Is morality objective?

[Imari]

Elaborating on which subject are you referring to? What do you consider vage? I am happy to go into detail, just dont immediately dismiss my opinion as "incorrect" or "wrong" (from the perspective that morality is objective).

I posted this.

Let's assume that morality is subjective, and so your moral behaviour might not be the same as someone else's. However, your moral behaviour still has it's own logic and rationale, even if it's only internally consistent.
.....
How about you take this specific example with regard to both the participants as your children and the participants as random children:

a) choose one, or they both die
b) kill yourself and all die

And explain logically how your stated actions form a consistent and rational moral system. I'm not asking for an objective moral system, I'm only asking you to explain how your personal subjective moral system leads to the actions you have described.

You responded with:

To elaborate my view. Morality is dependant on the society, religion and era an individual lives in. For example: In some ancient cultures it could have been seen as honorable to sacrifice a chilt to a god.

That is insufficient as it makes absolutely no attempt to address the specific situation in question, which was the entire point. As I pretty clearly stated.

I also explicitly said:

The purpose of this is not to expose your choices so that they can be belittled. The purpose is to have you explicitly outline an example of a subjective moral system and how it works. I think you're going to find it difficult to define your moral system with any degree of specificity, but if you can then we can start sensibly outlining the differences between the subjective and objective systems.

So I've already addressed your concerns about dismissing your opinion, both in that I'm explicitly accepting as a premise that morality is subjective and that I've said that the purpose is not to belittle you but to discuss the topic with specific information. Are you going to engage in actual discussion of a specific example where your subjective morality might be displayed and understood by others, or are you going to pull a Dotini and hide behind buzzwords and generalisations?

Well I'm no math expert but the statement "2+2=4" is understood by us plebs to be true. But it depends on using base 10, etc. Stuff like quantum physics is pretty recent and threw a wrench into a lot of known facts. I can't prove to you that those theoretical maths are right because they're beyond my grasp, and I certainly can't demonstrate it with blocks on a table. But they're not wrong, I can tell you that.

Quantum physics did not throw a wrench into mathematics. The dependencies in 2+2=4 are implicit in the formulation of the equation.

And no, if you can't prove that a mathematical concept is right then you cannot categorically state that it's not wrong. You can state that it's unknown, either to you or generally, but to prove it not wrong you would have to prove it right. Well, you could prove that it's undecidable, but I suspect if you were at the level of mathematics where that nuance made sense to you then you wouldn't be arguing that 2+2=4 is only true to plebs.

 

[Danoff]

Well I'm no math expert but the statement "2+2=4" is understood by us plebs to be true. But it depends on using base 10, etc. Stuff like quantum physics is pretty recent and threw a wrench into a lot of known facts. I can't prove to you that those theoretical maths are right because they're beyond my grasp, and I certainly can't demonstrate it with blocks on a table. But they're not wrong, I can tell you that.

@Imari answered the question perfectly, it's implicit in the system upon which math is built. But I wanted to take it a step further and explain, human rights are the same way. It's self-consistent, like math.

Suppose for a moment that we realized that to understand a multitude of universes, we must understand how each choice spawns an infinite number of waveforms that ripples through all of the possible universes that could exist from that choice. And suppose that this really did require overturning math, and 1+1, in the quantum realm, was suddenly infinity. Now what? Have we disproven math?

No. Math is still self-consistent. Even if it never gets used in science or engineering, because it gets replaced by our newly invented quantum math, it still is correct, because the system is self-consistent. The same is true of human rights. As far as I can tell, the first real discussions of human rights only started to show up within the last millennium (counting from now, I do not mean since the year 2000). That means that, lemme see, the age over the universe is what... 13.7 billion years? And we've been talking about human rights for less than 1000 years so, doing the math, the universe existed (as far as we know) with no concept of human rights for approximately 13.7 billion years. Math too, while we're at it. Human rights and math sat on a theoretical shelf, being self-consistent, and awaiting discovery and use for all of that time. We found them, we used them, and they could just as easily never have been found or used.

If all of humanity moves on to quantum rights, human rights will still exist. Sitting on a theoretical shelf, alongside math. Still being self-consistent.

Edit:

And just like math, you don't have to use human rights. You can ignore it to your heart's content, but it comes with some logical consequences - like that people will stop trusting you.

 

[PocketZeven]

When two people have opposed points of view on a topic, they are in disagreement.

They are only right or wrong according to their own perspective of the fact. It does not change whether they are right or wrong - or even right for the wrong reasons - in relation to the fact.

"Hence" means "For that reason". This is the word you used. You cited two opposed viewpoints on the state-sponsored execution of a child, then stated that this disagreement was the reason for the subjectivity of morality.

It is not. Two people disagreeing on a fact does not make the fact subjective, it makes at least one of the people wrong about the fact. It is a faulty premise to say that two people disagreeing on a moral matter is the reason why morality is subjective.

Morality is objective. It is how we observe rights, which are also objective.

You seem to have a black and white worldview, that is difficult to argue against. To you morality is objective and you refuse to consider other opinions. Because you are right and I am wrong. That is exactly I was describing in subjectivity of morality. You think white and I think gray. To you white is always white. I am arguing that white can be a different shade of gray, depending on the perspective.

We are in disagreement, but in your view I am wrong and visa versa. Does that mean you are objectively right and I am subjectively wrong?

 

[Danoff]

You seem to have a black and white worldview, that is difficult to argue against. To you morality is objective and you refuse to consider other opinions. Because you are right and I am wrong. That is exactly I was describing in subjectivity of morality. You think white and I think gray. To you white is always white. I am arguing that white can be a different shade of gray, depending on the perspective.

This is just you having a difficult time making your case.

We are in disagreement, but in your view I am wrong and visa versa.

No, he can't be wrong in your view, because it is all subjective. Somehow you're simultaneously trying to take the position that human sacrifices can be moral, and preventing human sacrifice is wrong.

Does that mean you are objectively right and I am subjectively wrong?

Nothing you posted is the basis of objective rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

I posted this.



You responded with:



That is insufficient as it makes absolutely no attempt to address the specific situation in question, which was the entire point. As I pretty clearly stated.

I also explicitly said:



So I've already addressed your concerns about dismissing your opinion, both in that I'm explicitly accepting as a premise that morality is subjective and that I've said that the purpose is not to belittle you but to discuss the topic with specific information. Are you going to engage in actual discussion of a specific example where your subjective morality might be displayed and understood by others, or are you going to pull a Dotini and hide behind buzzwords and generalisations?

.

Not hiding at all. You asked a logic explanation to the subjectivity of morality. So do you presume morality should always be logical? Morality is in many cultures elated to religion. Which in my opinion is far from logic.

As for the answer to your question, I already did:

Your assumption is that morality is objective. I am pointing out the subjectivity.

I would not be able to choose between my daughter or son. (unless one already has an incurable disease) I would rather die first.
If it were 2 random children, the choice would be different. I would try to save as much people I can. If choosing 1 saves 2 lives, then I probably would.

What part do I nee to elaborate?

 

[Keef]

but to prove it not wrong you would have to prove it right.

I disagree with this. We use the logic I'm talking about in court - no defendant is ever found innocent but they can be found not guilty. My point is that there could be many answers (in life, not necessarily math) that are not wrong, and because they're not wrong it doesn't matter if they're "right".

 

[Imari]

Not hiding at all. You asked a logic explanation to the subjectivity of morality. So do you presume morality should always be logical?

Well, if your morality isn't logical or rational then you're just doing whatever the hell you feel like. Which is essentially what constitutes the lowest common denominator in the objective system; it's been referred to previously as "might makes right".

If there's no consistency or structure behind your moral choices, then in what sense do you have a moral system?

Morality is in many cultures elated to religion. Which in my opinion is far from logic.

A religion can have a logical moral code, although many don't. But it's not impossible for a religion to have an internally consistent logic, even if the statements and assumptions don't necessarily match up with anything in the real world.

As for the answer to your question, I already did:

What part do I nee to elaborate?

The part where you explain anything about how you arrived at those decisions?

You explained what you would do. You didn't explain why, and you didn't explain the integration with your moral system that led to those choices.

Now, given the above it's possible that your morality is Cartman-style "I do what I want", and that no deeper explanation than the actions themselves is possible. In which case, you should probably stop talking about morality altogether, because if your actions don't have at least some consideration then the idea of morality is foreign to you.

I disagree with this. We use the logic I'm talking about in court - no defendant is ever found innocent but they can be found not guilty. My point is that there could be many answers (in life, not necessarily math) that are not wrong, and because they're not wrong it doesn't matter if they're "right".

Oh my, those goalposts seem to have sprouted legs.

Court "logic" is not formal logic, it's a bastardisation of logic that functions better in a practical sense where real decisions need to be made. In life, perhaps, there are answers that are "not wrong" in a functionally meaningful sense, depending on how you want to use the phrase. But we weren't talking about life, we were talking about math.

In math, a statement is right, wrong, or undecidable. Or you simply do not know the answer, which people always forget is an option and somehow feel bad about admitting, even if it's something that nobody in the history of humanity has figured out. If you don't know the answer, that doesn't make it "not wrong".

But they're not wrong, I can tell you that.

In order to make this statement so decisively, one would assume that you have at least one example of a mathematical statement that cannot be proven right but is also "not wrong". Would you like to share it with the class? Or would you like to admit that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

I mean, you started off with "I'm no math expert...", so why not just lean into that and admit that maybe you don't actually understand math that well and that's OK. Lots of people don't, and it's hardly necessary for the daily human experience.

 

[PocketZeven]

Well, if your morality isn't logical or rational then you're just doing whatever the hell you feel like. Which is essentially what constitutes the lowest common denominator in the objective system; it's been referred to previously as "might makes right".

If there's no consistency or structure behind your moral choices, then in what sense do you have a moral system?



A religion can have a logical moral code, although many don't. But it's not impossible for a religion to have an internally consistent logic, even if the statements and assumptions don't necessarily match up with anything in the real world.



The part where you explain anything about how you arrived at those decisions?

You explained what you would do. You didn't explain why, and you didn't explain the integration with your moral system that led to those choices.

Now, given the above it's possible that your morality is Cartman-style "I do what I want", and that no deeper explanation than the actions themselves is possible. In which case, you should probably stop talking about morality altogether, because if your actions don't have at least some consideration then the idea of morality is foreign to you.

I clearly did not state my morality is not logical or rational. Where did you get that idea? Dont interpret my post in absolutes. Not all moral choices made are logical. That does not equate in me saying that "morality isn't logical or rational". Many people for example make dubious moral decision whcich even they connot logically or rationally explain.

I clearly stated the logical and rational conclusion, that I would choose whatever choice that has the least casualties. To further explain what the main difference is between this choice and choosing between my own children is that I have no emotional connection with 2 random children. In the case of my own children the choice psychologically is choosing to kill one of the children. In the case of the 2 unknown children psychologically the choice is saving 1 of the 2.

 

[Danoff]

I'm trying to learn about the philosophical basis of hedonism by doing some brief study of Jeremy Bentham and Nozick and his "experience machine". Fudamentally, hedonism (which underpins utilitarianism), states that your only true masters are pleasure and pain, and that everything you do in life is in pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. This is used to develop a morality around the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain (hedonism), or the collective pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain (utilitarianism, usually). The definitions underpinning hedonism are weak. If you found a counter-example, someone who did not seek pleasure, and instead sought pain, you'd simply redefine what they sought to be pleasure (from their perspective). Pleasure and pain can simply be boiled down to "that which people want" and "that which people don't want". And I think distilling it to this level makes it clear what the problem with extending hedonism across a population, people don't want the same things. They don't agree on pleasure, or pain, or what "the good life" means (ehem... Sam Harris).

So we're left with individual hedonism.

Nozick proposed an experience machine (the matrix) which was suited perfectly to your desires and would give you more overall pleasure than not being in it. You even get to forget that you're in it (Cypher). The question is whether you'd want to get into the machine. The usual answer is "no" and the philosophical justification for this usually amounts to "because you don't just want the experience, you want to actually do it". I'd argue that all you have is the experience, you don't know for sure that you actually "do" anything (Descartes). But this argument actually misses the point, because all that this is saying is that there is greater pleasure than the experience machine, it doesn't actually refute hedonism. I find the experience machine to be an inadequate debunking of hedonism.

Instead, I think the problem lies in the definition. All hedonism is saying is that you "ought" to do what you want to do. Which... is what you do, at every instant. It is tautological, and you cannot act in any other fashion. In other words, hedonism cannot be violated, and that makes it useless to us. I've gone over why in this thread.

I'm unconvinced that hedonism even represents a moral structure, or is falsifiable, or can even be acted against.