Objective Morality

[Jaded Sage]

That isn't what I'm saying. Reread the example.

[Jaded Sage]

What measurement did you use? Please explain the scale.

Right. That's where I'm having trouble: articulating the scales. It would be something similar to what I provided earlier. Like worst, worse, bad, good, better, best. But once we have the scales the rest should be easy, and the project largely over.

Perhaps I need to alter "measurable" to "accountable" so I can use my definition of good (although my definition uses numbers).

[FlashDangerpants]

I think you are going to run into a sort of social sciences problem where they measure proxies for stuff.

Economists for instance are very interested in trust because societies that trust each other to behave well spend less time and money on verifying everything. But because they cannot measure something ethereal like trust, they conduct opinion surveys to discover whether Swedes trust each other, strangers, policemen and so on more than Russians (which of course they do) and then they look at data about debts, commercial dispute reolution and what have you to work out what financial (and as far as they can, non financial) benefits this brings everyone (which are generally agreed to be quite huge).

That actually works pretty well in a sense, the data and the interpretation are quite convincing when you read the resultant paper. But they never quite get at the thing they are really trying to measure, they are sort of estimating its shadow. I think we could wander down a similar rabbit hole.

That said, I'm a couple of chapters into Putnam's Ethics without Ontology at the moment. I believe the idea of the book is to present a universal ethic thingy. Maybe I'm about to have my mind changed there or here.

[Jaded Sage]

Using proxies is definitely something to look into, but I don't think we'll be stuck with them.

[zinnat13]

Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality. By that I mean morality that can be measured. If we have enough information, we can predict outcomes. Suppose we could predict which actions have the best outcomes. What would that look like? Is such a thing even possible?

Technically speaking, objective morality is possible, but quite difficult to deduce for practical reasons. But, it should not be used as an excuse while discerning relatively good.

A complete objectivity (omscience) can only deduce true objective morality but as we cannot be omniscient, thus cannot deduce pure objective morality.

Having said this, we can still deduce or grade morality, though according to one's level of knowing only. That is precisely why different people use to deduce morality differently. But, this difference does not mean that all moral deductions must have same value. Some would be better than others, and that is the way to do it.

With love,
Sanjay

[Jaded Sage]

Just so you understand: we are pioneers in this subject. We're going to be utilitarian, which means: that thing is morally best (most good) which does the most amount of good for the most amount of people. We are going to measure goodness in terms of happiness. We are going to measure happiness on an exponentially growing scale from negative 10 to positive 10, zero being neutral. The scale can be measured by the subject, and we can have a separate scale of measurement that is done by MRIs and CAT scans of positive feelings in the subject.

For every action there will be a measured response in the subject. Because the scale is exponential, every action that is measured in terms of its effect on every subject it effects can be taken in a simple measurement to determine the overall amount of happiness it produces in the world.

[zinnat13]

Just so you understand: we are pioneers in this subject. We're going to be utilitarian, which means: that thing is morally best (most good) which does the most amount of good for the most amount of people. We are going to measure goodness in terms of happiness. We are going to measure happiness on an exponentially growing scale from negative 10 to positive 10, zero being neutral. The scale can be measured by the subject, and we can have a separate scale of measurement that is done by MRIs and CAT scans of positive feelings in the subject.

For every action there will be a measured response in the subject. Because the scale is exponential, every action that is measured in terms of its effect on every subject it effects can be taken in a simple measurement to determine the overall amount of happiness it produces in the world.

I basically agree with utilitarian approach, but again, the problem is practical reasons, not theory.

Can we arrange any such methodology which can deduce what precisely is the best for all regarding each and every issue and all the time? I do not think so.

Till then, we have to opt for what seems to be the best according to our present knowledge under any given circumstances. I do not see any better option available.

with love,
sanjay

[henry quirk]

In a world of finite, not easily won, resources (our world), that which does the most good for the most people could mean everyone gets a small roof, three meals, a set of clothes, a basic education, minimal medical treatment, and nuthin' more (anything more could, in fact, be mightly discouraged on the grounds that 'more' for one means 'less' for another, making one more or less 'happy' than another).

Consider: to ensure the basics for the common folk, some will need extra resources (teachers, doctors, etc.)...a method of selecting the best folks for these jobs will have to be found, a means of reliably testing for talent, inclination, and intelligence, and, of course, this neccessitates the need for administrators (let's just call them 'politburo).

I could go on, but I'm time-pressed and tired...you get my point, I think.

The utillitarian utopia is just another communitarian hell, one in which I would feel obligated to put sugar in gas tanks, spikes in trees, and throw bombs.

The technocratic approach can certainly feed and house and educate and treat seven billion bodies, but it will also degrade seven billion souls, and encourage the already deviant to be even more so.

No, the best solution is to leave each to suss out his or her 'code', and to become proficient in self-defending against others with opposing 'codes'. Not a perfect systen, but one that's natural and most in keeping with the human individual.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's exactly unlike Utilitarianism as endorsed by Mills for instance. The version we are engaged in here is, err, too incomplete to judge in such terms. But you are rather begging the question when you assume that material comfort (loose trousers, tight pussy, warm place to shit) is the singular desire of UT. They are just as likely to advocate wide freedoms and plenty of education as they are to argue for simple absence of pain.

[Arising_uk]

...
but one that's natural and most in keeping with the human individual.

But its not really as this 'human individual' wouldn't have made it without the group in the first place, it looks more like a later cultural construct with the more natural stance being part of a social group.

[henry quirk]

Flash,

In a world where resources are easily won, or are free, you'd be right. We don't live in that world, but in this one where resources are hard to come by. Couple this natural scarcity with 'greatest good for greatest number' and you get a subsistence existence for everyone.

#

Arise,

Sure, humans are social creatures...the mistake is thinkin' there's one standard of socialbility that applies to all. Some folks cannot do without others and some can. Not seein' why those who can gotta take the short end of the stick, why those who can't get to be the measurement. Look at it this way: why lower the standard of 'human' to pack or herd animal when you can raise the standard and demand self-direction? Another way to look at it: children, by definition, are dependent...well past time we get past our evolutionary childhood of 'tribe'.

[thedoc]

Objective Morality is an oxymoron, morality is subjective.

[Conde Lucanor]

Conde Lucanor, HexHammer, and Hobbes' Choice: the term "objective morality" is finely defined in the opening post. You don't need to define it. (I am referring to the five or so posts preceding my first post on this page.) The definition is given; I humbly suggest that the discussion should follow the OPERATIONAL definition of what's "Objective Morality" as given by Jaded in the opening post.

Well of course that you can choose to think that objective morality was finely defined, I don't, but perhaps you just mean that it was clearly stated. Operational definitions, as I understand them, are meant to avoid discussions: "let's take this as the starting point and then we go on with our business or task that will yield some practical outcomes". Usually employed in some empirical disciplines like surveys, population data, and so on, operational definitions are useful for avoiding the hassle of profound inquiries into the true or essential nature of things. Who cares about what an urban location really is, you just assume it is a territory where at least 2,500 people live and then do what you want with it. So, if you want debate in a philosophical forum, why would someone start with an operational definition?

I don't for one moment dispute that other definitions exist, very well, and you three are right about that and right about the fact that other definitions may be better suited to the expressions "objective morality". But then discussing those is not discussing the original question, or the question of the original post.

While it's a free country, and we enjoy free speech, I think we should stick with the operational definition by Jaded.

That sounds more like "accept without questioning the implied premises of the post and follow the path they lead us into, so you are forced to reach the same conclusions". I'd rather discuss first the implied premises.

[Conde Lucanor]

I mean morality based on objectivity or objective facts. So like we ascertain the objective reality about a situation and a number of possible actions and select the action that best corresponds to situation.

That robotic concept dies on its crib. It's the claim that human agency is mostly about consciously computing information from the exterior world and acting upon it. But we know from neurological and behavioral sciences that it does not work that way, that there are complex factors, including unconscious mechanisms and social contexts that move people to act one way or another, sometimes even challenging the individual's logical stance.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash,

In a world where resources are easily won, or are free, you'd be right. We don't live in that world, but in this one where resources are hard to come by. Couple this natural scarcity with 'greatest good for greatest number' and you get a subsistence existence for everyone.

Some material resources are hard to come by, platinum and diamonds for instance. But the ones we need aren't rare at all. Resources which aren't rare often require investment to get at safely, but with that investment they are quite plentiful. Investment is far from rare, it can be brought to bear on any issue by simply providing a mechanism to achieve returns.

If you want to judge the economic development of any country, just look at which diseases are associated with poverty there. As soon as obesity and diabetes replace starvation related problems, they have passed the threshold where simple resource availability is the issue and they have some other problem instead. Once you are at that stage, there is continuing utilitarian benefit to ensuring people can live in a house and have electricity plus educate their children who can then have decent jobs. But providing more food calories has dropped off the list. Keep going and more of the basic material stuff also drops off.

But there is no level of aggregate material well-being that causes liberty to fall off the list of goods to be sought and enhanced. That only happens when you start factoring in actual competing agendas such as harmony, security or justice. So UT doesn't by its nature require the seizure of your precious hovel.