Objective Morality

[FlashDangerpants]

how do you measure love?

By the teaspoon if you are boring and by the bucket if you are blessed.

[Conde Lucanor]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

By "objective" we usually mean something that stands for itself, something that is what it is, independent of the desires and influences of the subjects. But morality is by definition some type of disposition within the subjects, therefore it can only be subjective. In the history of philosophy, however, we know that subjects can be objectified, treated as things. And so, their moral stances can be understood as properties of those "objects", solely for the purpose of description and classification, because they're still subjects and their morality still subjective. That's where the objectivity is: in pointing at the properties of subjectivity of the agents' moral stances, not in their supposed measurability, in terms of predictability. Predictability does not seem to be what would define morality as being objective, unless we had a deterministic view of human agency. The properties of the actions and their outcomes will be themselves objective and measurable, but not the moral drivers behind them, nor the judgements of external observers. By calling outcomes "best or worst", it is already implied a moral subjective judgement about good or bad, which is not inherent to the actions and outcomes. The goodness and badness is still in the subjects and cannot be predicted.

[HexHammer]

Don't kill
Don't steal
Don't lie
..etc, those are objective moralities, but so few follow those lines.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Don't kill
Don't steal
Don't lie
..etc, those are objective moralities, but so few follow those lines.

First, ask yourself what you mean by "objective".
-
If so few follow them, then how are they objective?
Most countries in the world have the death penalty; or allow killing for food; euthanasia - not very objective this "killing" rule is it?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

By "objective" we usually mean something that stands for itself, something that is what it is, independent of the desires and influences of the subjects. But morality is by definition some type of disposition within the subjects, therefore it can only be subjective. In the history of philosophy, however, we know that subjects can be objectified, treated as things. And so, their moral stances can be understood as properties of those "objects", solely for the purpose of description and classification, because they're still subjects and their morality still subjective. That's where the objectivity is: in pointing at the properties of subjectivity of the agents' moral stances, not in their supposed measurability, in terms of predictability. Predictability does not seem to be what would define morality as being objective, unless we had a deterministic view of human agency. The properties of the actions and their outcomes will be themselves objective and measurable, but not the moral drivers behind them, nor the judgements of external observers. By calling outcomes "best or worst", it is already implied a moral subjective judgement about good or bad, which is not inherent to the actions and outcomes. The goodness and badness is still in the subjects and cannot be predicted.

Good post.
In my view, as we are all unavoidably, human subjects, objectivity is not what many would like it to be.
Objectivity can only be a relationship between to world and the subjects in question. This can work for something as simply as agreeing a standard for the sweetness of a drink; the strength of concrete; or the speed of a bullet. But an objectively "agreed" moral law, cannot be universal; not culturally, historically or socially. One might declare with the aid of ones peers that moral law "x" is for all time objectively true. Such as law would have to be inflexible and admit to no consideration of mitigation, and have to ignore the circumstances of its breach, and be judged without discretion or favour. No human society can hold to this standard and never has.
The idea, meant by the OP, that a thing can be morally true without context is meaningless. It is a claim that suggests that without humanity, there are still rules that govern human action. This is beyond risible. Objectivity implies the agreement to a standard by human subjects or it is meaningless.

[HexHammer]

First, ask yourself what you mean by "objective".
-
If so few follow them, then how are they objective?
Most countries in the world have the death penalty; or allow killing for food; euthanasia - not very objective this "killing" rule is it?

You must be kidding?!?

..oh wait, it's Hobbes ..he needs everything spelled out..

You see, those "objective" morals are for the general public, so there won't erupt anarchy, very simple, the gov breaks the law for the common good of all.

[hajrafradi]

Morality exists, objective measurement of morality has not been established, moral actions are predictable, and morality is instinct-driven. I use "morality" as a survival mechanism developed in evolution, and it is characterized by willful and voluntary self-sacrifice to some measure or extent for the benefit of others; and it happens that moral self-sacrifice always serves the survival of the genome of the morally acting individual, or the survival of his/her genome's derivatives in the issues of the individual; or else the survival of the closest facsimile (closest match) to the genome of the individual.

I understand that the above is meaningless and / or unacceptable to those who believe human nature is in most part God-given, and it is meaningless to those who reject the validity of the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

[hajrafradi]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

Conde Lucanor, HexHammer, and Hobbes' Choice: the term "objective morality" is finely defined in the opening post. You don't need to define it. (I am referring to the five or so posts preceding my first post on this page.) The definition is given; I humbly suggest that the discussion should follow the OPERATIONAL definition of what's "Objective Morality" as given by Jaded in the opening post.

Sure there are a great number of other POSSIBLE definitions of it. But Jaded in his question perfectly clearly stated how we should interpret objective morality for the sake, duration and extent of this discussion.

I don't for one moment dispute that other definitions exist, very well, and you three are right about that and right about the fact that other definitions may be better suited to the expressions "objective morality". But then discussing those is not discussing the original question, or the question of the original post.

While it's a free country, and we enjoy free speech, I think we should stick with the operational definition by Jaded.

Why?

Because I think the original post's question with its operational definition is exciting enough to concentrate on the terms and restrictions of those, in this thread, and I humbly submit that if you want to discuss other types, by definition, of Objective Morality, then please open a new topic and a new thread for that.

Opening a new topic is free, like this country and speech, and therefore it should not be an effort not worth investigating.

It is merely a suggestion I make, not at all telling anyone what to do and where or when. It's a free country. It just irks me that Jaded gave a perfectly clear definition of what he wants us to discuss, and people completely ignore his directive, and they are wondering lost in the philosophical jungle, and try to define the topic, whereas it has already been defined.

[Jaded Sage]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

By "objective" we usually mean something that stands for itself, something that is what it is, independent of the desires and influences of the subjects. But morality is by definition some type of disposition within the subjects, therefore it can only be subjective. In the history of philosophy, however, we know that subjects can be objectified, treated as things. And so, their moral stances can be understood as properties of those "objects", solely for the purpose of description and classification, because they're still subjects and their morality still subjective. That's where the objectivity is: in pointing at the properties of subjectivity of the agents' moral stances, not in their supposed measurability, in terms of predictability. Predictability does not seem to be what would define morality as being objective, unless we had a deterministic view of human agency. The properties of the actions and their outcomes will be themselves objective and measurable, but not the moral drivers behind them, nor the judgements of external observers. By calling outcomes "best or worst", it is already implied a moral subjective judgement about good or bad, which is not inherent to the actions and outcomes. The goodness and badness is still in the subjects and cannot be predicted.

I mean morality based on objectivity or objective facts. So like we ascertain the objective reality about a situation and a number of possible actions and select the action that best corresponds to situation.

[Jaded Sage]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

By "objective" we usually mean something that stands for itself, something that is what it is, independent of the desires and influences of the subjects. But morality is by definition some type of disposition within the subjects, therefore it can only be subjective. In the history of philosophy, however, we know that subjects can be objectified, treated as things. And so, their moral stances can be understood as properties of those "objects", solely for the purpose of description and classification, because they're still subjects and their morality still subjective. That's where the objectivity is: in pointing at the properties of subjectivity of the agents' moral stances, not in their supposed measurability, in terms of predictability. Predictability does not seem to be what would define morality as being objective, unless we had a deterministic view of human agency. The properties of the actions and their outcomes will be themselves objective and measurable, but not the moral drivers behind them, nor the judgements of external observers. By calling outcomes "best or worst", it is already implied a moral subjective judgement about good or bad, which is not inherent to the actions and outcomes. The goodness and badness is still in the subjects and cannot be predicted.

Good post.
In my view, as we are all unavoidably, human subjects, objectivity is not what many would like it to be.
Objectivity can only be a relationship between to world and the subjects in question. This can work for something as simply as agreeing a standard for the sweetness of a drink; the strength of concrete; or the speed of a bullet. But an objectively "agreed" moral law, cannot be universal; not culturally, historically or socially. One might declare with the aid of ones peers that moral law "x" is for all time objectively true. Such as law would have to be inflexible and admit to no consideration of mitigation, and have to ignore the circumstances of its breach, and be judged without discretion or favour. No human society can hold to this standard and never has.
The idea, meant by the OP, that a thing can be morally true without context is meaningless. It is a claim that suggests that without humanity, there are still rules that govern human action. This is beyond risible. Objectivity implies the agreement to a standard by human subjects or it is meaningless.

I didn't mean something can be "morally true without context." I don't know where you got that from. I'm not even sure what "morally true" means. I suppose the context would be the situation. See the previous post.

[Jaded Sage]

I mean morality based on objectivity or objective facts. So like we ascertain the objective reality about a situation and a number of possible actions and select the action that best corresponds to situation.

Let's start with something simple, not too controversial, and work backwards. I want to argue that killing hitler would be morally correct, based on the fact that I have measured the action of murdering a violent tyrant as an action that is good, and I have measured the situation of hitler as being a situtation of there being a violent tyrant. Therefore we are to murder hitler.


This type of thing is EXTREMELY NEW TO EVERYONE. So far as I know, nobody in this history of philosophy has ever done anything like this. So it is going to be shaky and uncertain for all of us.

[FlashDangerpants]

What measurement did you use? Please explain the scale.

[Hobbes' Choice]

First, ask yourself what you mean by "objective".
-
If so few follow them, then how are they objective?
Most countries in the world have the death penalty; or allow killing for food; euthanasia - not very objective this "killing" rule is it?

You must be kidding?!?

..oh wait, it's Hobbes ..he needs everything spelled out..

You see, those "objective" morals are for the general public, so there won't erupt anarchy, very simple, the gov breaks the law for the common good of all.

I'm not sure is you are just pig stupid, or lack the "irony gene" that most Americans are afflicted with, but you are just making an arse of yourself as usual.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

Conde Lucanor, HexHammer, and Hobbes' Choice: the term "objective morality" is finely defined in the opening post. You don't need to define it. (I am referring to the five or so posts preceding my first post on this page.) The definition is given; I humbly suggest that the discussion should follow the OPERATIONAL definition of what's "Objective Morality" as given by Jaded in the opening post.

Sadly this: " By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?"
...has no 'operational value'. It defines nothing, but where is goes leads exactly to the various objections to the idea as expressed by several persons on the thread.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I mean morality based on objectivity or objective facts..

Sorry but I'm having the stifle a snigger.
Why not give a few examples of impartial 'facts' of a moral kind. And we can all have a good laugh.