Is morality objective?

[Northstar]

Sidestep?there is morality in forcing yourself not to make the choice at all. I coincidentally similar to Sophie have both a boy and a girl. I would rather shoot myself then make a choice. I could not live with making a choice.

What if committing suicide resulted in them killing both since you didn't choose one?

 

[Danoff]

Sidestep?there is morality in forcing yourself not to make the choice at all. I coincidentally similar to Sophie have both a boy and a girl. I would rather shoot myself then make a choice. I could not live with making a choice.

Being able to live with yourself is not quite the same as morality. I can say that refusing to save a drowning child is moral, and also say that I couldn't live with myself if I refused.

 

[ryzno]

I can say that refusing to save a drowning child is moral

I still don't get how you think that and it's why I ignored it but I'll bite.

If I didn't know how to swim and unable to call for help that's one thing. Even though every pool I've been to has an emergency phone and a life ring. I'd say it's immoral cause the least one could do is throw said person the life ring.
Now if I'm the parent and I don't know how to swim, know my child doesn't know how to swim and I shove them in the pool and they drown I look at that as immoral too. I just killed my kid for no reason. Same if it was a stranger. Not to mention it's murder in both cases IMO.
I don't remember the other scenarios but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[Danoff]

I still don't get how you think that and it's why I ignored it but I'll bite.

If I didn't know how to swim and unable to call for help that's one thing. Even though every pool I've been to has an emergency phone and a life ring. I'd say it's immoral cause the least one could do is throw said person the life ring.

Their need trumps your freedom? You are a slave to their needs? If you can be compelled to help, then you are not free.

Now if I'm the parent and I don't know how to swim, know my child doesn't know how to swim and I shove them in the pool and they drown I look at that as immoral too. I just killed my kid for no reason. Same if it was a stranger. Not to mention it's murder in both cases IMO.
I don't remember the other scenarios but I'll leave it at that for now.

Yea if you shove a kid in the pool and watch them drown, you're a murderer. That one's pretty clear.

 

[ryzno]

Their need trumps your freedom? You are a slave to their needs? If you can be compelled to help, then you are not free.

This is where you lose me.
I don't see how their need trumps my freedom. The way I'm looking at it I'm using my freedom and knowledge to swim and of CPR to help the child. I wouldn't expect anything in return.
How am I a slave to their needs? I'm voluntarily helping.
And I honestly do get how me wanting to help and not expecting anything in return makes me "not free".

 

[Danoff]

I'm voluntarily helping.

If you're voluntarily helping, then fine. Great. I'm asking if you're immoral for not helping. Are you culpable for not helping? Would you throw someone in jail for not helping? Ask Germany how they answer that one.

 

[PocketZeven]

Being able to live with yourself is not quite the same as morality. I can say that refusing to save a drowning child is moral, and also say that I couldn't live with myself if I refused.

That is what the subjective part is. Refusing to save a child is in my opinion immoral. You say it is moral.

What if committing suicide resulted in them killing both since you didn't choose one?

Its immoral in your eyes, but to me it is immoral to choose between my children. If my suicide would not save any of them. Resulting in only these choices:
a) choose one, or they both die
b) kill yourself and all die

I would choose B.

 

[Imari]

That is what the subjective part is. Refusing to save a child is in my opinion immoral. You say it is moral.

I'm not sure you're making a distinction between being immoral and being an :censored:hole. They are not the same.

Someone who refuses to save a drowning child when they could do so at no risk and minimal cost to themselves is an :censored:hole. Most cultures and communities recognise that such a person is a hindrance to those around them and treat them appropriately.
However, no one is required to act for the benefit of another person. One can choose to act or not, and both decisions are moral.

Its immoral in your eyes, but to me it is immoral to choose between my children. If my suicide would not save any of them. Resulting in only these choices:
a) choose one, or they both die
b) kill yourself and all die

I would choose B.

Interesting choice, particularly as you're presenting it this way because you're more emotionally attached to your own children. Look at it from the perspective of the child that is to die. The outcomes that they see are:
a) sibling and parent survive.
b) sibling and parent die.

That child dies no matter what. The only question is whether you choose to save one child and yourself or not. You're saying that you will not save one of your children if you can't save all of them, which is a very first world point of view.

Just because something would be emotionally easier for you, doesn't make it a moral choice. And just because something would be emotionally difficult doesn't make it immoral. That's not what morality means.

If it's two random children that you don't know at all, what choice would you make then?

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure you're making a distinction between being immoral and being an :censored:hole. They are not the same.

Someone who refuses to save a drowning child when they could do so at no risk and minimal cost to themselves is an :censored:hole. Most cultures and communities recognise that such a person is a hindrance to those around them and treat them appropriately.
However, no one is required to act for the benefit of another person. One can choose to act or not, and both decisions are moral.



Interesting choice, particularly as you're presenting it this way because you're more emotionally attached to your own children. Look at it from the perspective of the child that is to die. The outcomes that they see are:
a) sibling and parent survive.
b) sibling and parent die.

That child dies no matter what. The only question is whether you choose to save one child and yourself or not. You're saying that you will not save one of your children if you can't save all of them, which is a very first world point of view.

Just because something would be emotionally easier for you, doesn't make it a moral choice. And just because something would be emotionally difficult doesn't make it immoral. That's not what morality means.

If it's two random children that you don't know at all, what choice would you make then?

Your assumption is that morality is objective. I am pointing out the subjectivity.

I would not be able to choose between my daughter or son. (unless one already has an incurable disease) I would rather die first.
If it were 2 random children, the choice would be different. I would try to save as much people I can. If choosing 1 saves 2 lives, then I probably would.

 

[Imari]

Your assumption is that morality is objective. I am pointing out the subjectivity.

I would not be able to choose between my daughter or son. (unless one already has an incurable disease) I would rather die first.
If it were 2 random children, the choice would be different. I would try to save as much people I can. If choosing 1 saves 2 lives, then I probably would.

I think you're confusing morality with emotion.

But you say that I'm assuming that morality is objective, so let's make this explicit. Let's assume that morality is subjective, and so your moral behaviour might not be the same as someone else's. However, your moral behaviour still has it's own logic and rationale, even if it's only internally consistent.

Famine and Danoff have done a lot of legwork explaining the fundamentals of the objective view, and how moral decisions can be derived from that. How about you take this specific example with regard to both the participants as your children and the participants as random children:

a) choose one, or they both die
b) kill yourself and all die

And explain logically how your stated actions form a consistent and rational moral system. I'm not asking for an objective moral system, I'm only asking you to explain how your personal subjective moral system leads to the actions you have described.

Subjectivity does not mean "I can do whatever I want and I don't have to explain it", in case you were thinking of trying that one on. Nor does it mean "I feel like X so I do Y". Subjectivity means that your actions and decisions are rational and logical from your perspective, but that other people might not do the same because they do not share your perspective.

The purpose of this is not to expose your choices so that they can be belittled. The purpose is to have you explicitly outline an example of a subjective moral system and how it works. I think you're going to find it difficult to define your moral system with any degree of specificity, but if you can then we can start sensibly outlining the differences between the subjective and objective systems.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think you're confusing morality with emotion.

But you say that I'm assuming that morality is objective, so let's make this explicit. Let's assume that morality is subjective, and so your moral behaviour might not be the same as someone else's. However, your moral behaviour still has it's own logic and rationale, even if it's only internally consistent.

Famine and Danoff have done a lot of legwork explaining the fundamentals of the objective view, and how moral decisions can be derived from that. How about you take this specific example with regard to both the participants as your children and the participants as random children:

The problem with famine and danoff is that they are both probably libertarians and therefore both share the same views that in my opinion were still subjective. Unlike something like physics, ethics is not something that is proven science and has different theories.

edit:

To elaborate my view. Morality is dependant on the society, religion and era an individual lives in. For example: In some ancient cultures it could have been seen as honorable to sacrifice a chilt to a god.

 

[Famine]

The problem with famine and danoff is that they are both probably libertarians and therefore both share the same views that in my opinion were still subjective. Unlike something like physics, ethics is not something that is proven science and has different theories.

Physics is applied mathematics. Logic is also mathematics. A viewpoint that has emerged from using logic on a logical startpoint is closer to objective than "proven science" (mainly because there's no such thing as "proven science" - the scientific method does not work like that).

 

[PocketZeven]

Physics is applied mathematics. Logic is also mathematics. A viewpoint that has emerged from using logic on a logical startpoint is closer to objective than "proven science" (mainly because there's no such thing as "proven science" - the scientific method does not work like that).

You obviously understand what I was going for. In physics one can for example provide proof by duplicating a theory. The point is that philosiphy should not be treated as objective or "settled".

edit: to suggest morality is objective, is to suggest there only one kind of morality.

I did not refer to logic, but morality.

 

[Famine]

You obviously understand what I was going for. In physics one can for example provide proof by duplicating a theory.

No, that's not how the scientific method works. It works by failing to disprove something, and continuing to fail to disprove it until you run out of ways to disprove it. Then you create a theory that explains the observation, and when a new way to disprove it comes up you try again and refine the theory based on whether you can or not.

The point is that philosiphy should not be treated as objective or "settled".

Nor should science. It's only ever one disproof away from not being settled.

edit: to suggest morality is objective, is to suggest there only one kind of morality.

Only one correct kind, certainly. The principles behind a sunrise are objective, but people still have lots of beliefs around why it happens. They're wrong, but they still believe them.

I did not refer to logic, but morality.

No, I referred to logic, for a very specific reason. If one can use logic to create a conclusion based on a logical first principle, the conclusion is logical. If we can use logic to create a moral position based on a logical right, the morality is logical - and objective.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, that's not how the scientific method works. It works by failing to disprove something, and continuing to fail to disprove it until you run out of ways to disprove it. Then you create a theory that explains the observation, and when a new way to disprove it comes up you try again and refine the theory based on whether you can or not.

Nor should science. It's only ever one disproof away from not being settled.

Only one correct kind, certainly. The principles behind a sunrise are objective, but people still have lots of beliefs around why it happens. They're wrong, but they still believe them.

No, I referred to logic, for a very specific reason. If one can use logic to create a conclusion based on a logical first principle, the conclusion is logical. If we can use logic to create a moral position based on a logical right, the morality is logical - and objective.

That is one of the methods to provide proof in science. I did not claim it is the "scientic method". Dont try to put "words in my mouth".

To have the opinion there is one correct kind of morality is choosing to be ignorant. Unlike a sunrise which can be viewed with your senses, morality is purely philisophical by nature.

 

[Famine]

That is one of the methods to provide proof in science. I did not claim it is the "scientic method". Dont try to put "words in my mouth".

I didn't. They are my words. You can tell because I wrote them, and I haven't attributed any of them to you.

Falsifiability is the core of the scientific method. Nothing is proven in science, only failed to be disproven - a fact is only a fact until it's disproven.

To have the opinion there is one correct kind of morality is choosing to be ignorant.

No, it's recognising that rights and morality have a rational base.

Unlike a sunrise which can be viewed with your senses, morality is purely philisophical by nature.

Your senses can be easily fooled, and your experience from your senses is highly subjective. Logic is not.

 

[PocketZeven]

I didn't. They are my words. You can tell because I wrote them, and I haven't attributed any of them to you.

You kind of suggested as if I did.

No, that's not how the scientific method works.

 

[Famine]

You kind of suggested as if I did.

Not even slightly. I was telling you that what you said, that you can "provide proof" (words you actually said, in quote marks to indicate you said them) in science, is not how the scientific method - the method by which science functions - actually works.

 

[Imari]

The problem with famine and danoff is that they are both probably libertarians and therefore both share the same views that in my opinion were still subjective. Unlike something like physics, ethics is not something that is proven science and has different theories.

edit:

To elaborate my view. Morality is dependant on the society, religion and era an individual lives in. For example: In some ancient cultures it could have been seen as honorable to sacrifice a chilt to a god.

You're still choosing not to elaborate on an explicit example as a way of communicating your view. You're choosing to stick to vagaries and generalisations. Presumably so that people can't discuss your ideas in detail, because as long as you stick to "morality is subjective" as your sole point then the only reasonable response is "nuh-uh".

You stated your position on a moral situation from within your own morality. Are you refusing to explain how you arrived at that position?

Honestly, if you can't explain your own moral position, I hardly think your views on the morality of societies should be taken seriously.

The point is that philosiphy should not be treated as objective or "settled".

It should if it's objective and settled. Not if otherwise. Is that not the whole point of philosophy? To be able to logically consider circumstances and situations such that if there is an objective solution it can be identified and verified? Do you continue disgreeing after someone has presented a complete and valid argument in deductive logic?

As an aside, do you know what they used to call science? Natural philosophy. And it was so named for a reason, because it was the application of philosophical tools of logic and reasoning to the natural world.

Unlike a sunrise which can be viewed with your senses, morality is purely philisophical by nature.

And what differentiates a "philosophical" thing like morality from something like a sunrise? Or gravity? Or the strong nuclear force?

I would suggest that you can use your senses to "see" all these things. Some you can experience directly because you have a relevant sense organ, some you can only observe by their effects on other things. Do you not observe the effects of morality, and therefore infer it's existence?

 

[Danoff]

That is one of the methods to provide proof in science.

Evidence, not proof.

To have the opinion there is one correct kind of morality is choosing to be ignorant. Unlike a sunrise which can be viewed with your senses, morality is purely philisophical by nature.

Calling something "philosophical" does not mean that it cannot be correct. You're using it as though philosophical means "subjective", you're essentially trying to define your way to your desired conclusion.

@Famine called it the only "correct" kind. I'm not sure I would go that far. I would say that it's the only "objective" kind. It's hard for me to say, necessarily that "objective" is "correct". I would say that there is morality based on objectivity, and all other morality (based on subjectivity). I prefer morality based on objectivity to morality based on subjectivity, but I don't know of a way to absolutely prove that objectivity is "better". Hence, my initial post in this thread. One could argue that subjectivity is better.

If you're willing to take it as an axiom that one ought to behave in a manner consistent with objectivity, then you can deduce the rest of morality.

I'd like to note that a difference of opinion on morality does not demonstrate that morality is necessarily subjective. The fact that some people are "wrong" does not mean there is no "right" answer. Some people are wrong at math (I've been, many times). There is still a right answer.

 

[BobK]

The problem with famine and danoff is that they are both probably libertarians and therefore both share the same views that in my opinion were still subjective. Unlike something like physics, ethics is not something that is proven science and has different theories.

Ad hominem much?

To elaborate my view. Morality is dependant on the society, religion and era an individual lives in. For example: In some ancient cultures it could have been seen as honorable to sacrifice a chilt to a god.

So you're saying it was moral for Aztec priests to sacrifice children?

 

[Keef]

There is still a right answer.

I don't like to use the term "right". I use "not wrong", again partially because many problems can be tackled in multiple ways both objective and subjective. The universe is complex and often it's difficult if not impossible to choose a "right" answer, but I find it's pretty easy to find the wrong answer, and at that point you're left with many "not wrong" answers. Science and math discover new things all the time to counter the supposedly right answers we were taught in school.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ad hominem much?



So you're saying it was moral for Aztec priests to sacrifice children?

From the subjective view of an aztec it was moral. From my view it isnt. Hence the subjectivity of morality.

Some in this thread find tax immoral. I dont see it that way.

Evidence, not proof.



Calling something "philosophical" does not mean that it cannot be correct. You're using it as though philosophical means "subjective", you're essentially trying to define your way to your desired conclusion.

What is the difference between evidence and proof? In dutch translation they mean the same.

If you are using right and wrong as absolutes then I disagree completely. If you use right and wrong from your morality or perspective then I agree.

You're still choosing not to elaborate on an explicit example as a way of communicating your view. You're choosing to stick to vagaries and generalisations.

Elaborating on which subject are you referring to? What do you consider vage? I am happy to go into detail, just dont immediately dismiss my opinion as "incorrect" or "wrong" (from the perspective that morality is objective).

 

[Famine]

From the subjective view of an aztec it was moral. From my view it isnt. Hence the subjectivity of morality.

That's not evidence of morality being subjective. That's evidence of two people (or groups) disagreeing on morality because at least one of them doesn't understand where morality comes from.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's not evidence of morality being subjective. That's evidence of two people (or groups) disagreeing on morality because at least one of them doesn't understand where morality comes from.

Not entirely correct. One person thinks killing a person is wrong. (moral) The aztec presumably thinks sacrificing a child to a god for prosperity or other means is honorable. (moral)

In your view and opinion you presume the aztec do not understand morality. Many people say religion is as where morality comes from. There is no absolute "correct" answer unless you are stuck in your own world.

 

[Famine]

Not entirely correct.

No, it's entirely correct.

Two people disagreeing over a fact doesn't make the fact subjective. It makes at least one of them wrong. You can't use the concept that two people or groups disagree over a thing as evidence that the thing is a subjective phenomenon. You did that right here:

From the subjective view of an aztec it was moral. From my view it isnt. Hence the subjectivity of morality.

Which is wrong.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, it's entirely correct.

Two people disagreeing over a fact doesn't make the fact subjective. It makes at least one of them wrong. You can't use the concept that two people or groups disagree over a thing as evidence that the thing is a subjective phenomenon. You did that right here:

Which is wrong.

They arent disagreeing. They are both wrong and both correct. It depends on the perspective (subjectivity). You are reading it wrong. The premise already is that morality is subjectivity. Hence does not mean that a statement is provided as evidence. It was an example of two subjective morals.

The fact itself is not subjective. The morality around the fact is.

 

[Famine]

They arent disagreeing.

When two people have opposed points of view on a topic, they are in disagreement.

They are both wrong and both correct. It depends on the perspective (subjectivity).

They are only right or wrong according to their own perspective of the fact. It does not change whether they are right or wrong - or even right for the wrong reasons - in relation to the fact.

Hence does not mean that a statement is provided as evidence.

"Hence" means "For that reason". This is the word you used. You cited two opposed viewpoints on the state-sponsored execution of a child, then stated that this disagreement was the reason for the subjectivity of morality.

It is not. Two people disagreeing on a fact does not make the fact subjective, it makes at least one of the people wrong about the fact. It is a faulty premise to say that two people disagreeing on a moral matter is the reason why morality is subjective.

The fact itself is not subjective. The morality around the fact is.

Morality is objective. It is how we observe rights, which are also objective.

 

[Danoff]

I don't like to use the term "right". I use "not wrong", again partially because many problems can be tackled in multiple ways both objective and subjective. The universe is complex and often it's difficult if not impossible to choose a "right" answer, but I find it's pretty easy to find the wrong answer, and at that point you're left with many "not wrong" answers. Science and math discover new things all the time to counter the supposedly right answers we were taught in school.

You quoted me out of context a bit there. No math is not "not wrong". It's right or wrong. And please give me a citation that demonstrates new discoveries in math that counter what has been taught in school (and I don't mean a teaching style).

 

[Keef]

You quoted me out of context a bit there. No math is not "not wrong". It's right or wrong. And please give me a citation that demonstrates new discoveries in math that counter what has been taught in school (and I don't mean a teaching style).

Well I'm no math expert but the statement "2+2=4" is understood by us plebs to be true. But it depends on using base 10, etc. Stuff like quantum physics is pretty recent and threw a wrench into a lot of known facts. I can't prove to you that those theoretical maths are right because they're beyond my grasp, and I certainly can't demonstrate it with blocks on a table. But they're not wrong, I can tell you that.