Survey: Most Americans Don't Believe in Objective Morality

[FlashDangerpants]

From Carneades.org
https://www.carneades.org/post/most-ame ... e-morality

Most Americans Don't Believe in Objective Morality
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans reject moral realism, the claim that there is an objective truth about right and wrong. When given the choice between major metaethical theories, a plurality (43%) of Americans said that emotivism, (the view that statements about right and wrong merely express personal sentiments like "boo killing" or "yay charity") best aligns with their beliefs. Nearly one in five Americans said that cultural relativism best describes their beliefs, with only 3% preferring error theory.

You can read the rest at the link there, it's not exactly long. I'll add the 4 questions they used to take this poll here though...

When someone makes a statement about right and wrong (like "it is wrong to kill") your view of that statement is best described as...

• Moral statements are objectively true or false (i.e. "killing is wrong" can be true or false in the same way statements like "snow is white" can).

• Moral statements express a person's feelings about an action (i.e. that they don't like killing).

• Moral statements express cultural norms (i.e. that killing is wrong in their culture, but might be ok in other cultures)

• All moral statements are false, because they fail to refer to anything real (saying "killing is wrong" is like saying "killing is bgike" it does not mean anything).

I kind of think they did error theory a dirty there, but it wasn't going to get a high score either way so no need to send in the Feds, the error is not outcome determinitive.

This is also presented as a Youtube video, or a series on them, more info on that here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcOhMZLVCM

[Iwannaplato]

From Carneades.org
https://www.carneades.org/post/most-ame ... e-morality

Most Americans Don't Believe in Objective Morality
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans reject moral realism, the claim that there is an objective truth about right and wrong. When given the choice between major metaethical theories, a plurality (43%) of Americans said that emotivism, (the view that statements about right and wrong merely express personal sentiments like "boo killing" or "yay charity") best aligns with their beliefs. Nearly one in five Americans said that cultural relativism best describes their beliefs, with only 3% preferring error theory.

I think people are unreliable in reporting their own beliefs. Also there's a difference between waxing meta-ethical and how one is in life. In the trenches of a battle with a heavy metal playing neighbor, the too touchy elementary school teacher their daughter has, their psycho boss and so on, I doubt we'll see any difference from the moral realists.

I think a follow-up study should try to find out what this actually entails on the ground in life.

[FlashDangerpants]

From Carneades.org
https://www.carneades.org/post/most-ame ... e-morality

Most Americans Don't Believe in Objective Morality
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans reject moral realism, the claim that there is an objective truth about right and wrong. When given the choice between major metaethical theories, a plurality (43%) of Americans said that emotivism, (the view that statements about right and wrong merely express personal sentiments like "boo killing" or "yay charity") best aligns with their beliefs. Nearly one in five Americans said that cultural relativism best describes their beliefs, with only 3% preferring error theory.

I think people are unreliable in reporting their own beliefs. Also there's a difference between waxing meta-ethical and how one is in life. In the trenches of a battle with a heavy metal playing neighbor, the too touchy elementary school teacher their daughter has, their psycho boss and so on, I doubt we'll see any difference from the moral realists.

I think a follow-up study should try to find out what this actually entails on the ground in life.

In your lived experience, when not arguing on the internet with belligerent absolutists who insist on telling you what the content of your own head is, things are I think a bit different to the way they are round here.

Prominently, I think that in daily life we expect to have to negotiate daily moral issues rather than impose upon them and we probably don't much like people we may know who take the more rigidly black-and-white approach seen in conversation on these forums. We probably don't like them online much either now I think about it.

IRL we are likely to come into contact with the brute fact that apparently decent and intelligent people might see the same evidence for some set of moral claims, yet arrive at different conclusions about the rights and wrongs of the matter.

Things have a bit of a tendency to go wrong when mediocre people start thinking they are the absolute best at this shit, and that they can provide valid and sound argument in support of every opinion they happen to have woken up with this morning. Real life humans might not think that's very likely.

[Iwannaplato]

In your lived experience, when not arguing on the internet with belligerent absolutists who insist on telling you what the content of your own head is, things are I think a bit different to the way they are round here.

People tend to be more polite than they are on anonymous forums. But otherwise utter brick walls. a lot of moral issues come up with companies and other bureaucracies. But even with the examples I gave people aren't negotiating, they have very clear certain senses of fairness, right and wrong, and morality. Theater groups, bands, relationships, landlord tenant interactions, neighbors. Once there are two views, I do not experience there being much difference regardless of metaethical position.

I think if you are not far from each other on moral issues and/or know each other generally get alone or have respect, the meta-ethical position may seem to be at play. But I think moral realists can also be more gentle in such situations.

It's be an interesting test. People watch films of people having arguments with people, real life moral situations. Can observers tell who has what meta-ethical position.

[FlashDangerpants]

In your lived experience, when not arguing on the internet with belligerent absolutists who insist on telling you what the content of your own head is, things are I think a bit different to the way they are round here.

People tend to be more polite than they are on anonymous forums. But otherwise utter brick walls. a lot of moral issues come up with companies and other bureaucracies. But even with the examples I gave people aren't negotiating, they have very clear certain senses of fairness, right and wrong, and morality. Theater groups, bands, relationships, landlord tenant interactions, neighbors. Once there are two views, I do not experience there being much difference regardless of metaethical position.

I think if you are not far from each other on moral issues and/or know each other generally get alone or have respect, the meta-ethical position may seem to be at play. But I think moral realists can also be more gentle in such situations.

At that stage, I would expect meta-ethical beliefs to be invisible. If I am trying to persuade my neighbour to make less noise, I would probably appeal to their sense of fairness, while if I were engaged in dispute with a business I would be more likely to threaten repercussions in the form of savagely worded reviews I imagine. In general we expect others to believe that stealing and lying are wrong already and we probably don't expect to argue with them about why it is wrong to steal.

Your meta-ethical position, in day to day life, is just how you think all this stuff we all do every day works under the surface.

It's be an interesting test. People watch films of people having arguments with people, real life moral situations. Can observers tell who has what meta-ethical position.

There are worse sports than that on TV every day. I would quite like to see a cab river from London versus a vicar from Ipswich on the subject of whether there can be such a thing as true table-manners. Hopefully one of them turns out to be a nihilist.

[Radagast]

I think people are unreliable in reporting their own beliefs. Also there's a difference between waxing meta-ethical and how one is in life. In the trenches of a battle with a heavy metal playing neighbor, the too touchy elementary school teacher their daughter has, their psycho boss and so on, I doubt we'll see any difference from the moral realists.

That sounds about right. And I say that as somebody who finds meta-ethics fascinating.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think people are unreliable in reporting their own beliefs. Also there's a difference between waxing meta-ethical and how one is in life. In the trenches of a battle with a heavy metal playing neighbor, the too touchy elementary school teacher their daughter has, their psycho boss and so on, I doubt we'll see any difference from the moral realists.

That sounds about right. And I say that as somebody who finds meta-ethics fascinating.

When people have to make a decision about how to steer their car so that it goes around corners and delivers them to where they wish to go, we don't expect them to need an opinion on meta-physics to explain how steering works. They believe that if they turn the steering wheel in a certain direction, the car will respond by turning in a predictable manner in line with that command.

If they are scientific realists who believe that the currently held scientific consensus on how the forces operate within tyres, wheels and so on is a more or less accurate description of a true state of affairs about the world, then they will use that as an explanation of how the steering works. But they won't use it to decide in the moment whether to believe the steering works, that is a belief already formed via experience and the other beliefs are there to explain it, not to validate it.

If they are an idealist who believes the world exists only in the mind of God, and that all of science exists only to marvel at HIS creations etc... they still believe that the steering on their car works, they don't need to stop and pray every time they turn the wheel, they have the belief it will work, and their meta-physics provides the explanation for why, which is not usually significant in the moment.

A weird and persistent issue with discussion of meta-ethics leads many to assume that it somehow doesn't qualify for this same effect. People assume that if you hold one meta-ethical position then you must hold some specific ethical belief, and a different ethical belief must require some alternative meta-ethics. This is not true. Day to day, meta-ethics is neither here nor there, it is just a substrate to explain beliefs you already have. Same as meta-physics, and probably meta-anything-else-you-can-think-of.

[Impenitent]

survey says: asking the right question skews the polls...

-Imp