Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[Norsefire]

I think anyone with common sense should see that morality is subjective, seeing as different people have different views on it. This is proof enough. Anything objective can't be disputed; no one can dispute that humans need water to survive. It's a fact. It isn't up to interpretation.

Even with the darwinian explanation of morality, which makes sense, it doesn't mean morality is objective. We humans are capable of ignoring instinct and changing our actions and intents, even able to work against instinct. This happens all the time. Morality is still subjective.


"Right" and "wrong" are nonexistent. There is no good and evil and no morality.

 

[James R]

Even with the darwinian explanation of morality, which makes sense, it doesn't mean morality is objective.

Objective: Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.

"Right" and "wrong" are nonexistent. There is no good and evil and no morality.

That's a claim that requires support. When you take the effort to support it, maybe I'll take the effort to refute it.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I think anyone with common sense should see that morality is subjective, seeing as different people have different views on it. This is proof enough.

While I do agree that morality is subjective, that argument is not really a proof of it. Different people have different views on whether the Theory of Evolution is correct, but that does not make it subjective. It is possible that there is only one valid moral/ethical system and anyone holding a different view is wrong. (Say, for example, that it turns out the Abrahamic God is real and he has a book that defines morality as it applies in this universe He created...) They may not know they are wrong and one may not be able to prove they are wrong, but with that assumption in place, wrong they would be.

The reason I reject the objectivity is simply that it can't be demonstrated to be objective. There is a personal bias in that test as it falls back on my natural acceptance of empiricism. I see morality, it is hard to define, and so I place the burden on anyone claiming to have proof of its definition to demonstrate that they are correct. Thus far all have failed to do so in a compelling manner and I expect they will continue to fail.

In that sense it would be more accurate to say that I an open-minded on the question of its objectivity, but that in the absence of proof of its being objective, I generally treat it as if it were not objective without necessarily embracing that it proven to be subjective. "Proving" that it is subjective, though, essentially amounts to proving a negative quality, and is therefore likely impossible.

 

[Baron Max]

I think anyone with common sense should see that morality is subjective, seeing as different people have different views on it. This is proof enough.

Morality, for any society, comes from the threat of or the application of force. And whoever controls that force controls what's moral or immoral for that society. Therefore, morality is subjective.

Without the threat of or the application of force, there would be no morality in any society. Laws or legislation does nothing without the enforcement of those laws or rules.

Morality comes from the muzzle of a gun!

Baron Max

 

[Roman]

Objective: Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.

What observable phenomena support the objective existence of morals?

 

[Cortex_Colossum]

I think anyone with common sense should see that morality is subjective, seeing as different people have different views on it. This is proof enough. Anything objective can't be disputed; no one can dispute that humans need water to survive. It's a fact. It isn't up to interpretation.

Even with the darwinian explanation of morality, which makes sense, it doesn't mean morality is objective. We humans are capable of ignoring instinct and changing our actions and intents, even able to work against instinct. This happens all the time. Morality is still subjective.


"Right" and "wrong" are nonexistent. There is no good and evil and no morality.

Morals are imaginary constructs. That makes them subjective. Subjectivity refers to imaginary entities and beliefs.

 

[Norsefire]

Objective: Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.

You just proved my argument. As Roman said, what observable phenomenon supports the objective existence of morals?

Morals are completely distorted by emotion and personal bias.

That's a claim that requires support. When you take the effort to support it, maybe I'll take the effort to refute it.

It is easy enough to support.

Persona A finds a certain practice wrong
Person B finds it perfectly ok
Person C finds it the only righteous practice

There we go.

While I do agree that morality is subjective, that argument is not really a proof of it. Different people have different views on whether the Theory of Evolution is correct

That's not a philosophical argument, though. Morals are.

but that does not make it subjective.

Because science isn't.

It is possible that there is only one valid moral/ethical system and anyone holding a different view is wrong.

How do you prove that, though?

I cannot prove a certain painting is beautiful.

(Say, for example, that it turns out the Abrahamic God is real and he has a book that defines morality as it applies in this universe He created...)

It is still subjective, just this time around, it is this god that decides what right and wrong is.

The reason I reject the objectivity is simply that it can't be demonstrated to be objective. There is a personal bias in that test as it falls back on my natural acceptance of empiricism. I see morality, it is hard to define, and so I place the burden on anyone claiming to have proof of its definition to demonstrate that they are correct. Thus far all have failed to do so in a compelling manner and I expect they will continue to fail.

That's because you cannot prove morality any more than you can prove beauty.

 

[Pandaemoni]

That's not a philosophical argument, though. Morals are.

All science is based in philosophy. Empiricism is a philosophy, even logic is a branch of philosophy. Science relies on empiricism, but you can reject empiricism on a number of philosophical bases (the subjective nature of the senses by which we gather evidence in support of science being one obvious one).

As a matter of logic, though, a things can be unprovable by humans and yet still true. There is no room in logic for the notion that some statements are objective because they are "science" without a lot of unpacking, nor are all non-empirical statements subjective.

Logically speaking, there may be invisible and incorporeal fairies dancing on your lawn that cannot be detected by science. There is no way to disprove their existence objectively. What we generally do is rely on the unspoken assumption that unless a thing can be empirically demonstrated, we treat it as untrue.

To assert that morality is untrue because people disagree is similar to asserting that religion is untrue because people disagree on it. It is a kind of reverse "appeal to popularity" fallacy. If everyone agreed on what the moral rules were, that would not make morality necessarily objective, and if the next person born disagreed with the rest of humanity on it, he would not be provably wrong. The same can be said of the reversed argument: that people do not agree does not make a thing subjective.

How do you prove that, though?

Assuming there were an objective morality, the ability to prove the content of it would be a different question. Right now, in this world, I could posit there is a smartest living human. I cannot prove who that person is, and even if I found him or her, I do not really know what test to run to confirm it (even if I tested everyone on Earth, the very test itself would be subject to critique that renders it useless as an absolute proof). So, even in principle, it is not possible to prove who is the smartest person on Earth; still, I feel reasonably confident in saying that there is such a person.

It is still subjective, just this time around, it is this god that decides what right and wrong is.

Under the view of the Abrahamic religions, God created everything, including logic and science, so would the existence of God render those "subjective" since He made them up?

In fact, if God invented morality, then He could be the objective source by which we determine what it is. If He is not, in your view, then I think it is largely inescapable that *nothing* in the universe is objective since he invented it all. I'd argue that in the case where Giod exists, what we mean by the word "objective" would be "whatever God thinks" since He is infallible.

That's because you cannot prove morality any more than you can prove beauty.

Who says beauty is subjective? Again, that people may disagree on what is beautiful is not evidence of subjectivity. Many of those people may simply be wrong. If a lack of provability were the definition of subjectivity, then the Theory of Evolution would be subjective. Scientific theories are *not* provably true. They are falsifiable, but there is always a possibility that however well your theory accords with reality in terms of experiments, that the next time you run the experiment you will find a result that confound the theory.

Basic Humean philosophy tells is that all deduction based on prior evidence is subject to bias and error. Will the Sun rise tomorrow? I tend to think it is certain because it has risen every day in the last 4.5 billion years, but despite that track record of success for the "Sun will rise tomorrow" model, there is a small non-zero chance that the Earth will be destroyed and that the Sun will therefore not rise.

In evolution too there is the logical possibility that molectular biologists will find a tiny tag inside a cell that reads in English "Yaweh was here, and He designed this. Suck it, biotches!"

So evolution is still not "proven" either. The theory is remarkably predictive, it fits with the evidence we do see and it is falsifiable. That's what makes it a useful and scientific model.

 

[swarm]

That's because you cannot prove morality any more than you can prove beauty.

That depends on how you define moral.

If you use moral standards that are imaginary, like what some imagined god likes, then yes there is not way to make conrete measurements of how well pleased a fantasy is.

But if you use more concrete standards, crime rates, prison populations, civil stability and level of personal freedom; these are things which can be measured.

For example Portugal decriminalized all drug use and has enjoyed a dramatic decrease in drug related crimes. Since this increases personal liberty and decreases crime levels, it seems a no brainer for a morally appropriate stance for the government.

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate, and total documented prison population in the world. As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole. Of the total, 2.3 million were incarcerated. More than 1 in 100 American adults were incarcerated at the start of 2008. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million, while having four times the population, thus having only about 18% per the US incarceration rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States

This is a sure sign of either an immoral government, immoral populace or both.

 

[James R]

What observable phenomena support the objective existence of morals?

The remarkable agreement in many areas of morality among lots of people suggests a certain level of objectivity - or at least that morals are not completely subjective.

Also, the very fact that people bother to argue about morals suggests that they regard some moral standards as objectively better than others. If everybody agreed that morals are always only a matter of personal inclination or preference, everybody would also recognise that arguing about them would be a complete waste of time.

Morals are completely distorted by emotion and personal bias.

Interesting choice of words. "Distorted by" implies that you think there are "undistorted" morals out there somewhere. Those would be the objective morals you're looking for. You're arguing against yourself.

It is easy enough to support.

Persona A finds a certain practice wrong
Person B finds it perfectly ok
Person C finds it the only righteous practice

There we go.

Please see Pandaemoni's post #8 for an elegant reply to this.

 

[Baron Max]

The remarkable agreement in many areas of morality among lots of people suggests a certain level of objectivity - or at least that morals are not completely subjective.

That's a very arguable position, James! Without social laws and rules, and the enforcement to back them up, how many people would be "criminals" (immoral)? See? You can't answer that, thus you also can't say what percentage of peope would agree on what morals!

Without law enforcement, the wild, wild west was just that ...the Wild, Wild West. Without enforcement of the laws and rules, the southern slaves would still be second-class citizens. Why is that, James?

And I would also suggest that those very early laws and rules are the very reason that so many people "agree" on the morals ....they've grown up with those rules and laws being enforced, it's become part of society. They didn't agree or disagree to the morals, they were taught (forcibly!).

Thus, once again, ...without enforcement, morals are nothing but idle talk or words on a piece of paper!

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

That's a very arguable position, James!

And yours is equally, if not more, disputable.

Without social laws and rules, and the enforcement to back them up, how many people would be "criminals" (immoral)?

I'd guess no more than currently are.

You can't answer that, thus you also can't say what percentage of peope would agree on what morals!

Give me a specific moral and I'll hazard a guess.

Without law enforcement, the wild, wild west was just that ...the Wild, Wild West.

The Wild West attracted a certain class of person. When it was Wild the society there was unusual - a smaller proportion of women, for example.

Without enforcement of the laws and rules, the southern slaves would still be second-class citizens. Why is that, James?

Because people were won over by the convincing moral arguments of the Yankees?

And I would also suggest that those very early laws and rules are the very reason that so many people "agree" on the morals ....they've grown up with those rules and laws being enforced, it's become part of society.

Or, people started agreeing on the morals, then they made laws and rules.

They didn't agree or disagree to the morals, they were taught (forcibly!).

Is a bit of evidence too much to ask for?

Thus, once again, ...without enforcement, morals are nothing but idle talk or words on a piece of paper!

Once again, repetition doesn't make you any righter.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: “ Without social laws and rules, and the enforcement to back them up, how many people would be "criminals" (immoral)? ”

I'd guess no more than currently are.

Well, James, if you really feel that way, then we have no more to talk about.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Meh. Ok. Good.

 

[Roman]

The remarkable agreement in many areas of morality among lots of people suggests a certain level of objectivity - or at least that morals are not completely subjective.

Lot's of people like chocolate. In fact, it's one of the world's favorite sweets. Does that make chocolate more right than, say, licorice?

Many people also show remarkable levels of agreement in their superstitions- does that mean there is a God, spirits, demons, and so forth? Does it suggest some level of objectivity to the existence of those forms outside of human experience?

I think not.

Our hesitancy to throw a fat man in front of a runaway trolley to save five people is as objectively true to the extent that most people find sugar tasty- it has nothing to say about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of sugar. Moralistic discussions employ emotive words to coerce other people into doing what you want them to, that's all. Whether or not murder is right or wrong has no more objective basis than if gravity is right or wrong.

Also, the very fact that people bother to argue about morals suggests that they regard some moral standards as objectively better than others. If everybody agreed that morals are always only a matter of personal inclination or preference, everybody would also recognise that arguing about them would be a complete waste of time.

Still going strong after more than 700 pages and almost 15,000 posts

 

[James R]

Lot's of people like chocolate. In fact, it's one of the world's favorite sweets. Does that make chocolate more right than, say, licorice?

What you should be asking in the chocolate context is "Does that make chocolate objectively more tasty to human beings than, say, licorice?" Answer that question and you may be on the way to a valid comparison.

Many people also show remarkable levels of agreement in their superstitions- does that mean there is a God, spirits, demons, and so forth? Does it suggest some level of objectivity to the existence of those forms outside of human experience?

I'd argue that people show remarkable levels of disagreement in their superstitions, though you do have a point if you look at particular cultural or social groups.

As to your question about objectivity in religion, I'd agree with you and say that there is a high degree of objective agreement within particular religions. For example, Christians largely agree on what Jesus did and did not say. Helpfully, they have a book they can refer to that they all agree is authoritative - for them, the bible is an objective standard.

The question of the truth of the bible is a different question from its objectivity.

Moralistic discussions employ emotive words to coerce other people into doing what you want them to, that's all.

That is just one theory of morals, sometimes known as the "Boo! Yay!" theory or, more technically, emotivism. There are other theories that I find more plausible.

Whether or not murder is right or wrong has no more objective basis than if gravity is right or wrong.

I'd say gravity has a lot of objective evidence in its favour. Wouldn't you?

 

[Roman]

What you should be asking in the chocolate context is "Does that make chocolate objectively more tasty to human beings than, say, licorice?" Answer that question and you may be on the way to a valid comparison.

So when you say "killing is wrong", what you really mean is "in the context of human experience, most of us don't like killing."

That's different than saying "killing is wrong" is an objective statement about the universe, since that's not actually what you mean.

I'd argue that people show remarkable levels of disagreement in their superstitions, though you do have a point if you look at particular cultural or social groups.

As to your question about objectivity in religion, I'd agree with you and say that there is a high degree of objective agreement within particular religions. For example, Christians largely agree on what Jesus did and did not say. Helpfully, they have a book they can refer to that they all agree is authoritative - for them, the bible is an objective standard.

The question of the truth of the bible is a different question from its objectivity.

I think I see what you're saying. Religion and morality both exist in that people experience them.

That is just one theory of morals, sometimes known as the "Boo! Yay!" theory or, more technically, emotivism. There are other theories that I find more plausible.

Like what?

I'd say gravity has a lot of objective evidence in its favour. Wouldn't you?

Yes, I would. But I wouldn't say that gravity is more likely to go to heaven for its good behavior than Aristotelian theories of natural places. That is, an objective statement about how the universe works isn't couched in moralistic terms. The only actions that are moralistic are anthropomorphized ones in anthropomorphic situations. Characterization of actions as "right" or "wrong" in such settings doesn't really say much. Actions would be better characterized as "well, he had to kill him or else he would have been killed," or "what he did was wrong because it made me [the observer] feel bad," or "that was a wrong decision because now he got cheated," things like that. Declaring something good or bad, otherwise, is rather hollow, and more often speaks the emotional state of the observer than it does to any actual action.

 

[James R]

Roman:

So when you say "killing is wrong", what you really mean is "in the context of human experience, most of us don't like killing."

When I say killing is wrong, I mean a few things, including:

• Killing tends to create a net decrease in human happiness.
• A prohibition on killing is a sensibly universalisable proscription.
• Arbitrary killing is non-adaptive, in an evolutionary sense.
• Society functions better when it agrees that killing is wrong.

and more besides.

That's different than saying "killing is wrong" is an objective statement about the universe, since that's not actually what you mean.

I think you're right. For a start, morality makes no sense without moral actors. You can't separate morality from people and still have it make sense.

That is just one theory of morals, sometimes known as the "Boo! Yay!" theory or, more technically, emotivism. There are other theories that I find more plausible.

Like what?

Like moral realism. Or even moral subjectivism. Emotivism is an extreme and in my opinion unsustainable position.

That is, an objective statement about how the universe works isn't couched in moralistic terms. The only actions that are moralistic are anthropomorphized ones in anthropomorphic situations.

I agree.

Characterization of actions as "right" or "wrong" in such settings doesn't really say much. Actions would be better characterized as "well, he had to kill him or else he would have been killed," or "what he did was wrong because it made me [the observer] feel bad," or "that was a wrong decision because now he got cheated," things like that.

That's consequentialism - judging the goodness or badness of acts by their outcomes. The most viable moral theories all have consequentialist features, in my personal opinion.

 

[Roman]

When I say killing is wrong, I mean a few things, including:

• Killing tends to create a net decrease in human happiness.
• A prohibition on killing is a sensibly universalisable proscription.
• Arbitrary killing is non-adaptive, in an evolutionary sense.
• Society functions better when it agrees that killing is wrong.

And these are all objective statements of reality; they can be evaluated. Some could be right, some could be wrong. Right?

I think you're right. For a start, morality makes no sense without moral actors. You can't separate morality from people and still have it make sense.

And the next step being in argument for the objective existence of morals would be that sugar's sweetness be measured outside of human experience; ie, the sweetness of a substance is an inherent property. So morals could be measured in some similar fashion?

Like moral realism. Or even moral subjectivism. Emotivism is an extreme and in my opinion unsustainable position.

According to Richard Boyd[1], moral realism means that:

1. Moral statements are the sorts of statements which are (or which express propositions which are) true or false (or approximately true, largely false, etc.);
2. The truth or falsity (approximate truth...) of moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc.;
3. Ordinary canons of moral reasoning—together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning—constitute, under many circumstances at least, a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge.

(from the wiki page on moral realism)

I take issue with premise 2. If we define morals as a subjective thing (as it seems we agree upon), then they necessarily exist, right? If someone experiences pain; pain exists, despite pain existing nowhere but in the head. But how can some morals be independent of us? That would be like claiming pain or sweetness is independent of us. Both are experiences from receptors being activated.

That's consequentialism - judging the goodness or badness of acts by their outcomes. The most viable moral theories all have consequentialist features, in my personal opinion.

How do you feel about evo psych explanations of morals?
You know the fat man and the trolley conundrum, where you could kill one person to save many either by flipping a switch that changes the trolley's course or physically pushing the fat person?

There was a massive study done (on the internet), and people from all over the world were almost universal in their opinion: it's ok to flip the switch, but not push the fat man.

When they asked people this question when they were in an MRI, the logical centers of the brain activated in determining if they should flip the switch- killing five is more than killing one, so flip the switch. But for pushing the fat man, the emotional centers lit up first, and THEN the logic centers turned on, trying to work backwards from a conclusion they reached purely on feelings.