What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[Leumas]

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

And even more... since atheists consider themselves rational then that means they are only following their rationality to its logical conclusion by becoming immoral psychopaths.

...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.

... 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....

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.

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]

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



Just my subjective opinion, really.



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.

Okay, I think your denial of any objective value makes sense. I withdraw my earlier suggestion that there was an inherent contradiction in what you said.

 

[Belz...]

Wow, it's almost as if we're having a reasonable conversation here. On the internet, no less!

 

[phiwum]

Wow, it's almost as if we're having a reasonable conversation here. On the internet, no less!

Won't last.

 

[annnnoid]

That's not evidence for objective morality.

...no, that's not 'proof' of objective morality, it is certainly evidence.

It may not be falsifiably objective, but it certainly implicates an objective condition, exactly the same way the mass of men will attempt to avoid a swarm of bees. Why do we all behave in the same manner? You can fling any number of answers at this question, ultimately they’re all just guesses. But…it does implicate some manner of collective identity…as does morality.

Similarities in individual behavior (and there are endless examples) implicate collective conditions. Something that is common across a group of fundamentally related phenomenon can be described as an objective condition. It occurs irrespective of the action of the individual.

The activities you are engaged in right this moment confirm this conclusion. How else could this manner of interaction occur if we did not have some fundamental similarities? Are fundamental similarities evidence of objective conditions (IOW…conditions that are common to us all)?

How could they not be!

…and you can certainly argue that an ‘objective’ morality is one that exists independently of us (which might be a bit contradictory). There is no direct evidence of such a thing, but then again, no-one has a clue where our morality actually does come from (except, of course, Leumas). And there are many who insist on what are referred to as ‘mystical’ influences. Can you prove them wrong? Of course not, no more than they can prove themselves correct.

 

[marplots]

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

That sounds objective to me.

How exactly???

Well, lions, fangs, tribes are all pretty objective. The ability to avoid these seems like it could be measured too. If morality is just avoiding bad consequences by avoiding certain proscribed actions, then I don't see why it couldn't be programmed in a computer - pretty much like we write down laws and the consequences of criminal behavior.

Is that what morality is all about?

 

[Belz...]

...no, that's not 'proof' of objective morality, it is certainly evidence.

How so? Or, to be more precise, how is it evidence for objective morality more than it is for the alternatives?

 

[marplots]

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.

That's worth chewing over. I think it's very close to being so.

My understanding of other minds, including their moral character, is objective. I see what they are up to and measure it against societal norms. On the other hand, I think my own sense of morality is not bound by outside forces, but an expression of my own judgement. Not entirely separate from society around me, but not completely subservient either. I find I can disagree, sometimes strongly, with the majority opinion.

Since I can have no direct experience into the minds of others, I am limited to the observations described. Quite often I will say things like, "He's obviously a crook" and expect others, who are not the crook in question, to agree, based on the same observations I have made. This is objective - we can all see the observed behavior, and there is an agreed upon standard in play.

However, even though I have committed crimes, I would not describe myself as a crook. Because, from my perspective, I am much more than that simple attribute captures.

Where we probably differ is in the freedom to decide for oneself what constitutes moral behavior. So, while I may be quick to forgive and excuse my own sins (compared to what I allow for others), I still have to make the effort to rationalize my behavior against a preexisting standard of some sort. I don't seem to have the ability to simply change my "inner moral guide" to suit my circumstances. Perhaps others can.

 

[marplots]

...no, that's not 'proof' of objective morality, it is certainly evidence.

It may not be falsifiably objective, but it certainly implicates an objective condition, exactly the same way the mass of men will attempt to avoid a swarm of bees. Why do we all behave in the same manner? You can fling any number of answers at this question, ultimately they’re all just guesses. But…it does implicate some manner of collective identity…as does morality.

Similarities in individual behavior (and there are endless examples) implicate collective conditions. Something that is common across a group of fundamentally related phenomenon can be described as an objective condition. It occurs irrespective of the action of the individual.

The activities you are engaged in right this moment confirm this conclusion. How else could this manner of interaction occur if we did not have some fundamental similarities? Are fundamental similarities evidence of objective conditions (IOW…conditions that are common to us all)?

How could they not be!

That only works when moral judgements are similar. It fails utterly when they differ. Suddenly, the swarm of bees to one group becomes a field of flowers to another.

How do you rationalize the discrepancies?

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

Nobody in this thread is denying that humans tend to prefer truth over falsehood.
Nobody in this thread is denying that such a preference is the result of evolution.

The question is whether or not such a preference can be scientifically demonstrated as "correct."

 

[phiwum]

That's worth chewing over. I think it's very close to being so.

My understanding of other minds, including their moral character, is objective. I see what they are up to and measure it against societal norms. On the other hand, I think my own sense of morality is not bound by outside forces, but an expression of my own judgement. Not entirely separate from society around me, but not completely subservient either. I find I can disagree, sometimes strongly, with the majority opinion.

Since I can have no direct experience into the minds of others, I am limited to the observations described. Quite often I will say things like, "He's obviously a crook" and expect others, who are not the crook in question, to agree, based on the same observations I have made. This is objective - we can all see the observed behavior, and there is an agreed upon standard in play.

However, even though I have committed crimes, I would not describe myself as a crook. Because, from my perspective, I am much more than that simple attribute captures.

Where we probably differ is in the freedom to decide for oneself what constitutes moral behavior. So, while I may be quick to forgive and excuse my own sins (compared to what I allow for others), I still have to make the effort to rationalize my behavior against a preexisting standard of some sort. I don't seem to have the ability to simply change my "inner moral guide" to suit my circumstances. Perhaps others can.

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that your moral judgments of others are objective. If you don't have a view that moral norms are objective, then you're only saying that what they do violates your own (subjective) view of what is moral. Now, that observation is objective, but it's an objective observation involving what you (inter-)subjectively regard as moral behavior.

Aside from this point, I do think we have little quibble.

 

[Leumas]

Well, lions, fangs, tribes are all pretty objective.

One's relationship with lions and fangs and tribes is subjective.

One avoids the fangs due to subjective considerations as reasoned by subjective effects of the objects on the subject.

The ability to avoid these seems like it could be measured too. If morality is just avoiding bad consequences by avoiding certain proscribed actions,

Yes that is all it is. It is an evolved survival mechanism... just like hunger or fear or lust or disgust or sleepiness or boredom.

then I don't see why it couldn't be programmed in a computer - pretty much like we write down laws and the consequences of criminal behavior.

And that is exactly what evolution has done in our grey-celled-computers.

That is precisely what millions upon millions of years of evolution have done... program our cranial-computers.

Is that what morality is all about?

If we were talking about hunger or lust or fatigue or pain or fear.... would you be so incredulous that they are nothing but survival mechanism evolved to facilitate the survival of the organism?

Why do you want to attribute anything more elevated to morality?

Many theists also think that love is something more elevated than instinct?

Morality is a survival mechanism that has evolved out of social environmental SELECTIVE pressures just as has love evolved out of social and biological selective pressures just as fear and pain and hunger and thirst and fatigue and so on and so forth.

All of them are nothing more than neuro-electrochemical processes in the computing device between our ears.

And do not start on the consciousness gabble... it too is nothing but a neuro-electrochemical process in the very same grey-matter-computer.

People who wrangle that morality is some kind of woo and then tell us that people who do not believe in woo are immoral psychopaths are doing nothing more than casuistic apologetics for their magical sky daddies.

 

[Leumas]

Nobody in this thread is denying that humans tend to prefer truth over falsehood.
Nobody in this thread is denying that such a preference is the result of evolution.

The question is whether or not such a preference can be scientifically demonstrated as "correct."

I suggested a simplistic experiment in this post... but as usual you have not read it.

I also suggested reading about Game Theory in this post.

I suggest you look into those.

....
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.​

...
URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory"]game theory[/URL][/B].

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.​

 

[I Am The Scum]

I suggested a simplistic experiment in this post... but as usual you have not read it.

I also suggested reading about Game Theory in this post.

I suggest you look into those.

And I keep telling you that you are answering questions that nobody is asking.

Honestly, this is like the creationist that keeps jumping up and down shouting, "A cat cannot transform into a dog!"

Yeah, I know. That's not the point.

 

[marplots]

Yes that is all it is. It is an evolved survival mechanism... just like hunger or fear or lust or disgust or sleepiness or boredom.

Prove it. Because, without strong evidence, it's another evolution "just so" story. We are the way we are because that's the way we evolved to be. About as informative as saying it's merely chemistry, or physics, or mathematics. It might be, but to prove it, we'd need to see the evolutionary evidence: things like fossils showing the trait evolving, or a suite of genes responsible for moral behavior. Even a study showing morals are heritable would be a huge step forward.

There have been attempts to show moral behavior in other primates, so it's not an impossible task. It is a hard task. And you'd want to distinguish morality as a survival trait and not just a free-rider on something else, like cognition.

The main point is that a nod to evolution may be a popular default, since we have no other mechanism for traits to arise, but it doesn't explain anything at that level. We must be skeptical when we hear these pseudo-explanations offered up as if they answered any of our questions. To say it's just evolution because there can be no other answer is circular reasoning.

There's also the challenge of scale. In the past 2,000 years, our sense of moral rights and wrongs has changed significantly (slavery and women's rights come to mind). How would you rationalize that, knowing evolution acts on a much, much longer timeline? Where are you going to place "homo moralis?"

ETA: And if it's "just instinct," why do we disagree so much on moral questions? Did I get different instincts than that dude in Lebanon?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Leumas,

Nobody in this thread is denying that humans tend to prefer truth over falsehood.

Do you understand the above quote? Should I rephrase?

 

[Leumas]

...
ETA: And if it's "just instinct," why do we disagree so much on moral questions? Did I get different instincts than that dude in Lebanon?

EXACTLY.... you did.

Some are allergic to peanuts while others are allergic to eggs.

Just like one prefers blonds to brunettes or another prefers the same gender to the opposite gender or one likes to be dominated and punished while another likes to dominate and punish.

Just like some people are good at art while others cannot even draw a stick figure.

Just like there are geniuses and morons and all in between.

Just like there are color blinded people and tone deaf people and cowards and risk takers and rebellious people and sycophants.

Just like some people hate Brussel sprouts and spinach and others hate fish and clams while others love cheese that stinks while others love mango and some hate coconuts.

 

[marplots]

ETA: And if it's "just instinct," why do we disagree so much on moral questions? Did I get different instincts than that dude in Lebanon?

EXACTLY.... you did.

Some are allergic to peanuts while others are allergic to eggs.

Just like one prefers blonds to brunettes or another prefers the same gender to the opposite gender or one likes to be dominated and punished while another likes to dominate and punish.

Just like some people are good at art while others cannot even draw a stick figure.

Just like there are geniuses and morons and all in between.

Just like there are color blinded people and tone deaf people and cowards and risk takers and rebellious people and sycophants.

Just like some people hate Brussel sprouts and spinach and others hate fish and clams while others love cheese that stinks while others love mango and some hate coconuts.

Cool. It's probably also why I speak English and my hypothetical friend in Lebanon speaks Arabic?

 

[Leumas]

Prove it. Because, without strong evidence, it's another evolution "just so" story.

What more proof could be than to see what are the effects of brain damage on morality?

If I tell you that brain damage can affect sight or hearing or ability to speak or tasting or olfactory senses would you even doubt it in this day and age?

Not long ago people thought mental disease was demonic possession.... today we know it has to do with brain biology not woo.

Until today many people think morality comes from some woo... can you not see that it too is nothing but biology.

Brain damage has affected people's personalities as well as moral inhibitions.

Some people have a brain disorder where they become nymphomaniacs.

Some have been born psychopaths.

Some brain damage has caused people to keep shouting out obscenities.

Have a look here

• http://www.traumaticbraininjury.net/does-brain-injury-contribute-to-criminal-behavior/
• http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/71/6/720.full.html
• http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251798.php

 

[Leumas]

Cool. It's probably also why I speak English and my hypothetical friend in Lebanon speaks Arabic?

Precisely... geography plays as much a role in evolution as does society and earthquakes and solar rays.

It is biology and chemistry and sociology .... genetic mutation punctuated by environmental selective pressures.

The environment is geographical, physical, and societal as well as other living species.

Birds that no longer had to fly away from predators evolved slowly over millions of years into flightless birds.

Wolf-like creatures that spend too much time hunting in watery environments evolved slowly over millions of years into whales.

So did pack animals evolve to have certain behavioral traits as a result of their biological evolution... some of these traits we call morality.