Is morality objective?

Winy · September 08, 2015, 08:39:04 PM

I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.

Turkey · September 08, 2015, 08:40:59 PM

Quote from: Kupo on September 08, 2015, 08:33:55 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 08, 2015, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Kupo on September 08, 2015, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 08, 2015, 07:52:44 PM
Well it's not subjective.
Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 07:53:02 PM
Yes, obviously.
How so?

Well let's clarify. There exist moral truths, but our interpretation of them is subjective.
Defined by who or what?

EDIT: derp, double post

Well I'm a Christian, so I'd say by God, but even that has quite a bit of interpretation. For a non-theistic explanation, some people look to naturalistic explanations, seeing evolution as a means of expressing greater degrees of morality in life. I have trouble with that ideology since evolution is almost entirely based on some species killing and eradicating all others; evolution is a system of suffering.

Without a deity though, asking who or what defines morality is like asking who defines the laws of physics.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 08:41:12 PM

Quote from: Kupo on September 08, 2015, 08:26:15 PM

I'm not sure how a mental illness nor consent would make any difference. The idea of 'abnormality' is subjective, and isn't murder objectively wrong regardless of the matter of consent? Or am I missing something here?

Consent is everything. Consent is literally saying, "This would be unethical if I didn't give you my permission."

Murder is not objectively wrong.

Quote from: Kupo on September 08, 2015, 08:26:15 PM

Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?

Any sensation that you don't want to experience.

Jim · September 08, 2015, 08:41:51 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 08:43:56 PM

Quote from: Awoo~ on September 08, 2015, 08:37:02 PM

Is there a reason why you would place others in priority over the intrinsic self though?

No amount of personal gratification could ever outweigh the existence of another's suffering. I may be happy, but there's still someone suffering, and that's... not good. It's axiomatic.

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 08:46:25 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 08:41:51 PM

HOW CAN MORALITY BE OBJECTIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF A DIVINE CREATOR YOU CHUCKLEFUCKS?

Just replace "morality" with "health". Health is a nebulous concept, with always changing expectations and conclusions, and yet we manage to glean objective facts from it by virtue of "health" having a sane definition.

The well-being of creatures who can experience is the only sane basis we have--or could ever have--when it comes to questions of how we ought to act.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 08:47:06 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 08:39:04 PM

I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.

It's an inherent property of... sentient life. Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 08:48:52 PM

meta be killin' it

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 08:49:06 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 08:39:04 PM

I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.

So I guess that means medicine, psychology, neurology, sociology, economics and anthropology are all subjective?

Jim · September 08, 2015, 08:53:31 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Winy · September 08, 2015, 08:56:15 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 08:49:06 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 08:39:04 PM
I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.
So I guess that means medicine, psychology, neurology, sociology, economics and anthropology are all subjective?

Don't be a smartass. I asked a basic question.

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 08:56:17 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 08:53:31 PM

You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill.

Why not? It's pretty easy. There's no such thing as a basis for morality which makes sense--which is rational--which doesn't have anything to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. If the word evil is to mean anything and still make any sense at all, it has to mean somebody who would push the big red button and plunge everybody into the 'worst possible suffering'.

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 08:57:09 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 08:56:15 PM

Don't be a smartass. I asked a basic question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 08:58:12 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 08:53:31 PM

Whereas with morality the only definition you can give it is "the distinction between right and wrong." You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill.

but it's so fucking easy

- does it cause pain and suffering in the universe?
- is the pain and suffering justified in some fashion?

if you said "no" twice, you have yourself what could be considered "wrong" by sane individuals

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 09:00:09 PM

Not to mention, you could apply the exact same criticism to health. The definition of health is, quite literally, "the distinction between wellness and illness". The interesting part of the equation is what constitutes wellness, and what constitutes illness--and what constitutes right and wrong analogously.

Winy · September 08, 2015, 09:01:13 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 08:47:06 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 08:39:04 PM
I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.
It's an inherent property of... sentient life. Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.

I don't understand how the presence of life somehow validates moral theories, though. To me, it seems if you need life to subjectively judge a set of ideas, then those ideas are not intrinsic. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" don't seem to actually have a factual basis, they're only projected judgements from us.

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 09:04:38 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:01:13 PM

I don't understand how the presence of life somehow validates moral theories, though. To me, it seems if you need life to subjectively judge a set of ideas, then those ideas are not intrinsic. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" don't seem to actually have a factual basis, they're only projected judgements from us.

This is a pretty common philosophical error, actually, and it confuses ontology and epistemology. Basically, "what is" and "what we know". Presumably, your objection to some kind of moral objectivity is that it must rely on the subjective experiences of us. Perfectly reasonable question.

But think of it this way: does the fact that Near Death Experiences are wholly subjective preclude us from making objective conclusions about them? What about mental illness? Or any other subjective phenomenon?

It is absolutely true that our morality must be based on subjective experiences--because all experience is by definition subjective--but it isn't the case that our conclusions must also be subjective. We can be epistemologically objective about the ontologically subjective; or, we can be objective in what we know about events which are subjective in nature.

Jim · September 08, 2015, 09:04:55 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 09:06:10 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:04:55 PM

Why does that definition make any more sense than any other definition of morality?

Ask yourself the same thing about the definition of health. Why does the definition of health make more sense if it has something to do with not being dead and throwing up blood all the time?

Jim · September 08, 2015, 09:06:21 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 09:06:50 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 08, 2015, 09:01:13 PM

I don't understand how the presence of life somehow validates moral theories, though. To me, it seems if you need life to subjectively judge a set of ideas, then those ideas are not intrinsic. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" don't seem to actually have a factual basis, they're only projected judgements from us.

this goes back to what meta said

nothing we've theorized through science has a factual basis, either
gravity, electricity, etc.

we've just made a lot of really educated guesses ("projected judgements")--the same can be done with morality

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 09:08:40 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 09:06:50 PM

nothing we've theorized through science has a factual basis, either
gravity, electricity, etc.

I wouldn't go that far.

It's probably better formulated as "objective truth exists, but our nature precludes us from ever reaching it with absolute certainty". All knowledge is, and always will be, conjectural. Even the strongest conclusions which we can reasonably say will never be overturned.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 09:09:47 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:06:21 PM

But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative?

Because it hurts. It's a sensation no one wants to experience, so they shouldn't ever experience it. Unless they deserve it.

Why shouldn't pain ever be considered objectively negative?

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 09:11:19 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 09:09:47 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:06:21 PM
But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative?
Because it hurts. It's a sensation no one wants to experience, so they shouldn't ever experience it. Unless they deserve it.

Why shouldn't pain ever be considered objectively negative?

Plus, you have to ask why we feel no moral obligation towards rocks, and why it would be ridiculous to do so. Questions about morality must relate to some kind of capacity to experience, and basing questions of what we ought to do on causing gratuitous suffering is highly irrational.

Jim · September 08, 2015, 09:13:15 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Winy · September 08, 2015, 09:14:02 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:13:15 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 09:06:10 PM
Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:04:55 PM
Why does that definition make any more sense than any other definition of morality?
Ask yourself the same thing about the definition of health. Why does the definition of health make more sense if it has something to do with not being dead and throwing up blood all the time?
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.

Keep taking the words out of my mouth. It's been such a long time since I've talked about this stuff.

Winy · September 08, 2015, 09:14:49 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 09:09:47 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:06:21 PM
But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative?
Because it hurts. It's a sensation no one wants to experience, so they shouldn't ever experience it. Unless they deserve it.

Why shouldn't pain ever be considered objectively negative?

This doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?

The Lord Slide Rule · September 08, 2015, 09:16:14 PM

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 08, 2015, 09:08:40 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on September 08, 2015, 09:06:50 PM
nothing we've theorized through science has a factual basis, either
gravity, electricity, etc.
I wouldn't go that far.

It's probably better formulated as "objective truth exists, but our nature precludes us from ever reaching it with absolute certainty". All knowledge is, and always will be, conjectural. Even the strongest conclusions which we can reasonably say will never be overturned.

while I won't get into the on topic argument partially because I don't like being shit on and because they never get anywhere.

I would argue that Gödel's theorems place a much stronger constraint on our ability to ascertain "objective" truth than our mere nature, which is probably amenable to change.

More Than Mortal · September 08, 2015, 09:16:41 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:13:15 PM

Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.

But that criticism still applies to health. "Not being ill" is reductive to "The difference between wellness and illness"; there is no illness without wellness as a point of reference. We define one by referencing the other, and it's exactly the same case with morality. We define good and evil by using each one as a reference point; in the same way we have a general notion of well-being for "health"--because nobody wants to be not in a state of gratuitous anti-well-being--we should also have a general notion of well-being for morality--for exactly the same reason.

Verbatim · September 08, 2015, 09:17:55 PM

Quote from: IFUKTMYMOM69 on September 08, 2015, 09:13:15 PM

Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.

Wrong: Any state of disutility imposed on sentient life forms that is not offset by its utility, if any at all.