Philosophy Now Forum

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?

I don't think it's possible, but let's suppose it is...what could or would come from such measuring?

Nuthin' good, I reckon.

Try the Utilitarians.

Utilitarianism strikes me as the path of 'educated guesses'...technocrats use 'the widest possible good for the widest possible number' pretending this is as easy-peasy as 1+ 1 = 2, but idiosyncrasy and preference (usually having nuthin' to do with reason) usually futz up the calculation.

So we'd be limited in what outcomes we could predict, in what we could measure. I'm having trouble even coming up with a good example, but I wonder if we could measure it in terms of money.

Well, first you have to define what is moral in a precise way, a scientific way, a way that cannot be disputed, a way as rigid as 'water freezes at 32F'...then, you can figure out how to tie it to money (presumably proper moral behavior is rewarded and improper is not, yes?).

Jaded Sage wrote:Anyone ever entertained the idea of objective morality.

The best example of a sustained political commitment to 'objective morality' is the policy implemented "in 1972 by Bhutan's fourth Dragon King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness ) The happiness of the general population doesn't make the rich richer, so it is not given much of a look in, in the UK or US.

Fairness, at least in social animals. You don't even need to be human to get it as shown in the Capuchin monkey mixed reward experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

There are other ways of measuring besides with numbers. A loose definition of science is exactness. We can come up with exact definitions of adjectives, such as: largeness is larger than a bread box and smallness is smaller than a bread box, (and if we want to get precise, we can define the measurements of a bread box in inches). But we start with some exact definition of good, such as: that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways, and move from there.

I believe that the only reason our species has subjective morality is that we've lost our sensitivity to objective conscience. Plato said it has to be remembered since conscience reflects universal truths and we are born with this knowledge..

We can measure things in terms of better or worse. Good, better, best. We can also measure in terms of deficiency, sufficiency, and excess. See: the golden mean. I have started with started with something like this: Absolute Certainty = 100%, Certainty = 90%, Sure = 50%, Pretty Sure = 45%. They say agriculture and writing came from a god. I don't know what the sayers of that mean by the word "god" (it is too subjective), but I bet it is fair to say that each science came from a god too (maybe a genius—see: wiki on genius). We can also measure things in terms of: beginning, middle and end (who guessed that it divides into 33%, 66% & 100%). Keep in mind the subjective tends to be arbitrary, and the abritrary is easier to measure. I think we are going to have multiple counting systems in place at once. Consider the fact that probably is greater than possbibly. If you will examine it closely, you will find that all sciences based on math are arbitrary (does this count as one or not?).

Jaded Sage wrote:We can measure things in terms of better or worse. Good, better, best. We can also measure in terms of deficiency, sufficiency, and excess. See: the golden mean. I have started with started with something like this: Absolute Certainty = 100%, Certainty = 90%, Sure = 50%, Pretty Sure = 45%. They say agriculture and writing came from a god. I don't know what the sayers of that mean by the word "god" (it is too subjective), but I bet it is fair to say that each science came from a god too (maybe a genius—see: wiki on genius). We can also measure things in terms of: beginning, middle and end.

Better for who? Discovering America was good for the Europeans who came here to get away from the oppressive European governments of the time. But it didn't work out very good for the Native Americans who were already here. Apartheid was good for the European overlords, but not very good for the black Africans they were controlling. Better or Worse depends on who is doing the measuring.

Get what I'm saying first. This is new material. That question comes second, and I speculate that it will be answered by the first question (of what is measurement?)

Quite true JS. For example how do you measure love?