Jesus! This is painful!

What I just said. — Jackson

That Im inarticulate?

I will argue that it can be objective. — Marvin Katz

Haven't been following the thread but I remember C. S. Lewis was aiming at objective values in The Abolition of Man and elsewhere.

Of course moral can be objective. Just like the natural world. The objective moral is not to place oneself opposite to the natural world. When we do that we'll invite disaster.

Jesus! This is painful! — L'éléphant

Relax, brother Elephant... Take a deep breath or light a cigarette.

That quibble aside — 180 Proof

Not a quibble. QAnon is intersubjective, but I don't think anyone here would label it objective. The fact that a belief is intersubjective (many fools, vs one) grants it nothing.

my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct that prevents or reduces harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices that prevents or reduces injustice). — 180 Proof

It is all injustice, justice is the elemental concept in ethics. Harm is just a salient instance of injustice, but harm is not always unjust. Redressing a wrong may inflict more harm on the perpetrator than what was inflicted on the victim, and in any event, by the perp's suffering, increases the total suffering in the world. Nonetheless, if we consider the redress to bee just, we do not consider it wrong.


.

Not a quibble. — hypericin

If not, then what? You seem to repeat my point unless I'm missing something ...

[url]http:// http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf [/url]
i agree with hypericin that "justice" is a quite-important concept in
Ethics -- especially Social Justice at present. The Unified Theory of Ethics, the new paradigm based on the work of Robert S. Hartman in Value Theory [which is meta-ethics] is what I mean when I say "Ethics."
I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u

To learn more about the Unified Theory of Ethics, peruse the pdf text, a link to which is offered at the top of this post. This is my latest effort at writing. I could have done better by placing what is now Ch. 1 as an Epilogue. I ought to have started right off with the chapter: What is Ethics? So it is recommended you skip to that when studying the manuscript. ...the first chapter, on "structure," may be off-putting because to most folks structure is boring.
In my original post of this thread there occurs an update, on the best way to interpret and understand the concept "morality" in the lens of this new paradigm for ethics. So check that out, and see why it's an improvement. It is, so to speak, Morality(sub)2.

Not convinced anyone has access to an objective morality - even the religious, who might argue that morality (in theory) has a foundational guarantor (god/s). But the problem for them is establishing what god thinks is moral. Religious folk, like all people, have to fall back on constructed ethical systems built from subjective preferences. This is why some Christians hold that fags are for hating and conversion, while other Christians fly a rainbow flag and practice inclusion.

Humans create morality to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. If everyone agrees to a foundational principle (eg, human flourishing) then a type of objective moral system can probably be built, subject to this foundation. But the initial presupposition that underpins such a system is a subjective preference.

Greetings, Tom
Your first paragraph quoted above informs me that you are using a different definition of "morality" than I am. I gave mine toward the bottom of my first post in this thread. Also gave further details in the third chapter of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper; a link to it is given at the top of my previous posst in this thread.

agree with the thrust of your second paragraph. Any primitive assumption for a system (including a systematic Ethics theory - which is what I solicit your cooperation to help build) will be subjective.

In my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. In stating this I think I may be in accord with Jurgen Habermas.

My attempt to get this point across may not have been clear enough. The lesson (say in Ethics as science) was put on the whiteboard, and so in that one sense it is objective; yet anything said by humans has to be subjecttive, for we conceive of it, and we are conscious autonomous subjects.

{We have freedom of thought even if we are in a Chinese concentration camp, or in a Gulag.} Many people, in recentt history, though, have been gaslighted and brainwashed by Donald, the disgrased defeated ex-president. They didn't know their Ethics, or their conscience was not awake upon first encountering him. An individuaal with a sensitive conscience would have immediately detected a phony and a grifter when he ridiculed and attempted to humiliate his fellow candidates for the nomination.

It seems that morality is objective. What explains the convergence on such acts as murder & theft? The fact that there's a divergence on other issues such as rape is due to the fact that those who condone it (e.g. some Muslim nations have a poor track record in womens' rights) haven't really been presented with the apposite arguments.

In other words, morality only appears subjective because not much intercourse has taken place between relevant parties/cultures. Cultures tend to put up invisible barriers against influences (customs, beliefs) from other cultures. This self-isolationism is most evident among some Moslem countries (Afghanistan being an exemplar).

Give it time...we'll all be on the same page in (say) another century or so.

In other words, morality only appears subjective ... — Agent Smith

Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. This planet is objectively 'round', yet more and more socially-mediated Earthlings subjectively (make)believe "Earth is flat". :mask:

NB: By objectivity I understand demonstrably subject-invariant (as well as language/pov/gauge‐invariant).

n my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. — Marvin Katz

Thanks Marvin. My fault, I was just making some general, ill-educated comments without clearly addressing your point. I understand your reference to communities of intersubjecive agreement and have applied this notion to a range of subjects. Some postmodernists would say this intersubjectivity applies to science, not just morality or history. While I am interested in the subject, I am not a student of philosophy and don't read much on the subject. I am not a philosophical idealist, nor do I have reason to accept any transcendental realities, so for me morality can only come down to humans establishing value based agreements about how we should live together.

Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. This planet is objectively 'round', yet more and more socially-mediated Earthlings subjectively (make)believe "Earth is flat". :mask:

NB: By objectivity I understand demonstrably subject-invariant (as well as language/pov/gauge‐invariant). — 180 Proof

Nice!

All I can say, for the moment, is that morality is objective and appears to be subjective. The purported subjectivity is simply an artifiact of social dynamics and different rates of progress in re rationality.

This planet is objectively 'round — 180 Proof

That's a subjective judgment. Like the universe being flat.

Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. — 180 Proof

Science is objective, yet many are (functionally?) ignorant.

This planet is objectively 'round
— 180 Proof

That's a subjective judgment. Like the universe being flat. — Hillary

:rofl:

Questions? Comments? Discussion? — Marvin Katz

You shouldn't ask for all that if you are not interested.
My constructive comment that I posted in your topic 3 days ago has been wasted. No response. Quite frustrating.

I believe that when one posts a topic, it is becoming to at least acknowledge replies addressed to him, even with just a "Thanks" or "OK".
So, you won't hear from me again ...

I believe that when one posts a topic, it is becoming to at least acknowledge replies addressed to him, even with just a "Thanks" or "OK". — Alkis Piskas

:up:

Glad you agree with that! :smile:

Yeah, I mean, you wrote a pretty substantive comment, and even wrote it to be a great thread (which it is)... Just one word in reaction would suffice, as you wrote.

I think, BTW, that ethics or morals (I can't really see the difference) is objective. What the objective morals are then depends on who you ask. And somehow a world in which the bad or evil is not allowed to exist seems a worse world than a world in which it can exist.

I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u — Marvin Katz

I'm on board with this! If moral psychology is recognized as testable, verifiable findings on morality, I am a subscriber. I already reject relativism -- this is a sorry-ass approach to morality. But pluralism can be incorporated into your paradigm. I think it is already.

It's more or less like this. Morality is objective. But it depends on who you ask what that objective morality is. Likewise for objective truths or realities. The old and ancient Greek idea of one and only absolute, objective reality needs a fix.

Morality is objective. But it depends on who you ask what that objective morality is

To me, this would imply morality is subjective. If we take objective to mean it does not depend on the mind for existence, then if it depends on who you ask (and there is no outside standard to measure such statements by) then it is indeed subjective, despite individuals claiming it is objective.

To me, this would imply morality is subjective — Paulm12

Indeed, to you. But when you ask the people involved, and they say their morality is not how they want it, but an objective morality, then it is an objective morality. It's the experience that counts, not what you think it is.

But when you ask the people involved, and they say their morality is not how they want it, but an objective morality, then it is an objective morality. — Hillary

If a person aaserts their morality is objective then their morality is objective? This suggests an odd infallibility.

You can always ask them to change to other objective morals. You might convince them.

You can always ask them to change to other objective morals. — Hillary

How do you know their morality is objective? Because they say it is?

I totally agree. But people wanting their morality to be objective (or claiming it is objective) does not necessarily make it true. To me, this is a huge problem with any naturalistic, secular ethics. You cannot claim objective moral values and duties do not exist and yet expect people to follow your ethical code, or assert your ethical code is "better" than any other. And while a lot of people do seem to agree on moral stuff to get a "fuzzy" picture of ethical values, there is plenty of disagreement about who or what should receive ethical consideration.

Of course, none of this proves that objective moral values don't exist. But I've come to the conclusion that if they do, you have to appeal to the supernatural to have any satisfactory account for their existence (thanks to Mackie).

It's a sub of the problem of an absolute, objective reality. Why should there be one such reality? You can say because that's by definition the case, but we can change the definition. The morality of the atheist is not god-given, but an evolutionary feature, serving the passing of genes or memes. But it's an objective morality just the same. I don't believe in it. My objective morality is a different one.

How we know their morality is objective? If they have an objective (non-moral) principle to derive their moral from. How do we know that objective principle is objective? Because it is thought to exist independently of them. Like genes or memes selfishly trying to be passed on.

totally agree. But people wanting their morality to be objective (or claiming it is objective) does not necessarily make it true. To me, this is a huge problem with any naturalistic, secular ethics. — Paulm12

You mean moral is divinely inspired? Say, that life is sacred because life is divinely "created" or evolution invented by gods or God?