Morality is a system of internally derived value judgements that are non-reliant upon objective reality.
This is hard to believe; I consider the brain a physical organ which responds to stimuli, both of which exist within the realm of objective reality and natural laws. To say that the products of the brain are not reliant upon outward causation seems hard to even comprehend.
Even if a moral system if derived consequent to observations of objective reality, that aspect of value being assigned with that observation remains subjective.
I’m not sure that I understand the issue with this. I wear glasses to correct my eyesight; not being able to see well without them is a subjective observation about an objective fact. Such an observation could even be detected by a third party (such as an optometrist) to further prove it as a fact; a fact about a subjective perception.
Correct me if this is not the case here, but I think there’s a common misunderstanding among the “morals are subjective” community which confuses subjective in the ontological sense (what we experience subjectively) with subjective in the epistemological sense (biased, personal opinion).
Going further with my example we could ask the moral question: should I wear corrective lenses to improve my vision? We could study the effects of wearing lenses vs not wearing them in regard to my wellbeing, health, safety, comfort, etc. which would objectively demonstrate what I ought to do. The observations would only affect me personally but there would be a demonstrable ‘right/wrong’ or ‘good/bad’ course of action which could be observed both subjectively (in the ontological sense) and objectively (by a third party for example) while constraining subjectivity (in the epistemological sense), in other words it wouldn’t matter how much I value poor vision if its unconducive to my health, wellbeing and safety.
Yes morals describe what we experience subjectively but we should be careful not to let this lead to the dangerous notion that ‘everyone’s’ opinion is just as valid as another’s.”
To me, defining morality as objective is inherently redefining what morality is. This is especially true when one attempts to define it as being scientifically derived, in my opinion at least.
I see why you would take issue with that. Objective morality is not redefining morality as objective; morality remains a system of values of right and wrong. What objective reality posits (in the scientific rather than theological sense) is that our behaviors and actions can be studied and measured in their effects within the world to arrive at definitive answers to questions of right and wrong behaviors.
Is it wrong to burn people for wearing a different colored hat? Studying such behaviors and their effects can provide data which constrains people’s personal opinions on the matter.
I have several Hitchens books and I have been thinking about picking up this one by Sam - did you like it?
Reading it basically marked the turning point for me of when I went from a hard proponent of subjective morality to one of moral objectivism… and I am not easily swayed without good reason.
Harris would be able to explain it much more effectively than I could. Here’s a video, I will say that if you still have some contentions with this lecture to read his book and see if he clarifies anything.
I believe there's also an author who wrote a critique of the Moral Landscape but it might have been on one of his other books.
why do you think we should even call such scientifically derived guidelines "moral facts"?
If we observe something as an objective fact within the subject of morality then I’m not sure what else to call it at the present moment. What would you call it?
Is there any reason why you think we shouldn’t call such things “moral facts?”
To me it is entirely unnecessary to so utterly redefine the word "morality" only to describe what we already have language to describe.
I’m not sure what you mean here. I’m not redefining morality, just explaining what objective morality is to the OPer
You made no indication of the degree in which drugs are to be considered a health issue.
You reasoned that cocaine should be illegal because it has health issues. I'm merely pointing out that alcohol has health issues too. Should alcohol be illegal based on your reasoning then?
Drugs are still being used regardless of them being legal or illegal.
I don't consider what a person does on their own time to be any of my business.
The war on drugs effectively creates a black market where drug dealers reign. Any product that has a demand has the potential to create a market. The scarcity of a product in relation to the demand establishes the profit incentive. Products become scarcer as restrictions are placed on them; if demand remains constant then profit goes up. Furthermore the incentive to increase demand exists to grow the market; drug dealers are incentivized to push more drugs, people begin using at earlier ages, addicts are given more drugs rather than help, etc.
murder should be legalized because it might not be anyone's fault.
I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t actually believe that is what I meant.
I’m not suggesting that murder become legal, I was attempting to illustrate to DrawFour that there are factors in criminal behavior which ought not be ignored or resolved so simplistically.
Do you remember crimes of passion where a man kills his wife for having an affair? That would be the world you would usher in with your nonsense.
Saying that there are causes to certain behaviors is not to say that a person isn’t culpable; instead, it’s an attempt to suggest that the culpability is shared and therefore so is the responsibility to resolve the things which caused the behavior.
HOW MANY MURDERERS HAVE THEY FOUND TUMORS IN THEIR BRAINS?
Is it so surprising that an injury or illness in the brain (the organ which facilitates the entirety of our thoughts and actions) causes a change to otherwise ‘normal’ behavior?
You don’t seem like the type to be persuaded by evidence that opposes your preconceived notions but nonetheless:
To be, or not to be a psychopath
Brain Trials: Neuroscience Is Taking a Stand in the Courtroom
Coping With Personality and Behavioral Changes
Brain tumour linked to uncharacteristic aggression
It matters not what brought about the person's inhumanity, we deal with him so anyone else understands they can not get away with it.
In the subject of criminology ‘what brought about the crime’ or a person’s ‘motive’ is a very significant factor which is often times the paramount reason for convicting or exonerating an accused person.
Making an example out of someone as if to say “this will happen to you if you do the same,” is not the purpose of the justice system. Besides, it doesn’t work. People who intentionally commit crimes do so with full knowledge of consequence, they still do it though because they assume they won’t get caught. This is not an unreasonable assumption considering that most crimes go unnoticed or unreported.
It is apparent that we ought to look for more effective means to reduce crime then scare tactics.
In the USA they tend to teach children the names of the alphabet before teaching what sounds it makes (the phonetics).
This may require some clarity or perhaps a reference. As I understand it, kids in the US are taught the sounds that letters make years before learning the actual letters of the alphabet. Then again, I've only experienced this first hand as well as raised three daughters in the US... so what the hell do I know?
When learning the alphabet, they are often taught to recite it in a singsong manner before learning what sounds are associated with each letter in the alphabet, this is a very early milestone kids reach before even going to school. Is that what you mean by 'learning the names of the alphabet before learning what sounds the letters make?'
It seems to be the necessary step before teaching a child how each letter sounds with regard to its placement in a word amongst other letters. Saying “the ‘A’ in ape makes the “ay” sound because there is an ‘E’ after the ‘P,’ becomes pretty difficult when a child doesn’t know the names of the letters.
How and when do children in the UK recite the alphabet? If they do that is, I’m not sure if it’s a common practice there.
Do we just want to be dumb?
I think you answered your own question in the beginning of your post:
"Many people in America are being raised to view intellectualism with suspicion, and logical thinking sure does seem to be a rare beast."
So basically “God of the gaps”
It’s apparent that this is all God ever was or ever will be.
As more and more discoveries are made about the world we live in through the use of science the belief in a creator becomes increasingly irrelevant.
There is no shame in saying that we don’t know something; plugging “God” in to any question we haven’t answered yet is both lazy and dishonest. Our ancestors didn’t have some sort of ancient mystical knowledge about the universe, nor is such a hidden message contained within their scribblings.
It would benefit our species greatly if we were to once and for all end this fanatical search for God in things we don’t understand; its nothing but wishful thinking. I predict that until we do end this God delusion we will continue to see these whimpers of a dying breath in the form of “well maybe God is [insert some unoriginal vague description here]!”
There are many things which make this ’shoot now ask later’ method unethical.
What if it isn't the person that needs to be fixed but the society?
What if it’s not that they are unable to be fixed, but that we have yet to discover any effective resolutions?
What are we to say for people whose apparent broken state is the direct product of the very society they are meant to assimilate into?
What of those people who after extensive study we find that they are but a victim of their own biology; such as a brain tumor or something that causes them to have a violent disposition?
I could go on.
No. Religion may have been the self-proclaimed authority on morality for many centuries but it’s far from it. Fortunately many people are becoming less and less inclined to seek moral guidance from religious teaching.
Moral Objectivism is not an exclusively religious philosophy, nor is it a supernatural concept requiring the existence of a god or gods. The scientific method, for example, could help us arrive at moral facts and it’s far more efficient than blindly accepting ancient texts or faith.
I myself am a skeptic, but there comes a time when one must confess that the implication of some extreme skepticism renders a vastly incoherent discussion. It’s unfortunate that this type of thinking is viewed sincerely even in support of suffering, misery, malice and other admittedly egregious forms of moral decrepitude, but such is the predicament we are met with when people insist on extreme skepticism in any matter. Still, one must wonder why the same type of skepticism isn’t accepted or viewed as sincere when regarding other objective scientific claims such as in health or physics. You wouldn’t argue that a terminal cancer patient isn’t actually unhealthy even when there are subjective perceptions on health. Morality though? Who’s to say that kidnapping little kids and raping them is necessarily “bad?” It’s this sort of double standard that comes off as being intellectually dishonest.
I admit that I cannot provide any radical justification insisted by extreme skeptics as to why bad things are bad, good things are good, etc. If you don’t already accept that “not suffering” is a value worth considering then there doesn’t seem to be anything I could say to convince you that you should consider it a value. Similarly, if someone doesn’t see the value in respecting the rules of logic, there’s no logic one can give to convince them that they should respect it. But I implore you to seek me out if you wish to have a practical and meaningful discussion on the subject of morality.
I am not arguing about semantics, I asked why any of these things are necessarily bad or good.
If we are not arguing semantics, and we can concede that goodness and badness exist within different states of mind/wellbeing without needless philosophizing about the “nature” of these concepts, then I think we can maximize our discussion on moral objectivism.
Why are things like harm and pain bad? I would argue that it’s because there are states of mind/wellbeing along a continuum where neither harm nor pain exist.
Why consider moral objectivism? Because it describes a reality where the various states of mind/wellbeing are determined and constrained by natural laws within the environment where the physical owner/perceiver of that mind/wellbeing exists. Furthermore there are demonstrably right and wrong ways to move between a continuum where bad and good states of mind/wellbeing exist.
Not only is this fathomable within the context of rational interpretation, it is empirically measurable that certain behaviors, actions, cultures, opinions, etc. are erroneous or unconducive to achieving a “good” state of mind/wellbeing. There are political persuasions, economic systems, religious laws, etc which have observable detrimental effects on the wellbeing of their constituents.
The evidence is obvious that certain ideas of right and wrong lead to unnecessary suffering yet for quite some time we have had this widespread notion that ‘everyone’s opinion counts.’ Now, you wouldn’t say this about other observable information. You wouldn’t say that one cultures idea of gravity is just as relevant or true as another culture’s. Its dishonest to pretend that science has nothing to say about the way we ought to behave and to infer that what one culture considers right another culture might consider wrong, but both are valid on how people ought to behave.
If they resulted in harm and pain, so? Why is that necessarily "bad"?
It’s not. Not necessarily. Good/bad, right/wrong are just concepts used in the topic of morality which are assumed to be self-evident when debating topics such as these. In this context, people may disagree on what is to be considered right/wrong, good/bad but there is an overall understanding to the nature of badness/goodness etc.
We have certain agreed upon terms we use which allow for effective dialog and meaningful discussion. If you feel the need to argue semantics or the extremely philosophical then perhaps someone else would be interested. Personally, I prefer a more practical discussion.
You said "doesn't mean we know what they all are" intonating hiddenness and when I said I would expect objective morality to be more prevalent, you said "It is".
Thus my question of whether you consider it both prevalent and hidden - am I missing something here??
Yes… my point. You’ve taken a simple statement with a succinct meaning and replaced it with obscure terms in what seems like an attempt to debase me.
My point was not so daft as to summate it as “universal morality is both prevalent and hidden.” You said you would expect it to be more prevalent. I said it is and you insisted that I “name them.” A dishonest request and you know it.
I didn't ask different moral questions - you presented an attempt at an example of an objectively moral action, and I showed there was an exception.
I never claimed moral absolutism. The existence of exceptions is expected.
clubbed foot, down syndrome, anencephaly, or an extra pinky toe all may count as deformity to some degree. Each one might influence the question differently.
Ok. But do these exceptions detract from the question on a macro level?
Some people will get sick if they eat a food they are allergic to. This doesn’t cause us to claim that there are no facts to be known about nutrition.
It is unreasonable to assume that the existence of exceptions of differences of opinion means that there are no objective facts about morality.
I consider objective morality basically to be morality outside human ontology.
To be honest, it doesn’t sound well-intentioned or even practical to debate such a thing. I acknowledge that that seems to be the religious view of objective morals, but I trust that your skill is sufficient enough to see that that is not what I am arguing.
Perhaps we can concede to what secular moral objectivists consider it to be?
“scientific terms refer to real features of the world, and the sciences provide us with successively more and more accurate knowledge of the world. In a similar way, moral realism asks us to take moral claims literally, as claims that purport to describe the moral properties of people, actions, and institutions—properties that obtain independently of our moral theorizing. Moral realism is roughly the view that there are moral facts and true moral claims whose existence and nature are independent of our beliefs about what is right and wrong.” - David O. Brink, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics
“If our well-being depends upon the interaction between events in our brains and events in the world, and there are better and worse ways to secure it, then some cultures will tend to produce lives that are more worth living than others; some political persuasions will be more enlightened than others; and some world views will be mistaken in ways that cause needless human misery.” - Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
I think natural selection produced survival, not morality - keep in mind that it also produced all animal actions which you might consider immoral: rape, slavery, eating the young, etc.
I wasn’t the one who brought up morals having evolved from chimps; I assumed that if they were passed on to us through genetics that they would have served a purpose to survival.
Who is to say "objectively" that human survival for an individual, group, or as a whole is an unqualified "good"?
On an individual level, I suppose anyone who would favor being alive over being dead.
I wouldn’t claim that it’s an unqualified good, but in terms of moral objectivism survival versus death could be considered good. I am not an absolutist.
If your goal was maximizing life, you might think that human destruction of other species and their environments might not be "good".
Ok? Destroying life would be counteractive to maximizing life, that’s true.
What do you assert is required exactly?
Some homework for starters.
”The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answered” - Coldfire
Is there some moral question that you can claim to answer?
You seem to have left out a few details.
”… practically and validated with data and facts which would render peoples’ personal opinions nothing but.”
Can moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior be answered in a practical manner and validated with data and facts? Yes.
Whether or not I, personally, meet your demand is irrelevant to this.
the most important thing to remember every time you use the word measure is that more than just measurement is needed. You need to be able to show how any measurement advances toward a specified moral. The goal is antecedent to the measurement. Minimizing pain, maximizing happiness, preserving life, the most for the greatest number
The goal of measuring some thing could be simply to find out the things dimensions. No greater purpose need exist.
If you insist that there must then I will humor you with a hypothetical.
“Rape is wrong.” We can examine the effects that rape has on people and potentially conclude that it is physically, emotionally, and psychologically damaging. We can use this data to base our assertion that it is morally wrong to rape someone. The goal in measuring these effects? Other than simply to arrive at a truth based claim, the goal could be to use this data to help establish demonstrable evidence against such behavior in order to prevent/decrease rape through whatever means are demonstrably effective. ‘What is the most moral means which should be used to curtail such behavior?’ could be another moral question. We could examine various methods in conjunction with neurology and additional factors to arrive at “the most ethical means.” And so forth.
These goals will inevitably run counter to each other (or even be internally at odds).
Not always. And there isn’t just one answer to any one moral question. There could be multiple peaks of wellness and multiple peaks of illness which result from several different methods. This isn’t to say that there are no moral facts that can be drawn from the study of these methods.
What is "well-being"?
I’m confident that just about any agreed upon (dictionary) definition of the word would suffice. Here’s Merriam-Webster’s and Wikipedia’s takes on it.
The slave is living, being taken care of, reproducing, and being productive, so...?
Yes. As long as they have permission from their masters. And one could argue that the conditions in which they lived, brought up children, and worked in were not conducive to their wellbeing.
BTW, if you’re growing as disgusted with arguing the merits of slavery as I am hearing them, feel free to change the subject.
How? Not negative effects on survival.
Arguable.
Regardless, survival does not constitute the whole of “wellbeing” which would lead to the determination of things being right or wrong.
Now mentally is a different story. I think the mentality is where subjectivity comes into play. Some slaves enjoyed being owned (albiet very rare)
Some slaves enjoying being owned (however lacking in relevance) would constitute a subjective perspective which would have no bearing on the demonstrable proof which shows that slavery is detrimental to the wellbeing of a population.
If someone desires to be owned, and they can find someone who would enjoy owning them, then by all means. Although I would speculate as to whether this would actually constitute slavery at that point. Sounds like more of a sexual fetish ;)
