CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Er. Upon reflection, that actually does not follow. I was going for the angle of people do not feel the same way about everything, but that does not necessarily disprove the existence of god based on your statement which is simply that only a god could accomplish such a feat (not that a god must do so). My bad.
There are no objective morals in reality- only in an obscured/delusional sense. No one can even hint an objective moral- unless it was biblical, of course- for it can always be argued against based on an opposed system of moral conduct.
Before anyone says it, I know something can exist without anyone's knowledge of it; I then would argue: "What's more inclined to be rational?" "a system of objective conduct that one cannot even hint?" or, " a system of conduct that offers 100s of examples that necessitate subjectivity?"
Imo, subjective relativism seems to be the most compelling- morals are relative to that of an individual, therefore, whatever you believe is morally right cannot be argued against (at least by another subjective relativist), rather only your premises can be discussed/debated thus rendering your conclusion for your beliefs invalid/valid.
There exists collective morality. It is comprised of the rules that people collectively accept as necessary in order to live together in peaceful cooperation. These rules come from someones mind subjectively and are adopted collectively by the group. People are not born with an understanding of these rules, but must learn them from members of the group. The subjective decision is each individual's choice to accept or reject these rules.
Here is my question:
What distinguishes collective morality/rules from objective morality/rules?
Could this just be the same as cultural relativism? If so, the distinction rest in the fact that, amongst cultures/societies, not everyone views each others moral convictions as being accurate. Thus implying that it is subjective to ones (a cultures) belief(s).
Of course, with any moral value, collectiveness is likely to occur, but a collective moral doesn't imply any objective truths.
Mayans believed it was morally right to throw someone in their water hole for the gods as a sacrifice. All of them. Well, we know that couldn't have been morally right, as their gods are nonexistent (or perhaps not 0o).
Hmmm cultural relativism? Certainly the great simularity of "moral values" from culture to culture suggests a common need is being met. So I think its goes deeper than that.
I can agree with this:
Of course, with any moral value, collectiveness is likely to occur, but a collective moral doesn't imply any objective truths.
What then distinguishes objective truths from objective morals.
Hmmm cultural relativism? Certainly the great simularity of "moral values" from culture to culture suggests a common need is being met
Well, in a naturalistic view, this can be associated with immoral animals: within animal groups (esp. monkeys) they have a "what to do and what not to do" sense of conduct. Its completely established with who's dominant. I guess this could be suggestive to the fact that humanity establishes dominance, and, just like monkeys, humans can comprehend a sense of dominance; the only difference being that humans have language and can transfer this message of conduct to generations thus implying a more structured conduct. This structure is entirely subjective based on dominant authority alone.
What then distinguishes objective truths from objective morals.
More like: "How can you find an objective truth within a moral." I am waiting on an answer from objective moralist.
While there are collective moralities, there are also always deviations from and exceptions to that collective morality amongst individuals and between collectives. If morality were objective then there would be absolute homogeneity, but that is very simply not that case.
Your viewpoint both bothered and intrigued me. "...morals are relative to that of an individual, therefore, whatever you believe is morally right cannot be argued against..." So, if someone were raised in a culture where rape and murder were common and not thought of as wrong, would you be capable of saying to them, "I think that is wrong, for me personally, but since you believe that those things are okay, I cannot argue against them."? That is a very slippery slope, isn't it?
I clarified that that is called "Subjective Relativism". I also said that if they give a good argument (preferably deductive) then they have rational reasons for their moral conviction. So I would only argue if their argument for "rape & murder" was invalid or unsound.
Basically, if they do give a sound argument, then I would have no problem with them condoning rape and murder- yes, I seriously mean this.
God or gods is or are simply a mechanism for social control. If we have faith or belief in what we believe god or gods want of us then most of us will adopt such behaviours.
In one country they chop off the hand of thieves, in another the penalty for a woman who commits adultery is death. These countries have a god or gods and their laws are a manifestation out of their social beliefs which have been handed down for centuries and were developed from their religion be it through a god or gods however they are or were manifested.
That is their objective morality but it is not necessarily anyone else's.
If there exists a god that had principles for right and wrong, how does that make the god's morality objective. Is it not still subjective morality because it is god's opinion?
Precisely. Morals that come from a god are not objective morals, merely the subjective opinion of the god in question.
Some like to assert that there is only one god, and that is sufficient to render said gods subjective opinion as objective fact.
By that logic, if I'm the only person, then my opinion becomes fact, regardless of its actual veracity. Even if I'm not the only person, if I'm the first person to form an opinion on a subject (perhaps I'm the first person to taste a new recipe?), then said opinion is the objective fact until someone else forms a different opinion. No? Then the same No applies to gods.
An important distinction is that truly objective morals would apply equally to gods as they do to men. One could make an argument that there is no way to hold a god morally accountable, nor is there any way to resist a gods attempt to hold another morally accountable. If this is true, then the morals of a nation with a sufficiently strong military as to be effectively unassailable could be held as objective as well.
Well said. You have made the point that "god" does not qualify as the basis for an objective morality. Are you able or willing to argue what does qualify as the basis for objective morality?
I don't believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, and that the closest we're likely to come is an overall aggregate of the subjective moral frameworks of a population.
Okay? Neither do I or many people I know or just in general so I don't know why you said that, unless you are saying that objective morality comes from your parents, then I guess that counts.
I'm not quite sure what your disputing here. If you agree that people who don't believe in a god(s) can be moral and don't commit crimes then you agree that you can have objective morality without god(s).
If you agree that people who don't believe in a god(s) can be moral and don't commit crimes then you agree that you can have objective morality without god(s).
You don't have to agree that there is an objective morality in order that people that commit crimes.. they can have a subjective morality and not commit crimes.
Not so explicitly, but your if-then statement was also an absolute statement that rather precluded the possibility of subjective morality. That may not have been your intent (all the better if it was not), but it is what you said.
Anybody can be moral, but those morals are subjective, at least that's what I always hear. I usually hear that religion serves as an objectice moral view to those that follow that religion so they view their morals as the correct ones. In my personal opinion I don't think you can have objective morality without a god or gods. I believe a deity must be present in order to have an objective viewpoint.
And how do you know if what society thinks is truly okay?
We as human beings cant fully be moral but to be brutally honest societies teachings are the closest thing to perfect morality we have.
Oh and I know this is a little off topic but I wanted to apologize to you for getting mad during our previous debate. You were being so nice and calm to me and I was being kind of a douchebag :/. Lolzors was pissing me off and I let my anger get the best of me so please forgive me.
We as human beings cant fully be moral but to be brutally honest societies teachings are the closest thing to perfect morality we have.
Perfection without God is inconceivable. How would you know how close you were if you cannot see the end of the tunnel?
Oh and I know this is a little off topic but I wanted to apologize to you for getting mad during our previous debate.
We all get mad every now and then and I felt like your anger was understandable.
You were being so nice and calm to me and I was being kind of a douchebag :/
I forgive you and all is good. We may have contrasting views when it comes to religion, but we may end up agreeing on other issues so I hold nothing against you whatsoever and if Lolzors is truly religious he should abide by this too.
Lolzors was pissing me off and I let my anger get the best of me so please forgive me.
Exactly, your experiences. That means that you value subjective morality, so truly there is no right or wrong for you since everybody can be different.
Then can you give me another source of objective morals where a god isn't in play? Obviously, from your arguments, humans don't have objective morals so where will you find them?
Your question doesn't answer my question, so my question still needs to be answer, but of course you aren't obligated to answer it. To answer you question, if I may clarify your question I know God gives us objective morals because he knows everything. This would require him to know the best morals for humanity and his word is passed down to us. Humans aren't bound by his word since he values autonomy of course.
Now you are avoiding the question, which is fine with me if you do not have a decent answer right now. I think you already know my stance regarding God's existence.
I am not avoiding your question. I am simply saying that's what it boils down to. Even if I told you it would not affect your personal beliefs. It would be pointless to tell you my reason.
If it so be it. Well, we had a knowledgeable exchange here. I learned a bit and hopefully you did too, you're quite knowledgeable so I do enjoy our encounters.
I never got that impression from you at all. I sense passion from you when you debate so that's different. We can start over if you wish, but I never saw you in a negative manner.
Tends to be the case with most people. So that's pretty understandable and rather normal. I'm sure most internet users who use sites like these are that way.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the precept upon which morality is founded are objective, at least among "normally" functioning humans.
If morality derives from the objective process of evolution[...]
It can be a predisposition derived from evolution that we conceive of actions that we dislike to be wrong.
That doesn't mean there are objective morals, rather, that sense of conception was supplied to humans with the necessitation of subjectivity (esp. given that each human has different perceptions of life, some just are influential at spreading theirs).
[...]objective function in the same process?
It can be an objective function that produces zero objectivity. In fact, that's why it is subjective because it's a self-induced conception.
we conceive of actions that we dislike to be wrong
What would make us dislike something?
It can be an objective function that produces zero objectivity
A thing need not produce objectivity to be objective. Light awareness is an objective property of humans, with the objective function of vision, producing the subjective experience of sight.
If morality derives from the objective process of evolution, can we say that it serves an objective function in the same process?
Morality has clearly served an objective and predominantly positive function, or evolution would not have persisted in its selection of this attribute over other alternatives. I do not think that means that any morality itself is objective, however.
You saying "some morality is more evolutionarily dysfunctional" is similar to me saying "some morality is objectively worse". Here, as before, you seem to take issue specifically with the terminology even though you agree with the same statement when using amoral terms. Is it better to say "correct" behavior as opposed to "right" behavior?
Some eyesight is less functional than other eyesight, so we correct it. Before we could ever determine a standard by which to measure eyesight, we had to understand that there was one. We didn't just assume that, since the way we see is subjective, there can be no standard. We first had to understand that some sight is objectively better (more functional to its purpose) than other sight. Since the mechanism for moral reasoning is more complex than the mechanism for sight, it would naturally take longer to understand.
I have zero objection to the observation that "some morality is objectively worse". My objection lies in the statement that there is an objective morality. The difference lies in objectively evaluating the object (morality) versus identifying the object as being objective itself.
The process of vision is an objective phenomenon, which can be objectively evaluated based upon its relative functionality. The mechanism of morality is a subjective phenomenon, which can also be objectively evaluated based upon its relative functionality. You are conflating the effects of morality with the causal object of morality itself; that the former may be objectively assessed does not render the latter objective itself.
I have zero objection to the observation that "some morality is objectively worse"
If some morality is objectively worse, then some morality must be objectively better. If there is morality that is objectively better than any/all other morality, then what you have is a morality that is objectively best.
You are conflating the effects of morality with the causal object of morality itself
Since Morality is a system of "ought", that which best serves the purpose of morality's function ought to be sought and adhered to. In this way, the effects of morality lead us to seek better forms of the object of morality itself. Just as reason lead to logic which, in turn, lead to better forms of reason.
Reason has an objective standard, logic. Some logic is correct, some is not. Formal logic gave us a standard by which to measure our basic reasoning. Moral reasoning hasn't had the benefit of an Aristotle to lay down the logic of it, but that doesn't mean that there is no correct way to do it.
Just to reiterate; evaluating morality to determine the most functional "ought" will necessarily determine morality itself. That is to say we ought to adhere to that most functional system of "ought".
Accepting that reason (regularly understood) has objective standards, is simply accepting that there is a best way to determine the "is". Rejection of the existence of a standard for moral reasoning is to reject that we can determine the "ought". But to recognize that some morality is objectively worse, is to recognize (albeit in a non-committal way) that there is an objective way to determine the ought when compared to alternatives.
Even if we could arrive at a singular morality that was objectively best in effect, that would not render the morals themselves objective. The moral ought remains a projection of our subjective preferences onto the objectively tangible world. We can observe the objective effects of adopting various moralities, however the manner in which we assign value to those effects (i.e. worse/better, immoral/moral, etc.) is an inherently subjective process.
If we could arrive at a singular morality that was objectively best at achieving the function of morality, we would be compelled by morality as such to adhere to this singular code. You would have an objectively discovered system of best practices; an objective morality. When the valuation of conduct is measured by a given standard (as reason is measured by a standard of logic), subjectivity is removed from the valuation process.
A person can choose a poor diet as a matter of preference, that doesn't make health subjective.
Side Note: Observing the effects of various moralities is something I've seen you and Coldfire discuss. While we are arguing a similar postions, our ideas are a little different. I think you may have crossed our two positions (not that they are exclusive).
I understand why you might think I have conflated your positions, but I do not think that is the case. You have repeatedly referenced things such as "best practice" or "functionality", and it is to these that I refer when I use the term "effects" in our exchanges. Effectively, what is moral is what is most functional; my point is that functionality (aka morality) is ultimately not an objective standard but rather a subjective projection of our personal preferences (e.g. longevity, well-being, perpetuity). Having asserted the merit of this subjective projection we can then engage an objective analysis of what most accomplishes it, but the projection (which is morality) remains subjective regardless.
functionality ...is ultimately not an objective standard but rather a subjective projection of our personal preferences
Morality has an evolved function (naturally arising and regardless of opinion). There are forms of conduct which best suit this function (regardless of opinion). Therefore, this function is objective and this conduct is objective both in origin and in evaluation. Your argument has essentially boiled down to "no it isn't".
Your misrepresentation of my argument is grossly inaccurate. Far from having asserted an unfounded, simplistic denial I have consistently presented you with analysis to substantiate my view on the matter. I suspect your dismissal stems from your actually having misunderstood what I am saying. Allow me to try once more.
Evolution is an objective phenomenon because it exists independent of our perception and conception of it. Your argument is that because morality is an evolutionary (by)product that this renders morality objective as well. This false transitive reasoning is largely owing to your persistent conflation of the object (morality) with its effect (function), when the two are actually distinct. That morality can have objective consequence (say, evaluated in terms of functionality) does not render morality objective itself. What makes a thing objective is not its relationship to other variables (e.g. origins, effect, etc.) but its own intrinsic attributes. In the case of morality, the phenomenon is entirely reliant upon our subjective perception and conception for its existence. It represents an idea of preference and value assignation to objective phenomenon; those ideas, preferences, and values do not exist independent of our subjective creation of them. The only way to show that morality is objective would be by demonstrating that it exists as an objective phenomenon unto itself (i.e. independent of its origin and effect, and of human perception and conception). This is, quite simply, an impossible task because that is not the nature of morality.
Your assertion that morality is subjective is correct in the sense that it is experienced subjectively and is subject to human irrationality. The subjective aspects of morality do not eliminate the fact that some moral acts best serve the function for which morality evolved, regardless of opinion. Those acts are objectively correct moral acts. One need not determine what those acts are in order to show that they logically exist. For this reason value assignment, which may be largely subjective, is not even necessary in determining that there exists conduct which adheres to the function for which morality evolved.
To be clear, value assignment is necessary to life, society, and of course morality, but it is not necessary to determine that there is an objective aspect to morality. All that is required to show objective morality is to show that something can be morally correct or incorrect regardless of opinion. Morality’s objectively determined origin and function does just that. You have already conceded that some morality is “objectively worse” based on these premises.
Your assertion that morality is subjective is correct in the sense that it is experienced subjectively and is subject to human irrationality. [...] For this reason value assignment, which may be largely subjective, is not even necessary in determining that there exists conduct which adheres to the function for which morality evolved.
I believe I have already more or less expressed my agreement with this. My contention is that the ability to objectively evaluate the objective impact of a subjective phenomenon does not render the latter objective itself.
To be clear, value assignment is necessary to life, society, and of course morality, but it is not necessary to determine that there is an objective aspect to morality.
Value assignment is not necessary to life, though perhaps it has become specifically requisite to human life specifically due to its development as an evolved attribute (much like sight, or hunger, etc.). The same can be said of society. It is inherently true of morality. Most importantly, though, this has no bearing on whether morality itself is objective.
All that is required to show objective morality is to show that something can be morally correct or incorrect regardless of opinion. Morality’s objectively determined origin and function does just that
I presume you are using "correctness" in an amoral sense, as you would otherwise more or less be arguing that morality is proved by morality. Yes?
I disagree with your claim here, and do not think you have presented any standing rationale as to why this would be the case. I have repeatedly indicated that neither an objective origin nor function
renders its subjective object objective, precisely because there is no rationale to support that conclusion. If your line of reasoning followed, then every single thought we have would be rendered objective because it has an evolutionary origin and an ostensible function; this would render the very distinction between subjective and objective moot.
You have already conceded that some morality is “objectively worse” based on these premises.
I have conceded that some morality has an objectively worse functionality than others, but certainly not based on the premise that this somehow renders any morality objective.
My contention is that the ability to objectively evaluate the objective impact of a subjective phenomenon does not render the latter objective itself
The point of the first two of the above quotes is that objective morality is not dependent on evaluation. While there has been some time spent discussing best practices, Coldfire seems more concerned with the evaluation process than me. Best practices (in this context) are such whether we evaluate them or not and regardless of how they are evaluated.
I presume you are using "correctness" in an amoral sense, as you would otherwise more or less be arguing that morality is proved by morality. Yes?
The amoral sense of correctness is appropriate here, even though it becomes the moral sense simply by its application to morality. If you use “correctness” in the architectural sense, are you using architecture to prove architecture?
I disagree with your claim here, and do not think you have presented any standing rationale as to why this would be the case. I have repeatedly indicated that neither an objective origin nor function renders its subjective object objective, precisely because there is no rationale to support that conclusion
Statements like this are the reason I said your argument seems to have devolved into “no it isn't”.
The philosophic position that there exists an objective morality is slightly different than saying other things are objective. It simply holds that some things are right/wrong (morally correct/incorrect) regardless of opinion. Showing that there is an objective origin and function of morality indicates that, morally speaking, some things are more correct than others, regardless of opinion.
This doesn't argue that every single moral notion is objective nor does it imply that every single thought is objective. Your analogy on that does not follow my reasoning at all and I’m certain you know that.
Now to outrageously analogize your reasoning; vision is highly subjective therefore no one sees better than anyone else, objectively speaking.
I have conceded that some morality has an objectively worse functionality than others, but certainly not based on the premise that this somehow renders any morality objective
You said “I have zero objection to the observation that ‘some morality is objectively worse’”.
Saying that some morality is objectively worse implies that other morality would be objectively better. This allows for something to theoretically be objectively best. This is the same as saying some morality is better/best suited to the function for which morality evolved, and is the same as saying something is right regardless of opinion. This is moral objectivism.
This slipped by me somehow and I only just realized I never replied. It has been nearly a month though, so I am not sure if you are still interested in continuing this exchange or not. If you are, I will go back and refresh my memory on the exchange and make a reply.
No worries. It becomes a complex issue and jumping right back in the middle of you own previous debate can potentially cost more work than its worth. We could use this as notes for the next debate on this subject which is bound to happen.
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.
Out of sheer curiosity, why do you think we should even call such scientifically derived guidelines "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.
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
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?”
Yes, primarily that I do not think there is such a thing as an objective morality. Morality is a system of internally derived value judgements that are non-reliant upon objective reality. 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 what you mean here. I’m not redefining morality, just explaining what objective morality is to the OPer
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.
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.
Should I wear corrective lenses to improve my vision?
You can determine the facts of this matter because there is an objective standard. Isn't it imperative that there be a standard for there to be objectivity in matters of what one ought to do? If so, what is the standard?
"Should I wear corrective lenses to improve my vision?" - Coldfire
You can determine the facts of this matter because there is an objective standard. - Amarel
Agreed.
Isn't it imperative that there be a standard for there to be objectivity in matters of what one ought to do?
Yes. I think so.
If so, what is the standard?
As you pointed out, I think questions of ought (like “should I wear corrective lenses?”) should be based on an objective standard which constrains personal opinions and bias.
If it is demonstrated that wearing corrective lenses is beneficial to my health or safety among other things, then it shouldn’t matter that someone else thinks or says they are detrimental to my health or safety (unless they can verify it).
Likewise, if we can study the effects that treating women as second class citizens has on a population we would have an objective standard for which to base our conclusions. If a different culture fails to show similar objective data to demonstrate the opposite conclusion we should be free to disregard their personal feelings or religious bias on the matter. I would even go as far as to say that we should feel obligation to challenge such behavior rather than excuse it on the basis of personal beliefs or bias.
The standard and goal for sight is a certain level of clarity of vision. What would be the standard and goal for moral behavior? Objectively determining the affect of conditions is not the same as determining that there is a better affect from other conditions. There has to be a basic standard or goal in order to know how "is" leads to "ought".
This is hard to believe; [...] To say that the products of the brain are not reliant upon outward causation seems hard to even comprehend.
Delusion is a well established phenomenon in psychology wherein the human brain develops perceptions divorced from and even in contradiction to external reality. While those perceptions may arguably still have been initiated by external stimuli at some point, they are not accurate reflections of what is objectively real. Delusion is a medicalized term for a particular form of subjective thought, but it demonstrates quite readily that the brain is an organ that can and does form perceptions that are non-reliant upon objective reality. The notion of subjective human perception is precisely why the scientific method developed, and it is why people can have differing beliefs about what actually constitutes reality.
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.
That you have poor vision can be objectively observed by others, as can the effects of the corrective eyewear. The difference with morality is that no one can observe it objectively.
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).
Perhaps, but that is not a confusion with which I am personally afflicted.
Going further with my example we could ask the moral question [...], in other words it wouldn’t matter how much I value poor vision if its unconducive to my health, wellbeing and safety.
That your subjective visual perceptions can be objectively verified does not make the perceptions themselves any less subjective; it only means that your subjective perception is an accurate reflection of objective reality. While we can assess the objective effects of various morals (much as we would assess the objective effects of various eyeglasses), this does not mean we have proved that those morals exist objectively (whereas we can demonstrate the objective reality of the eyeglasses).
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.”
It has never been my stance that moral relativism makes all moral opinions equally valid. I understand validity in terms of probable correspondance to objective reality; consequentially, the more accurately a moral opinion reflects objective reality the more preferable it becomes (with the amoral perspective being ultimately most reflective of reality as it dispenses with reliance upon the subjective intermediary of morality).
I see why you would take issue with that. [...] arrive at definitive answers to questions of right and wrong behaviors.
That which is objectively preferable is not objectively "right" (or visa versa); the ascription of "right" remains just as subjective as it was before its evaluation for consistency with objective reality. The process of "objective morality" is effectively to take a flawed system of subjective perception and widdle it down incrimentally by subjecting every possible iteration to the objective process. This strikes me as inefficient; why not simply do away with the ineffectual framework? The only real reason seems to be an attachment to moral sensibilities that has spawned a desire to understand the objective framework not on its own terms but through an unnecessary subjective lens. By insisting that the objective be understood as an independent and primary framework, by subjecting it to terms of our subjective perception, we hinder the objective pursuit itself.
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.
It is not objectively wrong at all, and whatever we may feel subjectively about the matter ought to be secondary to whether it is objectively preferable or unpreferable to do so. If our subjective moral sense happens to align with the objective reality of the situation, then that subjective moral sense may be more reliable than other moral senses but that in no way renders that moral sense objective itself.
While those perceptions may arguably still have been initiated by external stimuli at some point, they are not accurate reflections of what is objectively real.
I agree, i wasn't saying perceptions are always accurate; my contention was with your assertion that internally derived value judgements are non-reliant upon objective reality. This is simply untrue, I would argue that it's virtually impossible to describe a realty where the products of our brain are non-reliant on objective reality. Even delusions can be studied empirically as having chemical basis.
The notion of subjective human perception is precisely why the scientific method developed, and it is why people can have differing beliefs about what actually constitutes reality.
I was under the impression that the scientific method was developed to empirically deduce objective facts about reality in spite of subjective bias. While I acknowledge that people can perceive reality differently, I don't believe we respect each persons interpretation equally.
The difference with morality is that no one can observe it objectively.
I don't think the claim was made that 'morality is or can be observed objectively,' just that questions of morality (how we should behave) can be arrived at through study of objective facts which constrain personal opinion and bias. You said "even if a moral system is derived consequent to observations of objective reality, that aspect of value being assigned with that observation remains subjective."
I don't see why this presents an issue for the case of objective morality, which is the idea that statements of 'ought' are not just true by opinion but can be demonstrated to be true based on observation of the effects that certain behaviors have.
That your subjective visual perceptions can be objectively verified does not make the perceptions themselves any less subjective; it only means that your subjective perception is an accurate reflection of objective reality
I don't dispute this, neither does the case for objective morality. Having an accurate perception of objective reality is required to observe the effects certain behaviors have.
While we can assess the objective effects of various morals (much as we would assess the objective effects of various eyeglasses), this does not mean we have proved that those morals exist objectively (whereas we can demonstrate the objective reality of the eyeglasses
I wasn't arguing that it proves the morals exist objectively and thst is not what objective morality is, I was arguing that the question of "should I wear corrective lenses" would have observable effects when studied which would constrain subjectivity on the matter.
(with the amoral perspective being ultimately most reflective of reality as it dispenses with reliance upon the subjective intermediary of morality).
I don't understand what you mean here, can you please explain?
The process of "objective morality" is effectively to take a flawed system of subjective perception and widdle it down incrimentally by subjecting every possible iteration to the objective process.
I may not understand what you mean by the objective process or objective pursuit but I will attempt to reply anyway.
I don't believe this system of subjective perception is as flawed as you suggest. We've managed to make great scientific discoveries despite our flawed subjective perception. Much in the same way many civilizations have made great strides in standards of ethics; "by subjecting every possible iteration to the objective process."
It is not objectively wrong at all, and whatever we may feel subjectively about the matter ought to be secondary to whether it is objectively preferable or unpreferable to do so.
So something can't be objectively wrong but it can be objectively preferable? Aren't they both based on subjective perception?
At any rate, objective morality in the non-theological sense posits that questions of how we ought and ought not behave can be arrived at through observing the effects behaviors have within the world and that those effects are objective facts which should constrain personal opinion and bias on the matter.
The same way we can arrive at objective facts about physical health (which is perceived subjectively) we can arrive at objective facts about behavioral/societal health.
Why would anybody even want a system of "objective morality?" I much prefer a moality which changes and adapts to the times as it learns new information and gains new responsibilities as a result.
If an objective morality did exist (which I do not think it does or can), there is no reason that it would have to be stagnant and unchanging with time. All "objective" signifies is that something exists independent of our conceiving of its existence.
I know, I was merely stating that it is quite possible that there could exist an objective morality which we humans find repugnant, in which case, in my opinion, we would have good grounds to reject it. Furthermore, I would like to think that humans can figure out morality for themselves without it having to be there as a pre-determined system.
I know, I was merely stating that it is quite possible that there could exist an objective morality which we humans find repugnant, in which case, in my opinion, we would have good grounds to reject it
You consider our subjective feelings as good grounds to reject objective reality? That premise followed to its logical conclusion is nothing short of terrifying.
Furthermore, I would like to think that humans can figure out morality for themselves without it having to be there as a pre-determined system.
That seems overly idealistic, given the right mess our species has made of morality thus far...
I don't think it’s very practical to consider objective morality where it describes something that exists independent of our conceiving of its existence. I realize that this is seemingly what the theological community asserts about morality but the scientific communities’ use of the word objective would be to describe something which exists independent of personal opinion or bias.
Would you consider the merits of objective morality if you consider the word in this sense?
I think, perhaps, that you misunderstood my statement. When I used the phrase objective morality I was using it precisely as is described by the source you have referenced. I fail to see why an objective morality (if it actually existed) would be impractical to consider; that is rather like saying it is impractical to consider gravity or evolution or photosynthesis.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your objection? Why do you think it would be impractical?
All "objective" signifies is that something exists independent of our conceiving of its existence.
This is not all "objective" signifies. Objective can mean 'existing outside of the mind or it can mean 'not influenced by bias or feelings,' as well as others.
You seem to be referring to the former sense of the word.
This is not all "objective" signifies. Objective can mean 'existing outside of the mind or it can mean 'not influenced by bias or feelings,' as well as others. You seem to be referring to the former sense of the word.
That is correct, owning in no small part to my view that the latter does not actually exist as anything more than a concept. We are not capable of setting ourselves aside like that, of removing our bias and feelings so far that they do not influence or perception.
I also still fail to see why either version of an objective morality, if it actually existed, would be impractical to consider (per your earlier claim).
We are not capable of setting ourselves aside like that, of removing our bias and feelings so far that they do not influence or perception.
"Setting ourselves aside" seems a bit disingenuous, of course we are always bound to view things through our subjective lense, but removing our bias is required for proper scientific study is it not? Objectivity (science))
I also still fail to see why either version of an objective morality, if it actually existed, would be impractical to consider (per your earlier claim).
its impractical to consider the former (morality existing apart from the mind) because it's a subjective term. Things like good/bad, moral/immoral are products of our brain, they do not exist apart from it.
Objective in the latter sense (not influenced by bias) seems like the only practical view worth discussing between the two.
God is not required for there to be an objective morality. All that is required is an objective standard; something independent of perspective or opinion. Following is a brief explanation of how this might work:
Life and the living are compelled to sustain and continue itself/themselves. The natural mechanism of evolution has created ever more complex organisms to the point where higher cognition became possible. Eventually, evolution necessitated a large enough frontal lobe for complex symbolic reasoning. This symbolic reasoning coupled with the earlier development of social pressure based on conduct combined to become what we now subjectively feel as morality. Objective morality is simply the code of conduct that holds life as its standard. By “life” I mean basic and advanced survival. By “advanced survival” I mean increased quality.
This morality would be objective because it wouldn’t matter what you think is most conducive to protecting or enhancing life since certain things actually will and certain things actually won’t. Furthermore, its existence is independent of human conception. The standard for morality is life and the judge and creator over time is evolution. A hint at what an example of an objective moral might be is the moral prohibition of murder or unjustifiable killing. One can imagine how mass acceptance of murder as a moral act would degenerate the survivability of not only individual organisms, but eventually humans as we know them.
In summation, objective morality exists with life as the standard. It is shaped and altered over time by evolution. While everyone has subjective ideas about proper moral conduct, some of these ideas are conducive to life while others are not. That which best fits the objectively correct code of conduct will survive over time, with or without our awareness.