that you keep pretending are not there (7 times now!), then there will be answers to the questions you have presented. Until then it is all:

…faith.

No, it isn't. I cannot figure out why you seem unable to identify the difference.

So…the simple answer to your questions is: ‘YOU’ decided the answers to all those questions whenever you did (just like everybody else). ‘YOU’ haven’t a clue how that happened (and nor does anyone else). But…it quite obviously did happen. Interesting, isn’t it…that people can do things without having an explicit understanding of how. You, in fact, do this all the time (it’s what marpolts refers to as ‘heurisitcs’). It is why you keep avoiding those questions…cause you know they’re facts, but you don’t want to admit it.

What do you suppose that means?

It means morality is subjective. That is what you wrote whether intended or not. You oscillate between subjective and objective morality so much and pad out you posts with incomprehensible sentences that by now, I have no idea whether you are supporting one or the other. Perhaps you might lend a machete to my intellectual thicket and state which. Is there, in your opinion, an objective morality or is there not an objective morality?

 

[annnnoid]

No, it isn't. I cannot figure out why you seem unable to identify the difference.

If it isn’t faith, then provide an empirical scientific explanation for how you know the most insignificant piece of knowledge that you possess (let alone anything else).

Last I checked, there does not exist any science on this planet that has the slightest clue how your brain generates even the simplest higher order cognitive event. Feel entirely free to prove me wrong.

…that means you don’t either. You have some variety of ‘understanding’ of how you do things, but it sure isn’t science. Cause science doesn’t know how you do things. This is an indisputable fact.

For example…how do you ‘create’ a thought? How do make your fingers type the letters and words of your post. You haven’t a clue…and neither does any variety of science. It is exactly as David Fincher said: “You’re not in control, you’re in charge. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.”

IOW…faith.

It means morality is subjective. That is what you wrote whether intended or not. You oscillate between subjective and objective morality so much and pad out you posts with incomprehensible sentences that by now, I have no idea whether you are supporting one or the other. Perhaps you might lend a machete to my intellectual thicket and state which. Is there, in your opinion, an objective morality or is there not an objective morality?

…of course there’s an objective morality. It’s just impossible to prove and irrelevant anyway since it’s all adjudicated through subjective experience. That’s why we have free will. We have the immeasurable honor of making our own choices. How impressive is that????

 

[I Am The Scum]

In post #6 I said

Harris' "Worst Possible Misery For Everyone" is not an argument about genetics or evolution. I don't know where you got that idea.

 

[marplots]

If you haven't done so already, check out one of Harris' talks on the subject. He goes into this in more detail.

Can you recommend one? I do admire him as a good thinker. It's very likely he's dealt with any off-the-cuff objection I have from reading the excerpts here.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Can you recommend one? I do admire him as a good thinker. It's very likely he's dealt with any off-the-cuff objection I have from reading the excerpts here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Of-IT1ug5w
I remember liking this one a lot, though I haven't seen it in a while. I'll probably watch it again if I have a chance.

Of course, he also wrote the book. I haven't read it, though.