Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's just trollish/assholish.

It's trollish/assholish to point out that you are holding people to an impossible standards/definitions?

Funny. From where I am looking you are the troll/asshole.

I was simply critiquing a definition that Veritas Aequitas promoted. The definition is problematic for a number of different reasons. It's worth trying to get someone to either realize those issues or to at least be able to provide a defense of them in light of objections. Should we not critique claims made, things promoted, etc. in a philosophy context?

Nah! yours was a strawman, note I qualified in this post;
viewtopic.php?p=496316#p496316

• The above Wiki is very general but still acceptable.
  However the above need to be reinforced with the following;
  
  What is Philosophical Objectivity?
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
  7 Dimensions of Objectivity – Mathew Kramer
  viewtopic.php?p=471122#p471122
  Do you have any dispute with the above?

You ignored my more relevant argument but keep banging on the Wiki points which as common understood, whatever is taken from Wiki has to accepted with reservations.

[Skepdick]

Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view? (Shoulds or oughts)

From my anthropological point of view your question is incoherent. So my anthropological answer is yes, no and maybe. There are different kinds of normatives and different ways to measure them. The system dynamics are too complex to fit into neat boxes. For starters, you talk about shoulds and oughts, but left out coulds.

Should norms be changed vs could norms be changed?

In the broadest context, it is the norm that species become extinct and life is a rare, short and stressful event. Should this norm be changed? Could this norm be changed?
In the social context we ought not murder not carry the implication that you ought not murder. Should this norm be changed? Could this norm changed?

You ought not murder (for various legal and psychological reasons), but you get to choose whether to murder or not.
And even if you choose to murder you might not have the psychological composition to follow through with your decisions.
You might be able to murder when in a group (gang), but can't do it on your own because group psychology.

Even if you ought to murder, could you murder?

There's a bunch of mechanisms in the system called "society"; and in the systems called "brains"; and various side-effects in the system of systems called "reality" to interfere with your "cold hard logic".

Irrespective of the social norms some people will adhere, and some will not. Overall, though murder has been illegal in just about all societies pre-dating even Hammurhabi (people took the time to codify it) and the nett effect is that murder has been steadily declining throughout human history which is an ever so unlikely an outcome if murder is the norm.

In a very high-level sense morality/society is the business of collective survival and if murder is not in scope, then I don't know what it is. Social norms emerge to preserve trust and encourage cooperation.

In a society of one "morality" is incoherent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view? (Shoulds or oughts)

From my anthropological point of view your question is incoherent. So my anthropological answer is yes, no and maybe. There are different kinds of normatives and different ways to measure them. The system dynamics are too complex to fit into neat boxes. For starters, you talk about shoulds and oughts, but left out coulds.

Should norms be changed vs could norms be changed?

The above are modal verbs.
From my research and inferences, morality-proper effectively deal with 'must', 'have to' and as an imperative.
But then these moral facts are only to be used as moral standards to guide moral progress within individual. They must not be imposed as laws or rules upon individuals by external parties.

Justified true Moral facts are as near to the very evident justified true biological fact that humans must breathe else they die.

[Skepdick]

From my research and inferences, morality-proper effectively deal with 'must', 'have to' and as an imperative.

OK. Must.

Must I obey a must?

Context-free imperatives are subject to (mis)interpretation. This is a problem with natural languages. They are context-free.

This is the problem Wittgenstein drew attention to with his rule-following paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule.

But then these moral facts are only to be used as moral standards to guide moral progress within individual. They must not be imposed as laws or rules upon individuals by external parties.

So how do you ensure the "must" is reified?

If the "must" is not reified, then it was a "should", not a "must".

Justified true Moral facts are as near to the very evident justified true biological fact that humans must breathe else they die.

I highly recommend that you DO NOT obey your "must" if you find yourself under water. If you try to breathe under water you'll fucking drown.

[Terrapin Station]

You ignored my more relevant argument but keep banging on the Wiki points which as common understood, whatever is taken from Wiki has to accepted with reservations.

If someone (1) doesn't directly answer (in my opinion, of course) a point or question I bring up, and (2) they type far more than I did in a response directed at me while bringing up a whole host of other issues, and (3) they're someone who continually does this/continually argues with me, then yes, I'll definitely ignore a lot of what they type--and I mean literally ignore it, where I won't even read it. There's no way I'm going to be drawn into going back and forth with thousands or even hundreds of words at a time where a bunch of different issues are being introduced and nothing is being settled. I have zero interest in that.

[Terrapin Station]

Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view? (Shoulds or oughts)

From my anthropological point of view your question is incoherent. So my anthropological answer is yes, no and maybe. There are different kinds of normatives and different ways to measure them. The system dynamics are too complex to fit into neat boxes. For starters, you talk about shoulds and oughts, but left out coulds.

Should norms be changed vs could norms be changed?

In the broadest context, it is the norm that species become extinct and life is a rare, short and stressful event. Should this norm be changed? Could this norm be changed?
In the social context we ought not murder not carry the implication that you ought not murder. Should this norm be changed? Could this norm changed?

You ought not murder (for various legal and psychological reasons), but you get to choose whether to murder or not.
And even if you choose to murder you might not have the psychological composition to follow through with your decisions.
You might be able to murder when in a group (gang), but can't do it on your own because group psychology.

Even if you ought to murder, could you murder?

There's a bunch of mechanisms in the system called "society"; and in the systems called "brains"; and various side-effects in the system of systems called "reality" to interfere with your "cold hard logic".

Irrespective of the social norms some people will adhere, and some will not. Overall, though murder has been illegal in just about all societies pre-dating even Hammurhabi (people took the time to codify it) and the nett effect is that murder has been steadily declining throughout human history which is an ever so unlikely an outcome if murder is the norm.

In a very high-level sense morality/society is the business of collective survival and if murder is not in scope, then I don't know what it is. Social norms emerge to preserve trust and encourage cooperation.

In a society of one "morality" is incoherent.

Let me clarify why I asked you "Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view?"

On most accounts of morality, morality has to do with assessments and recommendations of conduct. Regarding recommendations, we're talking about whether a behavior is morally permissible, morally prohibited, morally obligatory, and so on. Re assessments, it's saying that a behavior is good, bad, benevolent, evil, altruistic, selfish, etc. with an implication that behavior that is good is permissible if not obligatory, behavior that is bad is to be avoided, and so on. So the assessments have implied recommendations.

Would you not say that morality has something to do with this?

If you wouldn't say that morality has something to do with this, then how would you characterize morality, and what would you say are (at least some of) the features that make an utterance a moral utterance rather than some other kind of utterance?

[Skepdick]

Let me clarify why I asked you "Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view?"

On most accounts of morality, morality has to do with assessments and recommendations of conduct. Regarding recommendations, we're talking about whether a behavior is morally permissible, morally prohibited, morally obligatory, and so on. Re assessments, it's saying that a behavior is good, bad, benevolent, evil, altruistic, selfish, etc. with an implication that behavior that is good is permissible if not obligatory, behavior that is bad is to be avoided, and so on. So the assessments have implied recommendations.

Would you not say that morality has something to do with this?

If you wouldn't say that morality has something to do with this, then how would you characterize morality, and what would you say are (at least some of) the features that make an utterance a moral utterance rather than some other kind of utterance?

Your entire framing suffers from problems of determination.

Who decides what's permissible and what isn't? Who decides what's obligatory and what isn't?

Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing. Morality is about constructing a hospitable environment - a socio-economic system to ensure our on-going welfare. Avoid going the way of the dinosaurs.

The scale of the problem requires cooperation, division of labour, specialisation etc. Cooperative work requires trust. Trust requires predictable behaviour/lack of nasty surprises. To this end we have rules/norms - they help us coexist.

What's the value in asking "Is X moral or immoral? Am I obliged to do X". What's the value in asking any such questions when you know you have free will.

The paradox of morality is the question OUGHT I be moral? No, you don't have to - you have free will.

But if you like the perks of civilisation. Consider not being a dick.

[Terrapin Station]

Let me clarify why I asked you "Doesn't morality have anything to do with normatives in your view?"

On most accounts of morality, morality has to do with assessments and recommendations of conduct. Regarding recommendations, we're talking about whether a behavior is morally permissible, morally prohibited, morally obligatory, and so on. Re assessments, it's saying that a behavior is good, bad, benevolent, evil, altruistic, selfish, etc. with an implication that behavior that is good is permissible if not obligatory, behavior that is bad is to be avoided, and so on. So the assessments have implied recommendations.

Would you not say that morality has something to do with this?

If you wouldn't say that morality has something to do with this, then how would you characterize morality, and what would you say are (at least some of) the features that make an utterance a moral utterance rather than some other kind of utterance?

Your entire framing suffers from problems of determination.

Who decides what's permissible and what isn't? Who decides what's obligatory and what isn't?

Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing. Morality is about constructing a hospitable environment - a socio-economic system to ensure our on-going welfare. Avoid going the way of the dinosaurs.

The scale of the problem requires cooperation, division of labour, specialisation etc. Cooperative work requires trust. Trust requires predictable behaviour/lack of nasty surprises. To this end we have rules/norms.

What's the value in asking "Is X moral or immoral? Am I obliged to do X". What's the value in asking any such questions when you know you have free will.

The paradox of morality is the question OUGHT I be moral? No, you don't have to - you have free will.

Isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival, improved human well-being and constructing a hospitable environment? And aren't there "embedded" "should/oughts" in what counts as human well-being?

[Skepdick]

Isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival, improved human well-being and constructing a hospitable environment? And aren't there "embedded" "should/oughts" in what counts as human well-being?

How would you determine that?

Individual make choices.

The sum of individual choices adds up to human life expectancy having doubled in 200 years.

Was that a should/ought, or was it just good decision making?

[Terrapin Station]

Isn't there an "embedded" "should/ought" in ensuring human survival, improved human well-being and constructing a hospitable environment? And aren't there "embedded" "should/oughts" in what counts as human well-being?

How would you determine that?

Individual make choices.

The sum of individual choices adds up to human life expectancy having doubled in 200 years.

Was that a should/ought, or was it just good decision making?

Well, if you're saying that morality is ensuring human survival, etc. Why would we say that's what morality is versus not ensuring human survival?

[Skepdick]

Well, if you're saying that morality is ensuring human survival, etc. Why would we say that's what morality is versus not ensuring human survival?

Because we don't have to SAY it.

You know where the exit is. Go for it - lead by example.

The option to die NOW has always existed.
The option to die at 85 didn't always exist.

We sure went out of our way to make it happen.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, if you're saying that morality is ensuring human survival, etc. Why would we say that's what morality is versus not ensuring human survival?

Because we don't have to SAY it.

You know where the exit is. Go for it.

The option to die NOW has always existed.
The option to die at 85 didn't always exist.

We sure went out of our way to make it happen.

No idea what you're saying here.

You had said, "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing."

If there's no normative implied in the above, then why is that what morality is rather than morality being a collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing?

[Skepdick]

No idea what you're saying here.

You had said, "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing."

If there's no normative implied in the above, then why is that what morality is rather than morality being a collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing?

Because this graph is going the wrong way to support your hypothesis.

Life Expectancy - Our World in Data 2021-02-16 18-13-07.png

[Terrapin Station]

No idea what you're saying here.

You had said, "Morality is the collective effort of ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing."

If there's no normative implied in the above, then why is that what morality is rather than morality being a collective effort of NOT ensuring the continued human survival and improved human wellbeing?

Because this graph is going the wrong way to support your hypothesis.


Life Expectancy - Our World in Data 2021-02-16 18-13-07.png

What would you say that graph has to do with morality? I'd say nothing. But you're obviously thinking that morality is something very different than what I'd say it is.

[Terrapin Station]

The graph does have something to do with mortality, but that has an extra "t."