Is morality objective?

[Imari]

Well I agree with your post. But where is gets 'fishy' is when we say math is subjective (something I can agree on with our current idea). The 'problem' here is while I understand why most people just hear it's subjective, and their conclusion would be so no answer is wrong. It's what gave a voice to the stupid hovinds, ray comfort, ken ham,...

What I'm basicly stating is: I agree but presenting it as such posses a dangerous opening for people who want to use the general lack of eduction of the populace to undermine the validity of the scientific process.

So be it. What's the other option? Lie? Present it in such a way that it's so incomprehensible to the common man that it's impossible to understand? What do you propose to do to avoid your "problem"?

Idiots can use the truth however they see fit. One of the major strawmen that creationists and their ilk already attempt to use against science is the "certainty" that science knows what it's talking about, yet that there has been numerous revolutions in science when something turned out to be wrong. The answer to that is not to withdraw data and understanding of the scientific method because it could be misused, it's to calmly correct and educate those that are misinformed.

The general population does not care about science though as emotion, peer acceptance, and comfort with identity prevail. Science is small in the grand scale of life.

They might not care about the media version of science, but it's hardly small in the modern human experience of life. Science has created a lot of the foundation of our society, and even the most anti-science person will find themselves using the scientific method on a daily basis simply because it's a basic problem solving tool.

Science in the general sense is key to the human experience of life. Humans are curious animals, and science is how we figure stuff out. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves hoping that an antelope dropped dead outside for dinner.

 

[tipoma]

They might not care about the media version of science

I still don't think they care, sure they benefit from it a great deal in their daily life but how you equate that to caring about it is a leap.

 

[Imari]

I still don't think they care, sure they benefit from it a great deal in their daily life but how you equate that to caring about it is a leap.

I didn't equate it to caring. I pointed out that while they might not care, it's in no way small in the grand scale of life. Make sure you read what I say, not what you think I said after you only read the first ten words.

Without the basic application of scientific principles, even as far back as figuring out the best way to make fire or how seasons progressed, the human race would probably be long dead. Without science and curiosity you'd spend your entire life eating, sleeping, defecating and smearing poo on the walls of your cave in the shape of a mammoth.

Science is not just laboratories and lab coats, it's a fundamental way of approaching problems. One that the human race has been applying for thousands of years, even though we've only become disciplined and consistent about it relatively recently.

Why did we become disciplined and consistent about it? Because it works. It works so well that even the most anti-scientific person in the world will use the scientific process instinctively when solving problems.

 

[tipoma]

it's in no way small in the grand scale of life

It is to them which was my point.

 

[Imari]

It is to them which was my point.

Then you and they are both wrong. It may feel as though it's only a small part, but it's not for all the reasons I described above. It's like saying that oxygen is only a small part of your life, whereas it's actually responsible for your continued existence and the vast majority of the chemical reactions related to your life.

Do you really think that most people go through life without applying any scientific principles whatsoever? What exactly do you think science is?

 

[tipoma]

Then you and they are both wrong. It may feel as though it's only a small part, but it's not for all the reasons I described above. It's like saying that oxygen is only a small part of your life, whereas it's actually responsible for your continued existence and the vast majority of the chemical reactions related to your life.

Do you really think that most people go through life without applying any scientific principles whatsoever? What exactly do you think science is?

This is what I said to keep it in context.

Fuzzy math.



The general population does not care about science though as emotion, peer acceptance, and comfort with identity prevail. Science is small in the grand scale of life.

As in, small to them. I'm not wrong and either are they as it's not something they need to think about to get through the day.

 

[Dotini]

Postmodernism holds that morality is not objective. But does that mean that you are philosophically postmodern if you hold morality non-objective?

To find out, I tried looking at postmodernism in the context of modernism and Enlightenment era philosophy. Who, philosophically, would I want to be most in bed with?

 

[Imari]

As in, small to them. I'm not wrong and either are they as it's not something they need to think about to get through the day.

You're still wrong and so are they. Just because they don't think of it as science doesn't mean it isn't. I'll have one more go at explaining before I assume that you have no idea what science is, given that you didn't even attempt to answer the questions I posed in my last post. Let's try it with a simple story.

Your car won't start in the morning. You try a few times but it won't turn over. "Must just be a flat battery" you think, so you get your neighbour to hook up the jumper cables. Still nothing. "Must not be the battery then, maybe that pop as I turned the car off last night was a fuse?". You check the fuse box and sure enough there's a blown one. You replace it, your car starts and you're off to work.

Congratulations on applying the scientific method to an everyday problem. Let's look at how you did it.

1. You observed something odd, your car didn't start. You repeated the observation to make sure that it was a true observation rather than an anomaly.
2. You formulated a hypothesis, the dead battery. You tested this hypothesis by "replacing" it with your neighbour's.
3. That experiment proved your first hypothesis false, so you discarded it and selected another; the fuse box.
4. You checked for more corroborating evidence and found it; the blown fuse.
5. You tested your second hypothesis by replacing the fuse. Bingo, you have identified the cause of the phenomenon through hypothesis and experimentation. The problem has been solved by a rational application of the scientific method.

You really think that stuff like this doesn't happen to people every day? Either you live some sort of charmed life where things don't go wrong or you have an army of people around you fixing problems for you. I assure you that most people have things that need to be figured out and solved every day, and whether they know it or not they very often apply scientific principles to do so. Some people just bumble through and hope for the best, and many don't do a particularly efficient job of working through the problem, but this idea of observation, hypothesis and experiment is central to how people operate.

I'll ask again, what is science to you that it's so small? What is science that is so unnecessary in people's lives?

 

[Mr Tree]

This is what I said to keep it in context.



As in, small to them. I'm not wrong and either are they as it's not something they need to think about to get through the day.

On a diffrent note from @Imari, even if they don't apply the scientific method. It's not because they donlt actovely consider science on a day to day basis it's the science that makes them able to do a lot of the things they do

 

[tipoma]

I'll ask again, what is science to you that it's so small? What is science that is so unnecessary in people's lives?

It's not small to me at all, it's unnecessary for people to think of it in their daily lives and as I said in response to a question why? They don't care, you can point out that they should care but that doesn't mean they do.

I don't think it undermines the process though and that is why I stick with "don't care" because it's easy to see all around.

 

[Imari]

It's not small to me at all, it's unnecessary for people to think of it in their daily lives and as I said in response to a question why? They don't care, you can point out that they should care but that doesn't mean they do.

I don't think it undermines the process though and that is why I stick with "don't care" because it's easy to see all around.

OK, you're just refusing to read what I'm writing and assuming that I'm saying something that I've clarified that I'm not. I don't know if English is not your first language or whether you're just unable to see past your own assumptions of what you think I'm saying. I guess maybe now we'll never know.

 

[Rich S]

It's not an uncommon argument to make, it amounts to people needing to be saved from themselves in the form of an authority. No one actually thinks they are the only real person in the room. I'm probably the largest narcissist I know and I even know better than that.

Its why i dont think in

It's exactly as simple as you think it is. It's like being pregnant, either you are or you're not. You cannot be a little bit pregnant, and nor can you be a little bit objective.



Something is objective if it's independent of the observer. Subjective is if it is not. Math is not objective as it depends upon choices that the observers make. Numbers are objective because the concept of one is independent of the observer.



Not everything is subjective, but most systems of thought are. As I said earlier, it's hard to create a fully objective system of thought when all you're working with is "I exist". You can actually get a few steps further than that if you think carefully, but it turns into a warren of rabbit holes pretty fast.

Observations of reality can be objective. But I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that the conclusions that we draw from them are rarely objective, because that's the whole point. To use inference and opinion to attempt to more fully describe and integrate understanding of the phenomena we observe, and then to test those subjective ideas against the objective reality.

But if we're talking about something that's purely mental like morality, what part of that could be deemed to be independent of the observer (or in this case, the person thinking it)? Yes, ultimately a huge amount of your thought is subjective, and this shouldn't be a surprise to you. It's all in your head, and so what aspects of your thought would be something that all other humans would agree on?

Think about it carefully, and try to think about the unstated assumptions that you're making in your daily life. Go back to what you know for absolute certain, that no conspiracy theory however wacky could possibly undermine. Then work up from there. You'll find a lot of assumptions, totally reasonable assumptions and ones that are important for useful human interaction, but assumptions nonetheless.

I see. And where does this rule come from? Is this something that is part of your objective morality? If so, what is the justification for it?

You're also missing the point that it's not aggressing (I'm not sure that's a word, but I understand) on another's property. I'm using my property in such a way that it's likely to be detrimental to the greater community. If I fill my property with nuclear waste that's my choice on my land, but after I'm gone I've created an enormous problem for the community. Where should the balance be between my freedom to use my property and the desires of the greater (and future) community not to have to deal with nuclear waste?



You're wrong. Try and do it. Prove to me that other people are real from first principles. Make your explanation as granular as possible, and I will point out all the assumptions that you're making along the way.

By the way, using the example of 3+3=6 just shows that you don't understand what axioms are. I suggest you read up on that and the foundation of mathematics before you start. It will help you grasp just how much of our perception of the world is based on very fundamental assumptions. Totally reasonable assumptions and ones that work very well to help us get through the day to day, but assumptions nonetheless.

And I agree, it's mildly absurd but that's sort of the point. If you can't see how it's a totally consistent and logical worldview, then that's a problem for having a rational discussion that isn't based on reflex emotional instincts.



Correct, I don't believe it either. It's not a productive mentality to have. But in terms of proving an objective morality, that morality also has to be able to deal with totally valid worldviews like that. If a morality relies on frequently used assumptions, then it's not objective.

Ok, but what are you basing your belief that math is subjective and numbers objective? Do you have a source. I feel that 3 and 3 makes 6 regardless of my own existence or anyone else's.

As far as the property theory of ethics, if your waste, sewage, etc ends up affecting the property of others it is unethical. Subjective as it is, "the community" can be construed as all other properties, including people themselves, assumptions as they are.

 

[Imari]

Ok, but what are you basing your belief that math is subjective and numbers objective? Do you have a source. I feel that 3 and 3 makes 6 regardless of my own existence or anyone else's.

I'm basing it on logic and an understanding of how math fundamentally works. It's not a belief. I don't need a source, because I can explain it to you directly. You asking for one when I've already attempted to provide an explanation feels like you just warming up to committing a fallacy.

For starters, a number doesn't exist. It's a concept. It requires the existence of someone to associate multiple "somethings" into a group. However it's a fundamental. Whatever you want to call it, a group of three anythings has objectively the same number of members no matter who observes it.

...

Addition requires that you agree on what addition is. After that the answer can be determined objectively, but it requires a subjective decision on how several numbers are combined to form a single number. In the case of addition, there's a fairly simple physical demonstration of what addition means to you and it's likely easy to get other people to agree that this is a useful operation. It's a handy thing to have. But it's not fundamental, because presented with two groups of three and told to combine them there are any number of ways one could subjectively choose to do so, and even many different ways to reach the same answer.

I could create an operation called Imarition that means multiply the first number by the second, and then subtract the second to get the answer. This would also give 3 Imarition 3 = 6, but this is distinct from addition. Without specifying your operations and how they work you don't get any agreement between observers at all, and specifying the operations is entirely arbitrary. That's why they're called axioms. They are not objective realities, they are chosen because they are useful mental tools.

Do you understand what an axiom is? Do you know why they're important to mathematics?

As far as the property theory of ethics, if your waste, sewage, etc ends up affecting the property of others it is unethical.

Does that extend beyond my lifetime and my personal control? Because if so then everyone is immoral all the time.

If you take what you just said strictly, then actually everyone is unethical all the time. All our waste ends up ultimately affecting the whole planet, although any part of it likely only has a tiny effect. I sort of doubt that's what you meant. Breathing in and out, making carbon dioxide and pushing the planet towards a global warming catastrophe is probably not something that you'd consider immoral.

If I choose to poison my own land in a way that doesn't extend beyond it's boundaries, but that will leave a burden on that land well beyond my lifetime, is that moral or not in your book? I've used only my own property, but I'm not immortal and I can't make any guarantees of what will happen outside my lifetime. Is having a nuclear waste dump immoral?

Subjective as it is, "the community" can be construed as all other properties, including people themselves, assumptions as they are.

Hey look, subjectivity again. What a surprise. I guess you're not arguing for objective morality then, which is exactly what I was trying to point out.

 

[Danoff]

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.

Fair enough. I guess thats a discussion for another thread. I can talk for years about ethics. But for me the trolley problem is clear and cut.

Yea, it's clear and cut alright, you can't ethically murder someone to save others.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yea, it's clear and cut alright, you can't ethically murder someone to save others.

The ethics in this example is that circumstances and context are relevant. Human rights for that matter is also relative.

 

[Danoff]

The ethics in this example is that circumstances and context are relevant.

Relevant and impossible to weigh. You literally cannot get enough information, and then could not weigh difference pieces of information against others.

Human rights for that matter is also relative.

Does not follow.

 

[PocketZeven]

Relevant and impossible to weigh. You literally cannot get enough information, and then could not weigh difference pieces of information against others.



Does not follow.

Not impossible. How are laws made?

For example child labor is accepted in some cultures. Human rights need overal consensus. Just proclaiming "this is a human right" is not enough to make something a human right. What I mean is, what you assume as human right is not the same all over the world.

 

[Danoff]

Not impossible. How are laws made?

For example child labor is accepted in some cultures. Human rights need overal consensus. Just proclaiming "this is a human right" is not enough to make something a human right. What I mean is, what you assume as human right is not the same all over the world.

Let's stick with the Trolley problem here. Since it's not impossible (laws are made badly), go ahead and answer all of the questions I posed (in the quote with the trolley picture). In which scenarios do you pull the lever, and what objective reasoning could you use to determine when to do so?

 

[PocketZeven]

Let's stick with the Trolley problem here. Since it's not impossible (laws are made badly), go ahead and answer all of the questions I posed (in the quote with the trolley picture). In which scenarios do you pull the lever, and what objective reasoning could you use to determine when to do so?

Like any murder a court system was made to judge such situations in the real world. (after the fact) Every instance would be murder, but not all punishments would be the same.

Which scenario exactly? There are multiple proposed in teh post.

 

[Danoff]

Like any murder a court system was made to judge such situations in the real world. (after the fact) Every instance would be murder, but not all punishments would be the same.

So you're saying that switching the lever is always murder, and in some cases it is permissible. Which ones and why.

Which scenario exactly? There are multiple proposed in teh post.

All of them, that's the point.

 

[PocketZeven]

So you're saying that switching the lever is always murder, and in some cases it is permissible. Which ones and why.



All of them, that's the point.

I will summarize with less innocent lives=better. What is your judgment by the way?

 

[Danoff]

I will summarize with less innocent lives=better. What is your judgment by the way?

No, specifically, choose between innocent lives. Go ahead and list each scenario and tell me how you would pull the lever.

My answer to the trolley problem is that you cannot murder 1 to save 5.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Navigate society/civilization as best you can to live the best life you can and remember that nothing really matters because the universe is indifferent.

 

[Danoff]

Navigate society/civilization as best you can to live the best life you can and remember that nothing really matters because the universe is indifferent.

The entire universe is not indifferent. The universe contains mankind, and mankind is not indifferent to the logical consequences and consistencies of action. Mankind understands hypocrisy, and your actions do matter to mankind.

You define meaning ("matters") to be something which must come externally. It comes internally, and inter-personally. Your behavior, and its logical consequences, should have very personal meaning to you and those around you.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The entire universe is not indifferent. The universe contains mankind, and mankind is not indifferent to the logical consequences and consistencies of action. Mankind understands hypocrisy, and your actions do matter to mankind.

You define meaning ("matters") to be something which must come externally. It comes internally, and inter-personally. Your behavior, and its logical consequences, should have very personal meaning to you and those around you.

Absolutely. Hence the "Navigate society/civilization" part, because if you go around like a psychopath all the time, society will eventually end you. That's not a good outcome.

 

[Danoff]

Absolutely. Hence the "Navigate society/civilization" part, because if you go around like a psychopath all the time, society will eventually end you. That's not a good outcome.

Society might end you anyway. Society can be terribly, horribly, evil.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Society might end you anyway. Society can be terribly, horribly, evil.

Which is why you have to navigate it!

 

[TexRex]

"Recalculating."

 

[Danoff]

Which is why you have to navigate it!

I don't consider it to be my goal in life to survive. There are societies that I would prefer to fight against to the death than to "navigate" successfully. I would rather suffer the consequences of an irrational society than to commit actions whose logical consequences I don't wish to accept.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't consider it to be my goal in life to survive. There are societies that I would prefer to fight against to the death than to "navigate" successfully. I would rather suffer the consequences of an irrational society than to commit actions whose logical consequences I don't wish to accept.

Man. That's heavy.