Morality: Objective vs. Subjective

[fragglerocks]

We have have very lengthy discussions on the debate board about the issue of morality, and whether people think it can be objective or entirely subjective...So what do you think?

[ivan17]

Nice topic.
I think that nowadays morality is subjective, but I think that morality should become objective.
Even though morality is part of etiquette (Bon-Ton), morality is still subjective.

[fragglerocks]

I don't believe there is an absolute and objective set of morals because that poses a conflict. Say a human with a gun and a hungry mountain lion cross paths. Who would have more of a right to live? Morally, neither one is wrong for wanting to survive this encounter. Objectively, both deserve the fundamental right to live a full life.

[Nekowolf]

Well I've already went at great lengths on this one. If you really want me to recite my views on it, I will, but otherwise, I'd prefer not to.

I'll just say: mostly subjective.

[fragglerocks]

Well I've already went at great lengths on this one. If you really want me to recite my views on it, I will, but otherwise, I'd prefer not to.

I'll just say: mostly subjective.

I completely understand, but you did give everyone some great food for thought already, so I thank you.

And if you really get irked by something someone says on this thread, I give you my full permission as OP to copy and paste all you want from your posts on the other thread. :) :up:

[grumpy_otter]

I waffled. I think morality SHOULD be objective, but I think it is usually practiced in a subjective way.

[Doddibot]

Morality is subjective.

We can objectively say that the majority of people feel some act is wrong, or that some act pleases me. But we have only subjective preference to say that people shouldn't do something I feel is wrong, or that I should act in a way that pleases me.

Moral understandings are, objectively, based on social conditioning and emotions/instinct. But we still need something subjective to tell us if we should follow those emotions or social expectations.

[please_dont_crash_my_game]

Subjective, by definition. Essentially, if you follow a moral code, it's based upon the person / people / group who wrote it and their opinions.

[Oaktree]

I suppose I should have started a different thread a while back. Sorry about that. :D

I've already talked at length about my view on the matter, so I think I'll start here by responding to others.

But to say there is objective morality, would be to say that morality would exist even without humans around. Self preservation is a natural instinct, and it never changes. It just can't be compared to morality which is always changing because we learn and adapt. Societies change their views, and moral behavior varies widely. If being immoral is harming life, then humans take the cake on that. Should we not even be here then?

There are other animals that exhibit ethical behavior. I recently did a project on this in my animal biology class, looking at ethical behavior in primates. One example: Olive baboons will team up with a partner when they get into a confrontation with a rival. They will even do this when one is fighting for a mate, as the female baboon will only mate with the one that started the confrontation, meaning there is no immediate benefit to the recruited other. At a later time, the one who is recruited will recruit the other for it's own confrontation. It's altruism with a bit of what humans would call "honor".

My point in the other thread was that objective morality is that which is best for the survival and social continuity of a species. I think that every species, no matter how alien, would need to have laws against random killing because that is detrimental to the survival of the species. My point was that we haven't always known what some of the proper moral stances were in the past, so things weren't so wonderful. We managed to survive, but our survival and quality of life were not optimum.


I think that nowadays morality is subjective, but I think that morality should become objective.

Moral sentiment leans toward subjectivity now, but there is no way to prove that morality actually is subjective. A friend of mine has been telling me about a discussion that he and one of his friends had held. His friend was a relativist. The friend wasn't even able to assert that the two of them were in fact having an argument, because subjectivity means that nothing is fact.

I don't believe there is an absolute and objective set of morals because that poses a conflict. Say a human with a gun and a hungry mountain lion cross paths. Who would have more of a right to live? Morally, neither one is wrong for wanting to survive this encounter. Objectively, both deserve the fundamental right to live a full life.

In a conflict of two lives, both participants would be required to do something that is wrong (taking a life), but it would be the lesser of two evils in each case because the alternative is to simply allow oneself to die. Basically, each of them would be required to fight for his life and it would be equally correct for either to win. This example precludes the ability for one participant to get away or for the human to incapacitate the mountain lion, but those are understandably difficult options that may not be possible at all.

This case also does not apply to one who initiates the conflict for non-essential reasons. If one is attacked by a would-be murderer, the better option is for the victim to survive the attack because the murder would be infringing on the rights of the victim without a dire need to. The victim may not always survive the attack because he may be less able than the murderer, but the best result, regardless, would be for the victim to survive.


Moral understandings are, objectively, based on social conditioning and emotions/instinct. But we still need something subjective to tell us if we should follow those emotions or social expectations.

This is a flaw in human perception. We don't know everything there is to be known about nature out of hand, so we need to rely on ideas of others building upon each other. There are still certain ideas that are clearly preferred due to having better logic, which makes them more universally accessible.

[jooxis]

My point in the other thread was that objective morality is that which is best for the survival and social continuity of a species.

I don't get what you mean by this. If I kill someone who has AIDS I probably did something good for the survival of the species. In fact, if I kill everyone with AIDS I'd be a hero then. Is that moral?
Even if I kill a random person who doesn't want kids, I have in no way threatened the survival of the species.

[fakepeeps7]

I think that nowadays morality is subjective, but I think that morality should become objective.

I don't see how morality can become objective, if it isn't already.

I think what you're trying to say is that you think everyone should start believing morality is objective, and act accordingly. That's not quite the same thing.

[Nekowolf]

I don't see how morality can become objective, if it isn't already.

I think what you're trying to say is that you think everyone should start believing morality is objective, and act accordingly. That's not quite the same thing.
Exactly. The only way for morality to be objective is if something above humans (yes, a deity) assigns these morals onto humanity; but for this to happen and still be objective, even that being would have to be purely logical. And that is just not possible, it would either A. be far to contradictory, or B. be really really bad (such as the killing people with AIDS).

[Oaktree]

I don't get what you mean by this. If I kill someone who has AIDS I probably did something good for the survival of the species. In fact, if I kill everyone with AIDS I'd be a hero then. Is that moral?
Even if I kill a random person who doesn't want kids, I have in no way threatened the survival of the species.

I included social continuity in that statement. Compassion and individual rights are important for the social continuity of humanity. Without individual rights, people could be oppressed in the name of the good of the many. The good of the many must be based on the good of the few, though (I'm starting to sound like I'm quoting Star Trek now :P), because if everyone is miserable, even if everyone is made miserable doing something that is supposed to make life better, you still have a situation where everyone is miserable.

Killing people because they have an illness is also not necessarily the best possibility. We are able to contain the spread of most diseases and a person can still be a useful member of society so long as they still have a functioning mind. A person with AIDS can do what is necessary to avoid spreading it (basically, avoid sex and sharing needles) and still work and add to the good of society.

Having children is not the only way to increase the survival ability of the species. In fact, when some people don't have children, but put their efforts into making living conditions better for themselves and others, there is less intraspecies competition over resources and a person is giving back more than they're taking. It is actually ideal for there to be a certain percentage of the population that is not having children.

[Mistermook]

That's still not an objective morality, since we could certainly walk down roads of thought where "compassion" could be outlined in different ways and people's "rights" could detailed in any manner of subjective fashions. I'm a firm believer in what works best for the most people most of the time too, but everyone thinks they're doing the right thing and thinking the right way on some level even if they're a psychopathic anarchist.
This is a flaw in human perception. We don't know everything there is to be known about nature out of hand, so we need to rely on ideas of others building upon each other. There are still certain ideas that are clearly preferred due to having better logic, which makes them more universally accessible.
Everything is flawed by human perception. Nothing can escape the lens of human perception - not our logic, not our emotions. Whatever we do we do it in our meat, and even if we did it some other, vastly alien, way - a hive mind, computerized intelligence, talking dogs - we'd still be filtering everything from A. a single reference point (even if that reference point were a grouping) and B. our sense of self. We can't even construct thinking objects to properly pursue objectivity, such an exercise would be futile because we'd construct them with our own limitations. The most objective facts of the universe, "that thing is" is tempered by our definitions and perceptions.

But it's all pretty much useless stuff, wading around arguments looking for objectivity. We're not objective animals. Things happen to us and things matter to us. We interact. I disagree that there is such a thing as objectivity, but I don't disagree in the notion of pursuing it anymore than I disagree with the ridiculous idea of people looking for perfection or true love or whatever. We're all kind of screwed up one way or another, and we accomplish great things when we strive for what we thought was impossible and then proclaim we have accomplished.

Objectivity is impractical though, because it's used like religion - a giant hammer of "I have arrived at the impossible, and now you all must follow this." That's kind of lame and offensive. If something were objectively true it should be universally agreed upon, otherwise everyone should just stick with the "I don't care what the rest of you think, but this is my idea and why you should think it's great." We're social subjectivists. Maybe we screw it up a lot, but consensus building is kind of marvelous even when it goes horribly wrong.

[Oaktree]

That's still not an objective morality, since we could certainly walk down roads of thought where "compassion" could be outlined in different ways and people's "rights" could detailed in any manner of subjective fashions. I'm a firm believer in what works best for the most people most of the time too, but everyone thinks they're doing the right thing and thinking the right way on some level even if they're a psychopathic anarchist.

This is why we talk with others about our ideas. It isn't strictly necessary for there to be objectivity, but having a bigger picture encompassing other perspectives, even if they are only slightly different from your own, helps in finding universal things. Even if you may not ever be able to get there fully, you can get a little bit closer the wider the range of perspectives you incorporate. It is possible to get there on one's own, but strict logic is not something that humans are generally good at, so it takes a special kind of person to get there on one's own.

This isn't to say that the majority is always correct, though. The majority is certainly capable of error and illogicality. Basically, we may not be able to fully discover the nature of reality. That doesn't mean, however, that it is entirely meaningless to make use of what little we do know.

Everything is flawed by human perception. Nothing can escape the lens of human perception - not our logic, not our emotions. Whatever we do we do it in our meat, and even if we did it some other, vastly alien, way - a hive mind, computerized intelligence, talking dogs - we'd still be filtering everything from A. a single reference point (even if that reference point were a grouping) and B. our sense of self. We can't even construct thinking objects to properly pursue objectivity, such an exercise would be futile because we'd construct them with our own limitations. The most objective facts of the universe, "that thing is" is tempered by our definitions and perceptions.

But it's all pretty much useless stuff, wading around arguments looking for objectivity. We're not objective animals. Things happen to us and things matter to us. We interact. I disagree that there is such a thing as objectivity, but I don't disagree in the notion of pursuing it anymore than I disagree with the ridiculous idea of people looking for perfection or true love or whatever. We're all kind of screwed up one way or another, and we accomplish great things when we strive for what we thought was impossible and then proclaim we have accomplished.

I am aware that our ideas are limited by the abilities of our perceptions. The objective facts that we talk about are colored by the underlying nature of our brains and our physical capabilities. I don't think it is entirely accurate to simply throw off the concept of objectivity, however. Everything follows some set of rules. How could we exist if reality was truly undefined? How could our perceptions be so stable if reality was ever-changing? How could we extrapolate rules for reality if there is no inherent stability to nature?

Objectivity is impractical though, because it's used like religion - a giant hammer of "I have arrived at the impossible, and now you all must follow this." That's kind of lame and offensive. If something were objectively true it should be universally agreed upon, otherwise everyone should just stick with the "I don't care what the rest of you think, but this is my idea and why you should think it's great." We're social subjectivists. Maybe we screw it up a lot, but consensus building is kind of marvelous even when it goes horribly wrong.

We aren't social subjectivists, though, because we have laws. Those laws are enforced even though some people don't agree with them. I would assert that people are incapable of truly understanding and handling subjectivity. We all grasp at truth and knowns, even when we want to say that we are open to anything. I also think that we can arrive at objectivity at least within our perceptions. It is not ideal, as the ideal would be agreement with objective reality, but there are certain shared perceptions that we have and and that our knowledge is based in. If we start from the assumption that our perceptions are correct, as it is all that we can know and we cannot change our perceptive abilities, there are certain rules that can be applied to what we know. Through the proper rationale and observation of sensory information, we can come to the objective rules that rule our perceptions.

[Doddibot]

All is statements can be objective (eg. humans feel pain, sky is blue, following this law will increase social order)

All ought statements are only subjective (eg we shouldn't cause pain, we should act to increase social order)

And it's impossible to turn an is into an ought (fallacy called appeal to nature), or to turn an ought into an is (fallacy called wishful thinking).

[kiwi_tea]

I'm not in firm agreement with Sam Harris' Moral confusion in the name of “science” (http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/) on this subject, although I don't think it's an empty avenue, and I do think, although it's a long article, it's very relevant to this debate.

But the deeper objection raised by scientists like Carroll is that the link I have drawn between values and wellbeing seems arbitrary, or otherwise in need of justification. What if certain people insist that their “values” or “morality” have nothing to do with wellbeing? What if a man like Jefferey Dahmer says, “The only peaks on the moral landscape that interest me are ones where I get to murder young men and have sex with their corpses.” This possibility—the prospect of radically different moral preferences—seems to be at the heart of many people’s concerns. In response to one of his readers, Carroll writes:

[W]e have to distinguish between choosing a goal and choosing the best way to get there. But when we do science we all basically agree on what the goals are — we want to find a concise, powerful explanation of the empirical facts we observe. Sure, someone can choose to disagree with those goals — but then they’re not doing science, they’re doing philosophy of science. Which is interesting in its own right, but not the same thing.

When it comes to morality, there is nowhere near the unanimity of goals that there is in science. That’s not a minor quibble, that’s the crucial difference! If we all agreed on the goals, we would indeed expend our intellectual effort on the well-grounded program of figuring out how best to achieve those goals. That would be great, but it’s not the world in which we live.

Again, we encounter this confusion about the significance of consensus. But we should also remember that there are trained “scientists” who are Biblical Creationists, and their scientific thinking is purposed not toward a dispassionate study of the universe, but toward interpreting the data of science to fit the Biblical account of creation. Such people claim to be doing “science,” of course—but real scientists are free, and indeed obligated, to point out that they are misusing the term. Similarly, there are people who claim to be highly concerned about “morality” and “human values,” but when we see that they are more concerned about condom use than they are about child rape (e.g. the Catholic Church), we should feel free to say that they are misusing the term “morality,” or that their values are distorted. As I asked at TED, how have we convinced ourselves that on the subject of morality, all views must count equally?

I recommend a full reading. It will at least introduce an interesting argument about the is/ought fallacy that Doddibot cites.

Frankly, I don't know where I stand. I'm undecided. And hence voted 'a bit of both'.

[Purity4]

Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think.

Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires.

So, based upon these definitions, I consider morality to be subjective. I think moral codes are created by humans and as humans, we can only determine morals and ethics through our perspective, making morality completely subjective.

[Oaktree]

Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires.

So, based upon these definitions, I consider morality to be subjective. I think moral codes are created by humans and as humans, we can only determine morals and ethics through our perspective, making morality completely subjective.

I think you are applying perspective in an uneven manner with the conclusion you have come to. If you consider "judgments made by a conscious entity" to include everything that entity thinks of, then even the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity are included in this, and so the definitions cannot be trusted as objectively correct. I think this is a ridiculous way of looking at things, so I'm going to argue the other direction.

There are some things that we are capable of determining as objective, the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity being among them. We are capable of saying that there is an objective reality if there is anything that is objective. Objective reality is governed by laws, as this is what makes it objective. Every aspects of reality has laws and parameters, again, because this is what makes it objective. "What is good?" would be included in the parameters of objective reality, as it is a question that can legitimately be asked, given that it has been asked of reality.

[Mistermook]

This isn't to say that the majority is always correct, though. The majority is certainly capable of error and illogicality. Basically, we may not be able to fully discover the nature of reality. That doesn't mean, however, that it is entirely meaningless to make use of what little we do know.
Of course it isn't meaningless, but when someone says to me "this is reality" what they're ultimately saying is "this is my reality." I don't disrespect that, but once they start proclaiming that their own reality is objective then they're headed straight towards The One True Way and the like.

I don't mind the messiness of human perception. I think it's quite wonderful, personally.

I am aware that our ideas are limited by the abilities of our perceptions. The objective facts that we talk about are colored by the underlying nature of our brains and our physical capabilities. I don't think it is entirely accurate to simply throw off the concept of objectivity, however. Everything follows some set of rules. How could we exist if reality was truly undefined? How could our perceptions be so stable if reality was ever-changing? How could we extrapolate rules for reality if there is no inherent stability to nature?
It would be better to say that some things follow some rules of possibly different definitions, implications, and understanding of those possible rules.

As for "how could we exist," then that's easily answerable by the simple proclamation that we appear to. It's not a nonsense question, per say, but it's very like when the evolution deniers pointedly ask "Well how did we get here with all that chaos? That's so unlikely." You know, at some point no matter how unlikely it appears then you have to make a choice - is it less likely that you don't exist? I think we're here. If we're not then I still don't think it makes a lot of sense to act as if we aren't, because we really do seem to.

Also, sometimes people mistake this notion that our perception of "reality" is fluid. It's not, but just because there might be numbers in the gears of the universe doesn't mean we haven't assigned them numbers, comprehend the numbers, haven't assigned false meanings to numbers, interpreted them improperly, etc. We're overall quite capable of assigning some arbitrary fact a fundamental significance beyond any logic and hiding that in our logic because we're not logical. And if we were approached by some fundamental truth we'd not be composed to view it as anything other than a subjective truth anyways, so I'm not sure what good it would do us. The world around us is as we see it.

Again, I think this is probably true... And useless on so many levels as to make me wonder why anyone would choose to argue about it.

We aren't social subjectivists, though, because we have laws. Those laws are enforced even though some people don't agree with them.
Do laws have to be subjective or objective anyways?

In any case: They're certainly subjective in the sense that they're arbitrary constructs of mankind, subjective in that they are not universal and they change from one social construct to the other. I have not broken a law I break unless I'm caught, and I am no more free from implication of having broken the law simply because I have walked out of a courtroom with a "Not Guilty" verdict. Contract law is completely subjective: I write it on the paper as my choice of reality and we haggle over terms. The law certainly doesn't have anything in it that says "this is a Good Man" or "this man is Bad" that anyone can always and fundamentally agree upon, and even if it were that there could be such a proclamation we could assign some arbitrary imagined circumstances to erase the consensus.

I would assert that people are incapable of truly understanding and handling subjectivity. We all grasp at truth and knowns, even when we want to say that we are open to anything.
We're also incapable of truly knowing "truths and knowns." I agree. We're fundamentally incapable of knowing anything except as we know it. That's as subjective as it gets.

It is not ideal, as the ideal would be agreement with objective reality, but there are certain shared perceptions that we have and and that our knowledge is based in.
There you go with The One True Way again. "If we could only agree with this 'objective reality' I have at hand, then..." Seriously, I understand the urge. The various churches across the globe have been attempting it for thousands of years. It's tidy and it precludes dissent. It's just not very useful, in my opinion, because it leads people to a simplistic view of the world. "I agree with some others about this, so it must be this way." Even if that's a very great many others and it's very comforting, easy does not mean correct.

If we start from the assumption that our perceptions are correct, as it is all that we can know and we cannot change our perceptive abilities, there are certain rules that can be applied to what we know. Through the proper rationale and observation of sensory information, we can come to the objective rules that rule our perceptions.
We all do this anyways. That's tidy because it's normal. The real trick to know that you start from that assumption and challenge it all the time. I'm stuck in me and you're stuck in you, but if you accept that everything is subjective it's possible to make the vain attempt to reach understandings with other people. On the other hand, if things are objective then I don't need your viewpoint once I've decided on the objective truth as I see it, do I? I just need to knock some sense into you.

[Oaktree]

Of course it isn't meaningless, but when someone says to me "this is reality" what they're ultimately saying is "this is my reality." I don't disrespect that, but once they start proclaiming that their own reality is objective then they're headed straight towards The One True Way and the like.

I don't mind the messiness of human perception. I think it's quite wonderful, personally.

There are instances in which someone can say "this is reality", though. Science catalogs those instances. Everything is subject to gravity, for example.

It would be better to say that some things follow some rules of possibly different definitions, implications, and understanding of those possible rules.

There can be explicitly stated parameters or exceptions to a rule, but then those parameters and exceptions are themselves rules.

As for "how could we exist," then that's easily answerable by the simple proclamation that we appear to. It's not a nonsense question, per say, but it's very like when the evolution deniers pointedly ask "Well how did we get here with all that chaos? That's so unlikely." You know, at some point no matter how unlikely it appears then you have to make a choice - is it less likely that you don't exist? I think we're here. If we're not then I still don't think it makes a lot of sense to act as if we aren't, because we really do seem to.

My point was that there can't be an absence of natural laws because we exist and our existence follows laws. There is a difference between the chaos of entropy and the chaos of the absence of natural law. Entropy is a natural law, being the primary one.

Do laws have to be subjective or objective anyways?

In any case: They're certainly subjective in the sense that they're arbitrary constructs of mankind, subjective in that they are not universal and they change from one social construct to the other. I have not broken a law I break unless I'm caught, and I am no more free from implication of having broken the law simply because I have walked out of a courtroom with a "Not Guilty" verdict. Contract law is completely subjective: I write it on the paper as my choice of reality and we haggle over terms. The law certainly doesn't have anything in it that says "this is a Good Man" or "this man is Bad" that anyone can always and fundamentally agree upon, and even if it were that there could be such a proclamation we could assign some arbitrary imagined circumstances to erase the consensus.

You have broken the law, even if you are not caught. If you mean that walking away with a 'not guilty' verdict doesn't wipe away the act of having broken the law, if you have - I agree. There are some laws that regulate contracts. Meta-contract laws, I suppose you could call them. A contract cannot be one-sided, both participants must agree to it, it cannot break existing laws, etc. The overall purpose of the contract is sort of a law to say "you must keep your word". The specifics aren't really laws, themselves, as they do not apply universally.

We're also incapable of truly knowing "truths and knowns." I agree. We're fundamentally incapable of knowing anything except as we know it. That's as subjective as it gets.

This doesn't prove that there is nothing objective, though. This simply states that we cannot know what is objective.

There you go with The One True Way again. "If we could only agree with this 'objective reality' I have at hand, then..." Seriously, I understand the urge. The various churches across the globe have been attempting it for thousands of years. It's tidy and it precludes dissent. It's just not very useful, in my opinion, because it leads people to a simplistic view of the world. "I agree with some others about this, so it must be this way." Even if that's a very great many others and it's very comforting, easy does not mean correct.

I was speaking specifically of observable physical reality. As I stated before, everything is subject to gravity. That is universal across human perception. Even if there are very few of these universalities, some of them do exist.

We all do this anyways. That's tidy because it's normal. The real trick to know that you start from that assumption and challenge it all the time. I'm stuck in me and you're stuck in you, but if you accept that everything is subjective it's possible to make the vain attempt to reach understandings with other people. On the other hand, if things are objective then I don't need your viewpoint once I've decided on the objective truth as I see it, do I? I just need to knock some sense into you.

When I was talking about the assumption that our perceptions are correct, I was speaking of shared human perception. As you put it before, we all have "a single reference point". This is what I was speaking of.

Even if you believe your viewpoint to be objective, you would still have to be open to logical counter-arguments. If someone can argue against you with better logic, you should probably reconsider your stance. Though there is the possibility that your stance may be more correct, but that you simply are unable to argue the logic in it.

[Xunixeon]

What about Christians who believe it's their right to bully people into Christianity? Or Muslims bully people into Islam by terrorism? They are using what is subjective to their own beliefs. For me, I'm dealing with the hamster right now. But I don't try to convert it. Looks like Axl's hungry.

So anyways, as long as we don't force each other to have morals like everyone else unless by laws (I'm the liberal-moderate anarchist and I don't believe only laws can instill fear into people with different morals), we all have basic morals but the outgrowth of these morals tend to get into way of progress.

[Mistermook]

There are instances in which someone can say "this is reality", though. Science catalogs those instances. Everything is subject to gravity, for example.
No, science catalogs our perception of gravity. It names it, outlines it, and gives it a definition that we understand through our perception. Something is likely there that we call gravity and acts as we proclaim it does, but it's by no means certain. We can be wrong. We could be making fundamentally flawed assumptions. Our perception could be too limited or even too vast to appreciate it, and even if we had a pristine view and understanding we'd still filter it through ourselves.

There can be explicitly stated parameters or exceptions to a rule, but then those parameters and exceptions are themselves rules.
There are no rules we can conceive of except the rules we make though. We don't discover anything, we interpret.

My point was that there can't be an absence of natural laws because we exist and our existence follows laws. There is a difference between the chaos of entropy and the chaos of the absence of natural law. Entropy is a natural law, being the primary one.
Except you're defining things through your perceptions again, whether or not there are natural laws or not is irrelevant. We act as if there are, and in practice that's fine; but that doesn't mean they exist as we act anymore than they exist outside of ourselves... which I admit is a fine bit of navel gazing totally useless, but proclaiming it isn't so doesn't mean it isn't. It doesn't mean it is either, but the point is that you don't know and can't, you can only make assumptions based on your presumed point of reference. It's a slightly silly distinction, but I think it's important. I act as if the world is in a certain way too, but just because that's the way I think and believe doesn't mean that it's some universally true and valid notion. Perhaps in practical terms, but we've long dismissed practicality in this conversation.

You have broken the law, even if you are not caught. If you mean that walking away with a 'not guilty' verdict doesn't wipe away the act of having broken the law, if you have - I agree. There are some laws that regulate contracts. Meta-contract laws, I suppose you could call them. A contract cannot be one-sided, both participants must agree to it, it cannot break existing laws, etc. The overall purpose of the contract is sort of a law to say "you must keep your word". The specifics aren't really laws, themselves, as they do not apply universally.
A man is not guilty of a crime who has not been convicted of a crime. That's the law in the legal sense. You want to argue according to some sense of morality or conviction? That's fine, but that's not the law.


This doesn't prove that there is nothing objective, though. This simply states that we cannot know what is objective.
If you cannot know it then what's the point of suggesting that it is there? Again, that's Religion 101. I can't prove that we're not all being farted out of the anus of a cosmic pink unicorn, but as long as I can't then there's no reason to act as if the Unicorn is exists.

I was speaking specifically of observable physical reality. As I stated before, everything is subject to gravity. That is universal across human perception. Even if there are very few of these universalities, some of them do exist.
We perceive everything as subject to gravity. That doesn't mean there aren't errors of definitions, perceptions, or subjectivity questions that can't be raised. I agree, they're impractical, but you're the one looking for universal truths - which are preeminently impractical in the extreme. :)

When I was talking about the assumption that our perceptions are correct, I was speaking of shared human perception. As you put it before, we all have "a single reference point". This is what I was speaking of.
Except that when we're discussing universal truths we have to imagine that our perceptions might not be correct, or that our perceptions might not be universal. In the land of the blind, what color are their shoes? We make assumptions based off of what we know, and that's often very useful and practical and good for the economy and chatting up the ladies, but the fact that we know what we know follows with we do not know what we do not know, and what we know we do not know is true.

Even if you believe your viewpoint to be objective, you would still have to be open to logical counter-arguments. If someone can argue against you with better logic, you should probably reconsider your stance. Though there is the possibility that your stance may be more correct, but that you simply are unable to argue the logic in it.
If your viewpoint is objective and true though it should be apparently and universally so. Science is too fidgety for that. Only religion really thrives in that sort of environment.

"The sky is blue! - 'Blue?' asked the blind man. 'Ah, I see.'"

Look, I made a koan. :)

That sort of thing. Again, it's all an interesting sort of mental masturbation, but I agree that fundamentally if you don't act as if you can believe what you think and see on some level you're probably on medication. Rather than stress on these sorts of things most of the time I'm perfectly happy just telling people they're wrong because I'm right and smarter than they are, and whatever they think is wrong. But on the other hand, if someone produced the Unicorn tomorrow this sort of thing is exactly how I'd go, "So what? Even if we're not all imagining the Unicorn farting, it's been completely irrelevant for thousands of years. Business as usual." Just like if you suddenly were able to see rock music as a color, that's all well and great - but unless everyone else sees it too it just makes you crazy, no matter how valid and actual it is.

[Xunixeon]

Yes. Kinda of like thinking cupids exist. Now cupids, also known as cherubs, fly everywhere to spread love with their chubby bodies. If you believe those creatures exist and you see them, then you must go to the Marian Center (one of the lovely names for Psych wards) in my town unless you have enough evidence to prove those midgets have real wings and do exist.

It's not like the whole planet's farted out by the mystic fat Syrian Hamster who is purple named God.

[Mistermook]

Right. I'm not saying that subjective thinking isn't messy. It's possible the crazy people are right, and all the sane people are wrong. I don't consider it absolutely unlikely, I just don't worry about it and keep on thinking I'm on the right track in the universe without unicorns. Whether I'm right or wrong it would be stupid to not act as if I thought I was right in the things I did, or else why do them? Even living without certainty in all things I think I'm fairly comfortable and happy with my existence. I don't think I need absolutes, or people to insist they've got absolutes in hand to go about my daily life and make decisions.

[Purity4]

Yeah that to everything Mistermook said in post #23. Also, regarding whether or not the sky is blue, let me mention that parrots can see ultraviolet light, which means their perception of colors contain more than the mere human eye can see. So is the sky really blue or does it just look blue through the eyes of a human?

[fragglerocks]

I suppose I should have started a different thread a while back. Sorry about that. :D

I've already talked at length about my view on the matter, so I think I'll start here by responding to others.



There are other animals that exhibit ethical behavior. I recently did a project on this in my animal biology class, looking at ethical behavior in primates. One example: Olive baboons will team up with a partner when they get into a confrontation with a rival. They will even do this when one is fighting for a mate, as the female baboon will only mate with the one that started the confrontation, meaning there is no immediate benefit to the recruited other. At a later time, the one who is recruited will recruit the other for it's own confrontation. It's altruism with a bit of what humans would call "honor".

My point in the other thread was that objective morality is that which is best for the survival and social continuity of a species. I think that every species, no matter how alien, would need to have laws against random killing because that is detrimental to the survival of the species. My point was that we haven't always known what some of the proper moral stances were in the past, so things weren't so wonderful. We managed to survive, but our survival and quality of life were not optimum.

I think you are very confused. I am not arguing that nature follows an objective set of laws. But objective morality is an oxymoron in the sense that morality cannot be objective as long as its contributed to human ethics. We exhibit ethical behavior by nature because our biology determines the presence of the three necessary conditions for ethical behavior. They are the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions, to make value judgments, and the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution as a necessary consequence of our intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection. Human ethics by their very nature (the part I have bolded) are subjective.



In a conflict of two lives, both participants would be required to do something that is wrong (taking a life), but it would be the lesser of two evils in each case because the alternative is to simply allow oneself to die. Basically, each of them would be required to fight for his life and it would be equally correct for either to win. This example precludes the ability for one participant to get away or for the human to incapacitate the mountain lion, but those are understandably difficult options that may not be possible at all.

This case also does not apply to one who initiates the conflict for non-essential reasons. If one is attacked by a would-be murderer, the better option is for the victim to survive the attack because the murder would be infringing on the rights of the victim without a dire need to. The victim may not always survive the attack because he may be less able than the murderer, but the best result, regardless, would be for the victim to survive.

I'm trying to stay on point about morality, not the laws of nature. I said that in an objective moral sense, they both have a right to live. But as humans we can view its subjectively. In the mountain lion's mind, he has been hungry for days and an easy meal just happened to run right into him. Morally, the mountain lion is not going to feel guilt for taking the human's life. He's not going to worry about the family waiting at home for the guy to return. His mountain lions friends at home aren't going to hear proud stories of the kill he just made. It was a simple survival instincts, and we can't take anything more out of that situation; certainly not an objective moral between animal and humans. The only moral perspective we will get is from humans. "Oh, maybe the lion cubs had babies at home." or "Oh that was awful, we need to set up a wildlife reserve." and "Poor guy/mountain lion was so lucky to make it out of that confrontation alive."

[kiwi_tea]

The ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution as a necessary consequence of our intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection. Human ethics by their very nature (the part I have bolded) are subjective.

And yet, at the same time, human moral choices are somewhat constrained by objective and external factors. We may opt to make murder a norm, as a society. However, the discontent it sows in our environment, by the very nature of other human minds, will always act strongly against that subjective interpretation. At the very best there is a threshold for a subjective interpretation of murder-as-norm that is reached, generally, at about the point of one's particular tribe.

In the mountain lion's mind, he has been hungry for days and an easy meal just happened to run right into him. Morally, the mountain lion is not going to feel guilt for taking the human's life. He's not going to worry about the family waiting at home for the guy to return. His mountain lions friends at home aren't going to hear proud stories of the kill he just made. It was a simple survival instincts, and we can't take anything more out of that situation; certainly not an objective moral between animal and humans. The only moral perspective we will get is from humans. "Oh, maybe the lion cubs had babies at home." or "Oh that was awful, we need to set up a wildlife reserve." and "Poor guy was so lucky to make it out of that confrontation alive."
Just OT for a second: Pretty intense misrepresentation of another mammal's mind there. There's a LOT more than just 'survival instinct' going on, even if it's not structured with any syntactical language. Mountain lions are definitely the sort of animal liable to have proto language, and there's no reason to think they don't have signals to indicate to their peers (friends might be too human a word, and it's more likely to be a communication to someone encroaching on their territory) that they've made an impressive kill. Your point is still about right - mountain lions can't make the same syntactically-structured moral considerations we can. But they are mammals with complex minds, including a limbic system and the like. They almost certainly have forms of morality, albeit they can't express them coherently, and act them out with less exposition and consistency than we do. They aren't amoral, they just have a much lower degree of moral-reasoning than we do, and probably than other more social animals do.

[fragglerocks]

I never said animals didn't have some form of ethical behavior. But they have not evolved on the level that we have. Human morality is subjective compared to animals because even when it comes down to our ideas of survival, its very different. What I was trying to point out is that we could view that situation from many different moral viewpoints. And we could probably argue for days who has the right to live more and why. I could say the lion deserves to live more because if it weren't for the gun, nature would take its course and the predator would have its prey. Then someone else could say that the human should win because his life has more worth. Then someone else could chime in and disagree....and so on.

[tjstreak]

Sam Harris gave an interesting lecture on this topic: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

"Now, it's often said that science can not give us a foundation for morality and human values, because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there is no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures."

"Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity and the possibilities of experience well then we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects."

"And there is no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I've ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes. Even if you get your values from religion, even if you think that good and evil ultimately relate to conditions after death -- either to an eternity of happiness with God or an eternity of suffering in hell -- you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes. And to say that such changes can persist after death is itself a factual claim which, of course, may or may not be true."

"Now, to speak about the conditions of well being in this life, for human beings, we know that there is a continuum of such facts. We know that it's possible to live in a failed state, where everything that can go wrong does go wrong -- where mothers can not feed their children, where strangers can not find the basis for peaceful collaboration, where people are murdered indiscriminately. And we know that it's possible to move along this continuum, towards something quite a bit more idyllic, to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable."

"And we know -- we know -- that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space. Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not. Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye, so that when bad things happened to them they immediately blame their neighbors? Probably not. There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths...."

"So, what I'm arguing is that value is reducable to facts -- to facts about the conscious experience -- of conscious beings. And we can therefore visualize a space of possible changes in the experience of these beings...."

"So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures to care about the wrong things: Which is to say that it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality."

"We live in a world filled with destructive technology, and this technology can not be uninvented, it will always be easier to break things than to fix them. It seems to me therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human wellbeing, than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers."

[Doddibot]

But Sam Harris is wrong.

His rhetoric is powerful, but he's still logically flawed to try to derive an ought from an is. Science can indeed help us work out what strategies, laws, societies etc give us what we value. But it can't help tell us what it is we should be valuing.

Harris is assuming that 'well-being' is what we should be wanting, but it's not self-evident that wellbeing is the best thing to try maximise in society, and there's not really a good definition of wellbeing anyway.

[tjstreak]

I think the real problem is with our public schools and their failure to teach right from wrong. It's why we have so many immoral people running around.

The so called distinction between "is" and "ought" is largely a fiction. It really does not stand up to any close evalutation.

[Doddibot]

The so called distinction between "is" and "ought" is largely a fiction. It really does not stand up to any close evalutation.
Do elaborate, if you will.

[Elyasis]

"Ought" is societal pressures. Without any form of society, morals as we know them do not exist. Personally, morality is a non issue for me. I think so many people place importance on having a "moral compass" as it were that they fail to realize that it's not a constant. Hence the problems that arise when people differ on this issue.
A brief look at history and other cultures would make this obvious to most.

[fakepeeps7]

I think so many people place importance on having a "moral compass" as it were that they fail to realize that it's not a constant. Hence the problems that arise when people differ on this issue.

I think the key is actually being concerned about having morals. At least if you're trying to do the right thing, you're probably further ahead than someone who doesn't even have morality on their radar. For the most part, anyway. There will always be exceptions.

[Oaktree]

Sorry I haven't been around for a while - finals were eating up my time. :)

Mistermook: I too, act on a day to day basis simply on things that I believe to be most likely, based on my perceptions of reality. I don't try to push my moral stances on others. I simply find philosophical debate on the matter interesting, even if it is impossible to come to a purely logical, fully evident end. Even my favorite philosopher, Immanuel Kant, thought that there are things that we simply can't know. He came to certain moral conclusions even with this knowledge, though. I'm not saying that his moral conclusions can be proven to be correct, but I think that they are more logical than certain other moral conclusions.

Fragglerocks: To look solely at human moral codes, there is a basis in reality. We do have certain common perceptions that can contribute to a moral code. And, as kiwi tea pointed out, animals are not totally removed from ethical behavior. Our morality encompasses more than morality in animals, but there are certain things that are common to most, if not all, species. Incest and killing one's family members are both behaviors condemned in pretty much every species. There are some exceptions under special circumstances (such as captive animals eating their own young), but these things typically occur due to the stresses/conditions of captivity or scarcity of resources.

tjstreak: I liked that you mentioned that lecture. I watched that recently. He doesn't use strong logical premises, but I think it is a good start.

Doddibot: How is it that you consider yourself a utilitarian if you think that wellbeing is not a strong enough basis for morality?

[Doddibot]

Doddibot: How is it that you consider yourself a utilitarian if you think that wellbeing is not a strong enough basis for morality?
I think the key point here is that I think that wellbeing* is the best basis for morality, but can't prove that. There's no objective evidence for my opinion being correct.

*depends on the definition of wellbeing - if it means some combination of autonomy and happiness, then I'd most likely agree.