For the sake of this thread let us define objective morality as a system of ethics or set of moral judgments that is not only true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true . Can we find a measurable basis for saying a moral precept is true?
First , let us choose a starting point. Human well being is a good topic. I have often said that my ethics are based on trying to imagine the kind of world I want my grandchildren to inherit then acting accordingly.
So , let's focus on a human child's well being in particular. Can we measure what is necessary for a child to develop into a physically and psychologically healthy adult? Of course , and we can measure what produces sickness in a child. So can we objectively say that war is not healthy for children and other living things? I believe we can supply the necessary data to prove that point.
Is my selection of human well being as a starting point purely subjective therefore nullifying my comments above? I think not taking into account the selfish gene theory.
Your opinions?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Morality comes from society but it also comes from an individual. There inlies the conflict.
We can go furthur than that and intertwine scientific fact with a moral landscape.. It's beautifully explained by sam harris here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gyGI7sh1E
chimp3 - "So can we objectively say that war is not healthy for children and other living things?"
How many 'unhealthies' is an average war? How many 'unhealthies' was a particular war? And for some comparison: how many 'unhealthies' is being beaten regularly? We also need more than just the values. We need the system used to generate them so others can perform those calculations and calculate in new situations.
This is why objective morality seems like a pipe dream.
PTSD. Soldiers , rape victims , victims of child abuse suffer from it. It is categorized as an actual illness . The ICD-10 codes for PTSD are as follows:
F43.10 PTSD , unspecified
F43.11 PTSD , acute
F43.12 , chronic
Medications and psychotherapy are used to treat this disease with measurable results.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/05/04/476496946/pregnant-w...
Objective morality cannot be defined. Centuries have proven that morality is subjective not objective. The fact is that defining morality in order to act on it or within it's bounds is not only elusive but actually has been the basis to do just the opposite. Take N.Carolina's bathroom bill. The people that have you believe that they are being "moral" by forcing people to use restrooms designated for the sex that appears on their birth certificate. In fact they are playing the morality card to impose their immoral discrimination and prejudice. So like you I am an idealist but I have to come down to earth on this subject. We can throw out conjectures and suppositions and formulate our definition of morality but it won't come close to what morality is or even will be. I see what you want to do here. I know that it is an honest attempt at nailing down what morality really is for humanity and the benefit of all, but it is an illusion. It can't be done because "morality" is a construct of individual ideals of what morality is. It is the social acceptability of the norm. No matter how hard you try your ideal of basic morality will invariably cast an ever so slight injustice to an individual or group over time. The people that set a standard of what marriage is, that it is a union between a man and a woman think that they are being moral. That ideal is actually an attack on the individual rights of people who are gay , whether they choose to be or can't help but be anything but gay. (sorry for the "but gay" pun...totally unintentional.).
Morality is dynamic and difficult just like political correctness is difficult and dynamic. What is acceptable now may not be in the future. What is taboo now may be accepted in the future. Hell murder may be acceptable some day in the future as it was long ago or at least a degree of it will be.
That is my point. You can say that you want to "define objective morality" and yet you can't because morality by it's very nature is subjective.
mykcob, you do make a good point(s). Particularly when considering how veiws change over several years. It would indeed be largely impossible for a set standard to remain long without becoming obsolete.
chimp3, Your question deserves serious consideration. I'm afraid that you are in for a long read--again!
Science might be able to tell us how to arrive at "A," if we know what "A" is, but it can't tell us that we should head there. We have to set the goal ourselves. But, who has the right definition of morality? One society thought it well and good to sacrifice young maidens on cold mountain tops. Another society felt that slavery was ordained by God. Can pure reason objectively settle the issue? Unfortunately, we have an even bigger problem. Definitions are neither right nor wrong! Nobody can ever prove that their definition of morality is right!
Definitions might be ambiguous or maliciously confusing, which are good reasons for not using them, but they are never wrong. A definition might not define anything at all due to an internal contradiction, but that means that it was never a definition to begin with. "True" and "false" only apply to statements about something. A definition, on the other hand, is a user's declaration as to what he or she means by a word or phrase. It is not a statement that can be evaluated as true or false. A dictionary is just a compilation of the more widely used definitions. Hence, the idea of judging the correctness of a definition is incoherent and a waste of time. The usefulness of a definition, of course, can be judged.
Is a search for objective morality then futile? Can it be true, when all is said and done, that we can't condemn a Hitler? But wait! Don't we have the wrong criteria? Air-tight rigor was never in the cards once we left mathematics and drew conclusions about the real world of atoms and energy. Some uncertainty, as any good scientist will admit, is inescapable. However, that does not mean one idea is as good as another. It does not mean that we can't reach a deep understanding of nature in a very meaningful sense. Those who disagree might try stepping off a cliff. After all, you might gently float!
Since a search for an objective, mathematically demonstrable system of morality is futile, it seems reasonable to begin with the broadest human consensus. That we condemn Hitler is a little like arguing for a spherical earth. We can't be certain that the Earth is spherical (check out "The Matrix") since we can't plug all the logical loopholes, but we can be enormously confident that we are correct. It's that same confidence that allows us to drive to work. We assume (with various degrees of confidence but not certainty) that the bedroom door will open, that a red light is not an illusion, that our car will perform as expected, that the usual route will get us to work rather than sending us elsewhere, and everything else that makes up our morning reality.
Of what use is morality? What does morality do that makes it so desirable? Now, there's a question to throw some light on the subject! For some people morality may be little more than a ticket to heaven. But even those people invariably depict immoral societies as horrible places to live. Morality, once we get past arbitrary, dogmatic formulas, seems to be the ingredient that creates a society worth living in. It's immoral to steal (within your group) because you don't want your neighbor ripping off your unprotected stuff. It's immoral to lie (within your group) because trust is needed for cooperation, and cooperation is needed for survival. Indeed, Darwinian evolution itself may set the biological stage upon which culture instills that little, inner voice that tells you some actions are wrong. Morality, in its broadest useful sense, would be the grease that allows people to mesh smoothly and create a society worth living in. But, we're not done yet. Another ingredient is needed.
Once again, we reach for the broadest human consensus on which to build a meaningful morality. Healthy people of almost every stripe prefer to avoid unpleasant situations. An owner of slaves is not about to trade places with one of his slaves! Those priests who spoke elegantly and sincerely about the need to sacrifice virgins on lonely mountain tops shaped a society that did not make them the sacrifice! Those who do the sacrificing rarely volunteer as sacrifices!
The point is that the slave and the sacrificed virgin are, in a deep sense, us! If we fully understood that fact then we could hardly condone a slave society or human sacrifices--or a Hitler. Great moralizers down through the ages, who gave us their equivalents of the Golden Rule, understood that point. Morality, born within the group, now requires decent treatment for the outsider. Indeed, with some modifications, all sentient animals (of which we are one species) are deserving of consideration. That is the logical extension of this idea.
What sets you apart from the person across the street? What makes you "you?" (Let us ignore superficial distractions by saying that this person looks a lot like yourself, shares a similar health, and hails from a similar cultural background.) That which isolates you, which makes you "you," is a lack of knowledge. Now, there's an odd twist! Ignorance gives us our identity! If you had a perfect understanding of that person from the sensations in his or her feet as they trod the sidewalk to his or her perception of reality, if you deeply felt that person's history, hopes, fears and dreams, then in some deep sense you are that person. You might have a split personality if your perfect knowledge of that person did not wipe out your previous knowledge of self. (That raises an odd question. If God has a perfect knowledge of you will he forget that he is God?) If your understanding of that person on the other side of the street is as good as that of yourself, which personality is now the real "you?"
However you choose to answer that question, any harm you do to that person (whom you know so perfectly) would be equally painful to yourself. Thus, if your knowledge were only more perfect, you would not do gratuitous harm to another person any more than you would want that harm done to you. The very wall that gives us our identity also encourages us to act as selfish, immoral individuals. Empathy, that splendid ability to partially see through that wall, is the chief, inner means for checking such impulses.
A mathematically deductive road to morality is futile. However, on the broadest possible principles relevant to humanity (where we must seek the meaning of human morality) we have arrived at a point where we can say something about morality. Moral behavior opposes gratuitous harm to others, and by extension unnecessary cruelty to animals (sentient beings). Morality delights in helping others and is the grease that reduces friction in a society--making for a society worth living in. So, that's the framework I see.
Many society choices, such as dress codes--Pacific Island Nude or English Formal--appear to be neutral on the morality scale. However, Pacific Island Nude in Victorian England would be a no-no in that a lot of unjustified friction would be generated! :)
mykcob4 -- "Objective morality cannot be defined. Centuries have proven that morality is subjective not objective."
Greensnake : "Many society choices, such as dress codes--Pacific Island Nude or English Formal--appear to be neutral on the morality scale. However, Pacific Island Nude in Victorian England would be a no-no in that a lot of unjustified friction would be generated! :) "
Starting with human well being as a basis could we measure the physiological and cultural effects of Victorian sexual oppression vs. the opposite in a "Pacific Island Nude" society? In the fundamentalist Islamic world women suffer from reproductive disorders because of prohibitions against exposing themselves to male physicians and the lack of female physicians . Could we then draw objective conclusions about which moral precepts produce healthy humans vs. sick ones?
Again, morality isn't a science. There are too many variable factors that cannot be factored out.
If physical health is the goal, then we have our "A" and science should be able to find paths to "A." Well being is harder to define and measure. However, allowing a minority to run around nude in Victorian England would add major stress in that society for frivolous reasons. It would reduce most everyone's sense of well being. Therefore, I would call it immoral. But this is not a pass for Victorian society much less for Muslim society. No doubt there could be a whole boatload of improvements all around. As in golf, we have to play the ball where it lies.
Is well being and health the same thing? Mountain climbers suffer an untimely death all too often. Should a society that encourages extreme mountain climbing and other risky sports be judged as encouraging immoral behavior? Or, is it the case that these participants are living the ideal life? At least there is the thrill of accomplishment, the 'high' of doing it. What about a society that allows people to smoke cigars and pipes which many people seem to enjoy? Given the unhealthy nature of tobacco, should smoking be considered immoral?
Clearly, women in the fundamentalist Islamic world (the vast majority of Muslim women) would have been better off if their society had never evolved in a way that put them into such a bind. One of the jobs (explanations) of morality, as I saw it, is to reduce stress (from theft, murder, etc.) in a society. The question of building an ideal society seems to be another can of philosophical worms altogether. Immoral actions, as I viewed them, applied to individuals doing something to others. Society came in when large numbers of individuals are motivated to behave immorally. Think 'Hitler.' I have not explored how immoral behavior might relate to individuals who harm themselves. Can a hermit do anything immoral aside from mistreating animals?
I suspect that most of those Muslim women would not want to see a male doctor. I presently take the view that their choice cannot be faulted without introducing debatable assumptions. One factor that seems reasonable applies whenever a choice is made on the basis of demonstrably false data (such as religion). That is, if that person realized that fact they would choose otherwise.
I think there is no scientific way of defining morality, nor determining a mechanism for establishing it. A society can be judged by the way it treats its weaker members. The answer (I think) lies in education, communication and politics, not science or philosophy. A society that has free speech and expression and a democratic system of government will collectively act with more morality than other societies. I think history proves as much. Morality is a matter of degree, not absolute. It is also infinite and not finite. It doesn't lend itself to numerical measurement. So there can be no mechanism to regulate it and no empirical measure of it.
ZeffD : "A society that has free speech and expression and a democratic system of government will collectively act with more morality than other societies."
Is that a claim that can be supported? If so , it supports my claim.
I kinda show up late for this topic, mainly every time I am gonna reply, I either have to leave or get discouraged since I replied to this subject too many times by now.
"So can we objectively say that war is not healthy for children and other living things? I believe we can supply the necessary data to prove that point."
No we cannot.
Objective morality means; that no matter the situation, no matter the universe you are in, a CHOICE is always morally correct/incorrect.
So to prove this statement wrong all I need to do is imagine a universe/situation where this statement is wrong.
If the choice to start WW1 did not happen, today Christendom could still be an empire and they would proceed to destroy the human race with a lethal virus to hasten the rapture or something.
If that situation happened then wars are sometimes a good thing. It could make people learn from their mistakes or even discover them before it is too late.
Wars also have some beneficial elements, science flourishes mostly during wars.
Things that before were not even considered, now they will get the funding to actually attempt at them and make new discoveries that could help mankind in the long run. They could also save mankind from a future threat.
Apart from that:
NO NO there is no objective morality, since objective morality IMPLIES that someone that has all knowledge can have a CHOICE which is always right.
Unless you KNOW someone that has all the knowledge or knows everything you cannot have objective morality.
This is like someone not knowing anything about the universe(like most people) claiming that a an unknown element does not exist.
You must first define an unknown element, else that statements is nonsense and contradictory, since you are IMPLYING that a person/thing that knows everything(you or otherwise) knows there are no more unknown elements. You are claiming that He/you knows all the elements.
Same for objective morality, you would be indirectly claiming that someone knows all knowledge/situations possible.
You must first show that such a person exists to even consider objective morality as a sane belief.
chimp3 - 'Starting with human well being as a basis could we measure the physiological and cultural effects of Victorian sexual oppression vs. the opposite in a "Pacific Island Nude" society?'
I don't think we can, but I could be wrong. If you think we can, try to come up with something concrete and share it.
The moral and cultural practices of the Catholic priesthood fostered pedophilia and the surrounding criminal conspiracies. Perhaps a sociological and psychological research project could reveal the mechanisms of this deviant culture . We then have an objective basis for calling it immoral. Perhaps a way of supporting the claim that "it takes religion to make good people do bad things".
chimp3, the problem with defining morality is that ultimately people make those decisions. Psychology is not an exact science as of yet, therefor morality cannot be exact in definition. This lends itself to opinion and corruption. The Constitution of the United States of America is the closest document that tried to define basic human rights ergo morality of a society. The Founders knew that was an impossibility, so they designed the Constitution to be a 'living document." This allowed for the dynamics of society to redefine morality as it saw fit. They did however see stalwarts that were constant an implemented them as ironclad pieces that for the most part could not and should not be corrupted. The most significant being individual freedom. Even this has been compromised. Take the right to privacy or freedom of speech, they have been redefined, and are continually evolving to fit what is currently acceptable.
I prefer to apply "morality" to individual choices, including large numbers of individuals acting from a common cause. A society that encourages immoral behavior, either deliberately or unwittingly, would be a defective society in my terms. No doubt studies could throw a great deal of illumination on the probable causes and possible remedies. Is a defective society an immoral society? I think its apples and oranges. A government, to the extent that it reflects a leader's choice, or even the choice of some governing body, might reasonably be called "immoral," but it really goes back to individual choices as I see it.
For something to be objective, you really need a way to measure/calculate an attribute about it. Let me give a few examples:
The length of a board. I propose we define the length of a board as the measurement you get from placing a yard stick along its length. Even if you do not agree this is the way to measure the length of the board, if you follow my instructions you will get the same result as me.
How much my dog likes beans: This one is harder but probably doable. I suggest we measure it by creating an experiment where we give my dog the choice of the same 5 food items every meal, for 100 meals, and the number of times he chooses the beans we define as 'how much he likes beans'. Again you might disagree with me that this is a proper way to measure this, but again, you would probably get a very similar result if you did it as well.
If we want to discuss an objective morality, we will need gritty details on how it is going to be defined and measured in such a way where we can all get the same results. This is what I think is very difficult. Once you have that the next step is convincing people that your method is meaningful. Say we try the dog eating beans thing above and we do get the same results each time. Even though we find it to be objectively measuring something, you might disagree that it is actually measuring my dog's love for beans. I think this will be another extremely difficult hurdle for any objective morality.
And yet the problem still arises that even if a "moral standard" is found and set, chances are that over time it will be rendered obsolete, much like the "laws" in the Bible.
For sure!
I am not seeking to define morality or set a moral standard. I am claiming we can measure the effects of a moral practice on a persons health and well being. Do people in sexually repressed societies suffer from more heart disease or is there more rape in these cultures?
It is well documented that child abusers are largely victims of abuse . This gives us an objective basis for saying child abuse is wrong.
chimp3 - "I am not seeking to define morality or set a moral standard."
vs
chimp3 - "This gives us an objective basis for saying child abuse is wrong."
"This gives us an objective basis for saying child abuse is wrong."
Again chimp, you either missed my post or did not understand what I said.
If you can imagine a situation where child abuse is the right moral choice, then it's not objectively wrong.
Even if you cannot imagine a situation, you cannot say it still because you do not know all the situations while you are implying you know them when you claim it.
This goes deep in understanding that morality is A CHOICE in a particular SITUATION.
NOT an ABSTRACT ACTION(eg: kill,love,rape, child abuse, etc..)
chimp3, It seems to me that we have to know what a moral practice is before we can measure its effects on health and well being. Eating a good breakfast might have a measurable affect on good health and well being, but I would not call that a "moral" practice. We can try to measure how various choices by a society affect health and well being, which better fits your idea, but without a definition of morality we couldn't say whether those choices were moral choices or just unhealthy choices.
Following my earlier exploration of the topic, I would say that morality does have a consistent meaning in the broadest human sense and that we are justified on those grounds (not in a sense of objective certainty) in calling child abuse "immoral." That's an example of what we, in the broadest human sense, currently mean by "immoral." We can speak with some confidence but cannot dot every "i" and cross every "t." It's as though we obtained a wide consensus within some group in a limited community as to the best place to eat lunch. We have no objective means for saying that it is the best place. Hell, we haven't even defined what constitutes a good place to eat lunch. But, our group being of a particular cultural background, we do have a pretty good, general idea. We are ultimately talking about what we like, so an overwhelming group consensus of people like yourself is grounds for a confident decision.
Specifically: 1) In some sense that kid is us (see my original post) and we would not harm him needlessly anymore than healthy individuals typical of societies everywhere would gratuitously harm themselves. 2) It creates needless problems in a society if kids grow up badly.
All great replies. Thank You all. I knew I would have to stretch to defend this proposition. Now I have climbed a tall tree , way out on a limb , and the wind is shaking the branches.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/health/effects-spanking-brain/index.html
Is it wrong to spank your child ?
"Is it wrong to spank your child ?"
depends on the situation.
spank your child is an abstract action not a choice in a particular situation.
Eg:
If you have the knowledge that it will benefit the child then it is moral
If you have the knowledge that it will make things worse then it is immoral.
It surly is not Objectively wrong though.
See there is no possible way that objective morality exists unless the one who is making the choice is omniscient.
So you have to start with omniscience first, rather then objective morality and theists won't go there because they know that there is no way a human can know if an omniscient person/being exists.
Thus it follows that objective morality cannot be shown to exist either, making their argument really nonsense.
"Objective Morality" is an oxymoronic use of two words that cannot ever be constructively assembled into the same sentence.
Morality and its more secular bother Ethics are, and have always been, strictly subjective in the time/place continuum of man. Never has man agreed upon what best represents either of those two virtues from culture to culture, time to time and place to place. They wander in the human mind as teachings without the benefit of globally accepted standards as reference.
In certain parts of the middle east it's accepted that, sexually speaking, little boys are for fun and women are for procreation only. Can that expect global acceptance? It's from that very region the architects of Christianity were from. Should we expect that their cultural origins have acceptance in the conduct of the Catholic priests who visit sodomy upon little boys throughout the world? Is that truly of a higher order of objectivity or is it wallowing low down in the gutter swill of subjectivity? Do we trust the world's religious organizations to bring to us morality and ethical behavior in light of the preceding? Yes?
If, by objectivity, you mean a secular rearing of children you are walking a very fine line that we all here endorse: man's sense of ethics and morality is part of his own make-up and not an ascription from a deity. If that's what you mean, then I give you the paragraph immediately above.
So, no, there isn't objectivity anywhere within or on any distant horizon where ethics and morality dwell. At least not while in the keeping of humanity. I suggest looking to the Gorilla for that.
Pitar, once again you sweep the entire discussion away into pointlessness with a single comment. And this time I agree.