What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[David Mo]

Please give any example at all of where any real "objectively" existing thing is beyond the remit of science to investigate even in principle.

It is evident that you ignore my answers to your questions. It seems that they disturb you. Perhaps you don't know how to reply. In any case is an evident incivility. It is a pity.

 

[IanS]

I agree we are at an impasse, and should leave it here.

As far as I'm concerned, it is self-evident that believing truth is intrinsically better than believing a false statement. Indeed, unless each of us accepts that claim, I honestly don't know what the point of argument is.

But, if you insist that you see no reason to prefer truth to falsity, all things being equal, then I guess I must accept your claim.

OK, I think you have said the highlighted several times now in different posts, so if you going to claim that I have ever said that, then please quote where I ever said any such thing.

Please quote where I ever said "I see no reason to prefer truth to falsity".

Look - you are talking here about hypothetical individuals who exhibit something you call morality, and you say their morality is an "objective" thing. That means something that physically exists in the cells that comprise the persons body. And further you say it's beyond the remit of science to investigate that. And now you talk about such people "preferring to believe truth rather than falsity" ... how do you know what any of these hypothetical individuals believe about any of the things that you yourself would regard as moral behaviour? How do these people know what the truth of any situation is?

Different people believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, ranging from the most absurd, misguided, idiotic and uneducated reasons, to reasons that are very well founded and supported by the majority of the relevant evidence. So the people you are talking about, i.e. the public in general (everyone and anyone), might very easily believe all manner of different things about any particular act that you yourself would call moral. They might not agree with you that all those things were morally correct behaviour, or they might agree at one stage in their life but disagree at a later date (or an earlier date). They might say about any of their past actions, that they now wish they had done something in the past that was more compassionate or more moral, they may regret previous actions or inactions. Or on the contrary, they may say that they now regret having made what they think were moral gestures, and now think they should not have acted with such compassion or such moral help in all sorts of situations ... and there may be any number of reasons why their opinions change about any such "moral" ideas like that ... because they are only personal beliefs which can change at any time ... they are not dependent upon absolute "truths" or certain "falsity" known to any of those people ... what they may regard as "truth" or "falsity" at any particular time, may change to the exact opposite at another time. Because those are all highly subjective views held by most of those people.

Some of those people may have far less subjective beliefs, and may instead try to use more rational evidence-based beliefs for many of those situations. But that actually means, by definition, more scientifically based decisions.

If you think that way, in that more object evidenced-based scientific view of the world, then you are less likely to regard most of those situations as requiring moral behaviour, but more likely just to regard that as something you prefer to do because you prefer to be helpful or compassionate to those around you who you regard as needing your help and compassion. The word "morals" does not necessarily come into it at all. It's just a preference for acting towards others in the way that you would like them to act towards you. And I think we all know that there are probably very obvious evolutionary reasons for why most of us would decide to behave in that way ... e.g., because in the longer term it's better for your own self-preservation and your own success in life, if you act towards others in that helpful, friendly compassionate way.

I'm not saying the entire explanation comes from ancient ancestral evolution. Much of it obviously comes from social interaction and the necessity to live in harmony and safety amongst the people directly around you. So that is simply learnt behaviour within the individuals own lifetime ... that's a sensible way to live your life if you want to avoid damaging conflicts with everyone around you.

The word "moral" is just a convenient lable for a whole mass of various actions like that. Some of which actions will be shown by some people, but not by others. Each individual will show some of the preferences and do some of those things, but they will take a personal subjective decision not to do some of those things which others might claim as moral in any particular situation. It's entirely subjective ... they are not all compelled by some human cell structure which forces them all to exhibit exactly the same moral actions in the same situations.

But this is now approaching the more religious view of morality, such as that expressed by WLC, whereby theists often claim to be far more moral than atheists, and almost always claim that without religious belief, humans would have no morals and just run a riot of self-interested barbarity. That of course is uneducated nonsense and fails to understand what I have just explained about evolutionary origins and self preservation, as well self preservation in immediate (non-evolutionary) every-day social circumstances. We act in those compassionate and helpful ways because it's better for us as well as better for those we are trying to help.

But none of that is objective in any sense of a physical group of cells that force us to behave in any particular way. Instead it's quite obviously learnt behaviour (which is good for us, for all the reasons explained above).

And you can certainly test all of that scientifically, if any real scientists want to waste their time on that. Eg., you could very easily just ask individuals a series of in-depth questions that lead to the heart/core of the reasons for why they take any so-called "moral" actions. You will inevitably find that the answer is that they think their actions are better for themselves as well as a benefit to the people they help ... it's simply a matter of expediency of self-interest ... it's a way of trying to ensure that you can live safely and happily amongst any immediate social group. And you can study that very easily indeed by science.

 

[phiwum]

OK, I think you have said the highlighted several times now in different posts, so if you going to claim that I have ever said that, then please quote where I ever said any such thing.

Please quote where I ever said "I see no reason to prefer truth to falsity".

What you said, if I understand you, is that it is not an objective fact that one ought to believe truth over falsity, generally speaking. If that's the case, it seems to me reasonable to say that there is no (objective) reason to prefer truth to falsity.

Look - you are talking here about hypothetical individuals who exhibit something you call morality, and you say their morality is an "objective" thing. That means something that physically exists in the cells that comprise the persons body. And further you say it's beyond the remit of science to investigate that. And now you talk about such people "preferring to believe truth rather than falsity" ... how do you know what any of these hypothetical individuals believe about any of the things that you yourself would regard as moral behaviour? How do these people know what the truth of any situation is?

I've no idea why you think the highlighted bit is true. Surely mathematical theorems are objective, but you cannot find them "physically existing" in our cells.

Here's my claim: we accept certain non-moral norms as objectively true, including the norm that true beliefs are better than false. I think this is not really all that controversial. If it is the case, then at least the notion of objective norms is not nonsensical, and so there is a possibility of objective moral norms in that sense.

That's pretty far from showing that there are objective moral norms. At this point, all I aim to show is that the notion isn't obviously nonsense.

 

[Craig24]

If morality is not something that is part of the human evolutionary process and is not relative and subjective but instead is an objective reality then that entails that their sky daddy must be the one who set those "laws" outside of humanity and human nature.

Morality is a person's method of determining a proper course action. In order for morality to be objective it must be anchored to reality, not to some fantasy concocted by ancient desert dwellers. Theists have it all wrong when they try to claim that an irrational supernatural brute will burn them in hell for non compliance with his edicts. All human attributes are clearly a product of evolution but saying that morality is a part of the process misses the one key element necessary in formulating morals: volition. Human volition makes morality necessary if people are to live on earth. In order to live, man must make the right choices and that is what morality is about.

 

[Belz...]

In order for morality to be objective it must be anchored to reality

And how does one objectively determine that something is wrong?

 

[Pup]

All human attributes are clearly a product of evolution but saying that morality is a part of the process misses the one key element necessary in formulating morals: volition. Human volition makes morality necessary if people are to live on earth. In order to live, man must make the right choices and that is what morality is about.

And those who made the wrong choices (for their particular situation) didn't survive as well. How is that not going to get encoded in our genes after a while, so those who choose mass murder are in the minority and those who choose to be kind to babies are in the majority?

 

[Belz...]

And those who made the wrong choices (for their particular situation) didn't survive as well. How is that not going to get encoded in our genes after a while, so those who choose mass murder are in the minority and those who choose to be kind to babies are in the majority?

Works in animals, too. Humans have added a selection pressure that favours predators that stay the hell away from us.

 

[phiwum]

Works in animals, too. Humans have added a selection pressure that favours predators that stay the hell away from us.

I don't think that anyone denies that natural selection favors those who (appear to) get along with others.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think that anyone denies that natural selection favors those who (appear to) get along with others.

Depends for which species, though.

 

[phiwum]

Depends for which species, though.

Sure.

And there's no guarantee, of course, that natural selection actually ends up selecting for the optimal strategy, so there's a limit to what we can conclude on the basis that such-and-such would give an advantage. After all, we seem to have lots of sub-optimal bits, both psychological and anatomical.

 

[porch]

Right. In philosophical circles, hedonism doesn't entail unreflective abandon, but simple self-interest, and prudence means more or less the same thing.

Seems to me that, traditionally, we use "hedonism" to refer to a moral theory (the theory that we are morally obliged to do what is in our interest, like Ayn Rand says), and "prudence" to refer to that part of practical reasoning that is non-moral and selfishly motivated, but the two uses really identify the same kind of reasoning.

Whoa! Hedonism is a term with even heavier baggage than I first thought! Ayn Rand for real? None for me, thanks.

How about "enlightened self-interest"? Maybe enlightened is redundant. Nah, hedonism sounds sexier. But Rand is on her own.

 

[Belz...]

And there's no guarantee, of course, that natural selection actually ends up selecting for the optimal strategy

In fact, I think we can guarantee that it won't.

 

[phiwum]

Whoa! Hedonism is a term with even heavier baggage than I first thought! Ayn Rand for real? None for me, thanks.

How about "enlightened self-interest"? Maybe enlightened is redundant. Nah, hedonism sounds sexier. But Rand is on her own.

Not to worry. Hedonism is a kind of moral realist theory, so insofar as you reject realism, I don't think you're in Rand's camp.

 

[marplots]

And those who made the wrong choices (for their particular situation) didn't survive as well. How is that not going to get encoded in our genes after a while, so those who choose mass murder are in the minority and those who choose to be kind to babies are in the majority?

That doesn't follow. It doesn't follow because we are not just subject to our environment, but can modify it as well.

I could say that the ability to drive a car is "encoded in my genes" because transportation of people and goods has a survival advantage. Or, I could say we invented driving because we already have the tools necessary to alter our environment (cognition) and transportation was an obvious benefit. In other words, we don't change to suit our surroundings, we change our surroundings to suit us.

It makes as much sense to me to say that English is encoded in my genes as it does to say the idea that murder is wrong is as well. The capacity/instinct for language may be, but the specifics of what emerges doesn't have to be.

I am typing on a keyboard and using the internet, not because any of that is the result of evolution, but because we invented these things to take advantage of what sort of creatures we are. Just dumping it on evolution opens the door for the religious to make the same claim - "God is obviously built into our genes, since the majority of humans for the majority of our history, have believed in God." Bogus reasoning.

 

[Pup]

That doesn't follow. It doesn't follow because we are not just subject to our environment, but can modify it as well.

I could say that the ability to drive a car is "encoded in my genes" because transportation of people and goods has a survival advantage. Or, I could say we invented driving because we already have the tools necessary to alter our environment (cognition) and transportation was an obvious benefit. In other words, we don't change to suit our surroundings, we change our surroundings to suit us.

It makes as much sense to me to say that English is encoded in my genes as it does to say the idea that murder is wrong is as well. The capacity/instinct for language may be, but the specifics of what emerges doesn't have to be.

I am typing on a keyboard and using the internet, not because any of that is the result of evolution, but because we invented these things to take advantage of what sort of creatures we are. Just dumping it on evolution opens the door for the religious to make the same claim - "God is obviously built into our genes, since the majority of humans for the majority of our history, have believed in God." Bogus reasoning.

I think you're making it too specific. The examples I used were meant to be basic and broad, but even they might be overriden by other impulses, like a mass murder might be hailed as a hero if he was protecting the tribe from perceived outside enemies.

"Inventing things" is a human trait, not the specific things invented. Communicating with others is a human trait, not the specific language. A sense of morality is a human trait, but morals will only get encoded if they don't hurt survival, and humans can get convinced of a lot of oddball things.

I would absolutely argue that a belief in god(s) is built into our genes, but not which god(s). It's a dandy mixture of children's fear of disobeying parents, a need for most people in a society to feel like followers and obey a leader, a search for explanations and agency (why does the volcano erupt at certain times? We did something to make the volcano god mad). It's a perfect storm of useful traits.

But of course that undercuts a religious person's argument that his god is the right one or that there really is a god outside human imagination.

 

[epeeist]

Belief that there is an objective morality is not necessarily theistic; while my approach to natural law/reason is from a Catholic perspective, there are others, or more formal rule systems like Kantian ethics.

That is, I agree an atheist may be a good moral person (or a theist not such), but I would tend to ascribe their conscience as being bestowed by the God in whom they don't believe... Even a sociopath knows at least some things that are right and wrong even if they don't care or feel guilt. But for purposes of analysis, argument and persuasion, I do think that there can be and are appeals to objective morality divorced from religious belief. I recall reading an article about bioethics some time ago in which the author (a Catholic) discussed giving a talk at a religious conference and referring to natural law arguments for certain things, while his fellow presenters tended to focus on what the Bible said; he pointed out that appeals to the text of Scripture which someone doesn't believe in isn't going to persuade them to do or not do something...

 

[marplots]

"Inventing things" is a human trait, not the specific things invented. Communicating with others is a human trait, not the specific language. A sense of morality is a human trait, but morals will only get encoded if they don't hurt survival, and humans can get convinced of a lot of oddball things.

I would absolutely argue that a belief in god(s) is built into our genes, but not which god(s). It's a dandy mixture of children's fear of disobeying parents, a need for most people in a society to feel like followers and obey a leader, a search for explanations and agency (why does the volcano erupt at certain times? We did something to make the volcano god mad). It's a perfect storm of useful traits.

But of course that undercuts a religious person's argument that his god is the right one or that there really is a god outside human imagination.

I agree that our propensity for certain modes of thinking could be genetic. I'd even assume that, like language, it may have a tie to evolution as a survival advantage. My problem - and it's a huge problem - is how I might go about proving it.

For morals, one way might be to find someone without morals (a psychopath?) and find some genetic difference - a diagnostic difference. Alternatively, a twin study showing psychopathy is inherited.

A parallel might be how to prove vision is both an inherited trait and subject to evolutionary pressure. We can all see the advantages of sight, but the type of sight we have has to be separated out into the elements that are advantageous and those that are just contingent. But it's easier for vision, since we have plenty of animal models to compare ourselves too. Not so much for what I usually think of as moral behaviors.

There's another idea that might pan out. If I think of morals, not in the sense of my conscience guiding me, but strictly as an observable behavior (leaving the internal "story" as a black box), I don't see why it couldn't be handled like other behaviors in ethology. That gives a whole range of animal models to look at and changes morality from a primary to a secondary attribute.

What I mean is - I can "explain" why I'm off to bed as a narrative from a personal perspective: "I'm tired and I need to get up refreshed tomorrow to go to work." Or, I can just watch some population and see how often they sleep and for how long. The same behavior can be approached from outside or from inside. Morals might work well that way too.

In the strongest sense, I might claim that our sense of moral guidance is just an add-on rationalization of some more primal urge, something we can spot without the inner dialogue. It would be up to the moralist to explain why this doesn't work, and why I can't describe what they call morally driven behavior in the same way I describe an animal's behavior. That's the way to go if it can be done.

 

[theprestige]

Dunno if this has already been posted, but I always thought the appeal of objective morality is that it allows people to justify their actions as being mandated by the highest possible authority. With merely subjective morality, a person's actions are justified by nothing more than their own opinions, which have no more weight or value than anyone else's.





What amuses me are people who insist that there is no such thing as objective morality, and also insist that their moral code is objectively superior to everyone else's.

 

[Craig24]

And how does one objectively determine that something is wrong?

Do the results of an action make a difference to the life and welfare of a person? Does it matter if you live or die, prosper of suffer?

 

[tsig]

Whoa! Hedonism is a term with even heavier baggage than I first thought! Ayn Rand for real? None for me, thanks.

How about "enlightened self-interest"? Maybe enlightened is redundant. Nah, hedonism sounds sexier. But Rand is on her own.

According to Rand and phwim rational beings cast aside moral considerations and act only in their own self interest like the heroes in Atlas Shrugged.

(I'm glad someone else picked up in the Rand reference it explains a lot.)