Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Martin Peter Clarke]

To the OP. No. The rest is sophistry. Oh what a tangled web we weave, once we practice to believe.

[promethean75]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
once we practice to believe

Bereaved as we might be
If when upon our leave
Find a booger on our sleeve
Once belonging to a Steve

[MikeNovack]

"Morality is objective" is to be interpreted to mean "Morality would continue to exist even if all minds ceased to exist". That's what we're talking about here. That's the subject of this thread.

And then you introduce "laws of morality" and argue that those would be objective. The same thing? I think there's a problem.

Morality is about behavior, actions, choices, of a being with a mind. In this case, humans. Morality is how we judge behavior, actions, choices, etc. of humans. And you say could be expressed in terms of objective laws that would hold even were there no humans (and hence no morality since non-existent beings have no behaviors, actions, choices, etc, to be judged)

If your laws applied in the absence of beings (of a particular sort) you are claiming that morality does NOT depend on the sort of beings we humans are, that we are social animals, omnivores, long lived mammals, etc. You are arguing along the lines that would be one morality for sheep as well as wolves (so to speak). In other words, hypothetical "aliens" with minds capable of judging their behaviors, actions, choices, etc.) would not properly have different moral laws (because of their differences from us).

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave
once we practice to believe

Bereaved as we might be
If when upon our leave
Find a booger on our sleeve
Once belonging to a Steve

Which? Magnus', the Great's, grandiosity is impressive. Even the brackets. But not the spellng. We call 'em bogeys. I always thought that Cadbury's would make a fortune with 'Bogeys! Milk Cho-co-late Bogeys!'. Grollies too. Of the more expectorated kind. Nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste.

[Age]

I made this post in another thread, in response to something a member of this forum has said, but since it turned out to be pretty long, and far more than just a strict reply; and since the thread I posted it in is pretty noisy, I decided to give it its own topic.

So here we go.

In the ontological sense, the word "objective" means "existing independently of minds". To say that a thing exists independently of minds is to say that it would exist even if minds ceased to exist. The question of this thread, then, is "Would morality continue to exist if all minds ceased to exist?"

1. It is your personal, and subjective, view that the word, 'objective', means 'existing independently of minds', in the so-called 'ontological sense'.

2. To say a thing exists independently of minds is to think, assume, or believe that minds even exist.

3. Now, the answer to the question of this thread would all depend on how one defines the 'mind' and the 'morality' words, exactly.

The first thing that needs to be done in order to answer that question is to understand what the word "morality" means.

And the 'mind' word, as well.

But, could you human beings even understand what a word means, 'objectively'?

According to 'this one's' definition, and beliefs, to understand some thing 'objectively' would be self-contradictory, and thus self-refuting, also. As 'this one' may well go on to show and prove below, here.

The term "morality" means "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal".

If it actually meant something like "a set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong held by someone", then morality would clearly be subjective, since beliefs exist within minds, and if something exists within a mind, removing all minds from existence would also remove that thing from existence. But is that what the word actually means?

Of course, you can use the word "morality" that way, and a lot of people already do, but in that case, you'd no longer have a word for what moral beliefs are attempting to represent. ( Every belief, if it is a proper belief, is attempting to represent a portion of reality. Moral beliefs are no exception. If there is no portion of reality that moral beliefs are describing, they are not beliefs, but something else. A belief is a proposition held to be true by someone, and every proposition, in order to be a proposition, must consist of two parts: the described and the description. Remove one of these parts and you no longer have a proposition. )

Morality isn't a set of beliefs. It is a set of laws. And it isn't a set of any kind of laws. Societal laws ( i.e. how societies behave, e.g. "When a resident of a modern day country kills someone, he goes to jail" ) and personal laws ( i.e. how individual people behave, e.g. "Peter never eats meat" ) are not moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circusmtances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D."

Given that morality is a set of laws, we need to ask the following questions:

1) What is a law?

2) Do laws exist?

3) Are laws ontologically objective? Is their existence independent of minds? If minds ceased to exist, would laws continue to exist?

Let's answer these questions one by one.

WHAT IS A LAW?

A law is a limit on what is possible. It is that which forces a portion of reality to be certain way in some or all situations. If there are no laws, i.e. if no laws exist, it means that everything is possible in every situation. If there are laws, i.e. if some of them exist, it means that certain things aren't possible in certain situations.

The simplest example of a law is the law of identity, "A = A". That statement is saying that every thing is identical to itself in all situations. It's saying that there is a law that prohibits all things in all situations from not being identical to themselves.

Another example is the mathematical law captured by the statement "2 + 2 = 4". That statement is saying that every set consisting of two sets of two elements is a set consisting of four elements. It's saying that there is a law that prohibits all sets consisting of two sets of two elements from being sets of one element, sets of two elements, sets of three elements, sets of five elements, etc.

Another example of a law is the causal law that is "If you press the light switch at point in time t, the light bulb will turn on in less than a second". That statement is saying that there is a law that prohibits the light bulb from not turning on when you press the light switch at point in time t.

Finally, there are moral laws. Moral laws are laws of the form "Under circumstances C, the best decision for person P or group of people G is D". An example of a moral law is "The best decision for a man, every man, in every situation is to choose to do only what his mind unanimously agrees it's the best thing to do". ( I understand that most people don't define the term "morality" this broadly. Most use it narrowly, to refer to social morality, i.e. to what's the right way to treat other living beings. Keep in mind that I define it a bit differently, to mean what's the right thing to do in general. )

DO LAWS EXIST?

Given that a law is a limit on what's possible, it follows that, if there are things that aren't possible in some or all situations, then there are laws. And if there are laws, then they exist.

To say that laws do not exist is to say that there are no laws, i.e. that there are no limits on what is possible. That, in turn, means that everything is possible in every situation.

I can assure you that literally everyone believes that we live in a world in which at least some of the things aren't possible. And if there are people who argue otherwise, which I'm sure there are, I can assure you that they are contradicting themselves.

The idea that laws exist is difficult to accept by some people. These tend to be people who think in terms of "If you can't touch something, it does not exist". They affirm the existence of nothing but physical objects. They have a tendency to bastardize highly abstract concepts by reducing them to the most similar concept they are familiar with. Pragmatists, for example, have done that with the concept of truth by reducing it to the concept of useful belief ( or to the concept of the limit of inquiry, as C. S. Peirce did. ) A number of physicists have done the same with the concept of past by reducing it to memories in the present. Others have done it by reducing the concept of time to "what clocks show". And so on. There are many examples. If you ask these people, laws either do not really exist, since they aren't physical objects, or they do, but they are not want we think they are, they are merely concepts inside our minds ( e.g. mental tools that we use to predict what's going to happen in the future. )

The fact of the matter is that the universe is not merely the sum of everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. The universe does not merely refer to what is actual. It also refers to what is possible. And what is possible is determined by laws.

ARE LAWS ONTOLOGICALLY OBJECTIVE?

If minds ceased to exist, would laws continue to exist?

To answer that question, it's important to understand the difference between mutable and immutable things.

A mutable thing is a thing that can change. A thing that can change is a thing that can go through multiple stages of existence. The number of stages a mutable thing goes through is called its lifespan. A mutable thing, if it has a beginning, starts existing at one point in time, and if it has an end, it stops existing at another. Typically, a mutable thing occupies a portion of space at a single point in time at every stage of its existence. However, this is not a definitional requirement -- a mutable thing can occupy any number of moments at any stage of its existence. A mutable thing can exist in the same exact state at every stage of its existence, meaning, it does not have to change at all. But it has the capacity to do so. The state of a mutable thing at any stage of its existence, as well as its lifespan, can be determined, partially or completely, by other things. Physical objects, for example, are mutable things.

An immutable thing, on the other hand, is a thing that has no capacity for change at all. An immutable thing can exist at one or more points in time but it cannot go through more than one stage of its existence. The set of everything that was, that is and that will be is an example. That's the state of the universe at every single point in time. It's a thing that exists at more than one moment -- actually, at every single moment of existence -- but that goes through no more than one stage of its existence. The state of a physical object at a single point in time is another example. It's a thing that exists at a single point in time and a thing that goes through exactly one stage of its existence. The truth value of a proposition is yet another example. If a proposition is true on one day, it is true on all days. None of these things can change. As such, nothing can change them. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. They are, in a sense, permanent.

That said, if a law is an immutable law, it cannot cease to exist.

Are all laws immutable?

Absolutely not. There are mutable and immutable laws. Let me illustrate that with a very simple example.

Consider a universe that consists of exactly 3 points in time. At each point in time, nothing exists except for a light switch and a light bulb. At each point in time, the light switch can only be in one of the following two states: it can be "up" or it can be "down". Similarly, at each point in time, the light bulb can only be in one of the following two states: it can be "on" or it can be "off".

Let us say that the following laws apply:

1) Whenever the light switch is "up" at point in time 1, the light bulb is "on" at point in time 2.

2) Whenever the light switch is "down" at point in time 1, the light bulb is "off" at point in time 2.

3) Whenever the light switch is "up" at point in time 2, the light bulb is "off" at point in time 3,

4) Whenever the light switch is "down" at point in time 2, the light bulb is "on" at point in time 3.

The 4 laws that I just mentioned are immutable laws. They go through exactly one stage of their existence. They have no capacity to change. They are what they are.

However, if we said that 1) and 3) are two different stages of one and the same law, that law would be a mutable law. And in this particular case, it would be a law that changed ( since it went from "If up, then on" to "If up, then off". )

Are moral laws immutable laws?

A morality is a set of immutable laws, i.e. laws that cannot change. They either exist or they do not. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. Thus, if minds ceased to exist, moral laws would continue to exist.

[popeye1945]

Morality is objective! Understanding the concept of subjectivity, explain how you think this is so; it is simply absurd.

[MikeNovack]

Mathematical law immutable. In the LawN from Num1 + Num2 = Num3 the law can be immutable (independent of mind) because all the terms, Num1, Num2, Num3, +, and = are all immutable. Mind was not part of it.

But for a moral law, mind is part of it
MoralLawN from situationN, rightactionN, mind
If you are saying "mind" not part of it, independent of mind, then you are, for example saying a question like "it is wrong to kill an animal to eat" would be the same regardless if the mind of an omnivore like us, an obligatory carnivore, or an obligatory herbivore.

[popeye1945]

Mathematical law immutable. In the LawN from Num1 + Num2 = Num3 the law can be immutable (independent of mind) because all the terms, Num1, Num2, Num3, +, and = are all immutable. Mind was not part of it.

But for a moral law, mind is part of it
MoralLawN from situationN, rightactionN, mind
If you are saying "mind" not part of it, independent of mind, then you are, for example saying a question like "it is wrong to kill an animal to eat" would be the same regardless if the mind of an omnivore like us, an obligatory carnivore, or an obligatory herbivore.

Nature cares not for the individual but as a medium for the survival of the species. The rise of compassion on a subjective level is the seed of morality and occurs only where there is identification of oneself in the self of other creatures. Only through this process does civilization arise. You might think of it as an expansion of the concept of the self, embracing then the self-interest of the collective self. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and knows the world only on a subjective level. All meanings in the world are projected there by biological consciousness, in the absence of which the physical world is meaningless. An objective morality is only possible as a biological extension of the nature of the organism, where again it can be said, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things on a subjective level. The physical world just is, and in and of itself, it has no meaning.

[night912]

A morality is a set of immutable laws, i.e. laws that cannot change. They either exist or they do not. If they exist, nothing can make them disappear from existence. Thus, if minds ceased to exist, moral laws would continue to exist.

After everything you said, you came to a conclusion that's just begging the question.

[popeye1945]

As a subjective consciousness, one can never know anything objectively. One can assume there is something out there as a cause without experiencing its essence. You experience only its effect on the way it alters/changes the standing state of your biology; you experience the new state of your body, not the true nature of the cause/energy/object. Morality is a biological extension of the individual's self-interest, expressed outwardly as a system. It is a manifestation only experienced subjectively. The only true objective existence is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations of our outer world, which we sometimes experience as forms, while much remains unmanifested energy and unknown to us. We can know nothing except by subjective biological experience. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; morality is a meaning; thus it is a biological expression, a biological extension of human nature and its self-interest, its concerns for its survival and well-being.

[Magnus Anderson]

After everything you said, you came to a conclusion that's just begging the question.

How?

[MikeNovack]

If you are saying "mind" not part of it, independent of mind, then you are, for example saying a question like "it is wrong to kill an animal to eat" would be the same regardless if the mind of an omnivore like us, an obligatory carnivore, or an obligatory herbivore.

An objective morality is only possible as a biological extension of the nature of the organism, where again it can be said, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things on a subjective level. The physical world just is, and in and of itself, it has no meaning.

Magnus ---- Misunderstanding? Perhaps I was taking your claim "morality is objective" (would exist independent of living minds") too generally? I was NOT taking it as a statement JUST about the special case of ONE animal species which happened to be an omnivorous social animal -- that is us humans. having "morality". Suppose we were carnivores? Suppose we were herbivores? Would our morality not be different? Suppose there were several species of animals with minds capable of morality at the same time? Would there not be several simultaneous "moralities"? And if you say even if the species went extinct, those minds no longer existed, THAT morality would nevertheless persist. Well then, how about never existed? Why not the eternal morality of unicorns?

[popeye1945]

If you are saying "mind" not part of it, independent of mind, then you are, for example saying a question like "it is wrong to kill an animal to eat" would be the same regardless if the mind of an omnivore like us, an obligatory carnivore, or an obligatory herbivore.

An objective morality is only possible as a biological extension of the nature of the organism, where again it can be said, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things on a subjective level. The physical world just is, and in and of itself, it has no meaning.

Magnus ---- Misunderstanding? Perhaps I was taking your claim "morality is objective" (would exist independent of living minds") too generally? I was NOT taking it as a statement JUST about the special case of ONE animal species which happened to be an omnivorous social animal -- that is us humans. having "morality". Suppose we were carnivores? Suppose we were herbivores? Would our morality not be different? Suppose there were several species of animals with minds capable of morality at the same time? Would there not be several simultaneous "moralities"? And if you say even if the species went extinct, those minds no longer existed, THAT morality would nevertheless persist. Well then, how about never existed? Why not the eternal morality of unicorns?

You have misunderstood my premise. My statement does not indicate that morality is objective, quite the opposite, morality is a meaning, and all meanings are the subjective property of biological consciousness; thus, morality is the sole property of subjective consciousness, meaning never belongs to the object but only when a conscious subject projects meaning onto a meaningless world. A projected meaning is delusional because what the conscious subject really experiences is not the object but how the object alters one's biology, so what you are experiencing is your altered biology. This is the same for all organisms. The apparent reality, the everyday reality of other organisms, is somewhat different than your own since their biology is somewhat different, but it is the same process. We do not experience the objective world or the ultimate reality; we experience how the objective/ultimate reality changes/alters our biological state. Suppose you wish for a different experience of reality. In that case, all you need to do is change your biology, but again, you would not experience the object, but how the body now interprets the changes made to it by the outside world. Different states of biology result in different apparent realities.

[MikeNovack]

what the conscious subject really experiences is not the object but how the object alters one's biology, so what you are experiencing is your altered biology. This is the same for all organisms. The apparent reality, the everyday reality of other organisms, is somewhat different than your own since their biology is somewhat different, but it is the same process. We do not experience the objective world or the ultimate reality; we experience how the objective/ultimate reality changes/alters our biological state.

I disagree. You are trying to describe "software" in terms of the underlying "hardware"

So Computer Science jumps in (not a science, but a branch of Mathematics)

A neural net is a network of nodes, each with a receptor and some number of senders each going to the receptor of another node. Each of these channels can have an associated value that modifies the strength of the signal < note, a modifier.multiplier of zero would be the same as no channel >
SOME nodes of the network receive signals from outside and SOME send signals outside. Node does something with the total of all signals received and based on some stored threshold, sends signal down its senders.

So far this is in the abstract, not a physical "thing" but something in the realm of mathematics. We can do things like prove "if two neural nets have the same structure (same connection channels, same signal modifier values, same threshold values) they will do the same thing. In other words, in response to the same input signals result in the same output signals.

Now we can write a computer program which when run, emulates a particular neural net. A biological process can grow a biological structure that emulates a neural net, cell we call a neuron with axons and dendrites to make the connection. In the biological case the signals are electro-chemical, in the computer case, moving numbers between storage locations (moving electrons is at a much lower level; it's a computer PROGRAM, not physical hardware that is emulating the neural net).

The point is, our MIND is something running on the neural net that our biological brain is emulating. Biological processes are changing the signal strength modifiers and threshold values as our mind learns (the neural net is trained) but it is not HOW those stored values are changed that matters but that they are changed (and to what value). I am saying that IF (big if) we had a non-biological based neural net with the same network structure, same signal strength and threshold values, then could host the same MIND.

We do not experience the objective world or the ultimate reality; we experience how the objective/ultimate reality changes/alters our biological state. Wrong level of abstraction. Like saying we alter the meaning of what we have written on a piece of paper by altering the position of various chemicals on the surface of that paper. You will get nowhere understanding the meaning by the deepest understanding of how the presence or absence of particular chemical alters the reflection of light from the sheet of paper. And the same meaning could have just as well been conveyed by smears of graphite on the paper.

[popeye1945]

After everything you said, you came to a conclusion that's just begging the question.

How?

You need to question the reasoning. I am not a big computer fan, could we stick to biology? The computer is the biological extension of human biology and, as such, more complex. You are aware that the only way you know the world is through your subjective experience, and that this is the only way you know. All meaning is subjective meaning, and subjective meaning is the measure and meaning of all things, as all meaning belongs to the subject and not the object. In the absence of a conscious subject, the physical world is meaningless; life creates meaning relative to the experiences of the body and its evaluation by the understanding that produces meaning. I quote Schopenhauer: subject and object stand or fall together, meaning take one away, and the other ceases to be. You are nothing without the physical world, and the physical world is nothing without you subjectively. The only way that you know. Science says all is energy and that ultimate reality is a place of no things, and without you as subject, that is what would remain in its unknown state. Now, please address the error in reasoning.