What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

Morality is never going to be objective. You can't measure it, quantify it or anything else. It's a vain endeavor to try to objectify morality.

If something has no characteristics or attributes at all, it is nothing. If what you say about morality is true, there is no such thing as morality.

Is that your point?

If not. What is morality?

In different words, this is the same question I asked Peter Holmes (which he never answered):

The real question of morality is not, "how does what is determine an ought," (ala Hume), because every ought is determined by what is. It is reality that determines what one must do to achieve any objective, that is, "if you want to achieve this objective you not only, ought to do such'n'such, but absolutely must, or fail." The question of morality is, what is the objective?

In other words, what is it morality pertains to? If there were no morality or if no one every observed any so-called morality, what difference would it make?

Everyone is certain some kind of morality is necessary, but no one ever explains or even questions, "what for?"

This isn't hard.

What is morality? Well, what we call morality is a discourse about the difference between what we call good and bad, or right and wrong behaviour. Any dictionary will explain this.

That's exactly what dictionary does not explain. The difference between good and bad what? Fish, term papers, storms, philosophy? Right and wrong behavior of what kind, dance, sports. close-order drill? Is a, "bad," chess move immoral? Is a, "wrong," answer to a quiz question immoral?

So, what is morality for? Well, as social animals, we've developed (and are still developing) rules for what we call good and bad or right and wrong behaviour - because we need such rules for social groups to survive and progress. And we want social groups to survive and progress, because, as individuals, our survival and progression depends on the group. It's collective self-interest.

I want to be sure I understand what you are saying here. I don't want to accuse you of a view that may not really be yours, but it looks like you are saying the objective or purpose of morality a some kind of social/political thing. That the ultimate objective of morality, if it has one, is some society, the progress and/or survival of some social groups, or in your words, "It's collective self-interest."

What I'm not sure of here is whether that is what you think morality is supposed to be, or if its what you think is generally meant by morality.

[Peter Holmes]

If something has no characteristics or attributes at all, it is nothing. If what you say about morality is true, there is no such thing as morality.

Is that your point?

If not. What is morality?

In different words, this is the same question I asked Peter Holmes (which he never answered):



In other words, what is it morality pertains to? If there were no morality or if no one every observed any so-called morality, what difference would it make?

Everyone is certain some kind of morality is necessary, but no one ever explains or even questions, "what for?"

This isn't hard.

What is morality? Well, what we call morality is a discourse about the difference between what we call good and bad, or right and wrong behaviour. Any dictionary will explain this.

That's exactly what dictionary does not explain. The difference between good and bad what? Fish, term papers, storms, philosophy? Right and wrong behavior of what kind, dance, sports. close-order drill? Is a, "bad," chess move immoral? Is a, "wrong," answer to a quiz question immoral?

We use the words 'good/bad' and 'right/wrong' in moral and non-moral ways. So is your point that you don't understand the moral use of these words? If someone says 'rape is (morally) wrong', are you saying you don't know what that expression means? (Genuine questions - not trying to make a point.)

If your point is that nothing is intrinsically or inherently or factually morally right or wrong, independent from anyone's opinion, then I agree. That's been my point all along.

So, what is morality for? Well, as social animals, we've developed (and are still developing) rules for what we call good and bad or right and wrong behaviour - because we need such rules for social groups to survive and progress. And we want social groups to survive and progress, because, as individuals, our survival and progression depends on the group. It's collective self-interest.

I want to be sure I understand what you are saying here. I don't want to accuse you of a view that may not really be yours, but it looks like you are saying the objective or purpose of morality a some kind of social/political thing. That the ultimate objective of morality, if it has one, is some society, the progress and/or survival of some social groups, or in your words, "It's collective self-interest."

Certainly my view of what we call morality - the rightness and wrongness of behaviour - is materialist; the origin of morality is in our social development as a species. And that's why I think the 'philosophical' question - 'what is moral rightness and wrongness?' - is a misfire. It mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. But if what you're getting at is that what kind of human society is the best - and what criteria we use to make that judgement - these are matters of opinion - then I completely agree. Morality is subjective.

What I'm not sure of here is whether that is what you think morality is supposed to be, or if its what you think is generally meant by morality.

Let me ask again: what is it about the way we use the expressions 'morality' and 'moral rightness/wrongness' or 'goodness/badness' that you don't understand or object to? Like you, I'd like to know exactly what you're getting at.

[RCSaunders]

This isn't hard.

What is morality? Well, what we call morality is a discourse about the difference between what we call good and bad, or right and wrong behaviour. Any dictionary will explain this.

That's exactly what dictionary does not explain. The difference between good and bad what? Fish, term papers, storms, philosophy? Right and wrong behavior of what kind, dance, sports. close-order drill? Is a, "bad," chess move immoral? Is a, "wrong," answer to a quiz question immoral?

We use the words 'good/bad' and 'right/wrong' in moral and non-moral ways. So is your point that you don't understand the moral use of these words? If someone says 'rape is (morally) wrong', are you saying you don't know what that expression means? (Genuine questions - not trying to make a point.)

I mean those who say, "rape is morally wrong," can't and don't say what is wrong with it. I know why it would be wrong for me to rape someone, or be raped, but it has nothing to do with anyone's view of morality.

If your point is that nothing is intrinsically or inherently or factually morally right or wrong, independent from anyone's opinion, then I agree. That's been my point all along.

I'm not actually making point. I do agree that nothing is intrinsically or inherently right or wrong, moral or otherwise, but I do not agree that nothing is factually right or wrong. Once an objective is chosen, reality determines which behavior will achieve or fail to achieve that objective, that is, which behavior is right or wrong relative to the objective. That's my whole question. I there is moral right and wrong, what should and shouldn't done, the objective of morality must first be specified, and reality will determine which behavior will and will not succeed in achieving the objecitve. That's why I keep asking what morality is for.

So, what is morality for? Well, as social animals, we've developed (and are still developing) rules for what we call good and bad or right and wrong behaviour - because we need such rules for social groups to survive and progress. And we want social groups to survive and progress, because, as individuals, our survival and progression depends on the group. It's collective self-interest.

I want to be sure I understand what you are saying here. I don't want to accuse you of a view that may not really be yours, but it looks like you are saying the objective or purpose of morality a some kind of social/political thing. That the ultimate objective of morality, if it has one, is some society, the progress and/or survival of some social groups, or in your words, "It's collective self-interest."

Certainly my view of what we call morality - the rightness and wrongness of behaviour - is materialist; the origin of morality is in our social development as a species. And that's why I think the 'philosophical' question - 'what is moral rightness and wrongness?' - is a misfire. It mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. But if what you're getting at is that what kind of human society is the best - and what criteria we use to make that judgement - these are matters of opinion - then I completely agree. Morality is subjective.

What I'm not sure of here is whether that is what you think morality is supposed to be, or if its what you think is generally meant by morality.

Let me ask again: what is it about the way we use the expressions 'morality' and 'moral rightness/wrongness' or 'goodness/badness' that you don't understand or object to? Like you, I'd like to know exactly what you're getting at.

I don't want to belabor the point, but I do not see that any so-called morality has any specific objective or purpose beyond some vague idea of what would be nice or how some think they would like things to be. For that, there can be no objective or rational values of any kind, moral or otherwise. As far as I can see, "morality," is, or at least has become a useless concept.

Nevertheless, I do believe human beings, like all other things, have a specific nature like any other organisms that determine which behavior will be successful for any chosen objective. Nothing dictates what any individual ought to choose as their objectives, but for those who do choose to live their lives as well as possible to fully enjoy them and achieve all they can as a human beings, reality and one's own nature determines which behavior will succeed in achieving the objective and which won't.

[Advocate]

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=568608 time=1650291036 user_id=16196]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=568592 time=1650287731 user_id=15099]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=568581 time=1650284355 user_id=16196]

That's exactly what dictionary does not explain. The difference between good and bad what? Fish, term papers, storms, philosophy? Right and wrong behavior of what kind, dance, sports. close-order drill? Is a, "bad," chess move immoral? Is a, "wrong," answer to a quiz question immoral?[/quote]
We use the words 'good/bad' and 'right/wrong' in moral and non-moral ways. So is your point that you don't understand the moral use of these words? If someone says 'rape is (morally) wrong', are you saying you don't know what that expression means? (Genuine questions - not trying to make a point.)[/quote]
I mean those who say, "rape is morally wrong," can't and don't say what is wrong with it. I know why it would be wrong for me to rape someone, or be raped, but it has nothing to do with anyone's view of morality.
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=568592 time=1650287731 user_id=15099]
If your point is that nothing is intrinsically or inherently or factually morally right or wrong, independent from anyone's opinion, then I agree. That's been my point all along.[quote]
I'm not actually making point. I do agree that nothing is intrinsically or inherently right or wrong, moral or otherwise, but I do not agree that nothing is factually right or wrong. Once an objective is chosen, reality determines which behavior will achieve or fail to achieve that objective, that is, which behavior is right or wrong relative to the objective. That's my whole question. I there is moral right and wrong, what should and shouldn't done, the objective of morality must first be specified, and reality will determine which behavior will and will not succeed in achieving the objecitve. That's why I keep asking what morality is for.


I want to be sure I understand what you are saying here. I don't want to accuse you of a view that may not really be yours, but it looks like you are saying the objective or purpose of morality a some kind of social/political thing. That the ultimate objective of morality, if it has one, is some society, the progress and/or survival of some social groups, or in your words, "It's collective self-interest."[/quote]
Certainly my view of what we call morality - the rightness and wrongness of behaviour - is materialist; the origin of morality is in our social development as a species. And that's why I think the 'philosophical' question - 'what [i]is[/i] moral rightness and wrongness?' - is a misfire. It mistakes what we say about things for the way things are. But if what you're getting at is that what kind of human society is the best - and what criteria we use to make that judgement - these are matters of opinion - then I completely agree. Morality is subjective.[/quote]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=568592 time=1650287731 user_id=15099]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=568581 time=1650284355 user_id=16196]
What I'm not sure of here is whether that is what you think morality is supposed to be, or if its what you think is generally meant by morality.
[/quote]
Let me ask again: what is it about the way we use the expressions 'morality' and 'moral rightness/wrongness' or 'goodness/badness' that you don't understand or object to? Like you, I'd like to know exactly what you're getting at.[/quote]
I don't want to belabor the point, but I do not see that any so-called morality has any specific objective or purpose beyond some vague idea of what would be nice or how some think they would like things to be. For that, there can be no objective or rational values of any kind, moral or otherwise. As far as I can see, "morality," is, or at least has become a useless concept.

Nevertheless, I do believe human beings, like all other things, have a specific nature like any other organisms that determine which behavior will be successful for any chosen objective. Nothing dictates what any individual ought to choose as their objectives, but for those who do choose to live their lives as well as possible to fully enjoy them and achieve all they can as a human beings, reality and one's own nature determines which behavior will succeed in achieving the objective and which won't.
[/quote]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities. That sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals and Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals is necessary and sufficient to build a civilization on.

[RCSaunders]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.

[Peter Holmes]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.

To put it another way: it may be true that we share priorities. But that doesn't mean those priorities are 'true'. That's a category error, because priorities, such as moral priorities, have no truth-value. We just do or don't have or adopt them. The expression 'moral truth' is as incoherent as the expression 'moral fact'. There are only moral judgements, beliefs or opinions. (Will the penny drop? Pigs may fly.)

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=568945 time=1650542865 user_id=15099]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=568695 time=1650327254 user_id=16196]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568651 time=1650297826 user_id=15238]
Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.[/quote]
Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.
[/quote]
To put it another way: it may be true that we share priorities. But that doesn't mean those priorities are 'true'. That's a category error, because priorities, such as moral priorities, have no truth-value. We just do or don't have or adopt them. The expression 'moral truth' is as incoherent as the expression 'moral fact'. There are only moral judgements, beliefs or opinions. (Will the penny drop? Pigs may fly.)
[/quote]

Truth is a prerequisite for attaining all non-arbitrary goals and sustainability is a prerequisite for attaining all non-temporary goals. Those are moral truths, whether you accept them or not. IF our goals, however different, are non-arbitrary and non-temporary, THEN we have a moral foundation.

[RCSaunders]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.

To put it another way: it may be true that we share priorities. But that doesn't mean those priorities are 'true'. That's a category error, because priorities, such as moral priorities, have no truth-value. We just do or don't have or adopt them. The expression 'moral truth' is as incoherent as the expression 'moral fact'. There are only moral judgements, beliefs or opinions. (Will the penny drop? Pigs may fly.)

They'll never give up their vaunted, "moral," mandates. They use them to justify any oppression or control of others, claiming their so-called, "moral," superiority over all the, "immoral," who don't swallow their ideals. It's like asking a politician to give up his belief in democracy or a soldier to give uo his belief that killing others for his country's government is a moral patriotic duty.

[Peter Holmes]

Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals

This is just false. A goal has no truth-value. We just either do or don't have it.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=568954 time=1650548091 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568950 time=1650545142 user_id=15238]
Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals
[/quote]
This is just false. A goal has no truth-value. We just either do or don't have it.
[/quote]

Truth is a prerequisite for the attainment of such goals, not for having them.

[Peter Holmes]

Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals

This is just false. A goal has no truth-value. We just either do or don't have it.

Truth is a prerequisite for the attainment of such goals, not for having them.

Truth is not a prerequisite for the attainment of a goal. All that's needed is actions consistent with the attainment of the goal. And actions have no truth-value. In this context, the only things that have truth-value are factual assertions about features of reality that may or may not be the case.

Back to the drawing board.

[SpheresOfBalance]

All the following terms have never been universal, they have always been based upon the human animals fear of death, thus their want to survive, amid all obstacles to the contrary. They're diametrical in nature.

Good and Evil (Good and Bad),
Right and Wrong,
Just and Unjust,
Healthy and Unhealthy,
Moral and Immoral,
etc...

Remember that as soon as one projects their particular 'morality, good, right, just, healthy, etc' upon others it's purely subjective (selfishness) which is in fact at the root of all 'evil, bad, wrong, unjust, unhealthy, immoral, etc. No, it's not money, but it is common for humans to deny their responsibility by blaming something they created in some selfish way.

We are totally free when all our life choices only ever affect ourselves and no others, except for those that knowingly agree in that time, with those choices. Which is why questions and answers are required. Humans have a bad habit of assuming they 'know' what's good for others based solely upon what they 'believe' is good for themselves, thus they project their 'beliefs' upon others as if they actually 'know.'

Moral objectivity for any one particular subjective perspective, as an actor, so to project with absolute certainty, can only ever be the observance of the culmination of all subjective moral codes combined as one set of universal facts, thus not subjective in nature, rather universal, thus attaining objectivity. As in my version of the 'Golden Rule', which I've named the "Fundamental Social Axiom:" "Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

It's the only way that truly intelligent people can live and be certain that they understand what it is to be human; to actually understand the why of the true nature of the differences between us.

Of course many here that relatively know me, somewhat; know that now a song comes to mind, and in this particular case it has to be Witch Hunt, by Rush.

And so to share...

Rush - Witch Hunt

The night is black, without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torch-lit hill.

Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possessed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.

Oooohhhhhhhhhh

The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.

They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness to danger us
In our theaters and bookstore shelves,
Those who know whats best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.

Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.

Of course there are a plethora of other examples throughout history, just pick one, lest we remain ignorant and repeat the same tired old lies???

[Belinda]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.

Even a little obscure man like you can influence others to be good or bad.

[RCSaunders]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.

Even a little obscure man like you can influence others to be good or bad.

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own. To believe one's purpose in life is influencing others is hubris. It's what makes so many people meddlers in others' affairs. It is not up to you to make sure other's live their lives as you think they should, it is up to you to mind your own business and get your own life in order.

How it must gall you to know there are obscure little men in the world who see right through your collectivist nonsense.

[Belinda]

Who is, "we?" Only individual human beings are capable of making choices. There are no, "moral truths," only the wishes of collectivist to engineer societies to make them what they think they ought to be, no matter how many individuals have to be sacrificed to their utopian fantasies.

Even a little obscure man like you can influence others to be good or bad.

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own. To believe one's purpose in life is influencing others is hubris. It's what makes so many people meddlers in others' affairs. It is not up to you to make sure other's live their lives as you think they should, it is up to you to mind your own business and get your own life in order.

How it must gall you to know there are obscure little men in the world who see right through your collectivist nonsense.

Whether you like it or not you have been influenced by others and you influence others. I daresay there exists a biological species that is composed of solitaries but we men are not solitaries.

You write "Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own." That is true, and moreover that's the reason we can learn from each other . We learn by comparing our ideas and life experiences with other individuals. In the hypothetical absence of

Every individual has their own mind and their own life and is responsible for making the best they can of the one life they have both the authority and responsibility for, their own.

we would be like sticks and stones, unfitted to learn and progress.