Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: That burden of proof is on those making the claim.

That would be true only as long as you make no claim about it yourself. If you claim to have reason to disbelieve in objective morality -- rather than, say, just a personal resistance to the idea -- then you'd obligate yourself to provide your basis for that claim.

So I suppose the question becomes, Do you disbelieve in objective morality because you know objective morality doesn't exist (i.e. do you have evidence), or are you only saying you hope/wish/think it doesn't, but without evidence?

Suffice it to say that without the human to note the moral law, what could possibly establish it?

Well, divine revelation would certainly do the trick -- if it exists. You say it doesn't, I suppose, and I say it does. But we can both realize that IF it did, that would certainly be sufficient warrant for objective morality.

What could sustain it?

The same.

And where would it come from?

The same.

If it pre-existed us, then why can no one agree about what it might be?

Well, firstly, that people guess wrongly about it would not disprove its existence. At one time, nobody agreed that that the outer planets exist...that didn't imply they didn't pre-exist our knowing about them. But more importantly, your statement there is empirically untrue: for many groups of people do agree on what morality is. And you can see this is a sociological fact: for to call a morality "Jewish" or "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Zoroastrian" is to acknowledge that agreement within communities happens. The fact that those groups disagree with each other, at least to some extent, is neither here nor there in indicating their justification for their view. Some might just be wrong. Or all of them might be. But that would not cease to make morality objective, if it is: they'd just all be objectively wrong in their attempts to estimate it.

You can see this in regard to science. After all, scientists disagree about the age of the universe, it's size, and even the number of "universes." This does not imply that the universe does not exist -- only that people have different theories about what it is, some of which are bound to be wrong, and some of which may be right. Or none may be, and we may need to learn more. Either way, the objective existence of the universe is not threatened by people's disagreements. And it certainly doesn't imply we cannot do science anymore.

Objective morality would be the same in that regard. It would be objectively true, regardless of conflicting opinions.

"If something possesses the ability to suffer and doesn’t cause suffering, that is not in the best interest of the sufferer, it possesses the right to live free of suffering unless that suffering is in the best interest of the sufferer."

That all has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you wrote above it. Maybe the idea was merely "We make these assumptions and we're okay with it. Here's another set of assumptions I'm going to make. Hopefully you'll be okay with it." As if any arbitrary assumption is going to be okay with someone just because they're okay with other assumptions? (Ignoring whether all the stuff you mentioned at the start of your post really is assumptive or not.)

"This is my attempt at establishing an objective morality."

I think it's more important to ask why you'd be "attempting to establish an objective morality" in the first place. Why aim for a fiction?

The statement "objective morality exists" is slippery.

Morality would need to be the kind of thing that we say is capable of existing. If it makes sense to talk about morality existing, then what counts as existing as compared/contrasted to not existing? What does it consist in/of? Furthermore what counts as being objective? These aspects need fleshed out in order for understanding to be had.

If "objective" refers to not being existentially contingent upon human thought/belief, then objective morality is nothing more than the mistaken attribution of meaning to something that we determine the contents of. Morality is commonly understood as the rules governing what counts as acceptable and/or unacceptable thought/belief and/or behaviour. We decide, create, alter, and rewrite those rules as our thought/belief about the world and/or ourselves transforms through the ages. I see no way to make sense of an 'objective' morality, aside from invoking some supernatural arbiter/creator, some form of cosmic judge...

IMHOAs long as no one defines the concepts "objective" and "morality" what we have is a vacuous, blank slate upon which anyoned can write anything about the topic and make equal sense.

Now if someone were to define those concepts with some rigor then what they write might be worth reading....and reflecting upon.

Sometimes it seems that the motto at a Forum is: "Ambiguity and vagueness uber alles !"
Or: "Let's equivocate."

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: That burden of proof is on those making the claim.

That would be true only as long as you make no claim about it yourself. If you claim to have reason to disbelieve in objective morality -- rather than, say, just a personal resistance to the idea -- then you'd obligate yourself to provide your basis for that claim.
.

Sometimes your thinking causes me embarrassment.
Disbelief is not a claim. Its not even a counter claim. It's skepticism concerning a think not worthy of consideration.
"Objective morality" is the assertion here. It is without merit until you say what you mean by it. I can only guess what it is supposed to mean. And all my guesses make the idea look ridiculous.

So take you best shot, or remain silent.

Immanuel Can wrote: At one time, nobody agreed that that the outer planets exist...that didn't imply they didn't pre-exist our knowing about them.

False analogy. Planets are concrete objects. Morality is a set of values which needs a mind to sustain them. The idea that they are objective an only be achieved like all other objective things through agreement. Objectivity is only to be achieved when the human community making the claim agree to a set of criteria upon which to judge subjective information.
All claims of objectivity rest on this. QED Objectivity cannot pre-exist a human community as I said.

prof wrote:IMHOAs long as no one defines the concepts "objective" and "morality" what we have is a vacuous, blank slate upon which anyoned can write anything about the topic and make equal sense.

Now if someone were to define those concepts with some rigor then what they write might be worth reading....and reflecting upon.

Sometimes it seems that the motto at a Forum is: "Ambiguity and vagueness uber alles !"
Or: "Let's equivocate."

IC's claim is that morality pre-exists humanity. In such a statement he asserts that morality is a natural phenomenon that needs no definition or agreement.
In defining morality (with or without rigour) we would be in the act of newly creating our claim of objective morality, not (as IC would have to claim), simply uncovering it from nature.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: At one time, nobody agreed that that the outer planets exist...that didn't imply they didn't pre-exist our knowing about them.

False analogy. Planets are concrete objects. Morality is a set of values which needs a mind to sustain them.

You're right about morality implying mind, Hobbes. Good point. However, you can't assume your conclusion and argue backwards: that's called "begging the question." The question is this: is there a Mind other than the human mind, one capable of grounding objective morality. I say there is, and you say there isn't, I think.

The idea that they are objective an only be achieved like all other objective things through agreement.

Not so. Agreement grounds nothing, at least in regard to things that (may be) objective. If we all agree the earth is flat, that won't make it so.

Objectivity is only to be achieved when the human community making the claim agree to a set of criteria upon which to judge subjective information.
All claims of objectivity rest on this. QED Objectivity cannot pre-exist a human community as I said.

This is actually quite straightforwardly untrue. "Objective" by definition means, " not dependent on opinion, either individual or communal." It means "actually so."

I think you're perhaps mixing up "empirical," or perhaps "socially-constructed," and "objective." Could that be right?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:IC's claim is that morality pre-exists humanity.

Yes.

In such a statement he asserts that morality is a natural phenomenon that needs no definition or agreement.

Not quite. I assert that our agreement about it would make no difference IF it's objective, which is the question we are entertaining.

In defining morality (with or without rigour) we would be in the act of newly creating our claim of objective morality, not (as IC would have to claim), simply uncovering it from nature.

Oh, I see...you're thinking of morality as a social phenomenon.

Well, it is certainly that too: people do believe in various morals. But the question still isn't being addressed by that observation: the question is whether or not people believe in objective or only subjective morality. Even if 100% of the people on earth believe something, it's only an objective fact that they believe it. But whether the content of that belief is objectively true is quite a different question, of course.

I think you've perhaps been speaking of the former, and I of the latter. Is that possible?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Disbelief is not a claim. Its not even a counter claim. It's skepticism concerning a think not worthy of consideration.

If I grant you that, then it cannot be rational. Your explanation above says so. It says you have dismissed it as "not worthy of consideration," which would mean you haven't considered it.

To dismiss something without considering it would be anti-intellectual. Of course you can choose to do that -- nobody's trying to stop you -- but why would you? And how would you know you'd not missed something, since you refused to consider it?

So if you're being rational about that, on what rational basis did you arrive at your skepticism? And how did you do it without, as you say, "considering" it?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: At one time, nobody agreed that that the outer planets exist...that didn't imply they didn't pre-exist our knowing about them.

False analogy. Planets are concrete objects. Morality is a set of values which needs a mind to sustain them.

You're right about morality implying mind, Hobbes. Good point. However, you can't assume your conclusion and argue backwards: that's called "begging the question." The question is this: is there a Mind other than the human mind, one capable of grounding objective morality. I say there is, and you say there isn't, I think.

You area waste of space. I not making the claim here.

Immanuel Can wrote: Oh, I see...you're thinking of morality as a social phenomenon.
?

Fuck! You are really fucking stupid.

Immanuel Can wrote: So if you're being rational about that, on what rational basis did you arrive at your skepticism? And how did you do it without, as you say, "considering" it?

When you have the balls to define morality and objectivity, and who they might relate to each other then come back. Until then you are still a waste of oxygen

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: At one time, nobody agreed that that the outer planets exist...that didn't imply they didn't pre-exist our knowing about them.

False analogy. Planets are concrete objects. Morality is a set of values which needs a mind to sustain them. The idea that they are objective an only be achieved like all other objective things through agreement. Objectivity is only to be achieved when the human community making the claim agree to a set of criteria upon which to judge subjective information.
All claims of objectivity rest on this. QED Objectivity cannot pre-exist a human community as I said.

??? Agreement doesn't make something objective.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Fuck! You are really fucking stupid.

How could I possibly decline the privilege of further conversation with one who is being so erudite and eloquent.

And yet, I think I will forego the pleasure.

Bye, Hobbes.