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".
Right. Because what is "beneficial" is
also subjective. Only humans care about outcomes. The universe doesn't care if a bunch of rocks get shifted.
But this fails to explain what the difference is between "subjective" and "situation dependent".
The fact that the consequence of an action may very depending on circumstance does not make these consequences subjective.
No, the fact that humans are making different value judgements on those consequences is what makes them subjective. Obscuring the human element or failing to explicitly mention it doesn't make it go away.
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.
Right, they are making judgements about the value of the consequences that differ depending on the observer. "Subjective" by definition.
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.
I see what you're trying to get at. That's moved the discussion to a different frame of reference, a different observer. This new observer is no longer considering the exposion itself, he is now considering the mine owner and/or the miners, and the judgement becomes whether the benefit/suffering that occured to those others is "good" or "bad" to the observer.
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.
That's problematic for you then, because the definition of "morality" circles around them.
You could define "good" as beneficial and "bad" as harmful,
Which is a subjective judgment.
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.
No, they are "good" and "bad" only to those using that judgment.
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.
No, we don't. We have an example that depends on "the health of the tree" being valuable. Who values the health of the tree? Does the tree? Does the Universe? Does god?
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?
No, you're just jumping frames of reference again.
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.
Right, but up to this point, no moral judgement has been made about the pain. Does the scan show wether the pain is "good" or "bad"?
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.
Because it is something that exists in the pysical world Anyone that comes along is going to see the mark. It doesn't work that way with definitions or value judgements.
And any measure of distance made from that mark is dependent on the mark.
Defining morality may be entirely arbitrary, as with placing a mark on an infinite featureless plain, but an arbitrary definition can also be objective.
No, it can't because defintions do not exist independent of a human mind either. No, not even printed in a dictionary, because they have to be read and accepted by the reader to be a "defintion".
"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.
You've just shifted frame of reference again, you haven't eliminated the human value judgment, you've just obscured it.
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.
There isn't one.
Well, I've been trying to define "morality" for long enough. Now it's your turn.
I did, a long time ago.
"
Conformity to the rules of right conduct" - the pisser is defining what is "right conduct" objectively.
You say there is nothing to indicate that this is "morality".
No, I don't. I said there is nothing to show this morality is "objective". "Morality", for everyone, is whatever what they say it is.
So tell me, what method are you using to check for indications of whether or not my definition is "morality"?
It is, for you, because you say it is. What method are
you using to check that your defenition is independent of a human mind?
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.
Why would it be meaningless? "Broccoli sucks" is a standard composed only of the value "I don't like broccoli", but it still has meaning.
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.
I think you just don't have a coherent definition of "objective". Why don't you try defining it?
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 haven't gotten rid of dependence on an observer, you're just going through a lot of effort to obscure it.
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.
Show me the laws codifying this "golden rule", in any form. It is nothing more than a statement of intent, a sort of wishful thinking. It isn't how humans actually behave in any consistent manner.
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?
Yes, if they value their own "fun" over the property rights of others. Happens all the time.
Because no precise standard of morality has ever been universally accepted.
Q.E.D.
But seriously, this discussion is never going to go anywhere until you offer your definition of "objective".
