What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

...if your moral nihilism duck starts quacking, consider your argument: moral subjectivism can't provide an objective justification for morality; therefore morality is objective. Do you see the fallacy yet?

This is not my argument, actually.

My argument runs: moral subjectivism cannot provide any coherent account of itself; therefore, the concept of subjective morality is irrational and self-contradicting.

This is simply nonsense, and repeating it doesn't lessen its irrationality. A subjective moral judgement would be contradictory only if it claimed objective justification. You're just imposing your objective requirement and complaining that moral subjectivism can't meet it.

Meanwhile, there's no justification for theistic moral objectivism. Care to rectify that problem? Or is more diversionary flak all you have?

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

Here's my summary of the argument so far - at least for others to consider.

The case for theistic moral objectivism amounts to the following valid argument.

P1: If morality is what God desires, then morality is objective.
P2; Morality is what God desires.
Conclusion: Therefore, morality is objective.

But P1 is false, because the source of a supposedly factual moral assertion - as of any factual assertion - has no bearing on its truth or falsehood. So even if there were a god that gave us moral judgements, that wouldn't make those judgements objective - matters of fact.

And P2 is unjustified, because so far there's no evidence for the existence of any god, nor for the divine origin of any scripture or other revelation, and so nor for the divine source of any moral values or judgements. All we have are numerous and contradictory claims (testimonies), which aren't evidence anyway. This may not mean any such claim is false, but it does mean that to believe any such claim is true is irrational.

So the argument for theistic moral objectivism is unsound.

By default, moral subjectivism - that moral assertions express value judgements rather that falsifiable factual claims - is correct. But that we have to make and repair our own collective moral foundations - and argue about our moral justifications - does not mean the edifice must be shaky. And we simply have no choice.

I'm drawing the line under this discussion, because I can't be bothered to repeat these arguments. Please make up your own mind.

[Immanuel Can]

A subjective moral judgement would be contradictory only if it claimed objective justification.

But it does. It claims a) to be objectively true, as a statement about morality, and b) that it is a claim about a particular thing that exists -- morality, which it must take to be objectively real.

If a) or b) is not true, then it means that subjective morality is a claim which is not objectively true, or a statement about a thing it does not even take to exist.

And actually, that's the right answer. If followed through logically, then essentially, subjective morality does not believe in any real or objective thing called "morality." You have come very near to making this claim yourself: for you have said there are no moral facts. There is then only the very weak sociological observation that people happen to believe in unreal things, like morality, but that nothing they believe about it is, or can be, objectively true. So everybody's just deluded, according to moral subjectivism. It can be no other way.

...there's no justification for theistic moral objectivism.

We haven't even discussed that yet. But you provided a valid syllogism for it. So you have demonstrated that IF Theism were true, there would be a rational justification for objective morality. And I have agreed. But we've left that question there.

What we've really seen, beyond any reasonable doubt, that moral subjectivism is self-defeating.

And that leaves us with two possible conclusions: either that some form of moral objectivism is actually true, or that absolute moral Nihilism is true. But there's no jumping off the skeptical cliff and stopping half way down. There's actually no such thing as "morality": just weird and rationally unjustified human quirks we call "morality." But they're not reflective of anything ontologically real or rationally justified, according to the logic of your view.

And maybe you want to argue that is how it is; in which case, I congratulate you on at least being consistent in believing your metanarrative. Your ontological beliefs and your moral beliefs are in sync; so you're rationally stedfast, at the very least, whatever else one can say. However, there's no more twaddle about any of us having reason to believe morality is subjective: it's either objective or non-existent.

[RCSaunders]

Immanuel Can

Here's my summary of the argument so far - at least for others to consider.

The case for theistic moral objectivism amounts to the following valid argument.

P1: If morality is what God desires, then morality is objective.
P2; Morality is what God desires.
Conclusion: Therefore, morality is objective.

So the argument for theistic moral objectivism is unsound.

Hi Peter,

I don't mean to intrude on someone else's discussion, but the question of the objectivty of morality is a bit off the rails.

In all the cases I know where morality is based on the authority of God, it is not the "desires," of God that are used for that authority, but the dictates of Deity, i.e. "whatever God says is true or right."

If moral principles are objective they cannot based on the dictates of any agency, God or man. Dictated "morality," is not absolute, it is arbitrary, dependent entirely on the whims of the dictator. Dictated morality is therefore not objective. If moral principles are objective they must be based on facts and the nature of reality, not the whims or dictates of any agency.

...

So the argument for theistic moral objectivism is unsound.
[/quote]

Thus far I agree with you, but for obviously different reasons.

But ...

By default, moral subjectivism - that moral assertions express value judgements rather that falsifiable factual claims - is correct.

Is wrong. It is wrong because it is a false dichotomy, "either moral principles are dictated by God and are therefore absolute and objective or they have no objective basis." Of course, if they were dictated they would not be objective but arbitrary. If moral principles are to be objective they must be discoverable by objective reasoning form the nature of reality itself.

But moral principles are neither dictated or subjective, because they are based on the facts of reality. Almost nothing that philosophy or religion presents as "morality" is objective because they all ignore the relationship of morality to reality. It is misunderstanding the nature and purpose of moral principles that is the basis of all wrong views of morality.

On the previous thread I pointed out the fundamental misunderstanding of what moral (or any other normative) principles are:

Right, wrong, good, bad, important, unimportant, necessary, unnecessary are value terms. Since Hume, the nature of value terms has become completely confused and treated as though they are concepts of the intrinsic or inherent.

Nothing is just good, bad, right, or wrong in itself. All value terms are terms of relationship. Every value term assumes some purpose, objective, goal or end relative to which a thing (idea, action, or entity) has a value. If it furthers or completes the end, purpose, or goal it has a positive value, if it hinders or prevents the end, purpose, or goal, it has a negative value. No matter what value is being considered, the ultimate purpose, end, or goal of the thing must be specified, before a value can be assigned to it.

The purpose of moral principles are to be a guide for living successfully as a human being. They are necessary because all human behavior must be chosen and choice is not possible where the consequences of one's choices cannot be known. Moral principles do not tell one what to choose, they only provide the means of knowing, "if I choose this, these will be the consequences."

It is objective reality that determines the consequences, both physically and psychologically, of our choices and behavior. If we want to live successfully and happily in this world, it is moral principles that will enable us to make choices to that end. Obviously, no one has to choose to seek a life of success and happiness, moral principles are not commandments, but if one does choose to live successfully as a human being, he must live according to those moral principles reality determines.

Morality is definitely objective.

[Skip]

In all the cases I know where morality is based on the authority of God, it is not the "desires," of God that are used for that authority, but the dictates of Deity, i.e. "whatever God says is true or right."
If moral principles are objective they cannot based on the dictates of any agency, God or man.

I like this. The glaring big hole in the theist argument (aside from the non-objective assumption that there is a singular God, which they posit as a given) is not whether God desires or commands morality, nor even which of the god-mandated moralities they mean, but the basic untenable premise that God is "objective". All they've actually done is substitute the subjective moral tenets of a putative extraterrestrial entity for the equally subjective ones of palpable human entities.

Morality is definitely objective.

There is an objectively testable and provable set of requirements for sustainable life, which may be projected into sustainable social organization.
So, you can say that the need for some standard of social behaviour is necessary. But there are very few objectively verifiable principles upon which to base such a code. But then, i don't suppose you need a very detailed list of principles to start a solid morality. Three will do.

[Dalek Prime]

A prime source (no, not me lol), if you believe in that. Again, I say it's a priority of living things to accept certain moral objectives, if only to survive without living in mortal fear of others.

Thus we must work for the 2nd Amendment (that includes pepper spray) for all the World! And from there, advance through to Utopia!

Dibs on the nukes.

[Skip]

Dibs on the nukes.

What the hell for? We're already trundling down to Armageddon. Not fast enough for ya?

[Peter Holmes]

RCSaunders

Thanks. I do follow your argument. My purpose has been twofold: to show that theistic moral objectivism is incorrect, for the obvious reason that, if it's supposed to be factual, the source of a moral assertion has no bearing on its truth or falsehood. So objective morality can't come from a god or anyone else - as you rightly say.

But my larger (and original) aim is to show that moral objectivism tout court is incorrect, for the obvious reason that a moral assertion expresses a value judgement rather than a falsifiable factual claim. Value judgements, by definition, aren't factually true or false, because that isn't their function. If the claim 'this music is sublime' isn't factual, then nor is the claim 'it's good to help others'.

You say the following.

It is objective reality that determines the consequences, both physically and psychologically, of our choices and behavior. If we want to live successfully and happily in this world, it is moral principles that will enable us to make choices to that end. Obviously, no one has to choose to seek a life of success and happiness, moral principles are not commandments, but if one does choose to live successfully as a human being, he must live according to those moral principles reality determines.

Morality is definitely objective.

But this is to confuse the factual justification for making a moral judgement with the judgement itself. (Aristotle and Kant made this mistake.) Our material existence definitely dictates the circumstances within which we make personal and collective decisions. So, if we jump from a high building, we'll probably die. That's the fact. But that we shouldn't jump from a high building is a judgement, which is subjective. And this applies to all of our moral decisions.

Reality doesn't determine moral principles any more than a god does. If it does, what's its determination in the debates over eating animals and capital punishment? What are the (objective) moral facts of the matter there? Our choice of facts to justify our judgements is itself subjective - and others can and do choose other facts to justify theirs. There are no moral facts to settle the argument.

I understand very well the motive for wanting to think moral values and judgements are objective (factual) - because I was a convinced objectivist for many years, and fiercely defended the objectivity of moral judgements such as 'slavery is wrong'. For me, the penny dropped only recently.

[Necromancer]

Monotheistic Moral Absolutism isn't just about anything. The "words of God" by the pen of human beings are The 10 Commandments, The Golden Rule, etc. for God's righteous people which are going to make you a place in Heaven!

It must be acknowledged that these Christian/Kantian Ethics has advanced so that Mosaic laws are considered obsolete still buying you a place in Heaven, if not easier now!

Thus, Monotheistic Moral Absolutism must "whatever" that creates the most ethical and moral people on Earth, guided by The 10 Commandments, The Golden Rule and so forth.

Still, by the shared humanity and by evident, behavioural sanity...

[Skip]

Remember, too, that each of the three 'monotheistic' codes is given or revealed to a chosen people who deny the Truth of the other two.

[Peter Holmes]

Agreed, Skip.

Theistic moral objectivism is a mistake, even if there's only one god that actually exists. That there are numerous supposed gods, peddled by numerous religions, none with any more objective justification than any other, widens and deepens the problem. There are layers of unjustification.

[Dalek Prime]

Dibs on the nukes.

What the hell for? We're already trundling down to Armageddon. Not fast enough for ya?

Not really.

'Oh bus driver, speed up a little bit.....'

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders

Value judgements, by definition, aren't factually true or false, because that isn't their function.

Exactly. As I wrote earlier:

"All value terms are terms of relationship. Every value term assumes some purpose, objective, goal or end relative to which a thing (idea, action, or entity) has a value. If it furthers or completes the end, purpose, or goal it has a positive value, if it hinders or prevents the end, purpose, or goal, it has a negative value. No matter what value is being considered, the ultimate purpose, end, or goal of the thing must be specified, before a value can be assigned to it."

This is exactly what no moral philosopher in history has actually done--to specifically identify what the ultimate purpose of moral principles are. I identify that purpose as the means of making choices that result in living a successful, happy, and totally fulfilled human life.

You quoted me:

It is objective reality that determines the consequences, both physically and psychologically, of our choices and behavior. If we want to live successfully and happily in this world, it is moral principles that will enable us to make choices to that end. Obviously, no one has to choose to seek a life of success and happiness, moral principles are not commandments, but if one does choose to live successfully as a human being, he must live according to those moral principles reality determines.

(Aristotle and Kant made this mistake.) Our material existence definitely dictates the circumstances within which we make personal and collective decisions. So, if we jump from a high building, we'll probably die. That's the fact. But that we shouldn't jump from a high building is a judgement, which is subjective. And this applies to all of our moral decisions.

You keep dropping context and treating moral principles and choices as floating abstractions. The context is "if one chooses to live successfully and happily one shouldn't jump from a high building." If one has no objective in life, if they don't care if they live, die, succeed or fail, they don't need moral principles.

Reality doesn't determine moral principles any more than a god does.

There is a sense in which I agree with that. Just as chemical principles do not determine how one should use chemistry, the principle do determine what one can and cannot do chemically. Once one has chosen to use chemicals (to make a specific compound or mixture for example) the chemical principles determine how that must be done. If one chooses to make gunpowder, they must mix sulfur, carbon, and potassium nitrate in specific proportions. The principles are absolute. If gunpowder is the objective one cannot use talcum power instead of sulfur or sugar instead of potassium nitrate.

It is only in that sense that reality, both the nature of the physical and psychological (which is much more important than the physical) determines how one must live their life if it is to be successful as a human being. One cannot defy the nature of physical reality or the requirement of one's own nature as a living volitional being and succeed.

I was a convinced objectivist for many years.

I think every honest philosopher should study Objectivism because it identifies many philosophical mistakes. It is unfortunate that Objectivism is either neglected altogether or accepted as an ideology, even though it makes many very serious philosophical mistakes itself.

Randy

[RCSaunders]

Thanks for the comments Skip. I have one minor difference with this:

So, you can say that the need for some standard of social behaviour is necessary.

I think regarding moral principles as social in nature is a mistake. Moral principles only pertain to individuals and how they choose to live. That will necessarily determine how they relate to others, but the philosophical field that deals with human relations in a society is politics, not ethics (or morality).

Randy

[Skip]

I think regarding moral principles as social in nature is a mistake. Moral principles only pertain to individuals and how they choose to live.

Only, there are no individuals in nature. There are ecosystems, species and communities of organisms - interrelated and interdependent. Animals of little or no brain rely on their inherited traits, senses and instincts to figure out how to relate to their environment. Animals with relatively big brains have to be taught by their elders. They may not call their codes of conduct "morality", but it is.

Moral principles only pertain to individuals and how they choose to live

Humans don't choose a way to live until after they've been taught how to live. Their individual choice, therefore, is limited not only by the environment available to them at maturity, but also by the values and attitudes they had, consciously or unconsciously internalized in youth.

That will necessarily determine how they relate to others, but the philosophical field that deals with human relations in a society is politics, not ethics (or morality).

Politics - social organization and hierarchy - cannot help but be informed by ethics. You can't separate them in real life. When a philosopher attempts to deal with ethics as an independent discipline, he usually makes an ass of himself by relying on examples from the organization of his own society. A hundred years later, or to another culture, his bias is evident - you can tell where, when and in what social class it was written, probably even what college he attended - though he may believe he's wholly objective.
Morality in isolation means nothing. Alone, one can sin against nature or a supernatural entity - but even those, only if he's learned a 'correct way' to regard those things. A feral child has no concept of right and wrong: he just does whatever it takes to survive.