Detonating a stick of dynamite may cause differing amount of damage depending on where it is located. In some situations, such as in the mining industry, detonating a stick of dynamite may even be beneficial.
This does not make the damage from detonating a stick of dynamite subjective. It only makes it situation dependent.
What's the distinction there?
The distinction is that "
the exact same thing that causes one person to suffer may benefit or even please another" is analogous to "
the exact same stick of dynamite may cause great damage when detonated in one situation but may be beneficial when detonated in another".
The fact that the consequence of an action may very depending on circumstance does not make these consequences subjective. Just that the same action can produce greatly different
objective outcomes in slightly different circumstances.
The damage is objective fact- the dynamite killed six miners, the dynamite cracked 200 tons of rock. What that means- the "good" or "bad" of it- depends on who is considering the damage. To the widows of the miners, the explosion was "bad". To the mine owner, who suddenly had a rich new vein of ore exposed, it might be "good"- even considering the deaths.
This doesn't make the damage or consequences subjective. The callous mine owner is measuring the financial effects of the explosion while the miners are measuring the health effects of the explosion.
The fact that the explosion is financially beneficial to the mine owner is an objective fact regardless of who does the measuring. The fact that the explosion was harmful to the health and wellbeing of the miners is also an objective fact regardless of who does the measuring.
"Subjective" means "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought" -and ideas like "right" and "wrong", "good" or "bad" exist nowhere else.
Ideas like "right", "wrong", "good" and "bad" are fuzzy and ill-defined. They are subjective because they have been given no objective definition. You'll notice that I haven't been using them in this discussion for exactly that reason.
You could define "good" as beneficial and "bad" as harmful, in which case in the mine example the explosion was objectively good for the mine owner's finances and objectively bad for the miners' health and well being.
So "good" and "bad" are only subjective when the exact meaning and application of these words are not precisely defined. A lot like "morality".
Irrelevant- we understand the "mind" = "brain activity". What you need to find is "good" or "bad" outside a brain.
Easily done. Where "good" is used to mean something with beneficial effect, adequate sunlight is good for the health of a tree while prolonged inadequate or excessive sunlight is bad for a tree. Now we have something that is "good" or "bad" in an entirely objective fashion that exists
outside a brain.
Yes, there is- because "the harm or suffering of others" is still entirely dependant on an observer- the one experiencing the harm and/or suffering. "Suffering" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and the exact same thing that causes one person to suffer may benefit or even please another.
No, not at all. Contrariwise, your "brain scan" is instead evidence that it is subjective. The reaction you are measuring in in the "mind", the brain- and occurs nowhere else.
The brain functions through physical interactions. The fact that these interactions are occurring is an objective fact. Perhaps your confusing the subject with the observer?
Objective is something that exists independently of the mind of the observer. The person being brain-scanned is the subject, not the observer, and the pain processes occurring in the subject's brain exist independently of the observer's mind, therefore the fact that the subject is experiencing pain is an objective fact, not a subjective one.
That is a subjective judgement right there. We may be able to objectively measure how well a standard is being met once it is set, but it doesn't make the standard itself objective.
We can set a standard arbitrarily, but that does not make an arbitrary standard subjective.
For example, if you are the only thing on an infinite featureless plain how do you measure your location? Distance may be objective, but if you have no reference (or "standard") to apply for measuring distance, you cannot have an objectively defined location, your position on the plain, whether "near", "far" or "100 miles north-east" is entirely subjective.
But let's say you make a mark. Make the mark anywhere you want, on a whimsy if you please. Suddenly you do have an objectively defined location, your position relative to the mark. The position of the mark may be entirely arbitrary, but it is also entirely objective.
Defining morality may be entirely arbitrary, as with placing a mark on an infinite featureless plain, but an arbitrary definition can also be objective.
Height exist independently of the observer. No matter how one arbitrarily choses to measure it, how far one has to travel to get from the same "point A" on the mountain to get to the same "point B" does not change from person to person. In order for this to be an accurate anaolgy to morality, you need to measure which one is "better".
Deciding on which standard to use to measure morality is like deciding on which standard to use to measure the height of a mountain.
No, it isnt. "Height" is objective, "better" is not.
"Better" is an objective term when the application of the word is made clear.
For example, a Mini is better than a SUV in terms of fuel efficiency. This is an objective fact. Another example, a SUV is better than a Mini in terms of pulling power. This is also an objective fact.
But if you simply ask someone which is the better car, a Mini or a SUV, then the question becomes subjective because you haven't provided any objective definition of what "better" means.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up the term "better" for because I haven't been using it to define morality, but the point I'm making for the word "better" also applies for the word "moral".
If you simply ask someone which is the moral course of action the question is subjective because you haven't provided an objective definition of what "moral" means.
But once you settle on an objective definition for "moral" then the question of which course of action is the moral one is no longer subjective, it's now objective.
I'm attempting to use acting in a manner intended to minimize harm or suffering as a reference point with which to measure morality.
It doesn't matter what rhetorical tricks you perform after this- we're already in the realm of the subjective. Nothing outside human brains or human experience indicates this is "morality".
Well, I've been trying to define "morality" for long enough. Now it's your turn.
You say there is nothing to indicate that this is "morality". So tell me, how do you know that? How can you possibly claim that there is no indication that this is "morality", unless you have some method by which to recognize such an indication if it existed?
So tell me, what method are you using to check for indications of whether or not my definition is "morality"? Or is this just empty blustering?
You're trying to equivocate between standards that describe objective qualities and standards the prescribe subjective qualities.
Um, how can you have a standard that
prescribes a
subjective quality? The only way would to have a standard that is itself comprised of subjective values, and such a standard would be meaningless. If the standard is comprised only of objective values, then the prescribed quality is by definition an objective one.
I think you're getting confused between standards that
describe objective qualities and standards that
prescribe objective qualities.
For example, units of distance such as feet or meters are standards that describe the objective quality of distance.
You would agree that a height of a mountain is objective, right? After all, a mountain's height is measured by the objective quality of distance. But distance from
what? It's necessary to
prescribe a point from which to measure.
Whether or not you use distance from sea level for the standard, or distance from the center of the earth as your standard, this is a
prescriptive standard, not a descriptive one, and the question of which is the highest mountain in the world hinges on which standard for measuring the height of a mountain you choose.
So a prescriptive standard can be an objective standard. Unless of course you wish to claim that the height of a mountain is a subjective quality?
The fact that your simplistic standard "acting in a manner intended to minimize harm or suffering" isn't used by any culture, anywhere, as a standard of morality should give you a hint which it is.
Okay, let's use a common standard that's been used by a variety of cultures throughout history. How about "The Golden Rule", variations of which were used by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, and was later incorporated into the Christian Bible.
Two common variations of The Golden Rule are:
1. Act towards others as you would have them act towards you.
2. Do not act towards others as you would not have them act towards you.
But this is a subjective standard, as it depends on the observer's own desires for how he wishes others to act toward him. So if we're looking for an objective standard of morality, we have to separate the standard from the observer. To do this, we can simply substitute a hypothetical rational agent instead.
So two objective variations of The Golden Rule are:
1. Act towards others as a rational agent would have others act towards him.
2. Do not act towards others as a rational agent would not have them act towards him.
But can we clarify this further by specifying what kind of behavior a rational agent would wish from others? Well, a rational agent wouldn't want others to cause him harm or suffering. In fact, he'd want the reverse.
So, two clarified objective variations of The Golden Rule are:
1. Act towards others in a manner that minimizes harm or suffering.
2. Do not act towards others in a manner that increases harm or suffering.
You argue that my simplistic standard is not used by any culture anywhere. But what I've actually done is take a simplistic standard used by many cultures around the world and refined it.
Because not everybody chooses to always act in a moral manner.
Why don't they, if the objectively understand what they do is wrong.
I'm not going to go into reasons why people choose to act in a manner they believe to be morally wrong. That's a topic which deserves it's own separate thread.
But it seems pretty obvious that people do act in a way they believe is wrong. Could a teenager who steals a car to go joyriding and then sets it on fire at the end of the night actually believe he is doing the right thing? It's possible, but extremely unlikely.
As for disagreements as to what does or does not constitute moral action, not everybody uses the same standards for their basis of morality.
Why not?
Because no precise standard of morality has ever been universally accepted.
And before you ask "Why not?" to that reply, it's because attempts so decide upon a precise standard of morality become bogged down in endless arguments like this one.
