What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Ain't nuthin' to discuss, Pete.

I answered your question, meeting all the conditions embedded in the question.

You don't have to agree with my answer, or acknowledge I'm right (as Mannie points out up-thread, it's just a possible answer), but you can't deny: I've answered your question, and I've met your conditions.

Well, 'squarkleblob' also answers my question, in the sense that it's a reply.

You haven't shown that morality is objective, and you haven't shown what could make morality objective. So no, you haven't met the (not my!) conditions for objectivity.

Your argument is as follows.

P1 If x is contrary to human nature, then x is morally wrong.
P2 X is contrary to human nature.
C Therefore x is morally wrong.

And the question you haven't addressed is this: why is it morally wrong to act contrary to human nature? Is there some fact (feature of reality) that justifies that claim? Or is it really just a moral judgement?

But we seem to have said all we can say about this - so thanks for the craic.

Henry had provided the basis, but you are not getting it.
He has presented his argument loosely which can be formally constructed in the following format;

• P1 Whatever is contrary to human nature, then it is morally wrong.
  P2 X is contrary to human nature as justified with empirical evidences and its possibilities.
  C Therefore x is morally wrong.

X in this case is 'chattel slavery' is contrary to human nature.
Henry did ask, 'show me a sane human who want to be a slave to another human being'.
If we are to review the whole of the database of human knowledge to date, there is no evidence a sane human would volunteer freely to be a slave to another human being.

One confirmation is to do a poll by asking every human being whether they will volunteer to be a chattel slave to another human.
We don't have such actual polling but intuitively and from common sense, we know the answer, i.e. no sane human will volunteer to be a chattel to another human.

While actual polling of ALL humans are not available, the secondary supporting evidence is from the status of ratification UN UDHR Declaration on Slavery by recognized nations.
The UN UHDR on slavery has been accepted [ratified] by all recognized nations on Earth after much resistance for various rogue nations.
Many nations has enacted strict laws to abolish all forms of slavery [as defined] while some are still dilly dallying on it.

Note I am not arguing for the existence of an ontological objective moral law on slavery.

What I have is an objective moral law on "slavery is wrong" based on empirical evidence and intersubjective consensus of human beings.

It hardly seems worth bothering - because several people have repeatedly pointed out your mistake and you just don't get it - but here's another go.

1 What people say they want may be, but need not be, an expression of 'human nature'. But let's say it is. Let's say no sane human wants to be a chattel slave because it's contrary to human nature. Let's call that a fact of human nature: slavery is contrary to human nature.

2 Now, your task is not to show with 'empirical evidences and its possibilities' [sic] that slavery is contrary to human nature. For the sake of this argument, that is completely granted and accepted as true: it's a fact that slavery is contrary to human nature.

3 Instead, your task is to justify this claim: 'Because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong.' Now, what reason do you have to make that claim? What evidence do you have to show that it's true? Why is it true that, because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong? What fact (feature of reality) makes that claim true, regardless of what anyone thinks?

Note, please resist the urge to protest that slavery is contrary to human nature. See point 2 above. And please resist the urge to protest that the UN is opposed to slavery; obviously slavery isn't morally wrong because the UN thinks it is.

Anticipating failure and probable incomprehension - offers accepted from any other moral objectivists here.

[Peter Holmes]

To save time, Peter, I'll answer your implied question.

The reason why moral objectivists can't establish the objectivity of morality is very simple, and should be easy to grasp. Here's the basic claim.

'[X] is morally right / wrong because...' {Insert the thing or action of choice.] Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y - the next question is: 'Why is Y morally right / wrong?' If the reply is 'Y is morally right / wrong because...', whatever follows the 'because' - call it Z - the next question is ... and so on and so on. At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement. Henry's deluded citation of 'human nature' is an example. Why is it morally wrong to go against human nature? Well...it just is. And if you disagree, you're a moral monster.

Whatever fact we deploy to justify our moral judgements, they remain judgements - beliefs or opinions. And this simple and obvious fact outrages moral realists and objectivists. How can it possibly be that 'slavery is wrong' is a moral judgement? It must, must, must be a fact - a feature of reality that exists independent from opinion. If it isn't, then there's no such thing as morality - moral rightness and wrongness are up for grabs or simply meaningless ideas. Froth...fume...rage...moral chaos...nihilsim...Hitler...Stalin...Pol Pot... {Insert the click-bait-trigger-canard of choice.]

Faced with this uncomprehending outrage, the still small voice of calm asks: Why is it true that [X] is morally right / wrong? Could it be that the assertion '[X] is morally right / wrong' is false? If not, why claim that it's true / false? What feature of reality makes it true / false, the non-existence of which would make it true / false? And so on. Unable to answer these questions coherently, the case for moral realism and objectivism collapses.

But the frothing and fuming goes on.

[henry quirk]

you haven't shown what could make morality objective

You don't have to agree with my answer, or acknowledge I'm right (as Mannie points out up-thread, it's just a possible answer), but I answered your question, meeting all the conditions embedded in the question.

[henry quirk]

Henry had provided the basis, but you are not getting it.

Pete gets it. He knows I answered his question, meeting the conditions embedded in the question.

He's ingracious and dishonest.

[Peter Holmes]

Henry had provided the basis, but you are not getting it.

Pete gets it. He knows I answered his question, meeting the conditions embedded in the question.

He's ingracious and dishonest.

The word is ungracious.

No, you didn't answer my question or meet the conditions for moral objectivity in your answer. And the fact that you don't address the flaws in your answer that I've pointed out demonstrates your dishonesty and lack of self-criticism.

But this kind of abuse is pointless. Either address the argument, or don't. No skin off anyone's nose.

[henry quirk]

The word is ungracious.

Consult a dictionary.


No, you didn't answer my question or meet the conditions for moral objectivity in your answer.

Yes, I did.

'nuff said

[Immanuel Can]

Instead, your task is to justify this claim: 'Because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong.' Now, what reason do you have to make that claim? What evidence do you have to show that it's true? Why is it true that, because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong? What fact (feature of reality) makes that claim true, regardless of what anyone thinks?

You're not wrong, Peter.

There's no grounds for "morality" as referring to anything else but a total illusion, a social fiction with no objective backing at all, if your ontological suppositions are correct...namely, that there is no Ultimate Guarantor of morality. In such a case, slavery, rape, murder, theft....all are neither wrong nor right. They are simply facts of how things happen to be a different times.

However, that remains the vexed question :"Is there an Ultimate Guarantor of morality?"

What you do have to recognize, though, is that rationally, IF (for argument's sake) such an Ultimate Guarantor DID exist, then your OP would be answered by that.

God "could make morality objective." You just think He hasn't.

[RCSaunders]

The problem there, RC, is that "rational" describes only a process, not a content. "Rationality" only tells us how to think consistently and coherently once we've already got the basic facts in place...it doesn't tell us anything about what those facts may be.

One can only be "rational on the basis of X or Y." Not just purely "rational" on no basis at all.

It is only a problem for someone who does not know what reason is or what a rational being is.

Quite the opposite is true.

"Rational" is what anybody is who follows through on the logic of their own ontological beliefs. However, the ontology is up for debate. People who fail to see that imagine that everybody who disagrees with them must necessarily be "irrational." But this is their folly. For they mistake their own chosen ontological suppositions for the only ones possible. And thus, they cannot even imagine why anybody sensible would think differently than they do.

Who does that. My assumption is that every human being is a rational being, meaning they are capable of reason. I have emphasized that in almost every comment I've made. Those whose views are mistaken have just reasoned incorrectly.

Your view is entirely dependent on two things...not only whatever view of "human nature" a person takes, but on your ability to prove that it is appropriate to act on that supposed "nature," rather than to resist or modify it.

Prove to whom?

To yourself, if to no one else: because beliefs you have no rational grounds to explain to yourself are exposed to yourself thereby as irrational beliefs. But also, to prove to anybody who is skeptical that you are right.

You keep saying that, but no one has to prove to anyone else their own life is theirs to live as they choose for their own self-interest.

They can only fool themselves.

It seems to me that those who believe they can have knowledge without reason, no matter what they call it, faith, intuition, a priori, or inspiration, are fooling themselves.

They neither created themselves nor, barring suicide, choose the time and circumstances of their own end; and in the middle, most of their circumstances are not within their control. Much, in life, is a "given," a set of circumstances with which the autonomous individual must learn to interact, if he is to find any success in his personal choices.

You, for example, have not chosen your ethnicity, your gender, your parentage, the situation of your birth, your family, your early education, your physiological particulars, your potential limit level of talent in mathematics or art or music, the colour of your own eyes, your maximal height and weight, your potential for athleticism, your biological predisposition for diseases like cancer, the specific people who you will meet and not meet, and so on. All those are circumstances you just have to accept, and then figure out how to work with or work around, to get what you hope to get out of life.

What is the point of all these irrelevancies. Of course every human being is different, with different physical and psychological characteristics and abilities. They have nothing to do with what is morally right or wrong, they only prove that no list of "do's" and "don'ts" will ever be right for everyone, because everyone is different.

Moral values cannot be proscriptions and prescriptions. Moral values must be principles pertain to what is common or universal to all human beings, their volitional rational nature, not to some irrelevancies like differences in ethnicity, or sex (gender only pertains to language), or physiological and psychological differences.

All those differences you describe are exactly what you called some of the, "potentials." None of them dictate what any individual's life must or can be. Within the limits of physical possibility, and one's own physical and psychological abilities there is no limit to what one can make of their life.

What no human being can do is fail to learn what reality and their own nature require for them to do to survive and flourish or fail to meet those requirements and survive.

So if human nature is intrinsically selfish, that doesn't show we do well to be selfish; what it begs is the question, is selfishness a desirable or undesirable feature of human nature, and should we resist it or amplify it?

Human life is not behaviorally intrinsic anything. [/quote]
Well, Rand thought it was inherently at least supposed to be rational, and rational meant "self-interested." So human beings, according to Rand, if they are being what human beings are supposed to be, are motivated by "rational selfishness." So she disagreed with you about that. She thought human nature, rightly interpreted, had at least that one intrinsic property.

It seems you're not such a Randian after all, then.[/quote]
Well I'm not a "Randian," and I'm not an Objectivist, and have never claimed to be. I've written extensively criticizing Rand's philosophy. But I have studied her philosophy and her, as a person, because both are very interesting, especially because so many people hate her with such vehemence, which is bewildering, since, as far as I know, she was never a threat to anyone, except those who did not wish to have their own irrationalities (mystics of all varieties, collectivists, anti-intellecutuals, and most philosophers) closely examined. I think she is most despised by those who hate anyone who actually achieves something by their own independent effort. It is very difficult for them to claim she only achieved what she achieved by what she learned from others and to simultaneously claim she was in defiance of what all those others taught.

Even if Rand, or anyone else, did believe what you say, why would you bring that up to me. You know I do not accept any so-called authority on any issue. (Do you just conveniently forget what others have said?)

Now I suggest you not bring Rand up again unless you wish to continue exposing your ignorance of what she actually taught and believed. The only, "intrinsic," attribute Rand believed human beings have is their, "living, rational, volitional nature." Everything else has to be developed, because nothing is given, except the necessity and ability to learn, think, and chose what one does and is.

Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him—by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind . . . .

That which [man’s] survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. [The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics.”]

Man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity. The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter. Living organisms possess the power of self-initiated motion, which inanimate matter does not possess; man’s consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking), which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess. But just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has the power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them. He has the power to use his cognitive faculty as its nature requires, but not the power to alter it nor to escape the consequences of its misuse. He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow. (The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man’s choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul.) [Philosophy: Who Needs It, “The Metaphysical and the Man-Made.”]

Another interesting point to be noted here: man is given his entity as clay to be shaped, he is given his body, his tool (the mind) and the mechanism of consciousness (emotions, subconscious, memory) through which his mind will work. But the rest depends on him. His spirit, that is, his own essential character, must be created by him. (In this sense, it is almost as if he were born as an abstraction, with the essence and rules of that abstraction (man) to serve as his guide and standard--—but he must make himself concrete by his own effort, he must create himself.) [The Journals of Ayn Rand 13 - "Notes While Writing: 1947-1952"]

[Immanuel Can]

It is only a problem for someone who does not know what reason is or what a rational being is.

Quite the opposite is true.

"Rational" is what anybody is who follows through on the logic of their own ontological beliefs. However, the ontology is up for debate. People who fail to see that imagine that everybody who disagrees with them must necessarily be "irrational." But this is their folly. For they mistake their own chosen ontological suppositions for the only ones possible. And thus, they cannot even imagine why anybody sensible would think differently than they do.

Who does that.

Almost everyone, at least at first.

They always tend to assume that others are participating in the same fundamental kinds of observations and experiences that they are. That's why they find the behaviour of others inexplicable on rational grounds. And they say, "How could you think that?"

A little bit like you're doing right now, RC.

My assumption is that every human being is a rational being, meaning they are capable of reason.

Yep, just like that.

The assumption, then, has to be that there's only one path "reason" can ever follow. People who don't follow one's own path are simply presumed not to be reasoning.

But of course, that's not so. They're reasoning, alright; but they're reasoning from different premises than you are.

It seems to me that those who believe they can have knowledge without reason...

Nobody believes that. They all believe that they ARE reasoning. They're just reasoning from different premises, again.

They neither created themselves nor, barring suicide, choose the time and circumstances of their own end; and in the middle, most of their circumstances are not within their control. Much, in life, is a "given," a set of circumstances with which the autonomous individual must learn to interact, if he is to find any success in his personal choices.

You, for example, have not chosen your ethnicity, your gender, your parentage, the situation of your birth, your family, your early education, your physiological particulars, your potential limit level of talent in mathematics or art or music, the colour of your own eyes, your maximal height and weight, your potential for athleticism, your biological predisposition for diseases like cancer, the specific people who you will meet and not meet, and so on. All those are circumstances you just have to accept, and then figure out how to work with or work around, to get what you hope to get out of life.

What is the point of all these irrelevancies.

That you are not master of yourself as much as you might wish to believe. There is an awful lot of important stuff over which you have no say whatsoever, at least as a starting point.

Moral values must be principles pertain to what is common or universal to all human beings...

Again, the problem of premises arises.

Let's consider the 9-11 terrorists. All were well-educated men, fully in possession of their faculties. Obviously, it defies probability to suppose that they were all simply insane. They were quite capable of devising intricate plans, starting with acquiring the ability to fly airplanes, and continuing through all the subterfuges necessary to get them where they needed to go in order to do what they needed to do. Their powers of reason were fully online, one might say.

But their premises were wretched. And because reason is merely a method, they reasoned from their premises to the conclusion that to immolate themselves with the innocent was going to result in exactly what they wanted. And they got it. Very reasonable. But I think we'd agree, both factually and morally wrong.

Reason didn't save anyone on November 11th. In fact, reasoning individuals killed them.

Well I'm not a "Randian," and I'm not an Objectivist, and have never claimed to be. I've written extensively criticizing Rand's philosophy.

That's true. But it fails to explain why you object to me taking issue with her.

She is as much a candidate for criticism as anyone, as you yourself have observed.

Sauce for the goose, RC.

[Skepdick]

The reason why moral objectivists can't establish the objectivity of morality is very simple, and should be easy to grasp. Here's the basic claim.

'[X] is morally right / wrong because...' {Insert the thing or action of choice.] Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y - the next question is: 'Why is Y morally right / wrong?' If the reply is 'Y is morally right / wrong because...', whatever follows the 'because' - call it Z - the next question is ... and so on and so on. At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement.

You can play the exact same (losing) game with any claim which you purport to have a truth-value.

Why is the sky blue? The sky is blue because... Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y. Why is Y true? Y is true because Q. Why is Q true? the next question is ... and so on and so on.
Why is Earth oblate? The Earth is oblate because... Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Z. Why is Z true? Z is true because X. Why is X true? the next question is ... and so on and so on.

Because.... At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement.. If that were not the case you are perpetually asking "Why is _ true?"

So, if subjective judgment is a sufficient condition for factual objectivism, then it's also sufficient for moral objectivism. Your only counter-argument against moral objectivism is an epistemic double standard.

You don't want morality to be objective. But it is.

[RCSaunders]

Instead, your task is to justify this claim: 'Because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong.' Now, what reason do you have to make that claim? What evidence do you have to show that it's true? Why is it true that, because slavery is contrary to human nature, slavery is morally wrong? What fact (feature of reality) makes that claim true, regardless of what anyone thinks?

You're not wrong, Peter.

There's no grounds for "morality" as referring to anything else but a total illusion, a social fiction with no objective backing at all, if your ontological suppositions are correct...namely, that there is no Ultimate Guarantor of morality. In such a case, slavery, rape, murder, theft....all are neither wrong nor right. They are simply facts of how things happen to be a different times.

However, that remains the vexed question :"Is there an Ultimate Guarantor of morality?"

What you do have to recognize, though, is that rationally, IF (for argument's sake) such an Ultimate Guarantor DID exist, then your OP would be answered by that.

God "could make morality objective." You just think He hasn't.

There is a fundamental logical flaw in the idea that no one can figure out what is right or wrong unless someone else tells them what is right and wrong. If one cannot know what is right and wrong, they cannot know if the one telling them what is right and wrong is telling the truth or not.

Nothing can, "make," morality objective. If morality is determined by the dictates of an authority it is not objective, it is arbitrary. If moral principles were objective, God would have to abide by those objective moral principles. If good and bad are whatever God says, morality is reduced to the arbitrary fiat declarations of a tyrant, and there is nothing preventing that dictator from changing all the laws in the next moment, [just as your Bible says He has done.]

[Peter Holmes]

The word is ungracious.

Consult a dictionary.


No, you didn't answer my question or meet the conditions for moral objectivity in your answer.

Yes, I did.

'nuff said

No, you didn't. Ner ner na ner ner.

[henry quirk]

The reason why moral objectivists can't establish the objectivity of morality is very simple, and should be easy to grasp. Here's the basic claim.

'[X] is morally right / wrong because...' {Insert the thing or action of choice.] Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y - the next question is: 'Why is Y morally right / wrong?' If the reply is 'Y is morally right / wrong because...', whatever follows the 'because' - call it Z - the next question is ... and so on and so on. At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement.

You can play the exact same (losing) game with any claim which you purport to have a truth-value.

Why is the sky blue? The sky is blue because... Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Y. Why is Y true? Y is true because Q. Why is Q true? the next question is ... and so on and so on.
Why is Earth oblate? The Earth is oblate because... Whatever follows the word 'because' - call it Z. Why is Z true? Z is true because X. Why is X true? the next question is ... and so on and so on.

Because.... At the bottom, there's always a moral judgement.. If that were not the case you are perpetually asking "Why is _ true?"

So, if subjective judgment is a sufficient condition for factual objectivism, then it's also sufficient for moral objectivism. Your only counter-argument against moral objectivism is an epistemic double standard.

You don't want morality to be objective. But it is.

[henry quirk]

A man, a person, is real; his owness, part & parcel of his personhood, is real.

To lay claim to him, as property, is wrong because he is, intrinsically, irrevocably, his own.

[RCSaunders]

A little bit like you're doing right now, RC.

My assumption is that every human being is a rational being, meaning they are capable of reason.

Yep, just like that.

The assumption, then, has to be that there's only one path "reason" can ever follow. People who don't follow one's own path are simply presumed not to be reasoning.

That may be your assumption, it is certainly not mine. It is obvious to me you can reason, it is equally obvious to me that you use that ability not to discover the truth but to rationalize your beliefs.

But of course, that's not so. They're reasoning, alright; but they're reasoning from different premises than you are.

It seems to me that those who believe they can have knowledge without reason...

Nobody believes that. They all believe that they ARE reasoning. They're just reasoning from different premises, again.

Of course those who choose not to reason correctly, who blindly accept premises that have no rational foundation don't believe they are not reasoning correctly. You believe there is knowledge without reason. You call it, "faith," and, "enlightenment," and you evade the fact, which is why you partially quoted by comment, "It seems to me that those who believe they can have knowledge without reason, no matter what they call it, faith, intuition, a priori, or inspiration, are fooling themselves." And so you are.

Moral values must be principles pertain to what is common or universal to all human beings...

Again, the problem of premises arises.

Let's consider the 9-11 terrorists. ...

Well that is an interesting way to evade the issue. We're talking about human nature and whatever makes an individual a human being, and you bring up the 9-11 terroroists. Does that mean you think they weren't human? If they were human, than they had a human nature, which means whatever they did they chose to do. The whole point of volition is that nothing determines what ones does but their own choice, and it is the fact that human must choose their behavior that makes moral values necessary. Those who have the wrong moral values do things like the terrorists did.

As you said, "their premises were wretched," because they were not based on correct reason, but, like yours are, they were based on, "faith."

Reason didn't save anyone on November 11th. In fact, reasoning individuals killed them.

It wasn't reason, it was the incorrect reasoning of the terrorists, as you know. At least 20 individuals used their reason to make the right choices and survive, some refusing orders not to leave, even encouraging others to leave, who had faith in their leaders, stayed, and died.

Well I'm not a "Randian," and I'm not an Objectivist, and have never claimed to be. I've written extensively criticizing Rand's philosophy.

That's true. But it fails to explain why you object to me taking issue with her.

She is as much a candidate for criticism as anyone, as you yourself have observed.

The difference is, when I criticize her philosophy I first present what she says in her own words. Your criticism is of some vague idea of what you think she wrote and believed, most likely based on what others have said about her philosophy. Is that really honest?