What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

I imagine most of us share the will to live.

Maybe. But clearly, there are lots of people who don't share the will that OTHERS should live.

As a Theist, you mean? Or what the average human being, devoid of any such belief would be likely to do? Which do you want?

As a human. Which part of "you" is ambiguous?

Humans come in different types. In this case, what I would say as a Theist, and what someone would be inclined to do if one were operating consistently with Atheistic suppositions are opposite. So I have to ask.

You are the one bringing (a)theism to the table. It's another attempt at diverting from the point

No. It IS the point. There is no other worth making, really...at least, not in regard to morality. Because Atheism has no possibility of a grounded account of what morality is, at all. If we live in the world as Atheism envisions it, morality is not merely "subjective"; it's nothing more than a delusion. That's awfully important to the OP, I would say.

The logic is as follows: You and I want to co-operate. By reciprocity if you want me to help you - then you probably shouldn't do things to me that would make me want to stop helping you and vice versa. Prisoner's dilemma.

Not necessarily. That dilemma presupposes that everyone is in the same epistemic situation...that you know about me what I know about you, and each of us has equal power over the other. But what if I'm stronger, nastier, more devious, and more influential than you, and what if I have every good reason to take my advantages.

That's the problem Nietzsche poses for us. There are "übermensch" in his world, and "the weak." Things are not equal. And those that have the courage to be bad have a distinct advantage over those that can only be "good," (whatever that is). So the strong should survive and thrive, the weak and foolish should die, and thus the evolution of the race will be served.

To deal with Nietzsche, we have to say why that is not the way things should be. Because clearly, that's the way they could be.

[Immanuel Can]

If Earths biosphere does not remain in equilibrium do you think humans will still be able to survive on this planet?

The Sun goes red giant in four to five billion years but the rise of the oceanic temperatures in a billion years will kill all life on Earth
The goal should be to find suitable exo planets to colonise and it should start now as a billion years in cosmic terms is not very much

But why does even that matter? When it happens, IF it ever happens, you and I will be long dead. What matters it then whether or not life on this planet or any other continues? Why should we care, since we will not be there?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are grounds why 'Killing' is absolutely wrong as a non-enforceable objective principle. I am not going into the details on this.

Whatever grounds ("objective principle") you have - I reject it. I carry a gun - I have no moral objections to killing, nor do I feel "dehumanized" or insulted doing it. Convince me that I am wrong; or that I should accept your principle.

Everything else is moot.

In the general and your personal present state, I am certain I will not be able to convince you are wrong. Thus I have no intention to change your mind but I am thinking of the well being of humanity in the longer run given there is the potential and feasibility based on existing trends.

As I had stated, no normal human would want to be killed
No normal person will feel good [in fact will be in terrible state] if there is a threat of death.
As such there is a there is a need to establish conditions where no normal person will feel threaten to death and no humans will have an uncontrollable impulse to kill any other human being for whatsoever the reason.

To achieve the above we have to build a model, i.e. a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics driven by absolute moral principles as guides [not enforceable].
This must entail changes in the neural wirings in the brain of the individual via fool proof approaches.

DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with a moral function, note this clue;

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Humanity has completed the Human Genome Project.
At present humanity is progressing with the Human Connectome Project to map all the connectivity of the neurons in the human brain.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

At present there is the current trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

It is based on the above that I am very optimistic humanity will be able to identify the neural connectivity for that inherent evolving moral function within the brain/mind and using knowledge and technology to expedite the natural moral progress via fool proof methods.

The expected results of the model I proposed with ensure all normal human beings [except the very serious brain damage person] will have the natural ability to inhibit modulate their inherent killing and other evil impulses.

Do you agree the above model is feasible in the future, say next 50 years if not 75, 100 or more?
I am certain humanity will be able to achieve it, not perfectly but to an optimal minimal in a matter of time driven the inherent impulse of progress within the human psyche.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote: 'If you note, what I have proposed is a System-based Framework of Morality and Ethics with absolute objective principles as the main input as fixed goals and good moral acts as output by the individuals.' But any 'absolute objective principles' that we 'propose' can be neither absolute nor objective.

The mistake of moral objectivism, secular or theistic, comes from our craving a foundation - which is also where theism itself and the religions that peddle it come from.

But our moral values and rules have no more (and no less) foundation than, say, our linguistic practices. And we no more invented morality than we invented language - or walking on our hind legs.

That we are bipedal and have developed language and morality - these are facts - true factual assertions. And we can produce reasonable evolutionary explanations for why they're features of our species.

But there's no reason to believe they had to be, nor that they should be - and certainly no evidence that any non-natural agency was involved.

I agree all humans has the natural 'craving' [subliminally driven] for a foundation.

It is this impulse toward a foundation that lead the majority to believe in a God as the ultimate anchor which in fact has utility [moral and others] for the theistic believers.
But the problem is this god-based foundation is also a potential for the most terrible evils acts and violence when it is claimed their god delivered commands that has are laden with evil elements to humans.
This is why we need to side-step such a foundation that has contributed terrible evil acts and violence from the beginning and will be net-negative and a fatal threat for humanity in the near future.
Note I have already ungrounded, cornered and checkmated this with the 'God is an Impossibility' thread.

Yes, humans has an inherent impulse for foundations but we should strive for justified effective foundations that are fool proof without any evil elements. Objective moral absolutes [justified] are the most effective for an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

As I had stated objective moral absolutes are merely drivers and as ideals [thus impossibilities] they are not expected to be realized at all.
What is positive is these drivers drive continual improvements within a fool proof model.
This secular model will start with an index of say 100 of Moral Quotient [MQ] as an average for humanity and this model [objective with measurements] will be a basis to drive the progress gradually and expeditiously to say an index of 150, 200, 300, 600 and as high as possible in the shortest possible time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If murdering one human is immoral/wrong/undesirable/bad (pick your favorite word) then the closest thing to "objective immorality" (the biggest evil, the worst wrong, the ultimate sacrilege) that we HUMANS can conceive is every single one of us DYING. The end of the line for humanity - extinction!

So if Human Extinction is The Worst Evil. Then by contraposition Human Survival is The Best Good. Anything which threatens our survival is objectively immoral! AI is just one example of MANY potential existential threats.

I expect that at this point you will protest with some philosophical nitpick such as "what makes it objective"? Collective human consensus!

Plus - extinct species don't get to philosophise about "objective morality"!

Agree.
I have been approaching along the above points which is quite sufficient. However there are more to it.

What we need is an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to achieve the intended objective, i.e. continual improvements of Moral Quotient towards the impossible ideal of objective moral principles, laws, maxims, etc.

Note the real practice of using ideals in Pure Mathematic, Geometry, Sciences [?] where perfection [impossibilities] is used to guide practices in their Applied perspective.
Thus we can have Pure = Morality and Applied = Ethics.

[TimeSeeker]

Maybe. But clearly, there are lots of people who don't share the will that OTHERS should live.

You have the incredible skill to remain oblivious to the T-Rex in the room and focus all your attention on the mosquito.
You can't convince others top stop doing what they do any more than I can convince you top stop being an small-minded fool who doesn't know how to prioritize.

Humans come in different types. In this case, what I would say as a Theist, and what someone would be inclined to do if one were operating consistently with Atheistic suppositions are opposite. So I have to ask.

Q.E.D. You come in one form, shape and size. Unless you are telepathic.

No. It IS the point. There is no other worth making, really...at least, not in regard to morality. Because Atheism has no possibility of a grounded account of what morality is, at all. If we live in the world as Atheism envisions it, morality is not merely "subjective"; it's nothing more than a delusion. That's awfully important to the OP, I would say.

Yet, here I stand before you. An atheist. Having grounded morality in human survival.
Yet, here I stand before you. A Christian. Having grounded morality in the promise of greater reward in an afterlife.
Yet, here I stand before you. An agnostic. Having grounded morality in ergodic theory.
Yet, here I stand before you. A Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist.
For somebody so skilled at avoiding questions, you sure don't know how to re-interpret religious texts to suit your agenda.

Life is subjective too. If you are doxastically committed to avoiding delusions then I trust you will be posting a live suicide video on YouTube soon?

But what if I'm stronger, nastier, more devious, and more influential than you

You aren't. I command the respect of an army. I have incredible capability for violence and I a comfortable with the idea of taking human life. And I don't do it. So again - mosquitos and T-rexes.

That's the problem Nietzsche poses for us. There are "übermensch" in his world, and "the weak." Things are not equal. And those that have the courage to be bad have a distinct advantage over those that can only be "good," (whatever that is). So the strong should survive and thrive, the weak and foolish should die, and thus the evolution of the race will be served.

To deal with Nietzsche, we have to say why that is not the way things should be. Because clearly, that's the way they could be.

I have dealt with Nietzche. The "übermensch" still need bus drivers, and street cleaners, and waiters, bartenders. If you think the "übermensch" can make it without the "weak". I am afraid you aren't an "übermensch". Which is evident from your mannerisms and disdain for "the weak".

An "übermensch" wants others to become "übermensch" too, for (s)he realizes (s)he needs all the help (s)he can get. Against The Universe.

[TimeSeeker]

In the general and your personal present state, I am certain I will not be able to convince you are wrong.

There is always room for convincing. And I shall tell you what it would take: demonstrate to me something worse than human extinction.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Empathy is not basis for morality. Motherly over-protectiveness often produces overreactions.

Do you agree the above model is feasible in the future, say next 50 years if not 75, 100 or more?
I am certain humanity will be able to achieve it, not perfectly but to an optimal minimal in a matter of time driven the inherent impulse of progress within the human psyche.

I don't think it's any better than the model which has existed for the last 2000 years? Co-operation (and the emergent "no harm") is the cornerstone of society.

[TimeSeeker]

What we need is an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to achieve the intended objective, i.e. continual improvements of Moral Quotient towards the impossible ideal of objective moral principles, laws, maxims, etc.

Note the real practice of using ideals in Pure Mathematic, Geometry, Sciences [?] where perfection [impossibilities] is used to guide practices in their Applied perspective.
Thus we can have Pure = Morality and Applied = Ethics.

"Pure morality" is the "no harm" principle. How many people should die in murders/accidents/airplane crashes? Zero!
We know we can never get there. But it's a goal. And iteratively we make more reliable systems.

This is straight out of the systems engineering handbook.

We already apply all of this - we are tracking system metrics such GINI coefficients, crime rates, health metrics etc. The fundamental challenge we have is that we have cut up the world into boxes where no boxes exist in practice and so we have problems of co-ordination, prioritization, communication and decision-making (all human issues!) to deal with.

[TimeSeeker]

I agree all humans has the natural 'craving' [subliminally driven] for a foundation.

Ask yourself and answer honestly. In respect to time (the temporal dimension) where does this foundation exist? In the past, present, future or outside it? Have you subconsciously assumed that a "foundation" follows the flow of time e.g cause-effect? Could that be a flawed assumption?

Can "future thing" serve as a foundations? Goals. Then work our way backwards.

[Atla]

Ignorance about human nature is directly proportional to the irrationality of some proposed theories.
In the real world, exploitation and dominance is usually more popular than cooperation and equality.

[TimeSeeker]

But why does even that matter? When it happens, IF it ever happens, you and I will be long dead. What matters it then whether or not life on this planet or any other continues? Why should we care, since we will not be there?

Because you are here. Now. Which is evidence that other people don't think like that. So YOU may be the odd one out.

Which is fine, if you mind your own business. But if you step out of line - WE will make the rest of your remaining life very unpleasant.

If you don't believe in morality, then I will adapt to your framework and pretend I don't believe in immorality either. I am OK with inconsistency and hypocrisy. I am a sanctimonious p****. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.

[Peter Holmes]

You obviously don't understand the nature of objectivity - and therefore what this whole discussion has been about.

You don't understand the "nature of objectivity" either. Because you are trapped in linear spacetime and your brain is too small to grasp the factorial complexity of 10^160 quantum particles. So I am offering you an operational definition. Till you come up with a better one (which philosophy has failed to produce in 3000 years - so I am not holding my breath).

Either way - if this discussion is about anything but avoiding the extinction of 8 billion (and growing) people. There's no simpler way to say this: You are wrong.

And If I am getting in your way of engaging in what is nothing more than linguistic masturbation - just say so.

Sorry - I missed your operational definition of objectivity - which can only be an explanation of how we use or could use the word and its cognates - because, of course, objectivity isn't a thing we can describe - so I missed how your definition differs from the standard dictionary definitions - which amount to avoiding judgement, belief and opinion in the consideration of facts. Please can you repeat your definition?

I understand your impatience (but in a Philosophy Now forum on Ethical Theory?) with what seems to you mental masturbatory discussion of moral objectivism. If I've understood you, your attitude is: of course morality is objective, you philosophical wankers, and AI is an objective existential threat, and we're all doomed.

Problem is, we need valid and sound arguments - and you haven't made any attempt to justify the claim that morality is objective. Unless I missed that bit. And if I did, I apologise.

Now, instead of exploding with righteous and condescending indignation, why not calmly and coherently make your case for moral objectivism? And if you don't have one, why not piss off to somewhere more conducive?

[TimeSeeker]

Please can you repeat your definition?

Distributed consensus.

The same thing scientists use.The same thing distributed systems (AI) uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

Problem is, we need valid and sound arguments

Q.E.D. You already have a consensus problem on your hands! What is a "valid and sound argument"?

You can't even agree on your will to live. Why do you think you can agree on the validity of arguments?

The first problem is to agree on something. ANYTHING! A foundation. Can you find it in you to do that without defaulting to whataboutism ?

Now, instead of exploding with righteous and condescending indignation, why not calmly and coherently make your case for moral objectivism? And if you don't have one, why not piss off to somewhere more conducive?

I made it. You missed it. Scroll back and read it.The irony of you using the word 'conducive' when philosophy is anything BUT optimising for consensus.

[Peter Holmes]

Please can you repeat your definition?

Distributed consensus.

The same thing scientists use.The same thing distributed systems (AI) uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

Problem is, we need valid and sound arguments

You've already made an error (ASSUMPTION) in your reasoning.

You can't even agree on your will to live.
Why do you think you can agree on what a "valid" or "sound" argument is?
What criteria would you use to judge that?

The first problem is to agree on something. ANYTHING! A foundation. Can you find it in you to do that without defaulting to whataboutism ?

Now, instead of exploding with righteous and condescending indignation, why not calmly and coherently make your case for moral objectivism? And if you don't have one, why not piss off to somewhere more conducive?

I made it. You missed it. Scroll back and read it.

So, you define objectivity as distributed consensus. And here's a dictionary definition of the word 'objective':

adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Notice that, by this definition, objectivity has nothing to do with consensus, and everything to do with facts - true factual assertions - true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know - true even if the consensus is 100% rejection.

The mistake behind 'distributed consensus' comes from the recognition that (for example) natural scientists can only ever reach inductive conclusions - don't deal with truth and falsehood, but only what seems to work so far. This then leads to the fallacious conclusion that there is and can be no such thing as truth and falsehood.

I can't be arsed to scroll back and find your valid and sound argument demonstrating the objectivity of morality. My bad and my loss, no doubt.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the general and your personal present state, I am certain I will not be able to convince you are wrong.

There is always room for convincing. And I shall tell you what it would take: demonstrate to me something worse than human extinction.

I agree 'human extinction' is good enough to be the proximate foundation but there is still room to reinforce this foundation. I am not going into details on this.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Empathy is not basis for morality. Motherly over-protectiveness often produces overreactions.

True anything extreme, i.e. empathy and compassion can be very blind and irrational.
Just imagine there are cases where a few men are drowned trying to save a dog.

Nevertheless empathy and compassion in principle is still an element of morality.

There are more details to that research but the main point is there is an inherent moral function as demonstrated by the display of empathy by innocent babies less than 12 months deliberated selected to avoid 'nurture' variables.
The progress of the Human Connectome Project could reveal more of this inherent moral drive and thus open the potential to expedite the moral function of the average.

Do you agree the above model is feasible in the future, say next 50 years if not 75, 100 or more?
I am certain humanity will be able to achieve it, not perfectly but to an optimal minimal in a matter of time driven the inherent impulse of progress within the human psyche.

I don't think it's any better than the model which has existed for the last 2000 years? Co-operation (and the emergent "no harm") is the cornerstone of society.

There is a load of differences between models 2000 years ago and the one to be postulated in the future.
There are no formal explicit model of morality at present.
The best of the worse is the theological moral model based on 'Because the real God said so!'
Surely we are not going to condone and promote such a model with its negative baggage?

Note the existing very steep trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology within the last 20-30 years as compared the 100 -2000 years ago.
What I am really banking on is the Human Connectome Project and various fields of knowledge and technologies.
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
I believe a 50% accomplishment of this project is sufficient to contribute to a significant advancement in the Human Morality Project.

Note 'no harm' is related to the Golden Rule which has been around for thousands of years.
However the GR has its limitations, e.g. counter productive to a sadist or masochist. So we need greater reinforcement, e.g. 'concept of extinction' to act as a guide.