The thief and I have different opinions on stealing, so it does not follow from my opinion that morality is objective if that is what you want to conclude. As I mentioned before, objective morality is based on pure reason.

The thief and I have different opinions on stealing, so it does not follow from my opinion that morality is objective if that is what you want to conclude. — MoK

That sounds like you are accepting the thief's claim as morally right, while maintaining your claim as morally right too, which are totally contradicting judgements. So who is really right?

As I mentioned before, objective morality is based on pure reason. — MoK

What do you mean by pure reason? Is it a Kantian term? Or is it your own definition of reason?

Could you please explain the difference between pure reason and practical reason in Kantian philosophy?

That sounds like you are accepting the thief's claim as morally right, while maintaining your claim as morally right too, which are totally contradicting judgements. — Corvus

No, I am saying that the thief thinks he is right. I think he is not right so welcome to the subjective moral world.

So who is really right? — Corvus

Any person thinks that he is right.

What do you mean by pure reason? Is it a Kantian term? Or is it your own definition of reason? — Corvus

By pure reason, I mean a sort of reason that is based on a prior principles.

Could you please explain the difference between pure reason and practical reason in Kantian philosophy? — Corvus

To me, practical reason is not based on a prior principle but on opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings, and the like.

No, I am saying that the thief thinks he is right. I think he is not right so welcome to the subjective moral world. — MoK

It just sounds like you are contradicting yourself.

So who is really right? — Corvus

Any person thinks that he is right. — MoK

The world will collapse with break down of law and order if that was true.

By pure reason, I mean a sort of reason that is based on a prior principles. — MoK

What is a prior principles?

To me, practical reason is not based on a prior principle but on opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings, and the like. — MoK

They are just opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings. Why do they have to be practical reason?

It just sounds like you are contradicting yourself. — Corvus

No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview.

The world will collapse with break down of law and order if that was true. — Corvus

The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right.

What is a prior principles? — Corvus

A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience.

They are just opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings. Why do they have to be practical reason? — Corvus

We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function.

No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview. — MoK

Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe.

The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right. — MoK

What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country.

A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience. — MoK

Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason?

Well, from my knowledge deduction or induction has nothing to do with moral judgements.
Deduction is a kind of reasoning based on the definition of words, axioms, theorems or principles and laws. They are not from experience or the external world events.
Induction is reasoning based on the external world events and experiences from reality.

Both reasoning has nothing to do with moral judgements, because they deal with truth or falsity (in the case of deduction), and high or low probability (induction) on the conclusions or inferences .

Moral judgements are always right or wrong on the human actions. They have nothing to do with true or false, or probable or not probable on the value of the judgements.

Hence your claim that morality is based on pure reason, and pure reason is deduction, and morality is subjective is not making sense.

We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function. — MoK

Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements.

Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe. — Corvus

What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it.

What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country. — Corvus

My point was that the conflict between people about who is right or wrong indicates that morality is not objective but subjective.

Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason? — Corvus

The pure reason includes deduction. Pure reason is a broad concept referring to any form of logical thinking in an attempt to reach a conclusion. Deduction is however a type of reasoning in which you start with true premises and reach a conclusion. Deduction as well as pure reason has its use when it comes to morality. For example, if we accept that killing a human is wrong as a true premise then it follows that killing me is wrong since I am a human.

Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements. — Corvus

How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective.

What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it. — MoK

Your understanding on pure reason seems to be completely wrong. Please go and read about it again.

Pure reason is not deduction. Pure reason means the reasoning is not based on experience in Kant.
Pure reason also means when reason reflects on reason itself, it is called pure reason. it has nothing to do with deduction. Deductive reasoning means the reasoning is based on the meaning of the concept itself. For example, a bachelor is an unmarried man. Bachelor has the meaning included in the word itself.

Moral reasoning is different type of reasoning from deduction or induction, and it has nothing to do with pure reason.

Moral reason is based on practical reason on the human actions. Moral judgements are objective when they are based on pure reason which are objective and universal in human nature.

How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective. — MoK

We say morality is objective when it is based on practical reasoning. When the judgements are based on your beliefs, feeling and opinions, that is not morality. It is your feelings, beliefs and opinions and dispositions.

Therefore saying morality is subjective is identical claim to there is no morality.

Your understanding on pure reason seems to be completely wrong. Please go and read about it again. — Corvus

I don't think so.

Pure reason is not deduction. — Corvus

I didn't say so. I said pure reason includes deduction. That is not my definition though. You can google it yourself.

Moral reason is based on practical reason on the human actions. — Corvus

What is the practical reason to you?

Moral judgements are objective when they are based on pure reason which are objective and universal in human nature. — Corvus

Objective morality to me is based on pure reason. Any rational agents, including humans, would agree on objective morality if there is any. I am arguing that morality is not objective but subjective though.

We say morality is objective when it is based on practical reasoning. — Corvus

How do you define practical reasoning?

When the judgements are based on your beliefs, feeling and opinions, that is not morality. — Corvus

To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors?

Therefore saying morality is subjective is identical claim to there is no morality. — Corvus

I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective.

How do you define practical reasoning? — MoK

I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience.

Practical reasoning is the type of reasoning which come to judgements of moral good or bad on the human actions.

When it is based on the categorical imperatives or universal laws such as stealing is bad or killing is bad, then it could be classed as pure practical reason.

To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors? — MoK

I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions.

I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective. — MoK

Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense.

I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience. — Corvus

I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below.

When it is based on the categorical imperatives or universal laws such as stealing is bad or killing is bad, then it could be classed as pure practical reason. — Corvus

I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion.

I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions. — Corvus

We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on.

Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense. — Corvus

These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested.

I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below. — MoK

If you asked my definition of practical reason, it is the reasoning which deals with the judgements of right or wrong on human actions.

There are different types of reasoning i.e. deductive, inductive and practical reasoning.  The type of knowledge from the judgements of right and wrong on human actions are different from those from deductive and inductive reasoning.

When we witness, perceive or think about thief stealing, we judge the action of stealing as morally wrong via practical reasoning i.e. not by inductive or deductive reasoning, and not by feelings, beliefs, interests or opinions.

I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion. — MoK

1) The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason.

2)

2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. — MoK

They don't warrant objectivity. Morality implies objectivity.

To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not, under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good.

In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning must be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the moral code of the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world.

We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on. — MoK

You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality.

These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested. — MoK

Sure, I am aware of the moral skeptics, relativists and nihilists arguments. But I understand that most of their argument are based on the ontological uncertainty of moral good, rather than moral good being subjective. If you read the first article, that is what the article seems to be saying too.

By all means, please feel free reading the sources that support your views, and come back with your further argument, and I would be grateful and interested to have read on them, and discuss the points further with you. Many thanks for your endeavor trying to clarify the polemic points of views here. I feel that I will learn something useful and interesting when the discussions are over.

The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason. — Corvus

You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.

They don't warrant objectivity. — Corvus

Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide.

Morality implies objectivity. — Corvus

Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though.

To judge whether the locked-in man should die or not, you must think carefully on all aspects of the situation, whether indeed dying would be the best option for him or not under moral reasoning. It is not a simple matter of feeling or believing that the man should die for his own good. — Corvus

Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it.

In this type of real life case, some serious thinking and reasoning would be involved in the moral judgement. The final judgement must be based on the objectivity of morality which would involve not just the man, but also the family of the man, and the society he lives in. But most importantly, by the universal law and category imperative, thou shall not kill, which comes from the ancient moral and religious code in the whole world. — Corvus

Yet, you need to provide an argument for why killing a human is objectively wrong in all circumstances. Needless to say, the God of the Old Testament commanded to kill all people including innocents, and just keep virgin girls for yourself elsewhere (Numbers 31:17-18). So I am wondering how you could explain such a conflict.

You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. — Corvus

I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible.

As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality. — Corvus

Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense.

You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK

If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.

Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs.

Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide. — MoK

You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all.

Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though. — MoK

If you lived alone in a desert, then there would be no such a thing as morality. Morality activates when the others in the society you live in approve your actions either right or wrong based on practical reasoning which are common to human nature in general.

Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it. — MoK

When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation.

I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible. — MoK

The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself.

Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense. — MoK

Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests change any time and with no certainty and consistency. Morality based on the psychological states would be just contingent emotional events which have no ground for justification and objectivity. Therefore it is not morality. It is anti morality.

If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.

Universalizing maxims would also prevent folks trying to overrun the society and harm the other folks by driving their egoistic motives on moral issues. It would be also good to have a society run by rationality in moral laws which will increase the possibility of fairness and justice on moral affairs. — Corvus

Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription?

You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all. — Corvus

As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this.

When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation. — Corvus

And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?...

The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself. — Corvus

Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong.

Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription? — MoK

Maxims are good in itself. Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. There is no reason for the fact. It is the maxim, and it is universal law. Why valid? Because it is good. Good is better than bad.

As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this. — MoK

They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements.

And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?... — MoK

You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. This is the instruction from the maxim.

But one has also right to make own decisions to one's own problems. They are different issue.

The other examples of real life cases, terminal illness, adultery and self protection etc, all need more details for the situation, so that you could think and reason to be able to come to moral judgements. It is not simple matter of saying how about this and that. Moral judgements need good thinking and reasoning reflecting all the factors involved in the situation. It is not matter of feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK

Well, said above, but will say again. Because good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness. People want good and happiness by nature, and hate and reject bad and unhappiness. There is no explanations or reason for that. That is why maxim is universal law. It is ultimate and pure just like 1+1=2 is true without reason, argument or explanation.

@MoK @Corvus Allow me to chime in here. I was recently convinced of objective morality (after being a strong believer in anti-realism) when I was made aware of my conflation between moral subjectivity and conditionally objectivity.

You have to think of morality as a framework by which life abides by. We, as humans, depend
on the well-being of ourselves and each other, that is true of life just as 1+1 = 2 is true of math.

Under the condition that this is the case, it is objectively true that in accounting for well-being, *and by well-being I mean the interdependent well-being of life (or humans for arguments sake), some actions are *better* or *worse* than others.
( I say better or worse because I still don’t believe one can make definitive moral oughts without taking into context the thing in which they’re referring to )

It is objectively true that preventing suffering is better for the well-being of the human species than allowing it, and by that standard, suffering is bad.

To say there are inherent laws of morality that are prevalent in the universe, the same way laws of logic are, would be untrue, but also an irrational standard to hold morality to.
Morality is agent dependent - this just isn't the case for i.e., the law of excluded middle - you could retort and say well in that case morality isn't objective - sure, but at that point it would be a meaningless discussion, as everything is conditional to some extent, and be weary not to use moral subjectivity or relativity in its place.

Maxims are good in itself. — Corvus

I don't think that a maxim is good or bad in Kant's terminology. For example, increasing my wealth is a maxim. Kant however provides a test on a maxim, killing a human for example, to see whether the action that maxim refers to is right or wrong. So, I believe that a maxim in Kant's terminology is not good or bad per se without passing the test. It is through the test that Kant concludes that killing is wrong for example. That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test.

Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. — Corvus

What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling?

They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements. — Corvus

They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality.

You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. — Corvus

That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution.

Allow me to chime in here. — KantRemember

You are very welcome to this thread.

I was recently convinced of objective morality (after being a strong believer in anti-realism) when I was made aware of my conflation between moral subjectivity and conditionally objectivity. — KantRemember

What do you mean by conditional objectivity?

You have to think of morality as a framework by which life abides by. — KantRemember

I don't think that it is morality but "common" interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. I used "common" to stress that we are social animals and we could not possibly survive without collaboration. Humans managed to survive and evolve a long time ago when we had no idea about morality. Unfortunately, we are still tribal creatures so we have conflicts in interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions when it comes to my tribe versus your tribe, my group versus your group, my country versus your country, etc. These conflicts are still the main source of tension between human beings. The conflicts unfortunately even exist within a human group. We still have poor and rich people in many countries while we are familiar with the concept of morality. So the question is why we as rational agents cannot manage to reach a state of harmony where all individuals' needs are fulfilled, all individuals are treated equally, all individuals are governed by universal laws in a united state, etc. I think the answer to this question is that we haven't yet evolved well enough. What do you think?

We, as humans, depend on the well-being of ourselves and each other, that is true of life just as 1+1 = 2 is true of math. — KantRemember

I think you are referring to Utopia. There are still power abuses even in well-developed countries. There is a boss who has all rights to the intellectual properties produced by workers. He is rich and workers just receive minimal wages to survive. He has the right to fire workers. Unfortunately, humanity can function under such a condition. It was working under such a condition and it will.

It is objectively true that preventing suffering is better for the well-being of the human species than allowing it, and by that standard, suffering is bad. — KantRemember

Well, that is true if we live in Utopia. Is that right to torture a terrorist who put a bomb in a location to get information about where the bomb is? You can save many lives just by torturing him. What do you think?

What do you mean by conditional objectivity? — MoK

Conditional Objectivity is state of objectivity that is contingent on predefined conditions or framework(s). That is to say, if X, then it is objective that Y. Y would be conditionally objective, with the condition being X.

I don't think that it is morality but "common" interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. I used "common" to stress that we are social animals and we could not possibly survive without collaboration. Humans managed to survive and evolve a long time ago when we had no idea about morality. Unfortunately, we are still tribal creatures so we have conflicts in interests, beliefs, feelings, and opinions when it comes to my tribe versus your tribe, my group versus your group, my country versus your country, etc. These conflicts are still the main source of tension between human beings. The conflicts unfortunately even exist within a human group. We still have poor and rich people in many countries while we are familiar with the concept of morality. So the question is why we as rational agents cannot manage to reach a state of harmony where all individuals' needs are fulfilled, all individuals are treated equally, all individuals are governed by universal laws in a united state, etc. I think the answer to this question is that we haven't yet evolved well enough. What do you think? — MoK

An understanding of morality is not needed to abide by it. Morality is the principles by which right and wrong are judged. A tribal community in the amazon unexposed to the idea of morality could still act moral (or immoral) based on the actions they do. The conflict between human beings is very much a real thing, but this does not undermine the idea of (conditional) objective morality.

By equal treatment I'm going to assume you mean equitable treatment, but to answer your question, I'd say because human beings, while rational, are selfish. I'm unsure as to why we haven't evolved to otherwise yet, I doubt I'm qualified to answer, but one thing is for sure, throughout history, we've seen a gradual progress towards better societies, and better laws that govern us, this at least implies that there is some standard.

I think you are referring to Utopia. There are still power abuses even in well-developed countries. There is a boss who has all rights to the intellectual properties produced by workers. He is rich and workers just receive minimal wages to survive. He has the right to fire workers. Unfortunately, humanity can function under such a condition. It was working under such a condition and it will. — MoK

I agree, there are. All this does, however, is highlight that there a yet flaws and iniquities in our nature, its a matter of sociology *and/or capitalism if you ask Marx* rather than morality. As much as humanity can function under such conditions, it does not mean that it should, or that it is beneficial for the interdependent wellbeing of those in such a system - there is a reason why we progressed from slavery and accepted it as abhorrent.

Well, that is true if we live in Utopia. Is that right to torture a terrorist who put a bomb in a location to get information about where the bomb is? You can save many lives just by torturing him. What do you think? — MoK

It's not just true if we live in a Utopia, but also true if we wish to better as a species, or care for our wellbeing, and everybody cares for their wellbeing, and by care I do not mean conscious intent, but goal-directed behaviour, life values life, its inherent. Even still, if everybody abided by the moral laws within a system, then a utopia would be the end result - think of Kant's categorical imperatives.

W/regards to your trolley-problem esque question, that would depend on the ethical framework you abide by, but doing so involves the implication of caring for well-being to some extent. Anyway, pragmatically, I would probably opt. for the option that saves many lives, however, I'm not saying, or necessarily conforming to the idea that, this is the right thing to do.

The discussion was in terms of the general principle how morality works and based. 1+1=2 was an analogy given to @MoK to help thinking in parallel to the example when thinking about morality. Of course moral judgements are not deductive reasoning. Moral judgements are practical reasoning.

I agree that each moral case must be considered for its own situation and all the factors involved in the case, hence the reason why moral judgements are based on reason. That is my point.

That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test. — MoK

How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything.

What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling? — MoK

Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling.

They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality. — MoK

They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins.

That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution. — MoK

"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth.

Evolution and opinions have nothing to do with the maxims and moral codes which are objective in moral judgements.

Generally, we're on the same page, it was more so targeted at MoK, trying to help them understand how moral objectivity could exist etc. Apologies for any confusion.

:ok: :cool:

Apologies for any confusion. — KantRemember

No worries my friend. Your point was very lucid and made sense. I appreciate your post. Thank you.

Conditional Objectivity is state of objectivity that is contingent on predefined conditions or framework(s). That is to say, if X, then it is objective that Y. Y would be conditionally objective, with the condition being X. — KantRemember

Are you saying that objective morality depends on the situation? If not, do you mind elaborating and giving examples of X and Y?

An understanding of morality is not needed to abide by it. — KantRemember

Quite oppositely, an understanding of morality and good linguistic skills are required to obey morality. How could one obey morality if he has no understanding of it? Linguistic skills are also required to pass the knowledge of morality from one generation to another. A rational agent who is not mentally evolved to understand morality just follows his feelings and interests.

Morality is the principles by which right and wrong are judged. — KantRemember

Correct.

A tribal community in the amazon unexposed to the idea of morality could still act moral (or immoral) based on the actions they do. — KantRemember

They mainly act based on feelings and interests.

The conflict between human beings is very much a real thing, but this does not undermine the idea of (conditional) objective morality. — KantRemember

It does undermine the idea of objective morality. In all conflicts there are two sides each believes they are right and doing right. All conflict would be resolved if people as rational agents agree on objective morality. I still do not know what you mean by conditional objective morality though.

By equal treatment I'm going to assume you mean equitable treatment, but to answer your question, I'd say because human beings, while rational, are selfish. — KantRemember

We have many bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Selfishness is related to one gene. Psychopaths have another common gene. Some people are not intelligent enough to understand morality. And many others. The only way to get rid of these bad genes is to either monitor unborn children and abort those who have bad genes and disallow people with bad genes to have a baby otherwise we have to deal with this problem that there is no solution for it. Whether people ethically have the right to follow this approach is subject to discussion.

I'm unsure as to why we haven't evolved to otherwise yet, I doubt I'm qualified to answer, but one thing is for sure, throughout history, we've seen a gradual progress towards better societies, and better laws that govern us, this at least implies that there is some standard. — KantRemember

Yes, I agree that we had some gradual progress towards better societies.

I agree, there are. All this does, however, is highlight that there a yet flaws and iniquities in our nature, its a matter of sociology *and/or capitalism if you ask Marx* rather than morality. — KantRemember

Morality is a very crucial concept when it comes to any society. I don't see how one can divorce sociology and morality.

As much as humanity can function under such conditions, it does not mean that it should, or that it is beneficial for the interdependent wellbeing of those in such a system - there is a reason why we progressed from slavery and accepted it as abhorrent. — KantRemember

Yes, we shouldn't live under such conditions. But the question is why we still do. I think that Capitalism is a form of weak slavery. The minority takes advantage of the situation and gets the most profit while the majority just receives a minimal. All intellectual products are confiscated by the minority. The majority have no right to have a secure job and life. Etc.

It's not just true if we live in a Utopia, but also true if we wish to better as a species, or care for our wellbeing, and everybody cares for their wellbeing, and by care I do not mean conscious intent, but goal-directed behaviour, life values life, its inherent. Even still, if everybody abided by the moral laws within a system, then a utopia would be the end result - think of Kant's categorical imperatives. — KantRemember

We cannot reach Utopia until there are bad genes that are hidden and circulate in the human population. Once these bad genes are removed either by evolution or by us then we have a chance to live in Utopia. I read about Kant's categorical imperatives and I am discussing his first formulation with Corvus right now. My main problem with this formulation is that he suggests that one has to universalize a maxim to see whether the action that the maxim refers to is right or wrong. I am questioning why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. I also have a problem accepting how reaching a problem by universalizing a maxim helps us realize whether an act is right or wrong. Let me give you an example: Consider killing a human is right as a maxim. Now according to Kant, we need to universalize this maxim by this he means that all humans should act according to this maxim to see whether killing humans is right or wrong. Well, of course, there could be no human if everybody attempts to kill another. He then considers this as a problem and then concludes that killing is wrong. This however requires accepting that the existence of humans is objectively right otherwise you cannot conclude that killing humans is wrong.

W/regards to your trolley-problem esque question, that would depend on the ethical framework you abide by, but doing so involves the implication of caring for well-being to some extent. Anyway, pragmatically, I would probably opt. for the option that saves many lives, however, I'm not saying, or necessarily conforming to the idea that, this is the right thing to do. — KantRemember

So do you torture him? Yes, or no?

How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything. — Corvus

If life is precious to me then I simply don't kill. I don't need Kant's first formulation to realize this.

Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling. — Corvus

I asked for a definition of good and bad. Happiness is of course a feeling.

They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins. — Corvus

Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example.

"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth. — Corvus

These are not arguments.

Evolution and opinions have nothing to do with the maxims and moral codes which are objective in moral judgements. — Corvus

Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality.

Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality. — MoK

The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.

Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept.

I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink: