Is morality objective or subjective?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Felix wrote: July 18th, 2018, 3:29 am Karpel: I could pick apart each of your examples but I will just say that they do not meet the necessary criteria of prescriptive truths, which are based on right desire and common needs, not on subjective self-interest.
I guess I don't see much use is letting me know what you are not doing but could do.

Could you pick them apart in the context of the exchange I responded to, shown below. How do we know survival is good or not wrong as a rule? Work in how my statements are not prescriptive truths and then how this means they are not valid challenges to surivival always being objectively good or not bad.

Is surviving inherently/objectively morally good, in all cases, if so why?
Give me an example of an instance in which it would be morally wrong to survive?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belindi »

Is surviving inherently/objectively morally good, in all cases, if so why?
Quality of survival or duration of survival?
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Belindi wrote: July 18th, 2018, 4:09 am
Is surviving inherently/objectively morally good, in all cases, if so why?
Quality of survival or duration of survival?
I am making a case against the idea that we can know survival is always good or not bad. IOW that cases exist where it is or could be, for all we know, bad for my (any individual human's) existence, our (all humans) existence or some other particular human's existence to continue.

Another way to put this is even if we can determine what makes a single human thrive or all humans thrive, we still cannot objectively conclude that it would be good to do whatever that is.

So I suppose my direct answer - and pardon me for not starting there - is 'either one.'
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belindi »

I agree with Karpel Tunnel that survival is a pig in a poke. Quality of life is what matters not surviving to live another day.

Some Individual's quality of life and also his surviving to live another day may be abandoned by that individual if he is aware that his personal benefits are less important than the benefits of others or of the benefits to the whole biosphere. The more free you are the more your priorities circle outwards from your own self.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Eduk »

I said life, not just humans and certainly not an individual human only. I also said reality would decide. We just need to do the best we can, as always.
And I agree objectively, as I already said, it can't be proven right. It just is.
I mean even if you kind of agreed with my theory it wouldn't actually get you anywhere. You, nor I, could prove any moral theory which we had was the better or worse (unless of course we happened to agree). Of course that is as we exactly find ourselves now.
Unknown means unknown.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Eduk »

Belindi why is quality of life not existential? Can you prove that? For me it seems clearly existential.
Unknown means unknown.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Spectrum »

Gertie wrote: July 17th, 2018, 4:58 pm Felix

No equivocation there, do I need to spell out in detail the obvious logic of those statements?
It might seem obvious that satisfying survival needs is a moral good - but why, what is that claim grounded in?

Is surviving inherently/objectively morally good, in all cases, if so why? Is killing always objectively wrong? Does it include all living things (bacteria, carrots, ants, cows, dogs, chimps) ?

In order to have a basis to answer such questions you need a justifiable underlying axiomatic foundation. The objective basis on which to claim meeting (some/all?) survival needs (of all/some living things?) is objectively morally good. And without that, the charge of equivocation is fair.

In other words, you need to think it through to the next step - what's the basis for your claim. And if you do, you might find it more difficult to claim morality is/can be 'objective'. Imo.
I had proposed,
M1. 'Survival of the individual and preservation of the species'
MUST be the Absolute Moral Law but only as a guide for all individual[s] to comply with.
Note this is applicable to human beings only i.e. being morally conscious.

This is based on empirical evidences.
Show [empirically] me one species ever in the history of evolution which emerged with the sole purpose to be extinct immediate.

From M1 we have sub, i.e.
M1.1 - To ensure the preservation of the Species, no human can kill another human being.

The justification is this, if there is a generic moral law that a human being can kill another, then in theory the human species will potentially go extinct.

Critical Note:
The above M1 and M1.1 are only guides to strive for thus not enforceable.

In practice, what is to be implemented are Ethical Maxims, i.e.
E1. With M1 as overriding, killing of another human being is only acceptable with a justified reason or situation.

In this case the onus is on the killer to provide the justification why he has killed another human being, e.g. crime of passion, under serious threats, and other justified reasons.

With the current state of human beings there will be killings of humans which then create a Gap between the Moral and Ethical realities.
In this case, humanity must practice continuous improvements to find the root causes why there is a variance between the absolute moral standard and the ethical standard and find solution to reduce the variance.

Being human, it is obvious the absolute moral law and its standard will never be achieved, but this approach provide a basis for humanity to close the gap between the ideal and the practical progressively.

Re other species;
From M1 we establish, i.e.
M1.2 No human being shall die prematurely [i.e. not due to mortality].

The human species survive interdependently with other species.
If other species are made extinct and it effect M1.2, then corrective actions need to be taken. Thus the human species must protect other species that also contribute humanity to survive.
Species that are a threat to the human species, i.e. virulent bacteria and other threatening living things need to be managed or eliminated, e.g. ebola, aids, smallpox, etc.

Grounded on the primary absolute moral Law, there will be other absolute objective sub-moral laws [and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub ones] and various Ethical Maxims to ensure the survival of the human species [at least till the inevitable] optimally.

To achieve the above we will need to expedite the progress on the inherent moral drives within the brain of the average person. This will entail the acceleration of the progress in all the relevant faculties within the human mind, i.e. intelligent quotient, EQ, spiritual quotient, philosophical quotient, etc.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Dr Peter suggests this guaranteed cure for any strain of objectivism.

1 Take any assertion expressing a value judgement - slavery is wrong, this god is good, that painting is beautiful, happiness is better than unhappiness, health is better than sickness, life is preferable to death - and so on.

2 To be objective - and so true or false - the assertion has to make a falsifiable claim about something - an 'object' of some kind. Ask yourself what that object is.

3 The object can't be what the judgement is about - slavery, this god, that painting, happiness, health, life - and so on - because that is also the object of the contrary value judgement - slavery is right, this god is bad - and so on. Back to square one.

4 And the object can't be the judgement itself: what justifies the judgement that this god is good is ... the goodness of this god - and so on. That just begs the question, going around in a circle.

5 Realise this is a wild goose chase, because the fact/value barrier is insuperable, which is why value judgements can't be factual - and why moral values and judgements - and morality itself - can't be objective.

This cure is provided for free, for the benefit of benighted objectivists, and the betterment of the species.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belindi »

Eduk wrote: July 18th, 2018, 5:56 am Belindi why is quality of life not existential? Can you prove that? For me it seems clearly existential.
Did I say that? I don't know what you mean or are referring to, Eduk.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belindi »

Peter Holmes wrote:
To be objective - and so true or false - the assertion has to make a falsifiable claim about something - an 'object' of some kind. Ask yourself what that object is.
A pious Muslim would say that the Koran is true and good because it legitimates his pious mood. The pious Muslim's mood was formed by way of frequent repetitions of the Koran in respectful company and decor of the mosque. A perceived mood exists just as much as any perception of a physical event exists.

Morality is social, and so are scientific concepts social. Some individual A may be eccentrically subjective to the point of certifiable madness however if many respectable individuals believe what A believes his beliefs are mainstream beliefs. E.g. Hitlerism, McCarthyism, public tolerance of slavery, female inferiority.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Felix »

Hi Karpel....

There is a reason why I chose a sloth for my forum avatar, I enjoy long trees but not long philosophical arguments.

First off, these moral guidelines would not be obligatory, they are ideals, not requirements. Secondly, one must first be sane and rational before one can be moral, those who have homicidal/suicidal tendencies deserve treatment for their mental disease, but death would not be the preferred option, as the recovery rate from it is extremely low.

As I said earlier, not all natural needs and real goods are equivalent, they will need to be ranked and moderated according to their importance to human welfare (and by extension, the welfare of other living creatures). For example, one can have more than one needs of some real goods, e.g., food, but one can not have too much of others, e.g., knowledge.

To Dr. Holmes: Your definition of "objective" applies only to empirical knowledge, and would imply that all philosophical insight is mere subjective opinion rather than knowledge. This would of course include your thesis that morality cannot have an objective basis - it's just your subjective opinion.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Spectrum »

Peter Holmes wrote: July 18th, 2018, 7:46 am Dr Peter suggests this guaranteed cure for any strain of objectivism.

1 Take any assertion expressing a value judgement - slavery is wrong, this god is good, that painting is beautiful, happiness is better than unhappiness, health is better than sickness, life is preferable to death - and so on.

2 To be objective - and so true or false - the assertion has to make a falsifiable claim about something - an 'object' of some kind. Ask yourself what that object is.

3 The object can't be what the judgement is about - slavery, this god, that painting, happiness, health, life - and so on - because that is also the object of the contrary value judgement - slavery is right, this god is bad - and so on. Back to square one.

4 And the object can't be the judgement itself: what justifies the judgement that this god is good is ... the goodness of this god - and so on. That just begs the question, going around in a circle.

5 Realise this is a wild goose chase, because the fact/value barrier is insuperable, which is why value judgements can't be factual - and why moral values and judgements - and morality itself - can't be objective.

This cure is provided for free, for the benefit of benighted objectivists, and the betterment of the species.
Most likely a quack.

Note sure if you are attacking my post since it followed mine.

Your views above are mostly noise, do you have proper argument to support them.
Your views seem to fall victim to confirmation bias.
You have a dogmatic anti-objectivist view and wherever the term related to 'object' come to within your sight, you will shoot i.e. blindly.

What is your definition of objectivity and objectivist?

According to Ayn Rand,
Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see Direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, ..
The other sense of objectivity is Philosophical Realism;
Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to anti-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which deny the existence of a mind-independent world). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]
Another more realistic view is this;
"Objectivity is intersubjectivity"
thus objectivity is fundamentally subjectivity, albeit inter-subjectivity.
This is what Science is, the objectivity of Science is based on intersubjective consensus of scientist peers.
Will you condemn scientists as 'objectivists' in this sense?

It was Hume who claimed one cannot obtain an 'ought' from "is".
That is true because the above are from different 'sense' thus cannot be conflated.
But the point is one can reconcile "is" from "ought' via complementarity like how the dualistic Yin and Yang while independent are reconciled with complementarity and this has worked with Quantum Physics.

Similarly Kant who was triggered by Hume's challenge re the is/ought dichotomy, reconciled 'ought' with "is" using the basis of complementarity.
My views above are based on this principle.
I don't think you have the slightest clue in what is Kantian Morality proper to pose any serious arguments to it, other than the noises you made above.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Spectrum

Thanks for the disquisition. I don't think you've thought this through properly.

Kant was wrong, but he inherited the mistake (that Hume explained) from Aristotle. The equivocation on 'good' is right at the heart of it. You agree with the is/ought barrier, so you must agree that a factual 'good' can't be the same as a moral 'good'. So to dismiss what I'm saying shows you don't understand it or the issues. You say the following.

'It was Hume who claimed one cannot obtain an 'ought' from "is".
That is true because the above are from different 'sense' thus cannot be conflated.
But the point is one can reconcile "is" from "ought' via complementarity like how the dualistic Yin and Yang while independent are reconciled with complementarity and this has worked with Quantum Physics.'

This is incoherent. i presume you mean, we can come to moral judgements based on facts, which is true and banal. But talk of complementarity and Yin-Yang dualism is mystical nonsense. I leave you to your hippy woo, and wish you joy. Thanks.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Spectrum »

Peter Holmes wrote: July 18th, 2018, 11:45 pm Spectrum

Thanks for the disquisition. I don't think you've thought this through properly.

Kant was wrong, but he inherited the mistake (that Hume explained) from Aristotle. The equivocation on 'good' is right at the heart of it. You agree with the is/ought barrier, so you must agree that a factual 'good' can't be the same as a moral 'good'. So to dismiss what I'm saying shows you don't understand it or the issues. You say the following.

'It was Hume who claimed one cannot obtain an 'ought' from "is".
That is true because the above are from different 'sense' thus cannot be conflated.
But the point is one can reconcile "is" from "ought' via complementarity like how the dualistic Yin and Yang while independent are reconciled with complementarity and this has worked with Quantum Physics.'

This is incoherent. i presume you mean, we can come to moral judgements based on facts, which is true and banal. But talk of complementarity and Yin-Yang dualism is mystical nonsense. I leave you to your hippy woo, and wish you joy. Thanks.
Kant was wrong??
It is most likely you got the wrong understanding of Kant's philosophy.
Fact is I had spent 3 years full time on Kant, so I have a reasonable knowledge of his philosophy including morality.

Note my explanation on how to complement an 'ought' with 'is'.
viewtopic.php?p=315507#p315507

Yin-Yang dualism is mystical nonsense?
You are speaking nonsense from ignorance.
Wonder if you are up to date with Quantum Physics.
Bohr the pioneer and so-called founder of Quantum Physics adopted the complementarity of Yin-Yang [which you think is nonsense and mystical] as a fundamental principle of Quantum Physics.
Nonsense?? Quantum Physics has been proven to work in many practical fields.
Bohr designed his own coat of arms which featured a taijitu (symbol of yin and
yang) and a motto in Latin: contraria sunt complementa, "opposites are complementary".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr#Later_years
Image
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Spectrum.

1 I studied a philosopher's claims for three full years, so the claims are true.

2 A scientist used a mythical metaphor to try to explain a feature of reality, so we must take that metaphor seriously.

If these are your arguments, I can't take you seriously. But if you have an actual criticism of my case against (in particular) moral objectivism, which derives from the fact-value and is-ought distinctions, please explain it succinctly without woo or name-dropping.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021