There is no "ought"

[Cavemonster]

Assume that I'm Jeffrey Dahmer. How would you convince me, in the absence of an objective moral truth, that I should behave differently?

Because acting that way didn't work out very well for Jeffrey Dahmer. He was beaten to death at the age of 34 in prison.

 

[westprog]

Doesn't follow. If you experience suffering that proves that slamming your hand causes you to experience suffering, nothing more.

It does prove something more. It proves that suffering is real, for one thing, and morality springs from that.

...

Nonsense. This is the kind of stuff that comes straight out of a religious man’s handbook. A call for reason has never, in the history of mankind, resulted in the downfall of society, despite this being predicted every time there is an advancement in the general way of thinking.

Not believing in God doesn't cause people to murder each other. Not believing in some universal moral code doesn't cause people to murder each other. Quite the opposite: Those who are capable of thinking for themselves tend to be far more lawful, simply because they understand the consequences of their actions and are more rational about them.

And the last line there sounds suspiciously like “But in their hearts, I believe that Atheists still know and love God!” Nonsense.

Yes, it's possible to substitute words and produce something that sounds similar, but means something different. You could also try "In their hearts, I'm quite sure that most Christians don't really believe all that stuff" which is also a common JREF meme.

The reason I have for believing that it's largely lip service to the idea that morality is purely subjective is that outside of this kind of discussion, it doesn't actually effect what people think or do. Switch to a discussion on drunk driving or the Iraq war, and the same people who deny objective morality will take it as a given in ordinary conversation.

If I were given the option, I’d rather not be human, thank you very much. Honestly, I don’t get where this “humans are pure and good and anyone who hurts people is not a real human but a monster!” idea comes from.

Clearly people are very adept at getting around moral restrictions. It's quite conceivable that the moral systems designed by religion, morality and ethnic groups are there to allow simple moral truths to be circumvented.

That's what the law is for. Any rational person will understand that, even in the absence of moral rules, killing random people is not a good idea.

It's a bad idea... because. Absent objective morality, it's a bad idea because it leads to bad consequences. The obvious implication is that if the bad consequences can be avoided, then there is no reason not to kill random people.

Besides which, just because you don't believe in something as silly as absolute moral truth, that doesn't prevent you from having a sense of empathy, or simply realising that hurting people isn't nice.

Er... actually, if you don't believe in objective morality, that is equivalent to not accepting that hurting people isn't nice. Indeed, the concept of objective morality pretty well springs from the concept that hurting people actually matters, and the reason it isn't nice to hurt other people is because it feels bad to be hurt.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A common topic of discussion here are questions of morality...

Ron did this earlier: He tied himself in knots trying to engage with philosophical positions he simply didn't understand, got frustrated, and tried to reboot the whole discussion by running away and starting a new thread.

You guys are philosophical cranks: you believe that you've come up with a new and important insight nobody has ever had before, and you just don't want to believe that your "insight" has not been news since the 1700s.

Nothing you are saying is new and there is over 200 years of scholarship on this exact issue.

Mind you, we need some new philosophy cranks. Since UndercoverElephant and Interesting_Ian left these forums we've been without good-quality crankery.

 

[Cavemonster]

Ron did this earlier: He tied himself in knots trying to engage with philosophical positions he simply didn't understand, got frustrated, and tried to reboot the whole discussion by running away and starting a new thread.

You guys are philosophical cranks: you believe that you've come up with a new and important insight nobody has ever had before, and you just don't want to believe that your "insight" has not been news since the 1700s.

Nothing you are saying is new and there is over 200 years of scholarship on this exact issue.

Mind you, we need some new philosophy cranks. Since UndercoverElephant and Interesting_Ian left these forums we've been without good-quality crankery.

Wrong on every count.
1) This thread is older than Ron's morality thread.
2) You're the one who has showed time and time again that you could not communicate or read clearly in the other thread.
3) I don't believe I've invented anything. I've arrived at moral anti-realism which is a rich and well explored area of philosophy. I don't know why you would assume I think I've invented anything.
4) Nothing new for 200 years? Some of the most interesting moral philosophy dates from the 20th century, moral error theory, moral noncognitivism, and even your Peter Singer's particular reconciliation of utilitarianism and animal rights (which I happen to disagree with strongly).
5) You have not refuted or addressed any of my points, as usual.

You should write Randi a letter, telling him how stupid he is to think he invented skepticism, because that would be exactly as rooted in reality as your attempt at an attack here.

I can't imagine you being more wrong and lacking in substance if you were trying.

 

[westprog]

Because acting that way didn't work out very well for Jeffrey Dahmer. He was beaten to death at the age of 34 in prison.

IOW, do what you like but don't get caught?

 

[Mirrorglass]

IOW, do what you like but don't get caught?

Assuming you don't care at all about other people, and also don't need them, then yeah, that's a pretty reasonable plan.

 

[westprog]

You've hit the nail on the head! It hardly seems like it would have no societal consequences! We don't need a moral code because we can understand practical consequences.

People who say that without god or objective morality, we would act horribly are fundamentally contradicting themselves.

If the society created by acting that way is one that we really want to avoid, one that is markedly less pleasant for most of us to live in, then POOF! We have a rational reason to avoid making the decisions that would create such a society! If the outcome is really so horrible, then we don't need a moral code to decide against it, self interest will do.

Yes, there is self interest in having a society where everybody else behaves as if objective morality were true. However, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily benefit from behaving in a moral way - simply that I will benefit if everyone else does.

Incidentally, this is also an argument for teaching people that objective morality is true whether it is or not.

 

[Cavemonster]

IOW, do what you like but don't get caught?

I can only make my own behavioral decisions.
The system I prescribe isn't a prescription as to how people "should" act, but a description as to why acting in certain ways commonly considered immoral is against the best interest of the individual.

If an individual wants to break that code, no amount of moral philosophy on my part can change that, any more than my moral philosophy can contain a man eating tiger.

Now you could argue that aside from the system maintaining my own well being, I would be well served to promote a universal concept of objective morality in the hopes that it would contain those sociopaths who have no sympathy and believe they can get away with heinous acts, but we have such a system now, and it didn't stop Dahmer, again any more than it would stop a tiger. I prefer to instead put my energy into the social contract of the state and law enforcement as an extension of my ability to protect my interests. It was law enforcement that caught and stopped Dahmer and almost every other serial killer.

Now you might argue that there are a great number of sociopaths out there who both have no empathy and believe they can't be caught who are only being held in check by an abstract notion of objective moral good. But that's a positive claim, and would need to be proven. Even if true it would have to be weighed against the negative consequences of a notion of objective good, such as the murder of abortion doctors and Islamic stonings for adultery.

 

[Sophronius]

It does prove something more. It proves that suffering is real, for one thing, and morality springs from that.

Yes, subjective morality stems, among other things, from experiencing suffering. (as well as the inability to tell yourself apart from other people).

Nobody disagrees on that point. However, you seem to think that "therefore, there is such a thing as objective moral truth" automatically follows. It doesn't.

Edit: Or if you don't believe in objective moral truth, then what IS your point?

The reason I have for believing that it's largely lip service to the idea that morality is purely subjective is that outside of this kind of discussion, it doesn't actually effect what people think or do. Switch to a discussion on drunk driving or the Iraq war, and the same people who deny objective morality will take it as a given in ordinary conversation.

There are some people like that, yes. However, simply because people are emotional by nature and this inevitably influences their judgement on many issues, doesn't mean that they believe in objective morality.

Clearly people are very adept at getting around moral restrictions. It's quite conceivable that the moral systems designed by religion, morality and ethnic groups are there to allow simple moral truths to be circumvented.

What "simple moral truths"? There is no such thing. If you believe otherwise you'll have to first explain what objective moral truth is, and then provide evidence for this if you wish to convince us.

So far, all you have done is establish the existence of (the experience of) suffering. This is not sufficient.

Absent objective morality, it's a bad idea because it leads to bad consequences. The obvious implication is that if the bad consequences can be avoided, then there is no reason not to kill random people.

I disagree. Even though there is no such thing as objective morality, that doesn't mean that people only care about themselves. It simply doesn't follow. There is STILL such a thing as empathy. People still feel bad if they see other people in pain, whether they want to or not. This, among other things, prevents people from going on a killing spree even if there is no punishment.

And for those who don't feel empathy and who don't care about the others, well that's what the law is for, as I said. It's not like they would care for your "objective moral truth" anyway, even if it did exist.

Er... actually, if you don't believe in objective morality, that is equivalent to not accepting that hurting people isn't nice. Indeed, the concept of objective morality pretty well springs from the concept that hurting people actually matters, and the reason it isn't nice to hurt other people is because it feels bad to be hurt.

Nonsense. People who reject objective morality can still adhere to subjective morality. i.e. people who think that hurting people is not nice even though they do not think this is some inherent 'truth'.

And even if you threw out morality in its entirety, that still wouldn't eliminate empathy and emotion, as I mentioned before.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, there is self interest in having a society where everybody else behaves as if objective morality were true. However, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily benefit from behaving in a moral way - simply that I will benefit if everyone else does.

Incidentally, this is also an argument for teaching people that objective morality is true whether it is or not.

No, this assumes that the only way of reaching that pattern is to behave as if objective morality were true, when in fact ignoring the actual reasons for behavior is how we end up with people acting against everyone's best interest in the name of "moral truths"

See my last post addressing the idea that we would benefit by teaching people as if morality were objectively true.

I just want to make a note that I'm enjoying your contribution to this discussion, even though we disagree, I appreciate that you bring up very interesting points and present them much more civilly and intelligently than some on these issues.

 

[westprog]

Assuming you don't care at all about other people, and also don't need them, then yeah, that's a pretty reasonable plan.

Clearly Dahmer didn't care about other people, or at least less than he cared about what he wanted to do. If you need people, you should probably fool them into thinking you aren't going to kill them, but fooling them will do it.

The only way to convince a psychopath not to do something is to point out that he might suffer unpleasant consequences as a result. Societal harm is unlikely to sway him. He realises that the effect his actions will have on society as a whole will make no difference to him. He also will not care about the effect on other people.

That's the difference between a psychopath and an ordinary person - an ordinary person will recognise that harming another person is something that should not be done, for the same reason that one should not harm oneself - regardless of other consequences. Of course, ordinary people do harm other people, and come up with a range of excuses as to why it's ok.

 

[westprog]

I just want to make a note that I'm enjoying your contribution to this discussion, even though we disagree, I appreciate that you bring up very interesting points and present them much more civilly and intelligently than some on these issues.

Even though I implied that you were planning to kill and eat one of the other contributors? You are very gracious. I think it's possible to argue vigorously without being too unpleasant about it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Clearly Dahmer didn't care about other people, or at least less than he cared about what he wanted to do. If you need people, you should probably fool them into thinking you aren't going to kill them, but fooling them will do it.

Honestly, I find it a bad idea to assume I could fool every single person around me, including the law enforcement. But if I though I could, and didn't care about other people, and had an interest in killing them, then that's what I would do. Which is the point, really; there's no objective morality. For another being, murder may be perfectly moral. The only thing we, as a society, can do about it is make sure murder isn't beneficial.

The only way to convince a psychopath not to do something is to point out that he might suffer unpleasant consequences as a result. Societal harm is unlikely to sway him. He realises that the effect his actions will have on society as a whole will make no difference to him. He also will not care about the effect on other people.

That's the difference between a psychopath and an ordinary person - an ordinary person will recognise that harming another person is something that should not be done, for the same reason that one should not harm oneself - regardless of other consequences. Of course, ordinary people do harm other people, and come up with a range of excuses as to why it's ok.

Bolding mine.

What's your basis for this argument? I, for one, consider myself an ordinary person, but do not subscribe to that. I believe there are many situations where we should indeed harm other people. For example:

-A person assaults me or another person in a dark alley, and I see no way of protecting us without hurting the attacker
-A person has assaulted a person and is brought to trial. A prison sentence is, without a doubt, a form of violence, but is certainly the right thing to do here.

And how do you define "ordinary person" anyway? It seems to me you're just describing a person who accepts "it's always wrong to harm others, no matter what", and I don't think that's the usual definition.

ETA: I also don't believe there's any moral reason not to harm myself, if I decide to do so. Why would there be? I belong to me, and can do what I will with me.

 

[westprog]

I can only make my own behavioral decisions.
The system I prescribe isn't a prescription as to how people "should" act, but a description as to why acting in certain ways commonly considered immoral is against the best interest of the individual.

If an individual wants to break that code, no amount of moral philosophy on my part can change that, any more than my moral philosophy can contain a man eating tiger.

Now you could argue that aside from the system maintaining my own well being, I would be well served to promote a universal concept of objective morality in the hopes that it would contain those sociopaths who have no sympathy and believe they can get away with heinous acts, but we have such a system now, and it didn't stop Dahmer, again any more than it would stop a tiger. I prefer to instead put my energy into the social contract of the state and law enforcement as an extension of my ability to protect my interests. It was law enforcement that caught and stopped Dahmer and almost every other serial killer.

Now you might argue that there are a great number of sociopaths out there who both have no empathy and believe they can't be caught who are only being held in check by an abstract notion of objective moral good. But that's a positive claim, and would need to be proven. Even if true it would have to be weighed against the negative consequences of a notion of objective good, such as the murder of abortion doctors and Islamic stonings for adultery.

I agree that Dahmer, and psychopaths in general, don't follow a code of objective morality. That's what sets them apart from the rest of society. However, the law is not based on some arbitrary utilitarian principle - it's based on common agreement as to what objective morality is. Yes, it's possible to get the police to round up all the Jews, for example - but it's hard work to get them to that stage. Rounding up murderers is a natural thing for them.

This can be seen when people accused of a crime claim a defence of insanity. The question to be answered is "Did the accused know that what he was doing was wrong?". A defence that there is no such thing as objective morality would be interesting - I don't know if it's been attempted.

There are several things that will stop someone from doing something.

• They don't want to do it.
• They are frightened of what will happen if they do.
• They think it is wrong.

It seems at least plausible that removing one of the possible disincentives would have consequences.

Incidentally, talking about the "negative consequences" of certain actions in itself presupposes that there's a consensus that shooting doctors or stoning women is an objectively bad thing.

 

[Sophronius]

There are several things that will stop someone from doing something.

• They don't want to do it.
• They are frightened of what will happen if they do.
• They think it is wrong.

It seems at least plausible that removing one of the possible disincentives would have consequences.

Sure. Now here's an example of what could cause someone to do something "wrong":

*They think it is "right"

People who fly planes into twin towers think they're doing the right thing, same as we do. That's the whole issue. Pinning them down as psychopaths is only ignoring the issue.

Rationality is far more effective at creating a happy world than brainwashing.

Incidentally, talking about the "negative consequences" of certain actions in itself presupposes that there's a consensus that shooting doctors or stoning women is an objectively bad thing.

No. "negative consequences" means that the person who wrote that considers it to be negative. That is a huge leap from claiming that it is objectively a bad thing.

 

[Cavemonster]

I agree that Dahmer, and psychopaths in general, don't follow a code of objective morality. That's what sets them apart from the rest of society. However, the law is not based on some arbitrary utilitarian principle - it's based on common agreement as to what objective morality is. Yes, it's possible to get the police to round up all the Jews, for example - but it's hard work to get them to that stage. Rounding up murderers is a natural thing for them.

There's a lot to unpack here, and I owe this more time, but let me start with a few things.
Law based on objective morality, for more of history than not has condoned slavery, has condoned stoning for adultery and punishment for blasphemy. I am not a big fan of objective morality as a model for the law because there is no clear way to differentiate those morals from religious morals, and for most of history we haven't differentiated. I disagree that it is more difficult to get absurdities from a stance of objective morality. History disagrees. The spanish inquisition was sanctioned by the law, as are modern Islamic morality police. It is the idea of objective morality that allows these morality police to exist, and if you aren't familiar with the ugly stuff they've done in Iran, and Afghanistan, I suggest you look them up.

Modern US law however, I would be hard pressed to characterize as other than mostly utilitarian. Penalties are set as deterrents to behavior that harms the citizens. The citizens entrust the legal system with that power to protect their interests.

Incidentally, talking about the "negative consequences" of certain actions in itself presupposes that there's a consensus that shooting doctors or stoning women is an objectively bad thing.

If I use the term negative consequences, I'm condensing for brevity. I find these consequences undesirable for a number of personal and practical reasons. Some societies might not. Generally, when a society permits murder as a punishment they do two detrimental things. First they put themselves at risk as well as their loved ones of running afoul of this law. Secondly, they strongly curtail their own and their neighbors freedom to act.

Abortion is good for communities in terms of wealth, education and a number of factors that contribute to well being. Discouraging it so strongly is harmful to the individuals in those communities in those ways. It is against their self interest.

So I can't say that those actions are objectively bad, but I can say that for the majority of individuals involved, the unpleasant impact is likely to outweigh the benefits.

The absurdities I mention further above, I find silly because they use objective morality to take actions that make the lives of a large group of people less pleasant and don't really benefit any other group much either. i prefer for that precedent not to be followed, lest I end up on the wrong end of the stick.

 

[westprog]

What's your basis for this argument? I, for one, consider myself an ordinary person, but do not subscribe to that. I believe there are many situations where we should indeed harm other people. For example:

-A person assaults me or another person in a dark alley, and I see no way of protecting us without hurting the attacker
-A person has assaulted a person and is brought to trial. A prison sentence is, without a doubt, a form of violence, but is certainly the right thing to do here.

And how do you define "ordinary person" anyway? It seems to me you're just describing a person who accepts "it's always wrong to harm others, no matter what", and I don't think that's the usual definition.

ETA: I also don't believe there's any moral reason not to harm myself, if I decide to do so. Why would there be? I belong to me, and can do what I will with me.

That's a reasonable point. Clearly a lot of ordinary people do regard harm to other people as acceptable under certain circumstances. What are those circumstances?

In general, it's to avoid maximising harm. In the case of self-defence, there's the feeling that in order to prevent harm to other people, a degree of harm can be inflicted so that suffering can be minimised.

There's also the feeling of justice. If someone is setting out to not consider the harm he might cause to someone else, then it seems fair that he should suffer harm himself - even if this doesn't minimise the total suffering. (Handing over the wallet would be the minimal suffering solution - punching the guy would only be permissable if we think that he had it coming for some reason.

There are also many possible ways to extend the view of what is right and wrong. There might be people who would say that if someone wears purple on a Thursday, he should be put to death for offending Shabaz. That's certainly a danger of accepting objective morality. However, under relative morality, it's possible to send twenty million people to a Gulag as class enemies. There are no guarantees.

 

[westprog]

Sure. Now here's an example of what could cause someone to do something "wrong":

*They think it is "right"

People who fly planes into twin towers think they're doing the right thing, same as we do. That's the whole issue. Pinning them down as psychopaths is only ignoring the issue.

Rationality is far more effective at creating a happy world than brainwashing.

I didn't claim that people who commit suicide to harm others are psychopaths. (Though in some cases they may be so). Often, it's because they've overridden the simple moral code, in which killing people is wrong, with another, where killing is acceptable to achieve some end.

People who derive their moral code from a belief that harm to others is a bad thing are less likely, IMO, to act wickedly than someone who believes that some ulterior aim can justify actions that cause someone to suffer.

 

[Mirrorglass]

That's a reasonable point. Clearly a lot of ordinary people do regard harm to other people as acceptable under certain circumstances. What are those circumstances?

In general, it's to avoid maximising harm. In the case of self-defence, there's the feeling that in order to prevent harm to other people, a degree of harm can be inflicted so that suffering can be minimised.

There's also the feeling of justice. If someone is setting out to not consider the harm he might cause to someone else, then it seems fair that he should suffer harm himself - even if this doesn't minimise the total suffering. (Handing over the wallet would be the minimal suffering solution - punching the guy would only be permissable if we think that he had it coming for some reason.

You are missing something important. In my view, punishing a criminal (be that by jail sentence or a punch to the nose) isn't about "justice" or him "deserving it". I don't care about such things. What's important is incentive. It's important to set a precedent: if you try to rob people, you get punched and/or go to jail. That way, you'll have much less incentive to try it, and the overall suffering is minimized. Thus, by systematically beating up muggers, we can actually lessen the amount of mugging taking place.

The mistake you're making is viewing the situation in isolation. Giving up your wallet may minimize the suffering for that particular moment, but it will also make the mugger more likely to continue his crimes. By giving up the wallet, you're essentially contributing to the mugging of his next victim. As such, giving the wallet up isn't a moral decision; it's simply a way of keeping your own hands clean. That's the problem with "objective moral rules" such as "it's wrong to hurt people;" too often the rules are applied to isolated situations without thinking about the overall consequences - which are, in the end, the only thing that matters.

There are also many possible ways to extend the view of what is right and wrong. There might be people who would say that if someone wears purple on a Thursday, he should be put to death for offending Shabaz. That's certainly a danger of accepting objective morality. However, under relative morality, it's possible to send twenty million people to a Gulag as class enemies. There are no guarantees.

Of course there aren't any guarantees. Any moral system can turn out to be ineffective or harmful. Which, of course, is precisely the reason why moral systems should be open to scrutiny and change.

Your point seems to be that a relative view on morality is somehow more dangerous than an objective one. I find this baseless, however. It's not like more atrocities have been committed in the name of moral relativism, and most criminals don't subscribe to the idea of moral relativism, or even understand it. Sure, you could theoretically have a moral relativist who murders people indiscriminately. Can you point to one, though?

Anyway, the point of the thread isn't really whether or not objective morality is a good thing, but whether or not it exists. Can you give me a set of moral rules that is objective, and explain why those rules apply in all situations and all people?

(Also note that "objective morals" doesn't mean "morals accepted by the majority of people" but "morals independent of people and their opinions". Basically, you can't base an objective moral code on opinions, or even outcomes; it has to be based on natural laws or irrefutable logic.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I'm saying IF you want a logical discussion, you OUGHT not use those terms in isolation. The thought is not complete without the IF filled in.

I'm saying that it isn't productive to talk about right and wrong unless you include what ideal condition that thing is right or wrong FOR.

I totally agree with this. This is what I've said in the discussions on morals. If you identify the criteria by which you want to measure something (ought vs ought not) then one can empirically look at moral choices, beauty measures and anything else people mistakenly imagine we 'just know'. You don't 'just know'. Your brain has those identified criteria embedded and you make the determination without conscious awareness of the criteria you used to decide by. But the criteria do indeed exist or else no one would know ought or ought not any more than 'science' knows it.