• Philosophim
    2.8k
    why it is you're sure that objectivity is baked-in (or vice verse) to morality and that objections to this must necessarily be predicated on biases or rejections (as opposed to objection, that is)??AmadeusD

    Good questions. Why I think there is a moral objectivity is based on patterns of discovery. Throughout history humanity has had states of being that were not completely understood though still a subjective way of viewing those experiences. For example, experiencing the color red. The color red is both a subjective and objective experience. Subjectively, the experience of red is unique to each individual. Objectively, red is a particular wavelength of light that enters into your eyes and is interpreted by your brain into that experience.

    If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike.

    As to your second question, my point was, "In my experience," I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective. Many times the motivation boils down to the simple human emotion of, "I don't want to be told what to do." They think morality is a noose against their freedom, which depending if someone has asserted a moral noose on them in the past without rational justification, I can sympathize with. A rational objective morality is not a noose, it is understanding. Understanding is what leads humanity to true freedom.

    The second most common type of argument for a subjective morality is a sense of tiredness. "I can't figure it out, therefore it can't be objective". Again, a very human notion of simplifying complex issues, and giving a rationale to abandon thoughts which are difficult to comprehend or demand a hard look at ourselves. Especially if there's the chance that an objective morality would hinder what we personally want, many people are weak and will drop rational thought for short sighted personal benefit. This does not further humanity, and if we took this attitude with everything difficult to understand we wouldn't have the wonderful advancements we've made today.

    I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome.

    I feel the opposite. I feel that the cry for objectivity in morality is an indicator the person crying(not pejorative!) is at a loss as to how to function upon their own concepts of right and wrong.AmadeusD

    I find that amusing. Biology leads to efficiency over rightness. The preservation of calories, giving only the right amount of effort. Favoring pleasantries over difficulties and hardships. Yelling at people you argue with or calling them stupid when they make a point you don't like. Simple models in place of complex one's where possible. I would think that most people love their own sense of right and wrong because its already decided and they don't have to think about it further. Especially because many of our own personal opinions of right and wrong seem to favor the outcomes of what we want and don't as often tell us we need to change or alter our behavior. These are just opinions though, not facts.

    I will tell you personally why I think there is a good rational reason to pursue objective morality. First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better.

    Second, artificial intelligence. Its a ticking time bomb. Artificial intelligence does not have a consciousness or all the emotional things we take for granted that ensure we don't blow each other up in a nuclear holocaust. AI won't care about your subjective morality. Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth. A lazy and indulgent viewpoint of "What I want is good," will be taken as the objective morality by AI otherwise. It will think, "If they say what is good is what they want, then what I want is good to. Thus I have all justification and no limitations in pursuing what is good."
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike.Philosophim

    Perhaps i'm not hte best one to take this up, given my anti-realist stance to color, but I don't think this is really doing a lot.
    If two people experience the wavelength you're talking about as different things, then the 'object' is not redness, but a wavelength of light. It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here..

    "In my experience,"Philosophim

    That's always fair.

    Interestingly, I've never seen anyone seriously put forward either argument you make. The main motivator for the claim seems to be more an atheistic type of thinking. A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you? I mean, doesn't align with your experience, but just as a response to the egoic type of charge..

    I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome.Philosophim

    I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved. Not the rejection of the claim, surely? Proving a negative (which this amounts to) can obviously be done, but in this case it would require exhausting all possibility within our Universe before making a conclusion... surely, that's a less rational requirement. I think your position is fine, no issue, but impugning others on the basis that you require proof of a negative doesn't seem all that ...good?

    reason to pursue objective moralityPhilosophim

    This, I can accept. There is always good reason to 'align' or 'unify'.

    I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective morality ;) ;)

    First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better.Philosophim

    What is the reason here? You'd have to already accept ab objective morality for 'ignorance' to even come up here, right? So, I can't see how this supports the point - just the activity of 'sussing out' morality generally. Which I agree with, fully.

    Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth.Philosophim

    This paragraph sounds like pure fear to me, and not a rational argument in any sense of the word. Its practical argument to avoid what you foresee as a negative consequence of a technology. ANd sure, for programming, ab objective morality is best. This, however, smacks of exactly my issue: There is no rational basis for the claim from within. Here, we, the people, are imposing "a morality" on the AI which we want to constraint. We're playing God. We, the people, don't have this constraint... Unless that's what you want to posit? Not wild - just one i reject on lack of evidence grounds. I understand the concerns around AI - I grew up with T2 lol - but, I don't think fearing a possible outcome of a technology has to do with the metaethics of our universe.

    Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality? I don't think you've done so. The three things I can see you've used to support here are are:

    - Patterns of behaviour (this is one is unclear as your first para doesn't so what it says it will, so
    I refrain from commenting further);
    - An assumption that objective morality exists and gives rise to ignorance (which you reject - fairly, on it's face); and
    - A fear of an unconstrained AI.

    I can't see an answer to why you think there is an objective morality - but rather why you think it would be good to have one.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here..AmadeusD

    Right, but there is an underlying objective reality which is being observed to make this subjective experience. Just like a wavelength of light isn't what we think of when we're experiencing subjective redness, doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist.

    A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you?AmadeusD

    No, there are good reasons to think there is an objective morality. As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medication.

    Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across cultures. Don't lie for personal gain at your neighbors expense. Don't murder healthy babies. The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures.

    I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved.AmadeusD

    I never claimed an objective morality had been proved. All I've noted is it hasn't been proven that it doesn't exist, namely because subjective morality has not proven anything more rational then personal desires to do what one wants. Morality is the question of, "What should be,". And there is no one that agrees that what should be is whatever anyone's whims desire. Subjective morality can only give that answer, and its a failed one.

    I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective moralityAmadeusD

    Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it.

    Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality?AmadeusD

    No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that. If you want example of an objective morality, that would be the OP of this post. Feel free to check it out and see if its a good start.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    Thank you :)
    FIrst response is out of order, for good reason:

    Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it.Philosophim

    Ok, right, I fully misinterpreted what you were saying in this case, so please sit with this part of my response first. Yes, I think there's a very good reason to pursue it. My outlook as a philosopher is that "I am sure there must be an objective morality, because of the bullets I have to bite" but in reality, I have no reason to think there is one.

    doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist.Philosophim

    I think you've captured my point while rejecting it - viz. yes, but that isn't redness/red - it's a wavelength. Otherwise, I agree with what you're getting at.

    As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medicationPhilosophim

    This doesn't, as far as I can tell, provide any reason to think morality is objective. Could you perhaps tie the point you're making (that there are objectives in the universe) to morality? I guess, hang about as further comments below will be relevant..

    Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across culturesPhilosophim

    That is true. Hmm. I guess I think some of these are demonstrably destructive (eye for an eye is, at least socially, almost ubiquitous). Some are demonstrably the result of outside influence (judeo-christian Morality). But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here?

    The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures.Philosophim

    Hmm. Some are completely foreign, as between cultures. I think this is quite intensely overstating the overlap between various moral thought. Some of which is codified and hasn't 'developed' in any real sense. But, I take it the point is that your view is that these are actually extremely closely aligned, and so somehow speaks to an objective moral. I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it?

    No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that.Philosophim

    Its possibly, but equally I probably misread your intentionality. No worries - a good exchange imo :)

    Fwiw, Yes, the OP is fun. Doesn't bear repeating for me.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here?AmadeusD

    While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, are there common core reasons underneath it based on that culture? Disciplining children is almost always done by parents to raise the kids to be successful in that culture. A lack of discipline in any culture is seen as setting your kid up for low status, spoiling them, and low respectability. Religions may change specifics, but underlying them there is almost always a sense of community, understanding of the self, and sense of purpose. An eye for an eye is about teaching others in no uncertain terms that if you cannot handle something being taken from you, do not take it from others, and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society.

    I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it?AmadeusD

    The analogy of red being an objective wavelength vs the subjective experience that we have of that wavelength called red. The objective combination of sugar and carbonated water in a coke vs the subjective taste of it. Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it.

    According to the OP, the source of discover would be reason. I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality. There is no force or intention behind the existence of a wavelength of light. It simply is. A subjective redness is a consequence of its existence, but there is was not intention or push that sent that red beam of light directly to you. Objective morality is the same. Its not determined by any being, it is a consequence of existence.

    If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should be. It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction. That initial premise is worth exploring where this could take us. At the end, I think it takes us someplace beautiful. But most people can't get past this first part and I believe the post were I conclude the entire exploration were never reached. And who can blame them? People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experience, not that its, to be metaphorical, 'a wavelength of light'.

    No worries - a good exchange imo :)AmadeusD

    Likewise. :)
  • MoK
    702
    Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness.Philosophim
    No, they are different. Liking a rose is another feature of our experience.

    What you're saying is that liking the rose is the same as saying the rose is good. Are you saying that good is something apart from what you like, or is it the same?Philosophim
    As I mentioned in another thread, feeling and reason, are two fundamental things that affect us. And yes, I am saying that rose is good because it feels good.

    Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be".Philosophim
    I think you are mixing right with good. A serial killer thinks differently from the rest of the people when it comes to killing. How do you derive rightness from goodness?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness.
    — Philosophim
    No, they are different. Liking a rose is another feature of our experience.
    MoK

    We agree then.

    And yes, I am saying that rose is good because it feels good.MoK

    And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?

    Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be".
    — Philosophim
    I think you are mixing right with good. A serial killer thinks differently from the rest of the people when it comes to killing. How do you derive rightness from goodness?
    MoK

    Good is what should be. Rightness is the fulfillment of what should be. So good is helping a poor person get back on their feet. The action of helping them back on their feet is a right action. "Good" and "Right" are oftentimes also synonyms and interchanged in colloquial speech. How do you define 'rightness' MoK?
  • MoK
    702
    We agree then.Philosophim
    Cool. :)

    And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?Philosophim
    Feeling good is a feature of our experiences.

    How do you define 'rightness' MoK?Philosophim
    To me, the right action is what we should do and that can be good or evil, like rewarding or punishing.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?
    — Philosophim
    Feeling good is a feature of our experiences.
    MoK

    That's avoiding the question MoK. Liking something is a feature of our experiences. Is feeling that something is good exactly the same as liking it, or is it different?

    How do you define 'rightness' MoK?
    — Philosophim
    To me, the right action is what we should do and that can be good or evil, like rewarding or punishing.
    MoK

    No one defines good as reward and punishment as evil. That's simply an incorrect use of their definitions, even given the wiggle room they provide. If a man rewards a murderer with money, its not good. If a person who murdered someone is punished for their actions, that's not evil. Good and evil are descriptors of rewards or punishments. A good/evil reward, a good/evil punishment for example.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, .... and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society.Philosophim

    I may not be getting what you want me to get from this paragraph. I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked. I mean, we could just drill in on the word 'success' as used here and be at a loss...

    Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it.Philosophim

    With you so far.. I agree with this, as a description of what objective could mean here.

    I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. YPhilosophim

    Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief? I'm unsure you can continue down an 'objective' path in this case, but that's preliminary thought.. Onward..

    You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality.Philosophim

    I'm looking for something that ties your belief to something objective (i.e what do you see which leads to this belief). I cannot see it I suppose. It seems to be reiterations of your belief/s in relation to morality.

    If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should bePhilosophim

    Huh? This doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems helpful.

    It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction.Philosophim

    It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence. I would add to this (as, imo a fairly knock-down type of point, to be sure) that if humans did not exist, there wouldn't even be the concept of morality so it stands to reason (in my mind) that existence itself carries no morality. It couldn't. It's chance, for lack of a better term. It doesn't act. This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points..

    People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experiencePhilosophim

    That is the only context in which morality obtains. So, I not only could I not blame, I couldn't argue with them. It is the only known place moral thinking exists. Not getting past this isn't a flaw, it's a correct reading of that position (whether you agree with the position or not!).

    Likewise. :)Philosophim

    Yaaay! :)
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked.AmadeusD

    That's fair, here's a nice little paper to get an idea of what I'm noting. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8710723/

    Also I am not saying these commonalities underling different cultures prove there is an objective morality, only evidence of it.

    I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. Y
    — Philosophim

    Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief?
    AmadeusD

    I do note in the sentence that its what I believe, yes. :)

    This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points..AmadeusD

    I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking. At that point it can cause people to become more defensive to the possibility of a God then in exploring the subject of morality.

    It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence.AmadeusD

    There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should question. Normally we're a lot higher up on the the chain such as, "Should there be an alien race that enjoys torturing and destroying all life it comes across?" "Should I save this dying whale that beached itself?" These are more relatable questions then, "Should there be existence?" but to truly answer any of them, its really the first question that has to be answered if there is an objective morality.

    That is the only context in which morality obtains.AmadeusD

    That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fully.
  • MoK
    702
    That's avoiding the question MoK. Liking something is a feature of our experiences. Is feeling that something is good exactly the same as liking it, or is it different?Philosophim
    We like things because they make us feel good.

    No one defines good as reward and punishment as evil. That's simply an incorrect use of their definitions, even given the wiggle room they provide. If a man rewards a murderer with money, its not good. If a person who murdered someone is punished for their actions, that's not evil. Good and evil are descriptors of rewards or punishments. A good/evil reward, a good/evil punishment for example.Philosophim
    I have my definition of good and evil. I used these definitions to explain my coherent view when it comes to morality. Good and evil to me are subjective. Good and evil to you are synonyms for right and wrong that I cannot disagree with them anymore. So why use good and evil at all and instead don't use right and wrong? Right is what it should be so we achieve the conclusion!
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    We like things because they make us feel good.MoK

    That's not what I asked MoK. I've tried twice, lets just let it drop then. :)

    Good and evil to you are synonyms for right and wrong that I cannot disagree with them anymore. So why use good and evil at all and instead don't use right and wrong? Right is what it should be so we achieve the conclusion!MoK

    That's fine, we can conclude good and evil are synonyms with right and wrong and call it a good conversation.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should questionPhilosophim

    But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at all - I think asking the question is a farce, in some sense.
    I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking.Philosophim

    That's a fair charge - but I don't think I'm quite doing that. I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code. I can't see that it's an object or fact to be discovered.. That said, I don't fault belief generally.

    That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fullyPhilosophim

    Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist? There are no morals outside of human minds, so I'm having a hard time understanding something other than mere projection. Could you specify where/in what you speculate morality obtains outside of human experience?
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at allAmadeusD

    This is a fair question and let me see if I can show you what I mean.

    Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings. Perhaps someone answer with, "If you're nice to them, they'll be happy." Well why should they be happy? "Because it will brighten their day and they'll be healthier." Why should they be healthy? "Because they'll live longer." Why should they live? Because life is precious? "Why should life be?" Because there existence is positive. All the way down to, "Why should anything exist at all?"

    There are a lot of implicit questions that we gloss over when operating with higher level moral questions. And this makes sense in anything we do. When I drive a car I just need to know how the steering wheel and pedals control the car. I don't need to know physics or why anything exists at all. Objectively, this complex composition of the car is needed for the car to drive, but my subjective experience of driving does not care for most circumstances. Only if it breaks down do I start to need to know something more, but for the most part we don't handle that part, only the fun part.

    Subjective morality is the fun part. If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it.


    I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code.AmadeusD

    No, I promise you there is nothing of the sort. There is no God or outside mover. This is about discovering what is within our universe, not a mystical push outside of it.

    Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist?AmadeusD

    Wild life once captured a bear sauntering along a river where a crow was flailing about drowning. The bear grabbed it with its mouth, put it on the shore, then walked off. What is that? The bear gained no personal benefit, not even a meal. Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example) https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

    And if my theory holds, and existence should be, then there is a basic morality that can logically build up to intelligent morality. I think in a small way, any existence which follows this code, ends up being moral in the most primitive way. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For if it did, it would not exist. We know in our current calculations, that there was much more matter in the beginning of the universe than now? How can that be? Anti-matter right? But what if there are certain things that came into existence...then stopped?

    If you have life that is built out of things that are difficult to change and actively continue to exist despite the forces around it, then does that trickle up to life and the conscious mind? Remember, we are not people. We are a combination of atoms, molecules, and energy that actively seeks to extend the life of its composition, and has the amazing complexity to realize what it is. That is what makes us up like the atoms make your car.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings.Philosophim

    Hmm, right.. so, then

    "Why should anything exist at all?"Philosophim

    Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell.

    If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it.Philosophim

    I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it.

    Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example)Philosophim

    I see where you're going. Hmm. Ok, sentience might be the be-all there rather than human. But, i think it's quite hard to see a singular act by a singular bear as moral. There's no deliberation I don't think. It may have been visually annoyed. But you're right - that line of thinking is taken seriously in the Lit, so I was probably too quick there. Still, prior to sentience, I can't see room.

    I apologise, But i cannot understand the relevant of hte remainder.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    "Why should anything exist at all?"
    — Philosophim

    Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell.
    AmadeusD

    Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"

    I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it.AmadeusD

    Ask the same question to a truck driver who knows nothing of how their truck is made, and you'll get the same question. As I noted, I think it is a property of existence itself that slowly trickled up into sentience. If you don't understand it, that's fine. Its a novel way of looking at things. I go over how it builds up over the several posts, and you would honestly need to read those to see how it develops. I either haven't figured out a way to make it simple yet, or that's as simple as I can personally get it.
  • AmadeusD
    2.7k
    Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"Philosophim

    Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action. It couldn't. It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it. You're then insinuating something "without" has a mind to consider the question. Otherwise, its nonsensical. I'm not pointing at God here - the guys who run the simulation is more likely IMO anyway hehe.

    Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible. I understand that, spring-boarding from that question, there's a lot of work that can be done which might eventually result in a bridge between existence and morality - But i am sorry to say none of that is present here (i have read the OP...). I genuinely think I am not missing anything and you're barking up the wrong tree here, despite it being quite interesting generally.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"
    — Philosophim

    Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action.
    AmadeusD

    What is a right action except an action that should be? I'm faced with making two actions, one wrong, and one right. One action is what should be, while the other is what should not be. That's morality.

    It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it.AmadeusD

    Not at all. If there is an objective reality to morality, then there is an optimal outcome to existence and its actions. Human thought wouldn't matter. Just like a wave of light does not depend upon us to experience it, an objective morality does not depend on upon us to experience it either.

    Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible.AmadeusD

    The key to any good discussion is an agreement on the definitions we're using. If you don't agree with my definition of morality, then you definitely wouldn't understand where I'm going with it. So lets start with the definition. Do you think good is 'what should be'? And morality the method and understanding of what should be?
  • Beverley
    137
    Immediately after reading your post, the first thing that sprang to my mind was that it would be just as easy to make a similar argument for the 'Yes, things should exist' as the 'no, things shouldn't exist' argument you made. (By the way, I apologize if someone else has already pointed this out because, although I have read many responses to this question, I simply don't have time to read them all.) If you are saying that, because the idea of 'things shouldn't exist' exists, this contradicts itself, then it could be just as easy to say that the idea of 'things should exist' is contradictory because there are things that don't exist.

    Also, if we say that 'things shouldn't exist' cannot be an objective truth because it contradicts itself, then it does not exist... but it does exist, so it leads to further contradiction.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective.Philosophim
    If you assume morality is either objective or subjective, then one can consider the metaphysical implications. This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
    At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false.

    Regardless, what's the basis for the premise that OMVs exist? It's typically based on our moral intuitions. But in your op, you said:

    A subjective morality is based on our own feelings and intuitions. An objective morality would be something that could be evaluated apart from our feelings and intuitions using logic and objectively measurable identities.Philosophim

    I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings.

    The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications. It's consistent with the possibility that OMVs exist but doesn't entail their existence, and doesn't require simply assuming they exist (as you proposed).
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
    At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false.
    Relativist

    The OP does not argue for, nor need a God to argue for an objective morality.

    I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings.Relativist

    No, I'm not. What I'm trying to find is a base for an objective morality that builds up to something which better explains why we have the moral intuitions that we do, and a guide to understand beyond instinct and emotion.

    The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications.Relativist

    Yes, this is a more common approach to the issue. But have you read the OP? I'm trying to establish what at minimum, must exist in any objective morality.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    The OP does not argue for, nor need a God to argue for an objective morality.Philosophim
    Without a God, how can there exist objective morality? That's why I brought it up, and also brought up intersubjectivity.

    Yes, this is a more common approach to the issue. But have you read the OP? I'm trying to establish what at minimum, must exist in any objective morality.Philosophim

    Yes, and I disagree with most of it. For example:

    "All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?""
    This is nonsense if, as I explained, morality is not objective in a transcendent sense of existing independently of humans. That's why I brought up "obective moral values" and the basis of morals being empathy.

    If morality is entirely intersubjective among humans, moral judgements apply to things that relate to humans and are contingent upon the human perspective. It means morality is a consequence of our existence, and this is problematic for your claims.

    No, I'm not. What I'm trying to find is a base for an objective morality that builds up to something which better explains why we have the moral intuitions that we do, and a guide to understand beyond instinct and emotion.Philosophim

    We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion. IMO, empathy IS the base because it broadens our self-survival instinct beyond ourselves. The only further "beyond" to this is the reasoning we apply to develop morality more broadly.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Without a God, how can there exist objective morality?Relativist

    I'm going to follow that up with, "Why do you need a God to exist for there to be an objective morality?" I see an objective morality as a rule of existence.

    "All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?""
    This is nonsense if, as I explained, morality is not objective in a transcendent sense of existing independently of humans.
    Relativist

    "Nonsense" is not an argument. Explain to me where I'm wrong in demonstrating that all moral questions boil down to this fundamental question. Have you also proven that an objective morality cannot be separated from humans? Not yet. Feel free to provide examples.

    If morality is entirely intersubjective among humans, moral judgements apply to things that relate to humans and are contingent upon the human perspective.Relativist

    But you have not proven that, nor disproven the point of the OP yet. You've declared it, that's not the same as giving a rational argument which necessarily demonstrates your declaration is true. This is not a discussion of opinions.

    We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion.Relativist

    But this is not a subjective advantage. You have a subjective experience of this advantage, but what is the objective underlying moral rule? Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    I'm going to follow that up with, "Why do you need a God to exist for there to be an objective morality?" I see an objective morality as a rule of existence.Philosophim
    Objective morals are consistent with theism, and inconsistent with physicalism. They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence.

    "Nonsense" is not an argument. Explain to me where I'm wrong in demonstrating that all moral questions boil down to this fundamental question. Have you also proven that an objective morality cannot be separated from humans? Not yet. Feel free to provide examples.Philosophim
    I should have said "seemingly incoherent", because I can't see how to make sense of them. But no, I can't prove objective morals can't exist independently of humans, any more than I can prove the nonexistence of gods, but "not provably false" is not a justification for believing something. So I don't believe such things exist. You seem to think they do, so tell me the justification for that belief.

    We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion.
    — Relativist

    But this is not a subjective advantage. You have a subjective experience of this advantage, but what is the objective underlying moral rule?..
    Philosophim
    This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts. Consider that the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) is consistent with empathy- vicariously experiencing the suffering of others. That alone could serve as the basis for developing a moral system.
    Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?
    Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history. As I said I presume our empathy had a survival advantage. I don't know that I'm right, but I think it entails fewer metaphysical assumptions than you would need. But you're welcome to provide a simple basis.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence.Relativist

    Sure. There are a few things that make me think there is an objective morality.

    1. We are not magical creatures. We are made of the atoms of this Earth like everything else. Boil a person down to chemistry and you realize that life is the build up of unlife into a self-replicating and self-maintaining combination. It seems odd that morality just 'suddenly' appears when life comes about. I've always had a suspicion that the underlying aspects of life have something to them that we build on.

    2. Even animals show aspects of morality. Not sophisticated like a human intelligence, but there are plenty examples of wild animals acting altruistic with no discernable personal benefit, even cross species. One example is a wild bear observed a crow drowning in a river flopping about. It went over, picked it up with its mouth, and plopped it on the river bed before walking on.

    3. The failure of any meaningful or rational subjective system of morality to rise above "Might makes right".

    4. The age old question if there was a God: "Is what God says moral because God says it, or because God is following what is objectively moral?" If morality only has teeth because God says it, then God could say murdering your neighbors while laughing madly is good. Again, just a devolution of might makes right which no one but psychos actively practice.

    "not provably false" is not a justification for believing somethingRelativist

    True, but then that is equally not a justification for not believing something or rationally arguing against something either.

    This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts.Relativist

    My point is there is seemingly an objective reason beyond, "I feel its good." Subjective morality is the morality of a spoiled child. "I do what I want because I want to." An objective morality states, "You should do X because it will likely result in Y which is better than the alternative of Z." Then you can explain why Y is better than Z, not not simply, "Because I like it more."

    So if we begin to say, "Its good that the species survive," we can ask, "Why?" "Because I feel like it." Then why do we bother saving people who want to commit suicide? The species will continue. Why not murder anyone who gets in our way? The species will continue, and I'll have more resources for me. Its a bit more than, "I want, gimme, I feel, gimme, I'm happy to do all sorts of atrocities for my feelings, gimme."

    Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history.Relativist

    Those are reasons why something exists. They are not reasons that it should exist. If a bacteria was able to be invented that wiped out 80% of all life besides human beings, and humans would still be able to live healthy lives, should we? Should we kill all the whales for fun if it amuses us? Enslave other people who are weaker than us? I can explain how all these things could happen, but it doesn't answer the question, "Should it be?"

    At the end, even that boils down to the prime question, "Should there be existence at all?" Its irrelevant why there is existence. Should there be existence? And if there is an objective morality the OP notes that the only rational conclusion to be made is, "Yes".
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Those are reasons why something exists. They are not reasons that it should exist.Philosophim
    Why must there be reasons?

    At the end, even that boils down to the prime question, "Should there be existence at all?" Its irrelevant why there is existence. Should there be existence? And if there is an objective morality the OP notes that the only rational conclusion to be made is, "Yes".Philosophim
    Your question can only be meaningful if existence itself is contingent. I don't think it can be contingent, because contingency entails a source of contingency. That source of contingency would have to exist. If that is contingent, it needs a source...ad infinitum - a vicious infinite regress. Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary. So a "should" (a reason) doesn't apply.

    It seems odd that morality just 'suddenly' appears when life comes about.Philosophim
    As you noted, empathy didn't appear suddenly when humans developed. In addition, parents of most species feel some sort of affection for their offspring. There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so. They may not contemplate the risks in advance, nor do they engage in a mental deliberation weighing the pros and cons before acting. They lack the capacity to do this. Be we have the capacity, and that's what we add to our instinctual inclinations- we intellectualize them, and think abstractly about them. What feels right instinctually IS right and good.

    So if we begin to say, "Its good that the species survive," we can ask, "Why?" "Because I feel like it." Then why do we bother saving people who want to commit suicide? The species will continue. Why not murder anyone who gets in our way? The species will continue, and I'll have more resources for me. Its a bit more than, "I want, gimme, I feel, gimme, I'm happy to do all sorts of atrocities for my feelings, gimme."Philosophim
    You minimize the "feeling like it". It's a strong feeling. We don't want others to commit suicide because we fear death for ourselves, and we empathetically extend this to others. By analogy, each dog in a pack will fight for other members of the pack. I imagine that if they could speak, they would say it's the right thing to do

    I get the strong feeling that you want there to be meaning to existence - perhaps you actually need it to be the case. Do you think this could be the case? If so, I think I can give you something more helpful than my expressing disagreement with you.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Why must there be reasons?Relativist

    Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim.

    Your question can only be meaningful if existence itself is contingent. I don't think it can be contingent, because contingency entails a source of contingency. That source of contingency would have to exist. If that is contingent, it needs a source...ad infinitum - a vicious infinite regress. Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary.Relativist

    That is, (minus the infinite regress) essentially what the OP proves. Therefore we may be in agreement conceptually, just not semantically.

    There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so.Relativist

    Of course, but that doesn't mean there is an objective underlying reason why that feeling exists. We get hungry because we need to eat to survive. But if we only followed our feelings of hunger, we would eat ourselves to obesity or think, "That antifreeze tastes pretty good." Feelings are subjective digests, deeper thought and understanding is objective details. The idea that feelings alone are all we have to go on in morals and there can be no objective details does not pan out in any other feelings we have, why in your mind are moral feelings an exception?

    What feels right instinctually IS right and good.Relativist

    No one objectively agrees to that. There are plenty of times that good feelings lead to bad outcomes. To be extreme, the joy of murder for some people. If you've ever helped raise a kid, sometime they think things are fun that shouldn't be done. I took my young nephew outdoors years ago and we found some pill bugs. He delightfully started harrasing and stomping on them. I had to teach him that we don't kill or bother creatures unless its necessary. He didn't have an innate instinct that killing innocent bugs for fun was wrong. His feelings lead him to do wrong, but a lesson fixed the issue.

    You minimize the "feeling like it". It's a strong feeling. We don't want others to commit suicide because we fear death for ourselves, and we empathetically extend this to others.Relativist

    I do minimize the feeling of it. Whether its a strong or weak feeling, its still just a feeling and not anything reasoned through. We don't feel through engineering. We don't merely feel disgust at our significant other in the morning because their breath smells and divorce them. We don't cheat on our significant other because it would feel good. There are countless examples of good feelings that you can think of practically in your own life that compel you to do things that you know you shouldn't do. We shouldn't even be entertaining the notion that, "Whatever I feel is good, is good."

    As for suicide, many years ago when I was younger that was an appealing option. I was not afraid. Fortunately, I thought about the consequences of it and decided it was wrong despite its allure. As for dogs, its best we don't attribute what they feel when we could never know ourselves.

    I get the strong feeling that you want there to be meaning to existence - perhaps you actually need it to be the case.Relativist

    Another example of feelings being wrong. I find meaning in my own existence for myself. I do not need a God or something else to give me meaning in life. What I want to have is a rational standard of right and wrong that can help me approach choices in life that result in better outcomes for myself and everything else. I would be a fool to think my own emotional whims are the answer.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim.Philosophim
    Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism. Naturalism would imply that what occurs is a product of blind, undirected nature - neither reasons nor whims.

    ... Therefore existence is metaphysically necessary.
    — Relativist

    That is, (minus the infinite regress) essentially what the OP proves. Therefore we may be in agreement conceptually, just not semantically.
    Philosophim
    Then you should agree your question, "Should there be existence?" is inapplicable, and certainly has nothing to do with morality.

    There are reports of mother cats entering burning buildings to rescue their kittens, getting themselves hurt in the process. I suggest it "feels right" to them to do so.
    — Relativist

    Of course, but that doesn't mean there is an objective underlying reason why that feeling exists.
    Philosophim
    The behavior (having the feeling that induces the actions) has a survival value for the species, so that could account for its presence - demonstrating it being consistent with naturalism. In this case, there isn't a reason this particular trait evolved. Other species evolve differently; example: some produce so many offspring that there's high probability some will survive to reproduce.


    The idea that feelings alone are all we have to go on in morals and there can be no objective details does not pan out in any other feelings we have, why in your mind are moral feelings an exception?
    I'm not suggesting that feelings fully account for all morality, just that they are at the core. A feeling can account for the concepts of "good" and "bad": hurting me invokes a "bad" feeling; helping me invokes a "good" feeling. Through empathy, these feelings get evoked vicariously. Neither concept can be understood solely by their dictionary definitions - the link to the feelings must be present. Sociopaths lack the link. They could be forced to memorize a moral code, but they'll lack the connection to their feelings.

    This innate capacity for perceiving good and evil is a sine qua non for morality, but it's only the beginning of the story. From there, we then think abstractly, apply reasoning, and we learn things (including the morality further developed by others).


    What feels right instinctually IS right and good.
    — Relativist

    No one objectively agrees to that....
    Philosophim
    I was only referring only to the fundamental basis of right(good) and wrong (bad). We still learn things - such as what you've taught your children. And we have other feelings that lead us in other directions, and different people will apply different reasoning and differrent sets of beliefs.
  • Philosophim
    2.8k
    Because if there is no logic reason, there is nothing besides whim.
    — Philosophim
    Both "reasons" and "whims" are products of minds, so this suggests deism or theism.
    Relativist

    A feeling and a reason are two different products of the mind. A feeling is an impetus or summary that compels a person to action. A reason is the result of an analyzed situation that one can decide to act on.
    This in no way suggests deism or theism, and I would need to see some reasoning why you think that is.

    Then you should agree your question, "Should there be existence?" is inapplicable, and certainly has nothing to do with morality.Relativist

    No, then you should agree with my conclusion that "There should be existence" is the logically necessary base of an objective morality. You'll need to give greater detail why this isn't the case.

    The behavior (having the feeling that induces the actions) has a survival value for the species, so that could account for its presenceRelativist

    Right, the underlying value for having that feeling is the species survival. But should the species survive? If there was a cat that was born with the compulsion to kill all other baby cats, should that cat exist over a cat that has a compulsion to nurture newborns? This is a question that asks a rational response, and not an emotional answer.

    Other species evolve differently; example: some produce so many offspring that there's high probability some will survive to reproduce.Relativist

    Right, the particulars may change, but isn't the underlying objective purpose to ensure the species continues? Why should any species continue?

    I'm not suggesting that feelings fully account for all morality, just that they are at the core. From there, we then think abstractly, apply reasoning, and we learn things (including the morality further developed by others).Relativist

    The feelings of morality are how we first subjectively experience morality. Just like the pleasant warmth of a sunbeam is how we experience the confirmation of objective health of vitamin D and temperature. The benefits to a sunbeam would be no matter how you felt about it however. As soon as you bring reason and learning into the mixture, you're talking about objectivity. And that's what I'm trying to pin down in the OP. The beginnings of any rational discussion of morality must conclude that given the options of existence vs complete non-existence, existence is better, and therefore the base of any good reason.
15678910
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.