What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

Duplicate.

[Immanuel Can]

As for Objectivism, all I said is that it is not the same as "objective" -- which is true. So there wasn't even a pejorative implication in my saying so. It's just a fact.

But if it had nothing to do with the argument, why mention it?

Honesty.

Just because one is an "Objectivist" does not imply one is pretending to be "objective." Rand wasn't. If we don't recognize the distinction, we will think she was claiming much more than she was.

Piper thinks so. I completely disagree.

I don't blame you for that, it's a horrible doctrine, but it is definitely what many passages in the Bible unambiguously teach,

Actually, they don't.

If you get the story from Calvinist advocates, that's what you're going to think, perhaps. But if you read they verses the cite, putting those verses in the context of their place, you find that Calvinism is not warranted at all.

Calvinists even change the meaning of particular theological words, like "predestination," for example, and make up totally new ones, like "total depravity," which refer to things not actually taught in Scripture...and in the case of the latter, not even believed in the present-day way by John Calvin himself!

I don't want to derail this thread, RC: but here are all the reasons you'll ever need why John Piper is wrong. https://soteriology101.com

That's a hoot. The title of the thread is, "What could make morality objective?"

Yes, that's true...which is why I don't want to plunge into Calvinism. But the site I've given you will give you tons of information on why Calvinism is wrong, without me "de-railing the train" here. So I've both honoured your question and avoided taking the conversation in the wrong direction. What's the problem, then, RC?

[Skepdick]

Important to whom?

To humans.

[Immanuel Can]

If you don't want to derail the thread, address the issues raised in the article.

This, alone, I would salvage.

“A contradiction does not exist . . . . To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.”

Agreed. Contradiction is bad. But absence of contradiction does not give us ethics.

There are things that are not contradictory, which nonetheless, we would find instinctively morally debatable, if not also generally deniable. One is Rand's take on altruism. Almost everyone, and almost all ethical systems, find a positive place for the person who sacrifices his or her interests in the interests of others. The nature of the person and of the relevant group may differ, but there's a very broad intuition and practice to the effect that altruism is not "evil," and selfishness is not, contra Rand, a "virtue."

But we can prove the case neither way from the basis she provides. For her ontological suppositions remain questionable, and anybody who doesn't grant, for example, that the knower has unproblematic access to objective reality, is not compelled rationally to her conclusions. And it's not at all clear why a person shouldn't reject "self-interest" as a fundamental ethical principle: after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are relational values, not solipsistic ones.

Even her idea that the human race progresses by means of its extraordinary men, like Galt, contains the tacit claim that this somehow ought to turn out to be good for everyone...that's what "race" and "progress" would necessarily imply. While not the bare selfishness of "will to power," this is essentially a "will to power" argument, dressed up in the robes of universal benefit.

Anyone can catch that bait-and-switch.

For the individual, I would agree with most, but not all of her list of "ethical" principles. But not for her reasons. I could not find a way to warrant them from her suppositions, or from the intuitions that many people hold to the contrary. One could never say she's found the "objective" truth about what morality consists in. There's insufficient universality to her fundamental claims to justify her particular ethical claims.

Now, prior to all this, RC, I have already read Rand, and I've read Piper. I think I understand quite well what both think, and why they think it. I think both are wrong...for different reasons, of course. And I don't see either as allowing for a plausible account of ethics, though both do succeed at times in hitting on some items in the right list of "virtues." I think their ontologies, in both cases, undermine their claims that ethics can really exist.

Fair enough?

[Peter Holmes]

So your argument is: whatever people think is morally right or wrong is, in fact, objectively, independent from opinion, morally right or wrong.

Not exactly, no.

A sane man won't spend a lot of time wonderin' hmmm, me as a slave, is that a good fit?, he knows straight off the bat, without thinkin' about it, it's a lousy idea, a rotten deal, a bad thing and he'll reject it.

To be free is normal and natural to him; to be a slave is wrong and unnatural to him.

Sounds to me like an objective morality, a natural law.

Prove me wrong: show me a sane man who craves enslavement.

You won't find one in this Reality.

In Bizarro World, mebbe, but not in this world.

I'll go one further: give me an example, from any point in history, from any culture, where sane men actively sought to be enslaved cuz they believed they should be slaves.

One example will suffice to toss my idea in the shitter.

I'm confused. You claim no sane man in the world wants or has wanted to be a slave, so slavery is objectively morally wrong, which means wrong independent from opinion. And you agree that if every sane man in the world wanted and wants to be a slave, then slavery would not be objectively morally wrong. Have I got it right now?

If so, you seem to be saying that what's objectively morally right or wrong depends on what every sane man (shall we include women, lest we imply they're morally insignificant?) wants or doesn't want? Have I got that right? If so, I have a few questions.

1 Do you have any evidence to justify your claim that no sane person has ever wanted to be a slave? For example, could religious self-abnegation have ever impelled a sane and devout person to willingly submit to slavery? (As you know, yours is the burden of proof for your claim - it's not mine to show it's false.) An argument from incredulity - no sane person could ever... - is fallacious. Unjustified premise = unsound argument.

2 Do you think the assertion 'slavery is wrong' expresses a judgement, belief or opinion about slavery?

3 Does the assertion 'no sane person wants to be a slave' express a claim about slavery, or about all sane people?

4 If the assertion 'slavery is wrong' is objective (independent from opinion) - a 'natural law' - why would just one example of a sane person wanting to be a slave toss your idea in the shitter? Why would their desire or opinion make any difference? Doesn't look like objectivity to me.

[RCSaunders]

Now, in this Reality, I don't think it's possible for folks to sanely crave to be slaves. Sanity and slavery are oil and water.

Henry, what do you mean by, "slavery." There are two meanings. One is the forced control of an individual against their will, which, by definition, means what no one wants to be, because it is against their will, that is, against what they want. But slavery may also mean only that an individual is the subject of some other individual, a master, who determines what the slave may or must do and not do, usually with a threat of punishment if they disobey their master.

Many people choose to be slaves in the second sense. Most people are willing to give up their freedom to live as they choose and obey a master that promises them security and safety in exchange for their obedience. Those slaves are the ones that would prefer to obey and serve what they believe is a benevolent master (a government), than to have to be fully responsible for their own lives. It even gives them a sense of moral value. They don't have to figure out what is right and wrong, all they have to do is obey the master's laws and be good law-abiding citizens to be certain of their moral rectitude.

The precedent for that kind of slavery is Biblical, by the way:

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. --Exodus 21:2-6

Some people like being slaves. It's easier than self responsibility. It is also immoral.

[Sculptor]

Is that what they tell you?

Well, OK then. If all those animals care so much, they can do something about it, right?

What is "IT" in your sentence?

Whatever it is you say the, "other animal species are capable of caring," about. You're the one who thinks they are capable of caring about something, not me.

If you don't know what "IT" is then you comment is meaningless.
Why take the trouble to contradict me when you don't know what you are talking about. The Forum is conflictual enough without gratuitous remarks.

[Sculptor]

No it was your premise. "Death is bad". That depends.

You said the thing below, right?

I rather feel that there are many people that would disagree entirely with this.
As individuals we all face our individual extinction.

In "facing your own individual extinction" (e.g death/dying) you are probably milling over the question: Do I want to die?

Not even a remotely relevant question.
We all die.
It's not a matter of choice.

[henry quirk]

You claim no sane man in the world wants or has wanted to be a slave, so slavery is objectively morally wrong, which means wrong independent from opinion.

Yes, cuz the desire to be free is not an opinion but part & parcel of personhood.


And you agree that if every sane man in the world wanted and wants to be a slave, then slavery would not be objectively morally wrong. Have I got it right now?

No, you do not.

Restated: in a Reality I can't imagine, a Bizzaro World where sanity is different than it is in this Reality, if it was intrinsic to personhood to want to be enslaved then, there, in that inconceivable place, slavery would not be (objectively) wrong.


Do you have any evidence to justify your claim that no sane person has ever wanted to be a slave?

By definition, no sane person wants to be property. To desire to be property (and that's what a slave is) is not sane.


could religious self-abnegation have ever impelled a sane and devout person to willingly submit to slavery?

Not the same as wanting to be a slave, yeah? A man might submit to being enslaved for any number of reasons (to spare a loved one of that fate by takin' that loved one's place in the slave market, for example). But self-sacrifice is not synonymous with desire.


Do you think the assertion 'slavery is wrong' expresses a judgement, belief or opinion about slavery?

No, I think it sez sumthin' fundamental about human beings, that bein': each man wants to be free, to own himself, to direct himself.


Does the assertion 'no sane person wants to be a slave' express a claim about slavery, or about all sane people?

I think, again, it sez sumthin' fundamental about the human individual.


If the assertion 'slavery is wrong' is objective (independent from opinion) - a 'natural law' - why would just one example of a sane person wanting to be a slave toss your idea in the shitter?

Cuz if a sane man wants slavery for himself, then -- as you say -- it's just opinion if others do not.

But if all sane men desire freedom, then it's not opinion but an objective (moral) fact about humans, about individuals, about persons.

[henry quirk]

Henry, what do you mean by, "slavery."

Bein' property.


Some people like being slaves. It's easier than self responsibility. It is also immoral.

Seems to me: they like bein' directed, which is not quite the same thing as wantin' to be a slave. Cravin' direction, as a way of livin', is not sane either, btw.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe you are wrong in not differentiating a moral fact from an empirical fact and other facts.
In Arithmetic, it is an objective fact, 1 + 1 = 2 i.e. objective.

As Henry Quirk had requested, show us a sane human who would want to be enslaved?
Just start asking with yourself [given you are sane], your spouse, children, relatives, kins, friends, and the rest of sane people [verified by DSM-V].

Thus it would be fact that everyone agree slavery is morally wrong, and from this, it is a moral-fact, slavery is morally wrong. There is no logical error in this.
Therefore "slavery is morally wrong" as reasoned is an absolute moral law within morality specifically and nowhere else.

Note there is no claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is a scientific fact, an empirical fact, an arithmetic fact, a legal fact, and economic fact, etc. but only that it is a justified moral fact.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs. A state-of-affairs exists independent from opinion, and has no truth-value. Am I right to assume you understand this and agree with this account of the way we use the word fact? (I'm doubtful, because your expression 'justified moral fact' is incoherent if by 'fact' you mean 'state-of-affairs'.)

If so, to say there are moral facts is to say there are moral states-of-affairs that exist independent from opinion. And that's the claim you have to justify by meeting your burden of proof. Just saying there are moral facts is useless. You have to show why a moral assertion such as 'slavery is wrong' describes a state-of-affairs that exists independent from opinion.

Between 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', there's a fact of the matter - a state-of-affairs - that settles the argument, regardless of anyone's opinion. Now please show the fact of the matter - the state-of-affairs - that settles the argument between 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'slavery isn't morally wrong' - regardless of anyone's opinion. Because that's what objectivity means.

All you and Henry have offered, by way of evidence, is that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But so what? That's just their opinion.

If the only evidence for the claim that the earth isn't flat were that everyone thinks the earth isn't flat - would that be conclusive?

[Immanuel Can]

All you...have offered, by way of evidence, is that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But so what? That's just their opinion.

To add to that, they don't. "Everyone" doesn't think that.

Slavery is one of our oldest institutions. Some people love it -- not being a slave, of course; but having them -- and others, even among those who don't own slaves and aren't slaves, accept it as one of their society's normal ways of doing things.

And those who object? Well, they just say those are sub-humans whose voiced don't count. Besides, some slaves become so helpless in that condition that they lose the will to reject it and begin to believe that they are just as inherently worthless as their owners tell them they are. So if it's an opinion poll, that makes their situation hopeless.

[henry quirk]

All you and Henry have offered, by way of evidence, is that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But so what? That's just their opinion.[/u][/i][/b]

No, wrong.

It is not my claim that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong.

I say: no sane man wants to be a slave, which is not the same claim.

Not even in the same damn ball park.

Play fair, Pete.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you are wrong in not differentiating a moral fact from an empirical fact and other facts.
In Arithmetic, it is an objective fact, 1 + 1 = 2 i.e. objective.

As Henry Quirk had requested, show us a sane human who would want to be enslaved?
Just start asking with yourself [given you are sane], your spouse, children, relatives, kins, friends, and the rest of sane people [verified by DSM-V].

Thus it would be fact that everyone agree slavery is morally wrong, and from this, it is a moral-fact, slavery is morally wrong. There is no logical error in this.
Therefore "slavery is morally wrong" as reasoned is an absolute moral law within morality specifically and nowhere else.

Note there is no claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is a scientific fact, an empirical fact, an arithmetic fact, a legal fact, and economic fact, etc. but only that it is a justified moral fact.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs. A state-of-affairs exists independent from opinion, and has no truth-value. Am I right to assume you understand this and agree with this account of the way we use the word fact? (I'm doubtful, because your expression 'justified moral fact' is incoherent if by 'fact' you mean 'state-of-affairs'.)

If so, to say there are moral facts is to say there are moral states-of-affairs that exist independent from opinion. And that's the claim you have to justify by meeting your burden of proof. Just saying there are moral facts is useless. You have to show why a moral assertion such as 'slavery is wrong' describes a state-of-affairs that exists independent from opinion.

Between 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', there's a fact of the matter - a state-of-affairs - that settles the argument, regardless of anyone's opinion. Now please show the fact of the matter - the state-of-affairs - that settles the argument between 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'slavery isn't morally wrong' - regardless of anyone's opinion. Because that's what objectivity means.

Rather than 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', it would be more accurate to say the "the Earth has a Spherical Planet' which represent a state-of-affairs.
I presume you will agree this is a scientific fact [astronomy] and that is objective.
I agree that would be independent of anyone's subjective opinion.

BUT I had claimed 'objectivity' is intersubjectivity, i.e. grounded on intersubjective consensus.
As such a fact or your 'state-of-affairs' while independent of anyone's subjective opinion, it cannot be totally-independent of the human conditions.
While a scientific fact is objective, it it fundamentally at best a polished conjecture [according to Karl Popper] or in a way, it is a polished-opinion, i.e. polished by a community of astronomers and other authorized participants.
"Group polished opinion' in this case is polished to be a justified-true-belief specific within the Scientific Framework, Scientific Methods, Peer Review, and other prerequisites.

Therefore a fact or your 'state-of-affairs' whilst independent of anyone's subjective opinion, it is not independent of a group of humans-polished-opinions.

All you and Henry have offered, by way of evidence, is that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But so what? That's just their opinion.

If the only evidence for the claim that the earth isn't flat were that everyone thinks the earth isn't flat - would that be conclusive?

Individual[s] may have a subjective opinion on 'slavery is right or wrong' and yes such individual's opinion cannot be a fact or in this case a moral fact.

If everyone individually thinks the "Earth isn't flat" that is not objective. There is no collective intersubjective consensus in this claim.

To be objective it that has to be backed with verified and justified evidence within a framework of knowledge [Science - Astronomy for example] and has sufficient intersubjective consensus among its peers.
It is on this basis with the Scientific Framework that it is a scientific fact that the "Earth is not flat" but rather in some sort of spherical shape.

There is no fact, truth, reality that is independent of a specific framework of the realization of reality. There is only scientific truths, legal truths, common sense truths, economic truths, x-related-reality. There is no truth or reality that can exists by itself. Note Kant's there is no thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves. Show me there is anything contrary to this claim.

The claim that 'slavery is absolute wrong' is not based purely on the point that everyone thinks 'slavery is wrong'.
That 'slavery is wrong' is inferred from what the default human would experience with being enslaved. This is backed by empirical evidence of human experiences throughout its history.
In the case of moral fact, there is no need for a collective consensus, but rather it is reasoned based on available empirical evidence. Example of this is the same with Arithmetic, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 which need not be based on some arrangement of collective consensus like Science's peer review.
In this case of Arithmetical fact, it is reasoned to be given and universal to all human beings, and this can be tested. This is the same with moral fact.

This absolute moral principle, "slavery is wrong" can be tested.
In this case, ask any sane human being whether he/she want to be enslaved or not.
It would be confirmed within psychiatry those who want to be enslaved [chattel slavery] are likely to have a mental problem.

You seem to be stucked with "individual opinion" but missed out on collective intersubjective consensus [as in Science] and reasoning from the universality of human conditions as in moral fact.

[Peter Holmes]

I believe you are wrong in not differentiating a moral fact from an empirical fact and other facts.
In Arithmetic, it is an objective fact, 1 + 1 = 2 i.e. objective.

As Henry Quirk had requested, show us a sane human who would want to be enslaved?
Just start asking with yourself [given you are sane], your spouse, children, relatives, kins, friends, and the rest of sane people [verified by DSM-V].

Thus it would be fact that everyone agree slavery is morally wrong, and from this, it is a moral-fact, slavery is morally wrong. There is no logical error in this.
Therefore "slavery is morally wrong" as reasoned is an absolute moral law within morality specifically and nowhere else.

Note there is no claim 'slavery is morally wrong' is a scientific fact, an empirical fact, an arithmetic fact, a legal fact, and economic fact, etc. but only that it is a justified moral fact.

A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs. A state-of-affairs exists independent from opinion, and has no truth-value. Am I right to assume you understand this and agree with this account of the way we use the word fact? (I'm doubtful, because your expression 'justified moral fact' is incoherent if by 'fact' you mean 'state-of-affairs'.)

If so, to say there are moral facts is to say there are moral states-of-affairs that exist independent from opinion. And that's the claim you have to justify by meeting your burden of proof. Just saying there are moral facts is useless. You have to show why a moral assertion such as 'slavery is wrong' describes a state-of-affairs that exists independent from opinion.

Between 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', there's a fact of the matter - a state-of-affairs - that settles the argument, regardless of anyone's opinion. Now please show the fact of the matter - the state-of-affairs - that settles the argument between 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'slavery isn't morally wrong' - regardless of anyone's opinion. Because that's what objectivity means.

Rather than 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', it would be more accurate to say the "the Earth has a Spherical Planet' which represent a state-of-affairs.
I presume you will agree this is a scientific fact [astronomy] and that is objective.
I agree that would be independent of anyone's subjective opinion.

BUT I had claimed 'objectivity' is intersubjectivity, i.e. grounded on intersubjective consensus.
As such a fact or your 'state-of-affairs' while independent of anyone's subjective opinion, it cannot be totally-independent of the human conditions.
While a scientific fact is objective, it it fundamentally at best a polished conjecture [according to Karl Popper] or in a way, it is a polished-opinion, i.e. polished by a community of astronomers and other authorized participants.
"Group polished opinion' in this case is polished to be a justified-true-belief specific within the Scientific Framework, Scientific Methods, Peer Review, and other prerequisites.

Therefore a fact or your 'state-of-affairs' whilst independent of anyone's subjective opinion, it is not independent of a group of humans-polished-opinions.

All you and Henry have offered, by way of evidence, is that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But so what? That's just their opinion.

If the only evidence for the claim that the earth isn't flat were that everyone thinks the earth isn't flat - would that be conclusive?

Individual[s] may have a subjective opinion on 'slavery is right or wrong' and yes such individual's opinion cannot be a fact or in this case a moral fact.

If everyone individually thinks the "Earth isn't flat" that is not objective. There is no collective intersubjective consensus in this claim.

To be objective it that has to be backed with verified and justified evidence within a framework of knowledge [Science - Astronomy for example] and has sufficient intersubjective consensus among its peers.
It is on this basis with the Scientific Framework that it is a scientific fact that the "Earth is not flat" but rather in some sort of spherical shape.

There is no fact, truth, reality that is independent of a specific framework of the realization of reality. There is only scientific truths, legal truths, common sense truths, economic truths, x-related-reality. There is no truth or reality that can exists by itself. Note Kant's there is no thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves. Show me there is anything contrary to this claim.

The claim that 'slavery is absolute wrong' is not based purely on the point that everyone thinks 'slavery is wrong'.
That 'slavery is wrong' is inferred from what the default human would experience with being enslaved. This is backed by empirical evidence of human experiences throughout its history.
In the case of moral fact, there is no need for a collective consensus, but rather it is reasoned based on available empirical evidence. Example of this is the same with Arithmetic, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 which need not be based on some arrangement of collective consensus like Science's peer review.
In this case of Arithmetical fact, it is reasoned to be given and universal to all human beings, and this can be tested. This is the same with moral fact.

This absolute moral principle, "slavery is wrong" can be tested.
In this case, ask any sane human being whether he/she want to be enslaved or not.
It would be confirmed within psychiatry those who want to be enslaved [chattel slavery] are likely to have a mental problem.

You seem to be stucked with "individual opinion" but missed out on collective intersubjective consensus [as in Science] and reasoning from the universality of human conditions as in moral fact.

This is unmitigated nonsense.

The shape of the earth is a fact - a state-of-affairs - which is completely, utterly and entirely independent from opinion. It is what it is whatever anyone thinks or says about it - whatever can be thought or said about it.

What we say about things is, of course, conventional and contextual. And things can be described in a limitless number of ways for different purposes. So what we call categories and properties are always - and can only be - within a descriptive context. But the existence of a thing, and of what we call its properties, are completely, utterly and entirely independent from opinion - so they are objective.

If you think the moral wrongness of slavery is a real thing that exists independent from opinion, that's what you have to demonstrate. Saying that people think and say slavery is morally wrong - there's a collective consensus that it's morally wrong - is useless in this discussion, so there's no point repeating it.

Apart from in la-la-land, saying something is so doesn't make it so. It follows that everyone's saying it's so doesn't make it so either. Everyone's saying the earth is an oblate spheroid doesn't make it an oblate spheroid. And everyone's saying slavery is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong. But we can demonstrate the earth is what we call an oblate spheroid. Now - how can you demonstrate that slavery is what we call morally wrong?