Is morality objective?

[Mr Tree]

Hi since the topic came up in the god thread and I didn't instantly find a thread about it here it goes:

Is morality objective or not? What I also find important is why you believe it to be one way or the other?

I'm still on the fence and will put in my early 2 cents when I get home.

edit: for those with time this video is a very good starting point

 

[Danoff]

Subjective.

Morality always comes down to some kind of ought statement. We should do this, we shouldn't do that. That's always subjective. Human Rights are objective (at least, when they're defined properly), but saying we should adhere to human rights is subjective. There are good reasons to do so, but those reasons are subjective. For example, you could objectively say that you violated someone's human rights by murdering them. But if you say "so you shouldn't have murdered them" you're gonna end up using a subjective basis for that statement.

The closest you can come to objective morality is to base your morality on objective human rights and make one subjective leap, that rights should be observed.

 

[Dotini]

Subjective.


The closest you can come to objective morality is to base your morality on objective human rights and make one subjective leap, that rights should be observed.

Agreed. But my list of objective human rights is considerably shorter than your list. And the problem is complicated when various rights (as well as laws, duties, desires and aspirations) come into conflict with each other.

 

[Danoff]

And the problem is complicated when various rights (as well as laws, duties, desires and aspirations) come into conflict with each other.

If there's a conflict, they're not rights.

 

[Dotini]

If there's a conflict, they're not rights.

For example?

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm on the fence there is a good case to be made why it's objective. I do believe the way we look at morality currently is subjective.
to go further into my question marks with the subjectivity of morality first of I had to quote you as you lead into those questions very well.

Subjective.

Morality always comes down to some kind of ought statement. We should do this, we shouldn't do that. That's always subjective. Human Rights are objective (at least, when they're defined properly), but saying we should adhere to human rights is subjective. There are good reasons to do so, but those reasons are subjective. For example, you could objectively say that you violated someone's human rights by murdering them. But if you say "so you shouldn't have murdered them" you're gonna end up using a subjective basis for that statement.

The closest you can come to objective morality is to base your morality on objective human rights and make one subjective leap, that rights should be observed.

Well you say we end up using our subjectivity in the end. Well yes we do, but does this mean morality itself is subjective? People belief vaccines can cause autism, this is objectively untrue yet they belief this on their subjective basis. This however does not mean what they belief is objectively correct.

Let's go into economics for a sec and then return to morality. So when we are standing for an issue in the financial world many economics claim to know the solution, yet many of those solutions are contradictory. Still many people believe there is a correct way to solve the issue so the subjectivity of how we approach economics doesn't make economics subjective as a lot of people agree there is only one objectively correct way to respond. The reason for said subjectivity is the complexity of the system we are trying to predict. We're not able to take into account every variable playing into this and how important those variables are, thus we can't make the objectively correct decision (yet).

Now I WONDER whether we should look at morality in that sense as it being objective. I've yet to come across any good argument for a morality that's not based on general well-being of our species. So when you cal it a subjective leap I have to raise the question would it be morality if it wasn't based on general well-beeing of our species?

Now if I would be claiming morality is objective that doesn't mean we have the objective correct answers to moral questions. it would be a very new field of the sciences and therefore the probability of flaws in reasoning that have not yet been spotted by other scientists is rather large. we didn't get general relativity in a day

 

[Danoff]

Well you say we end up using our subjectivity in the end. Well yes we do, but does this mean morality itself is subjective?

Lemme find a definition of morality - "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Basically, it's a determination of acceptable/good/right/proper behavior and unacceptable/bad/wrong/improper behavior. This is an "ought" evaluation. You "should" do this, you "shouldn't" do that. There is no way to back that up without some kind of subjective value judgement. That makes morality subjective every time.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, rights exist regardless.

People belief vaccines can cause autism, this is objectively untrue yet they belief this on their subjective basis. This however does not mean what they belief is objectively correct.

This is a dispute of a fact. Facts can be objective. Being wrong about an objective fact doesn't make you subjective, it makes you wrong. If I say 1+1=3, I'm not making a subjective statement, I'm making an objective statement which is wrong.

Let's go into economics for a sec and then return to morality. So when we are standing for an issue in the financial world many economics claim to know the solution, yet many of those solutions are contradictory. Still many people believe there is a correct way to solve the issue so the subjectivity of how we approach economics doesn't make economics subjective as a lot of people agree there is only one objectively correct way to respond. The reason for said subjectivity is the complexity of the system we are trying to predict. We're not able to take into account every variable playing into this and how important those variables are, thus we can't make the objectively correct decision (yet).

See above about incorrect objective statements.

Now I WONDER whether we should look at morality in that sense as it being objective.

Just because we can't figure out a right or wrong answer to it doesn't mean it's objective. It's even harder (impossible actually) to come up with a right or wrong answer to a subjective question.

I've yet to come across any good argument for a morality that's not based on general well-being of our species. So when you cal it a subjective leap I have to raise the question would it be morality if it wasn't based on general well-beeing of our species?

I'll give you one. How about it's in my best interest? Screw the species. Morality of ME. Survival of the fittest, Darwinism. We should do what we can get away with. That's a moral code, it just happens to be at odds with human rights.

I think what you're describing is utilitarianism, which is another moral code at odds with human rights.

 

[Mr Tree]

Lemme find a definition of morality - "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Basically, it's a determination of acceptable/good/right/proper behavior and unacceptable/bad/wrong/improper behavior. This is an "ought" evaluation. You "should" do this, you "shouldn't" do that. There is no way to back that up without some kind of subjective value judgement. That makes morality subjective every time.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, rights exist regardless.



This is a dispute of a fact. Facts can be objective. Being wrong about an objective fact doesn't make you subjective, it makes you wrong. If I say 1+1=3, I'm not making a subjective statement, I'm making an objective statement which is wrong.



See above about incorrect objective statements.



Just because we can't figure out a right or wrong answer to it doesn't mean it's objective. It's even harder (impossible actually) to come up with a right or wrong answer to a subjective question.



I'll give you one. How about it's in my best interest? Screw the species. Morality of ME. Survival of the fittest, Darwinism. We should do what we can get away with. That's a moral code, it just happens to be at odds with human rights.

I think what you're describing is utilitarianism, which is another moral code at odds with human rights.

I see where you're coming from but is that definition still enough? Why shouldn't we change the definition, no not change it, narrow it down as we learn more.
Good cases are to be made for general well being being the foundation for morality. (Societies seem to work better when we base our morality on our right) Yet no such case can be made for the morality of me. So why shouldn't general well being for our species not be the basis of right or wrong.

On the dispute of fact I agree they're just objectively wrong but it's their subjective perspective that lead them to the wrong conclusion.

Of coarse we can't give a correct answer to a subjective question. But we've yet to demonstrate it is subjective or objective. That's what needs to be certain first.

In essence Sam Harris believes we hold morality to a different standard then all other sciences. And I'm entertaining that idea, why do we not question why healthcare should be striving for better health, yet we do question why morality should be based on general well being of our species?

 

[Danoff]

I see where you're coming from but is that definition still enough? Why shouldn't we change the definition, no not change it, narrow it down as we learn more.
Good cases are to be made for general well being being the foundation for morality. (Societies seem to work better when we base our morality on our right) Yet no such case can be made for the morality of me. So why shouldn't general well being for our species not be the basis of right or wrong.

On the dispute of fact I agree they're just objectively wrong but it's their subjective perspective that lead them to the wrong conclusion.

Of coarse we can't give a correct answer to a subjective question. But we've yet to demonstrate it is subjective or objective. That's what needs to be certain first.

In essence Sam Harris believes we hold morality to a different standard then all other sciences. And I'm entertaining that idea, why do we not question why healthcare should be striving for better health, yet we do question why morality should be based on general well being of our species?

I read Mr. Harris's book (years ago). It has some flaws.

There is no clear answer for what is in the general well-being of our species. How do you define well being? Most people surviving? Highest quality of life? Most music created? Best sex life? There is no right answer for what is the best achieved well being. Attempting to reduce morality to an objective function to be maximized presupposes that you can come up with the right function, and it's just not possible.

Add to that that Human Rights can be derived objectively, and you end up having a conflict with observing human rights and maximizing your "greater good" objective function.

You say that survival of the fittest has no good case that can be made for it. I can make one if you like. For one, it enables people to live according to their capability. For another, it is the only "moral code" adopted by non-humans. I'd say that human beings have lived according to survival of the fittest (including grouping up to create the fittest "tribe"), for almost our entire existence, and it has resulted in a very high level of achievement of the species.

The problem with utilitarianism (besides the arbitrary nature of the utility function) is that it ultimately has to violate objective human rights, which has some real consequences in logic. That's pretty clearly displayed by the trolley problem. If it doesn't violate objective human rights, then it is actually just a moral code based on rights, and not really utilitarianism.

You might want to take a read through my Human Rights thread.

 

[Mr Tree]

I read Mr. Harris's book (years ago). It has some flaws.

There is no clear answer for what is in the general well-being of our species. How do you define well being? Most people surviving? Highest quality of life? Most music created? Best sex life? There is no right answer for what is the best achieved well being. Attempting to reduce morality to an objective function to be maximized presupposes that you can come up with the right function, and it's just not possible.

Add to that that Human Rights can be derived objectively, and you end up having a conflict with observing human rights and maximizing your "greater good" objective function.

You say that survival of the fittest has no good case that can be made for it. I can make one if you like. For one, it enables people to live according to their capability. For another, it is the only "moral code" adopted by non-humans. I'd say that human beings have lived according to survival of the fittest (including grouping up to create the fittest "tribe"), for almost our entire existence, and it has resulted in a very high level of achievement of the species.

The problem with utilitarianism (besides the arbitrary nature of the utility function) is that it ultimately has to violate objective human rights, which has some real consequences in logic. That's pretty clearly displayed by the trolley problem. If it doesn't violate objective human rights, then it is actually just a moral code based on rights, and not really utilitarianism.

You might want to take a read through my Human Rights thread.

Well I always thought the same way as this. The diffrence is that what you currently call flaws, how would we define well being, is the question I am asking.

Let's say this discussion has allready formed my opinion a bit more. As now we don't have an answer to that question and we might never be able to answer that question, we should acknowledge we approach morality in a subjective way.
I do also believe Sam Harris might be on to something and we should explore that idea for some time before just letting it go. I usually disagree with his spirituality cases but on this one he really has me thinking.

I guess you look at exploring the idea before letting it go completely as a waste of resources.

I am going to have to take a look at utilitarianism as I don't really know what that is and am interested.

Thanks for the replies!


Edit: I have taken a brief read through your human rights thread. I believe we've allready had a discussion on that where I suspected you of beeing a troll due to a imo very harsh look on making healthcare a human right and this would infringe on the rights of the doctor effectively making him into a slave. The reason I suspected you being a troll was that this idea is so out of line with european ways of thinking about the issue I had never encountered those somewhat extreme idea's (and mine are just as extreme as those just the other side ) (could have been @Dotini who I had that discussion with)

So we disagree on multiple things but that doesn't matter it gives perspective!

Actually we disagree due to looking at well being in a diffrent way making morality once more subjective.

 

[mustafur]

Morality is rarely objective.

Facts are facts, Opinions are Opinions.

 

[Liquid]

I'd say that the main point, often brought up in this sub-forum, is that morality exists outside of religion.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'd say that the main point, often brought up in this sub-forum, is that morality exists outside of religion.

I always forget this needs to be specified

 

[Danoff]

Well I always thought the same way as this. The diffrence is that what you currently call flaws, how would we define well being, is the question I am asking.

Ok, to understand why utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed it's easiest (I think) to look at the trolley problem.

Trolley is going to hit the 5 people, you're at the switch, do you make it hit the 1 person? I doubt Sam Harris would argue that it maximizes the most good to let it hit the 5 people (although I could make a case for both sides on that). If you're a utilitarian at this point you usually throw the switch and have it hit the 1 person. In other words, it is ok to sacrifice the few for the sake of the many (maximizing the greater good). Lives here are the objective function, and most lives = most good.

So what if I told you that the 5 are all convicted murders and the 1 is a nobel prize winning scientist? Change your mind? Where's the greater good now? If your mind is changed, what if those 5 were not convicted murders, but instead were mentally handicapped. What if they were fast food cooks? What if they were truck drivers? What if they were software engineers who had just been laid off? Gainfully employed? One of them was convicted of shoplifting. 2 of them have kids. 1 of them beats their kids. How are you throwing the switch (or not) in each one of these cases?

If you didn't change your mind, let's say it was only 2 convicted murders... who had the death sentence tomorrow... and who had threatened to kill you and your family...

From a human rights perspective, this question is easy. From a utilitarian perspective (which is what most people try to adopt when they're first introduced) it is an absolute nightmare. Try to weigh the contribution of the artist against the engineer. The musician against the businessman. The wall street investment banker against the corner baker. The life of someone who employs 2000 people against a mother of 4.

Every single time you invoke utilitarianism you have impossible choices to make.

 

[Mr Tree]

Ok, to understand why utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed it's easiest (I think) to look at the trolley problem.

Trolley is going to hit the 5 people, you're at the switch, do you make it hit the 1 person? I doubt Sam Harris would argue that it maximizes the most good to let it hit the 5 people (although I could make a case for both sides on that). If you're a utilitarian at this point you usually throw the switch and have it hit the 1 person. In other words, it is ok to sacrifice the few for the sake of the many (maximizing the greater good). Lives here are the objective function, and most lives = most good.

So what if I told you that the 5 are all convicted murders and the 1 is a nobel prize winning scientist? Change your mind? Where's the greater good now? If your mind is changed, what if those 5 were not convicted murders, but instead were mentally handicapped. What if they were fast food cooks? What if they were truck drivers? What if they were software engineers who had just been laid off? Gainfully employed? One of them was convicted of shoplifting. 2 of them have kids. 1 of them beats their kids. How are you throwing the switch (or not) in each one of these cases?

If you didn't change your mind, let's say it was only 2 convicted murders... who had the death sentence tomorrow... and who had threatened to kill you and your family...

From a human rights perspective, this question is easy. From a utilitarian perspective (which is what most people try to adopt when they're first introduced) it is an absolute nightmare. Try to weigh the contribution of the artist against the engineer. The musician against the businessman. The wall street investment banker against the corner baker. The life of someone who employs 2000 people against a mother of 4.

Every single time you invoke utilitarianism you have impossible choices to make.

Yes but you have to admit that every case you present here is diffrent to the previous. Acting like they're the same choice is an equivocation fallacy (is that how you write that?)
Every detail is important so yes backstories of those people are part if the circumstances and acting like the situation is the same and should require the same choice is just unfair.

Like I said I'm very much on the fence on this one
I don't claim you're wrong I claim that we don't know if there is a correct answer to your questions or if it's rather all subjective?

Now the problem I have a harder time objectifying is a burning house there is a human inside and a dog. Do you save the dog or the person? I'm not always fond of people and can understand people saving the dog. I'd still save the human but I can see why people would act diffrent. The question is, is it subjective or is one of those just plain wrong.

 

[mustafur]

The question is, is it subjective or is one of those just plain wrong.

Subjective.

It's not even close to be otherwise.

 

[Mr Tree]

Subjective.

It's not even close to be otherwise.

Could you justify your position? At least @Danoff tries to persuade people.

You have by now come into tyis thread gone off to claim it's subjective end of story. No reason, no justification just because you say so.

 

[mustafur]

Could you justify your position? At least @Danoff tries to persuade people.

You have by now come into tyis thread gone off to claim it's subjective end of story. No reason, no justification just because you say so.

When your faced with options for something it can't be objective by definition.

Absolute or nothing.

 

[Mr Tree]

When your faced with options for something it can't be objective by definition.

Absolute or nothing.

We're often faced with options. We're faced with options in multiple question exams yet there are wrong and right answers or am I missing something?

Which could very much be so please point it out if you find it!

I always said it's subjective until I found out about previously explained idea's about it.
I still find it subjective, I just find it harder to claim it is with a 100%. This bugs me as it means I ultimatly have to say I don't know. Not that not knowing in itself is a problem more so as out of curiosity for the subject.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes but you have to admit that every case you present here is diffrent to the previous. Acting like they're the same choice is an equivocation fallacy (is that how you write that?)
Every detail is important so yes backstories of those people are part if the circumstances and acting like the situation is the same and should require the same choice is just unfair.

Like I said I'm very much on the fence on this one
I don't claim you're wrong I claim that we don't know if there is a correct answer to your questions or if it's rather all subjective?

Now the problem I have a harder time objectifying is a burning house there is a human inside and a dog. Do you save the dog or the person? I'm not always fond of people and can understand people saving the dog. I'd still save the human but I can see why people would act diffrent. The question is, is it subjective or is one of those just plain wrong.

Anyone who could do anything other than save the human being is mentally ill. But some people are mentally ill so I could understand how they'd make a different, and wrong, choice.

 

[Mr Tree]

Anyone who could do anything other than save the human being is mentally ill. But some people are mentally ill so I could understand how they'd make a different, and wrong, choice.

Yet others have said it's subjective.
And to this day the truth is we have no way to say if it was wrong or not.

And yet I somewhat understand what you mean. Which could call for objective morality.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yet others have said it's subjective.
And to this day the truth is we have no way to say if it was wrong or not.

And yet I somewhat understand what you mean. Which could call for objective morality.

The human being has a right to life. My choice as to who to save is subjective but I don't believe there is any subjective basis for a sane person, who is going to save one or the other when no other factors are involved (like risk of death or serious injury), to save a dog over a human life. Anyone who would consider saving the dog is mentally ill. It's not a choice a rational human being would make.

 

[Danoff]

Yes but you have to admit that every case you present here is diffrent to the previous. Acting like they're the same choice is an equivocation fallacy (is that how you write that?)
Every detail is important so yes backstories of those people are part if the circumstances and acting like the situation is the same and should require the same choice is just unfair.

Like I said I'm very much on the fence on this one
I don't claim you're wrong I claim that we don't know if there is a correct answer to your questions or if it's rather all subjective?

Now the problem I have a harder time objectifying is a burning house there is a human inside and a dog. Do you save the dog or the person? I'm not always fond of people and can understand people saving the dog. I'd still save the human but I can see why people would act diffrent. The question is, is it subjective or is one of those just plain wrong.

The burning house is a little different because they're both gonna die if you do nothing (I presume). So the choice is so much easier.

The point with the Trolley problem is that there is no objective measure of greatest good. If you think there is, it's up to you to put forth one, and explain why it is objective. The only rational position until that happens is to take the position that there is not an objective answer.

One engineer vs. 5 art students. One art student vs. 5 engineers. One mother of 5 vs. 5 shoplifting single men in their 30s. There is no objective answer as to whose life is worth more, or how many of one life stacks up to equal one of another.

You also have a problem of information, you can't act morally (if your morality is based on maximizing the greater good) if you don't know everything about all 6 people involved in the Trolley problem. Faced with the Trolley problem in the absence of knowing anything about them, you might be tempted to try to maximize the greater good by maximizing the number of people that live... only to find out that you actually acted immorally because the 5 are all convinced murders sentenced to die tomorrow, and the 1 you sacrificed was on the brink of curing cancer. Ooops, you're immoral because you didn't know.


Maximizing the greater good is literally "the ends justify the means", there's no way around that. Of course it's false, the beginnings justify the means. The ends justify nothing. The only way to tell what course of action you can take in any situation is to understand the events leading up to it (from your perspective). Then you can figure out what you can do and what you cannot do within the framework of objective human rights.

 

[mustafur]

If you know the answer there is no other options, otherwise if you don't know the answer(so basically asking an opinion guess) or a question can't be answered as absolute(such as the 5 vs 1 sceniaro) then it's all subjective from that point on.

 

[Danoff]

So, tougher moral dilemmas than the Trolley Problem:

- The crying baby
- Sophie's choice
- Genetic Engineering

 

[Mr Tree]

So, tougher moral dilemmas than the Trolley Problem:

- The crying baby
- Sophie's choice
- Genetic Engineering

On the current relevant moral dilema's genetic engineering is a very interesting one! While it most clearly would be moral in certain cases. Where we would draw the 'moral line' is a fair but harder, yet important question to answer.

An other of those interesting ones is when we achieve to produce machines with consienceness how are we going to treat them? Is it moral to have them as 'slaves'?

 

[Imari]

On the current relevant moral dilema's genetic engineering is a very interesting one! While it most clearly would be moral in certain cases. Where we would draw the 'moral line' is a fair but harder, yet important question to answer.

Why would genetic engineering be immoral?

An other of those interesting ones is when we achieve to produce machines with consienceness how are we going to treat them? Is it moral to have them as 'slaves'?

We'll either define them as not having human consciousness, or not having consciousness at all, or just ignore the problem entirely. You know, like that other class of conscious beings that we treat as existing for our benefit. Animals. Is it less moral to have a slave AI than it is to have a paddock full of slave cows?

 

[Mr Tree]

Why would genetic engineering be immoral?



We'll either define them as not having human consciousness, or not having consciousness at all, or just ignore the problem entirely. You know, like that other class of conscious beings that we treat as existing for our benefit. Animals. Is it less moral to have a slave AI than it is to have a paddock full of slave cows?

On the genetic engineering. It's not the act itself. The act of genetic engineering in itself is amoral. It's why or what we do with it. Is it moral to create 'supersoldiers' through genetic engineering? Is it moral to choose some of the looks of your child? There has to be a discussion about these questions.

On the robots well I agree we often work in that way. Then again I'm starting to doubt if I can keep eating meat my entire life as I find that the only good reason not to stop eating meat is my pure love for it. More and more people start to question our relation towards other species. And therefore it wouldn't suprise me if this becomes a discussion in the future.

 

[Exorcet]

Is it moral to create 'supersoldiers' through genetic engineering?

I don't see a problem with that unless the soldiers in question didn't give consent.

Is it moral to choose some of the looks of your child?

This is what comes to my mind when thinking about genetic modification issues. When it comes to children, after some point in their development the parents would be forcibly altering the children's biology and those parents would be responsible for any issues that occur as a result. I think the safe approach would be to modify genes before conception or wait for the child to be able to make an informed choice (which may require waiting for adulthood).

 

[Mr Tree]

I don't see a problem with that unless the soldiers in question didn't give consent.


This is what comes to my mind when thinking about genetic modification issues. When it comes to children, after some point in their development the parents would be forcibly altering the children's biology and those parents would be responsible for any issues that occur as a result. I think the safe approach would be to modify genes before conception or wait for the child to be able to make an informed choice (which may require waiting for adulthood).

Well while I agree with your opinion on the children. I find it harder to accept the supersoldier.

We don't allow hollow points in warfare, nor do we allow poissenous gas, lasers, flamethrowers,... The list is endless, in that regard I find it hard to say I see no issue in genetic modification for a super soldier while we don't know what that would entail.

Also how are sports going to be a 'fair' playingground. Will we have 2 different leagues? Will this be doping? Will this mean only the ones able to pay will be able to play?

Edit: to be fair on the soldier aspect, while I see why we have armies and while I understand most soldiers enlist because they believe to help the world I can not accept this as a moral occupation. I have family and friends in the army some of whom are the world to me so I'm not saying they are bad people. I just find it hard to accept risking your life because some officer or nation said so...