What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[Belz...]

But if I recognize that morality is subjective, then it seems to me that it is in my interest to adopt the laxest morality possible. In this way, I would maximize utility.

Fortunately, humans aren't that cold and detached.

 

[marplots]

But if I recognize that morality is subjective, then it seems to me that it is in my interest to adopt the laxest morality possible. In this way, I would maximize utility.

You are presuming you have a choice. I don't think you do.

 

[phiwum]

You are presuming you have a choice. I don't think you do.

Maybe not.

But I have to say that, were I really to believe that morality is nothing but subjective opinion, I would feel less bound to behave according to moral norms.

 

[phiwum]

Fortunately, humans aren't that cold and detached.

Why "fortunately"?

I mean, I can see that it's good for me that others aren't so cold and detached, but it's bad for me if I'm not cold and detached (as you put it).

 

[Leumas]

....
As far as I'm concerned, it is self-evident that believing truth is intrinsically better than believing a false statement.
...

In addition, I am unaware of how, even in principle, such a preference could be "proven" scientifically.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

You just cannot understand or see how something can be done.... thus... it cannot be done?

A person who understands anything about evolution and sociology and biology and anthropology and chemistry would quite easily understand why humans have evolved to find it better to choose truths as opposed to falsity.

But ignorance of ones own ignorance is a vicious spiral of ignorance.

Here I will show you how one can run a scientific experiment to demonstrate why humans have evolved to prefer truths and truthful members of their society as opposed to lies and lying members.

Have two people (A) and (B) put in two distinct cells where they can communicate and see each other.

(A) cannot get at any food or water except when (B) pushes the right button to open the right door to let (A) get the food/water.

(A) can see which door has the food/water behind it and thus can tell (B) which button to push but (B) cannot know which button to push unless (A) tells him.

Vice versa for (B). He has to tell (A) which button to push so as to get food/water.

For an added realism, if either (A) or (B) pushed an incorrect button it will deliver an electric shock and the food will be retracted and not presented again for 48 hours.

Let the people know exactly what the rules are.

Now, let's see how often either elects to just lie about the button to be pushed.​

 

[Leumas]

I regard them as objective (non-moral) norms.

Nonsense... they are not objective whatsoever. Humans evolved as a cooperative social species where cooperation and strength in numbers confer a survival advantage.

Evolving to prefer truthful members of society has nothing to do with objective anything.

Obviously, science doesn't deal in normative claims, so though I regard these as true, they are outside the scope of scientific investigation.

There you go again insisting and persisting on claptrap meaningless nonsense and then to ipse dixit that science cannot investigate nonsensical poppycock made up by just imagining stuff.

I am a bit surprised that people say they don't know what "It is better to believe truth than falsity," means, or that they doubt the truth of the claim. It strikes me as fairly non-controversial that rational beings aim at believing truth.

Yes... just like many theists cannot imagine how anyone could possibly doubt their all but too obvious sky daddy who obviously exists but also is obviously outside the scope of scientific investigation.

 

[marplots]

Maybe not.

But I have to say that, were I really to believe that morality is nothing but subjective opinion, I would feel less bound to behave according to moral norms.

I think you are discounting the power that subjective opinion has to rule and guide our behaviors. Not just in the moral realm, but generally.

In a very real sense, who I am is largely a collection of subjective opinions, which I hold dearly and will support with endless arguments. (Almost 20,000 posts worth of "endless.")

 

[Leumas]

But if I recognize that morality is subjective, then it seems to me that it is in my interest to adopt the laxest morality possible. In this way, I would maximize utility.

No you would not.

We evolved as a social species and just as environmental pressures have shaped our genetic structure so did the societal pressures do the same.

Fear to avoid the lion's fangs.... morality to avoid the tribe's fangs.

 

[marplots]

Fear to avoid the lion's fangs.... morality to avoid the tribe's fangs

That sounds objective to me.

 

[Leumas]

Maybe not.

But I have to say that, were I really to believe that morality is nothing but subjective opinion, I would feel less bound to behave according to moral norms.

There are plenty of psychopaths in prisons.

However, there are a few psychopaths in CEO positions off and on Wall Street.

Rational people who are not psychopaths usually understand the consequences of antisocial behavior and if they do not behave nicely out of empathy and sympathy and rationality then they do it to avoid those consequences.

Fear to avoid the lion's fangs.... morality to avoid the tribe's fangs.

 

[Belz...]

Why "fortunately"?

Because if we followed a purely utilitarian, logical philosophy, we might be bigger bastards than we already are. I don't think empathy is a bad thing, even if it makes us to things that are not "logical".

 

[phiwum]

I think you are discounting the power that subjective opinion has to rule and guide our behaviors. Not just in the moral realm, but generally.

In a very real sense, who I am is largely a collection of subjective opinions, which I hold dearly and will support with endless arguments. (Almost 20,000 posts worth of "endless.")

I don't deny you have a point. It may be that we are less than ideally rational and cannot help but cling to norms that are sub-optimal as far as our own personal utility is concerned. (That sub-optimality is, to be sure, a bit contentious, since there may be some utility in having moral preferences.)

But if this is the case, then it seems to be a psychological fact about our limited rationality. I still think that an ideally rational being, convinced that morality consists of nothing but subjective opinions, would encourage others to believe in objective morality while considering himself bound by no moral norms at all. If this isn't the case, then so much the better for some version of objective norms I think.

 

[Leumas]

Why "fortunately"?

I mean, I can see that it's good for me that others aren't so cold and detached, but it's bad for me if I'm not cold and detached (as you put it).

And what do you think those others will do to you if you are cold and detached?


Fear to avoid the lion's fangs... morality to avoid the tribe's fangs.

 

[Leumas]

That sounds objective to me.

How exactly???

 

[phiwum]

Because if we followed a purely utilitarian, logical philosophy, we might be bigger bastards than we already are. I don't think empathy is a bad thing, even if it makes us to things that are not "logical".

First, let me respectfully correct your use of the word "utilitarian". That word conventionally means one who maximizes utility over the population, not selfishly. What I'm suggesting (that a rational person ought to maximize his own utility, if indeed morality is subjective) is usually termed "hedonism".

Second, I can't help but think that your suggestion that it is better to not be cold, rational utility maximizers has a hint of objective morality behind it. Better in what sense, if it makes our own utility suffer?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but I really can't help the feeling that what you're saying strongly suggests that there is something fundamentally better than our own individual utility. If so, what could it be aside from something fundamentally good about empathy?

 

[Leumas]

I don't deny you have a point. It may be that we are less than ideally rational and cannot help but cling to norms that are sub-optimal as far as our own personal utility is concerned. (That sub-optimality is, to be sure, a bit contentious, since there may be some utility in having moral preferences.)

But if this is the case, then it seems to be a psychological fact about our limited rationality. I still think that an ideally rational being, convinced that morality consists of nothing but subjective opinions, would encourage others to believe in objective morality while considering himself bound by no moral norms at all. If this isn't the case, then so much the better for some version of objective norms I think.

There you go again making up impossible imaginary things.

Evolution and nature does not produce anything ideal of any sort.

There is no such thing as an "ideal" anything that is natural.

Nevertheless, human imagination can produce all sorts of impossible ideas and chief among them is "ideal" claptrap.

[imgw=350]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824f8f111c4feb3.jpg[/imgw] [imgw=240]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128253c6d03e21033.jpg[/imgw]

 

[Leumas]

...

Second, I can't help but think that your suggestion that it is better to not be cold, rational utility maximizers has a hint of objective morality behind it. Better in what sense, if it makes our own utility suffer?

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but I really can't help the feeling that what you're saying strongly suggests that there is something fundamentally better than our own individual utility. If so, what could it be aside from something fundamentally good about empathy?

There is nothing objective about it...it is called optimizing maximum benefits with minimum costs.

I think you might want to study a lot more about EVOLUTION and sociology and a bit about game theory.

Game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."[1] Game theory is mainly used in economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic, computer science, and biology. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which one person's gains result in losses for the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers.​

 

[tsig]

I don't deny you have a point. It may be that we are less than ideally rational and cannot help but cling to norms that are sub-optimal as far as our own personal utility is concerned. (That sub-optimality is, to be sure, a bit contentious, since there may be some utility in having moral preferences.)

But if this is the case, then it seems to be a psychological fact about our limited rationality. I still think that an ideally rational being, convinced that morality consists of nothing but subjective opinions, would encourage others to believe in objective morality while considering himself bound by no moral norms at all. If this isn't the case, then so much the better for some version of objective norms I think.

What you are saying is the standard Christian view that "Without god everything is permitted".

 

[Belz...]

First, let me respectfully correct your use of the word "utilitarian". That word conventionally means one who maximizes utility over the population, not selfishly. What I'm suggesting (that a rational person ought to maximize his own utility, if indeed morality is subjective) is usually termed "hedonism".

My mistake. English isn't my first language and sometimes I struggle to find the word that expresses precisely what I mean.

Second, I can't help but think that your suggestion that it is better to not be cold, rational utility maximizers has a hint of objective morality behind it.

Just my subjective opinion, really.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but I really can't help the feeling that what you're saying strongly suggests that there is something fundamentally better than our own individual utility.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. As you know, I deny the very possibility of objective morality. It'd be more than a bit amusing if I fell into that trap. Any expression of moral value on my part is entirely subjective.

 

[phiwum]

What you are saying is the standard Christian view that "Without god everything is permitted".

I never mentioned god at all, so no, that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that, unless I believe that there are objective moral norms, it seems to me that ideal rationality requires that I maximize my utility by rejecting all (subjective) moral norms and reasoning purely based on prudence.