This would be a meta ethical question.

it's pretty easily to prove that false — Darkneos

we made up morality (among other things). — Darkneos

Would be the sort of things moral realists would disagree with you on. I’m not one, so I don’t know how one would disagree. And I don’t think there are many moral realists on the forum either.

You seem to be a moral anti-realist. Someone who thinks questions of morality make no sense in the first place. That nothing is right or wrong. Not many like you around either.

Then there are moral relativists who define what’s “right” or “wrong” relative to something or other (the individual, the society, etc). Something can be wrong now and right later. This seems to be what applies to the majority of posters here from what I’ve seen.

I think those who argue for non-objective morality are committing the same mistake as I was when I decided to tell two identical twins apart by noticing that one wore glasses and the other didn't. My mistake was ignoring all the other similarities that spelled "I-D-E-N-T-I-C-A-L" . Presuming a non-objective stance on morality hinges on differences between moralities of different cultures, my hunch is that a lot of commonalities, commonalities that point to objective moral truths, are being overlooked, much to our loss.

This would only argue that we have common intuitions about morality. Is that the same thing as having an objective morality?

And what of the cases where someone has intuitions that don’t match the majority? I think all of us have a few of those. What do we do about them?

This would only argue that we have common intuitions about morality. Is that the same thing as having an objective morality?

And what of the cases where someone has intuitions that don’t match the majority? I think all of us have a few of those. What do we do about them? — khaled

You maybe right but then how does one distinguish intuitions from knowledge? Also, no smoke without fire; that the intuitions of disparate cultures converge to a set of moral codes is a big hint that there are objective moral truths that our gut-feelings zero in on, no?

big hint that there are objective moral truths that our gut-feelings zero in on, no? — TheMadFool

It really depends on what you mean by objective. If objective just means everyone agrees on it, then yes your statement above would apply.

However if you want to divorce "objective" from "inter-subjective" (as in everyone agrees on it) then your statement doesn't apply. We would just have a hint that there is an "inter-subjective" morality but no reason to think it matches whatever the "objective" morality is. Now, having divorced them, I have no clue how you would ascertain what the "objective" morality is but that's a problem for moral realists.

You maybe right but then how does one distinguish intuitions from knowledge? — TheMadFool

Knowledge implies a much higher degree of certainty.

Sure I enjoy peace and safety but I wouldn't really call such things "good" in any objective sense any more than I would label murder "bad". — Darkneos

Less than 200 years ago, my elders believed it was honorable to eat another man's heart. Maori warriors would fight and kill their opponents, and eat his heart to honor his death, and absorb his strength.

My Grandfather was in his early 20s when he got my Grandmother pregnant at 11 years old. I remember my Great Aunts talking about it as if it was normal back then, as long as they were married.

It seems obvious that morals are a social construct. Actions are morally measured by how they make you and your peers feel, and also the neighborhood.

It's all trial and error, which is complicated if your too short sighted to look back in history.

It's just hard to take seriously anyone arguing for objective morality when it's pretty easily to prove that false, considering we made up morality (among other things). — Darkneos

If, as I argue, harm isn't merely subjective, and if, furthermore, moral good isn't merely a matter of opinion, show me what I'm missing or where my thinking goes wrong (re: posts linked).

You have argued that we generally tend to agree on what is good and bad. And we generally tend to agree on what hurts (starvation, depravation, etc). However:

It really depends on what you mean by objective. If objective just means everyone agrees on it, then yes your statement above would apply (that there is an objective morality).

However if you want to divorce "objective" from "inter-subjective" (as in everyone agrees on it) then your statement doesn't apply. We would just have a hint that there is an "inter-subjective" morality but no reason to think it matches whatever the "objective" morality is. Now, having divorced them, I have no clue how you would ascertain what the "objective" morality is but that's a problem for moral realists. — khaled

Thanks for the info but, as far as I'm concerned, that there's some kind of common ground to be found among various cultures on morality speaks for itself - differences would be more pronounced in the absence of some objective moral truths. Also, I'd like to point out the allegedly ubiquitous nature of the so-called golden rule - that all of us see eye to eye on the value of that moral principle can't be a coincidence.

By the way, those moral rules that we agree on - thou shalt not kill for example - are justifiable i.e. in your universe it counts as an objective moral truth and can't be an intersubjective phenomenon. What say you?

First, which definition? If everyone agrees that something is moral does that make it objective? Or is it a bit more than just agreement?

Is it possible for everyone to simultaneously think that something is wrong and it be right anyways and vice versa? If so, then what is the method you use for determining what is moral?

that all of us see eye to eye on the value of that moral principle can't be a coincidence. — TheMadFool

Definitely not coincidence. But it IS evolutionary. It's just that the ones that didn't see eye to eye with us were killed, jailed, or died out.

It sounds to me that arguments about what constitutes "right" and "wrong" are mere opinions — Darkneos

You are reducing a significant question to a matter of mere personal whim.

Morality is the distilled product of humans trying to settle on common rules of right and wrong. There are some major exceptions, but most people have agreed over time that arbitrarily killing people is wrong. Rape, theft, arson, and like acts are likewise considered wrong. We recognize that IF we are going to live together peaceably then some acts have to be condemned and punished. We also recognize actions which contribute to peaceable life together--love, loyalty, generosity, flexibility, and so forth are considered right.

No manageable moral system will cover everything. About many issues, like whether you should paint your house white or yellow, are areas where mere opinion rules. Do you prefer labrador retrievers or collies? Mere opinion. Gray cats or yellow cats? Apples or oranges? Rayon, nylon, or polyester? Pastrami or peanut butter? All mere opinion.

considering we made up morality — Darkneos

"We" did make it up; that doesn't mean it is merely arbitrary and capricious opinion. It's is also true, especially in your case, that your mere opinion will not outweigh everybody else's.

First, which definition? If everyone agrees that something is moral does that make it objective? Or is it a bit more than just agreement?

Is it possible for everyone to simultaneously think that something is wrong and it be right anyways and vice versa? If so, then what is the method you use for determining what is moral? — khaled

I'll give you an empirical example to get my point across. If 1 person sees a boat on the horizon, you would be more doubtful than if 10 people had made the same claim. In essence, the rule of thumb for objectivity seems to be more the merrier. Thus my belief that the overlap in moral codes among various culitures and religion points to some objective moral facts that people seem to have intuited.

On the matter of intersubjectivity, I suspect the first order of business is to establish that what we have on our hands is actually, unequivocally, subjective. No intercollege without college. To say moral convergence could be intersubjective would mean we already know that morality is subjective. Begging the question situation, no?

Which definition of objective though? Why aren't you answering?

I'll give you an empirical example to get my point across. If 1 person sees a boat on the horizon, you would be more doubtful than if 10 people had made the same claim. In essence, the rule of thumb for objectivity seems to be more the merrier. Thus my belief that the overlap in moral codes among various culitures and religion points to some objective moral facts that people seem to have intuited. — TheMadFool

But that doesn't apply in this case.

Propose that the "Objective moral code" was "Kill whenever you can and steal whenever you can". If tribe A believes this and tribe B believes that you should not kill and you should not steal, tribe A would all perish. And tribe B would survive. We are tribe B as we have survived. See? A situation where everyone thinks morality is one way but it is actually another way. And the tribe that perished were right all along!

Point is, if you want to divorce morality from agreement, and propose that there is some "Objective moral code" that is set in stone and unchanged by whether or not people believe it then you cannot assume that the smoke is pointing to a fire in this case. Or rather, the fire it is pointing to is the "Evolutionarily advantageous morality" not the "Objective morality" you want.

The difference with empirical sciences is, if tribe A wishes to believe that there is no flood incoming, but tribe B rightly believes that there is a flood coming and so they move, tribe A will perish, as they were wrong. In other words, being wrong about the "objective morality" has no practical consequences but being wrong about empirical observations does have practical consequences. And since we are all alive, we can assume that our empirical observations are correct. Because, if like tribe A we were not able to see floods, we would have perished.

To say moral convergence could be intersubjective would mean we already know that morality is subjective. Begging the question situation, no? — TheMadFool

No. Something can be intersubjective and also objective. Nothing wrong there. It can happen that everyone agrees on something and that something is the case.

It should also be theoretically possible for something to be objective and NOT intersubjective. As in, something is the case but not everyone agrees it is the case. Which is why I asked:

Is it possible for everyone to simultaneously think that something is wrong and it be right anyways and vice versa? If so, then what is the method you use for determining what is moral? — khaled

Something can be intersubjective and also objective — khaled

Then why are we arguing. We're on the same side.

Then why are we arguing. We're on the same side. — TheMadFool

No because I think morality is ONLY intersubjective. It is only based on agreement. It is not "out in the world" like a rock is. It's not written in stone (metaphorically) somewhere. Do you also think so?

No because I think morality is ONLY intersubjective. It is only based on agreement. It is not "out in the world" like a rock is. It's not written in stone (metaphorically) somewhere. Do you also think so? — khaled

Then you're misusing the term "intersubjective".

Then you're misusing the term "intersubjective". — TheMadFool

How so? I find that unlikely since I'm the one that introduced it.

Intersubjective just means everyone agrees on it. Morality is something (almost) everyone agrees on. But no more than that.

I think what is commonly agreed on as wrong is when the question of 'What if that was done to me?' arises in our minds and we collectively cringe at the thought, based on our cultures and values. For example, wrongful incarceration. Or a teacher has a bias against a student and grades him poorly. Or someone's spouse is cheating on them. Now again, in certain cultures, the wrongfully incarcerated person maybe blamed for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or the student maybe blamed for not having a better rapport with their teacher. And finally, the spouse cheated on, maybe blamed for not doing enough for the relationship. A lot of it is cultural, religious and political and it comes down to what numbers you have on your side and a herd mentality.

How so? I find that unlikely since I'm the one that introduced it — khaled

You're claiming morality is only intersubjective i.e. it isn't objective. That means it has to be subjective; in other words, what you're really saying or should be saying is that morality is subjective but then you're relying on intersubjectivity to bolster this claim which is wrong because you, yourself said "...Something can be intersubjective and also objective..."

which is wrong because you, yourself said "...Something can be intersubjective and also objective..." — TheMadFool

Something CAN be intersubjective and also objective.

Not in this case, I don't think.

You think morality is objective. I don't know if you think it is intersubjective or not.

In other words: Do you think we have "figured out" morality? That what we agree on right now is, in fact, the "true moral code for all time"?

If yes then you think it is objective and intersubjective. If no then you think it is only objective, but we haven't figured it out yet.

Something CAN be intersubjective and also objective.

Not in this case.

I did not say "whatever is intersubjective is objective". — khaled

Ok!

Ok! — TheMadFool

So... we done or are we gonna go back to argue?

So... we done or are we gonna go back to argue? — khaled

I'm done. Thank you for teaching me about intersubjectivity. I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

It really depends on what you mean by objective. — khaled

By objective I denote subjectivity [perspective, consensus (intersubjective), language, gauge]–invariance e.g. arithmetic, gravity, boiling point of water, species functional defects of humans, etc.

By objective I denote subjectivity [perspective, consensus (intersubjective), language, gauge]–invariance e.g. arithmetic, gravity, boiling point of water, species functional defects of homo sapien sapiens, etc. — 180 Proof

Yea that's what I call "intersubjective"

Because the term "Objective" seems to have been booked by religions to denote something that is right to do regardless of what us mere mortals think is right to do. Which often instruct one to do things that everyone would agree subjectively suck. Like killing heretics occasionally. Or not eating certain foods even though they are harmless. Which is a case where the "Objectively right thing to do" (what God commands) is at direct odds with the "Intersubjectively right thing to do" (what seems right).

Well, an objective X, as I discern it, is intersubjectivity-invariant, that is, 'group consensus' (whether aware or unaware) does not 'socially construct' (affect) X – it's there, or how it is, no matter what an individual or group 'believes' or accepts or does not (yet) know about X, like e.g. gravity or what harms all species-members, etc.

And why you mention "what God commands" with respective to objectivity is a complete non sequitur ... if there was ever a non-objective anti-realist social construct, it's (a) "God" (Cupitt).

It seems that you are saying that morality is purely subjective. I think that your emphasis on the way in which being able to live with consequences is an important one, and one that a lot of people don't really stop and think about. Personally, when I make personal decisions I think about whether I can live with the consequences, even though we cannot always see the long term consequences. But, nevertheless, I do see the validity of your argument in the way it is not the typical utilitarian, more generalised emphasis on the greater good. It gives focus to the intention of living with actions, which seems to combine intention of the act and the consequences, and I think that this is a workable way for thinking about ethics.

Of course, some would see it as relativist, especially as it does not have any sense of there being anything that is absolutely wrong. The only problem we end up with is what do we make of the person who has no conscience and can live with the consequences of anything: murder, rape or genocide. That is where things become a bit tricky with what I will call the subjective utilitarian approach. Do we say that there is no objective criteria and that there are no objective moral principles at all? This is where we begin to get into the rough waters and possible moral nihilism. Okay, most of us have consciences but, unfortunately, not everyone does.

Well, an objective X, as I discern it, is intersubjectivity-invariant — 180 Proof

That's the more useful definition. To avoid confusion I just spell out "Inter subjective" though. Don't want people assuming I'm referring to "objective" in the useless religious sense.

Dealing with naive nihilism is like playing Wack-a-mole. I predict the op will drop this thread and start another one making the same assumptions. They have already told you the likely effect of your contributions:-

It's just hard to take seriously anyone arguing for objective morality when it's pretty easily to prove that false, considering we made up morality (among other things). — Darkneos

The necessary moral conditions for communicative debate are not in place. Language is made up, therefore it's all bullshit! :vomit:

Can I pick your brain regarding the notion of intersubjectivity?

The google definition simply says that it's just a consensus on thoughts, ideas, beliefs, whathaveyou. If that's all there is to it then the choice of words is misleading to say the least because subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Why cause confusion by choosing words that could, like inter"subjectivity"?