objective morality, for the umpteenth time

Posted on by

Another discussion of objective morality has broken out, so I thought I would provide a home for it.

579 thoughts on “objective morality, for the umpteenth time”

  1. sean,

    You are free to pass on my thought problem; just as I am free to pass on your request.

    I’ll happily engage your thought experiment if you can show me that it’s relevant to the topic. Meanwhile, the relevance of my request is obvious. We are talking about objective morality. Please provide an example of an objective moral truth or two.

  2. sean:

    The only way any moral system (objective or not) can be consistent is to be fact-sensitive: change the facts, change the issues, change the circumstances, and the answer has to be able to change too.

    keiths:

    Not so. There is nothing inconsistent about Kant’s belief that lying is always wrong, for instance. Do you disagree?

    sean:

    II disagree. An individual statement of belief does not constitute a moral system.

    His moral system delivers that belief as “the answer”, to use your phrase. What is inconsistent about a moral system that always delivers that answer, regardless of the circumstances?

  3. {Continuing}. But I’m afraid I’m not willing to hazard much on morality anymore. I’d like to think it’s somehow derivable from the prudential values (David Sobel has an interesting paper on that subject), but, if it is, I doubt I’m the guy for the job.

  4. walto,

    What I mean is that I’d still try to argue that the best world is a function of that type of aggregation, but I don’t mean ‘most moral’ by ‘best’ there.

    Have you also given up the idea that we can somehow sense the results of that (objective) aggregation? That was a role you attributed to conscience, back when you still thought the aggregation was a moral aggregation.

  5. keiths:[Kant’s] moral system delivers that belief as “the answer”, to use your phrase. What is inconsistent about a moral system that always delivers that answer, regardless of the circumstances?

    Is his system consistent? What does his moral system say about hiding an innocent person from a lynch mob?

    sean s.

  6. Finally, we argued about whether one can have objective evidence for moral claims. I said emotional responses (which I take to be intentional) provide such prima facie evidence, and you denied that. I don’t have anything to add to that discussion, which I believe played out twice.

  7. keiths,

    As indicated I still think emotions function in the world of value judgments much as perceptions function in the world of factual judgments.

    I know you don’t agree, but I have no interest at all in rehashing this matter. Those who are interested can look at the old threads. I’m sure you can supply the links.

  8. sean:

    Is his [Kant’s] system consistent?

    According to you, it can’t be:

    The only way any moral system (objective or not) can be consistent is to be fact-sensitive: change the facts, change the issues, change the circumstances, and the answer has to be able to change too.

    Can you back that up? How would a moral system that holds that lying is always immoral necessarily be inconsistent?

    What does his moral system say about hiding an innocent person from a lynch mob?

    It’s immoral to lie in that situation, according to Kant.

  9. sean,

    But clearly objective morality must include objective statements about subjective things. Morality touches on things like flourishing, happiness, right and wrong; all these are normally subjective topics that an objective morality must be able to address objectively.

    The whole point of objective morality is to claim that some things are objectively right, and others objectively wrong.

    For some reason, you are reluctant to state what some of those things are, in your purportedly objective moral system. Why?

  10. keiths: Can you back that up? How would a moral system that holds that lying is always immoral necessarily be inconsistent?

    Are Kant’s moral instructions connected systemically or just a pile of ad hoc do’s and don’t’s? In other words, does Kant actually give us a moral system?

    What would serve as the basis of a moral “system” that said lying is immoral but enabling a lynching is moral?

    How are those two rules “consistent” with each other?

    sean s.

  11. keiths: For some reason, you are reluctant to state what some of those things are, in your purportedly objective moral system. Why?

    As I already said, I think it’s too soon. I’ve been clear that I need time to prepare. That was clear at the outset.

    I gave you a thought problem to consider, why are you reluctant to?

    sean s.

  12. sean,

    I’m asking you to defend your assertion:

    The only way any moral system (objective or not) can be consistent is to be fact-sensitive: change the facts, change the issues, change the circumstances, and the answer has to be able to change too.

    Can you back that up? How would a moral system that holds that lying is always immoral necessarily be inconsistent?

    Note that this question applies to any such system, not just Kant’s.

  13. sean,

    As I already said, I think it’s too soon. I’ve been clear that I need time to prepare. That was clear at the outset.

    But again, I am merely asking you to state some objective moral truths, not to justify them. Is it really that difficult?

    If so, then just say something like “I can’t come up with any.” Admitting that wouldn’t mean that you’re wrong about objective morality. It’s logically possible for objective morality to exist even if you have no access to it. (That would make your argument a bit more difficult, however.)

    I gave you a thought problem to consider, why are you reluctant to?

    I told you: it’s because I don’t see how your thought experiment is relevant to objective morality. Would you care to explain the relevance?

  14. keiths: I’m asking you to defend your assertion:
    …
    Can you back that up? How would a moral system that holds that lying is always immoral necessarily be inconsistent?

    Note that this question applies to any such system, not just Kant’s.

    I will. But as I’ve said: not yet.

    sean s.

  15. sean,

    To make the problem even starker, consider the following moral system:

    Everything is permissible, except for lying.

    According to you, that moral system must be inconsistent.

    The only way any moral system (objective or not) can be consistent is to be fact-sensitive: change the facts, change the issues, change the circumstances, and the answer has to be able to change too.

    Where is the inconsistency in that very simple moral system?

  16. keiths: But again, I am merely asking you to state some objective moral truths, not to justify them. Is it really that difficult?

    OK, but I’m not going to try to defend or explain until the fuller explanation is ready. Not to you; not to anyone. Not yet.

    1: Do no unjustified harm.
    2: Treat others as you want to be treated by others.
    3: Except to prevent a harm, do not deceive.

    That should get you started.

    Obviously, I’ll need a definition of “harm”; that’s easy enough.

    Here’s where that thought problem would help you. If you don’t see the connection after a little effort, then I despair of ever reaching you.

    sean s.

  17. That’s not a moral system; it’s just an arbitrary statement.

    A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole; a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

    If all you want is consistency, then you could have stopped after the third word: “Everything is permissible.”

    sean s.

  18. sean,

    Thank you for stating those. I think it will save us some time, because I can already see some trouble with where you’re headed.

    For example, you state the following:

    2: Treat others as you want to be treated by others..

    The corresponding objective moral truth is presumably:

    It is objectively wrong not to treat others as you would wish to be treated.

    But how is that objectively true? Suppose someone says that it’s permissible to treat others in a way that you yourself would not wish to be treated. How would you demonstrate that they are objectively wrong?

  19. sean,

    That’s not a moral system; it’s just an arbitrary statement.

    No, it’s a moral system. It enables one to determine, for any action A, whether A is morally permissible within the system.

    If A involves lying, it’s impermissible. It A doesn’t involve lying, it’s permissible.

    Simple and consistent.

  20. Wow. You kept your promise for less than ten minutes! So, what was your actual intent when you wrote:

    keiths: I am merely asking you to state some objective moral truths, not to justify them.

    sean s.

  21. Dude,

    You don’t have to answer. I am simply stating my objections so that you can take them into account when formulating your justifications!

  22. keiths,

    Dude;

    if you say you’re not going to do something, then DON’T DO IT. Your intent may have been innocent, but in fact you did exactly what you said you wouldn’t.

    Of course you could have started your comment with “You don’t have to answer now, but …” Then it would have all been clear.

    Offsetting penalties, we’ll repeat the down.

    sean s.

  23. sean,

    Relax. I am not asking you to justify your claims now. You can do that later.

    I am going to state my objections now so that you can take them into account. I want to save us some time down the road. You’re making the same mistakes that others have made when trying to defend objective morality. There’s no need for us to repeat history if I can preemptively address those mistakes.

    Don’t try to control what others say. Just roll with the discussion.

  24. sean,

    If all you want is consistency, then you could have stopped after the third word: “Everything is permissible.”

    We aren’t merely talking about consistent moral systems. We’re talking about moral systems in which lying is always immoral. Hence my question:

    Can you back that up? How would a moral system that holds that lying is always immoral necessarily be inconsistent?

    As I think you can (now) see, the system I described above is consistent and holds that lying is always immoral.

  25. sean:

    1: Do no unjustified harm.
    2: Treat others as you want to be treated by others.
    3: Except to prevent a harm, do not deceive.

    That should get you started.

    Obviously, I’ll need a definition of “harm”; that’s easy enough.

    Here’s where that thought problem would help you. If you don’t see the connection after a little effort, then I despair of ever reaching you.

    It’s obvious in your locked room thought experiment that some strategies are objectively better than others at conforming to your stated principles. What isn’t obvious at all is that your stated principles are objectively moral.

    That’s why I say your thought experiment is irrelevant. It doesn’t get us one bit closer to objective morality.

  26. keiths:
    sean,

    We aren’t merely talking about consistent moral systems. We’re talking about moral systems in which lying is always immoral. Hence my question:

    … How would a moral system that holds that lying is always immoral necessarily be inconsistent?

    As I think you can (now) see, the system I described above is consistent and holds that lying is always immoral.

    You are playing fast and loose with the term “system”.

    Your “system” is nothing but an isolated, free-standing claim; those are easily made consistent within themselves. In this instance there’s nothing else in that “system” for your claim to be inconsistent with.

    Inconsistency requires parts; your “system” consists of only one part: the one statement. This is not a “system” but merely an isolated claim.

    Look at it this way: how can this statement be consistent? Consistent with what? Itself. Big Whoop …

    You can label it a “system”; you can also label a pig a “horse”. Go for it!

    Give me an actual system with some bases that systematize its moral claims and we’ll have something to kick around.

    sean s.

  27. keiths,

    Forget about the principles I supplied. Work through the problem, how are you going to survive and escape the locked room under the conditions given?

    Here I get to paraphrase Mark Twain: a person who won’t try has no advantage over someone who cannot.

    And of course, Dude, you don’t have to. But if you’re going to spend time thinking about it, think about it. If you’re not, don’t.

    sean s.

  28. sean,

    The system I presented can tell you, for any action A, whether that action is morally permissible or not. How is that not a moral system? What’s missing?

    Why must a moral system be more complicated than that?

    And even if you were actually right about that, it wouldn’t help you. It’s easy to come up with more complicated moral systems that are consistent and always forbid lying. For example:

    1. Lying is always immoral.
    2. Wearing plaids with stripes is always immoral.
    3. Tripping senior citizens is always immoral.
    4. Everything else is morally permissible.

    It’s complete, it’s consistent, and lying is always immoral within it.

    This isn’t UD, and you’re not arguing against kairosfocus. You’re going to have to up your game.

  29. Morality today is a “Swedish Buffet”… Individually, it all depends on what one does that is usually, or used to be, considered immoral… Not that long ago, kissing on TV was considered immoral… Now porking a pig has made one miniseries one of the best on Netflix…
    Morality? It’s a joke…

  30. Keiths; Do you claim that a collection of things is a system? Is a box of gravel a system?

    sean s.

  31. sean,

    Forget about the principles I supplied. Work through the problem, how are you going to survive and escape the locked room under the conditions given?

    I’ll be happy to, once you show me how your exercise is relevant to the topic of objective morality. I’m not going to take your word for it.

    I’ve explained why I think it isn’t relevant. Do you have a rebuttal to offer?

  32. sean,

    Why, specifically, doesn’t the following qualify as a moral system?

    1. Lying is always immoral.
    2. Wearing plaids with stripes is always immoral.
    3. Tripping senior citizens is always immoral.
    4. Everything else is morally permissible.

    What’s missing?

    And suppose we add whatever’s missing. How can you then guarantee that the system will be inconsistent if it holds that lying is always immoral?

    Your claim doesn’t make sense.

  33. sean samis: A system is a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole; a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

    I would say that in this context the “system” would need to be comprehensive enough to account for any moral circumstance that might come up in life.

  34. fifth, to sean samis:

    I would say that in this context the “system” would need to be comprehensive enough to account for any moral circumstance that might come up in life.

    The ones I’ve presented do that. For any action A, they can tell you whether or not A is morally permissible.

  35. walto,

    As indicated I still think emotions function in the world of value judgments much as perceptions function in the world of factual judgments.

    Here’s a comment describing the problems with your earlier version of that idea:

    However, the Hume issue is important. It gets at the heart of what we’re discussing here, which is why I keep emphasizing it.

    You claim that we sense what is objectively right or wrong via our consciences and emotions. For example:

    All my aversion to child sacrifice does is, in conjunction with my axiom that emotions are evidence-providing intentional experiences, is provide me evidence that it would be wrong to sacrifice children.

    In your model, there is a causal chain leading from the aggregated desires of sentient beings at any given time* to your perception of the fact that child sacrifice is objectively moral or immoral. If your position is compatible with the causal closure of the physical world, as you say, then this chain is completely physical. At some point in the chain a physical fact — an ‘is’ — becomes an objective ‘ought’, unless your final perception — that child sacrifice is or isn’t objectively wrong — is an illusion.

    Your position, as it stands, is incompatible with Hume’s (and many others’) view of the is/ought distinction.

    *Simultaneity is relative, of course, so this leads to the question, “Any given time in whose reference frame?” And since the causal chain is physical, presumably it’s only the sentient beings in our light cone that can have an impact on our objective moral sense.

    I quote this here because it highlights a second problem that moral objectivists face. Not only do they have to justify the existence of objective morality; they also have to explain how we access it (if we even can).

    An objective morality that exists but is inaccessible isn’t worth very much.

  36. And:

    Regarding the aggregating function, where does it happen, and how is it accomplished physically? Is it inside each of us, or outside somewhere? Are the desires of all sentient beings beamed to the aggregating point or points? Is it just the sentient beings within our light cone whose desires are aggregated? How do our consciences query the aggregating function to determine whether something is objectively moral?

  37. And another exchange from that same thread:

    Flint:

    As usual, this discussion confuses me. There are several strategies organisms use for survival. Two basic strategies are to have few offspring but guard and nurture them carefully (and expensively), and to have very large numbers of offspring few of which will ever reach reproductive age (and do no parenting at all beyond fertilization). And there are hybrids of these, like the octopus that guards a large number of eggs for a few months until they hatch, and then dies.

    I think it’s unavoidable that those who adopt the first approach, like humans, to regard the avoidable loss of a single offspring as morally objectionable. And if humans used the second strategy, stressing over the loss of even most offspring would be a waste of time.

    I don’t see any moral objectivity here. I see only attitudes consistent with the optimal survival strategy, as a function of reproductive approaches.

    keiths:

    Yes, and it’s symptomatic of another problem with walto’s model — the lack of selective pressure for the ability to sense objective morality, assuming the latter even exists.

    Evolution “cares” only about what gets genes into future generations. It doesn’t care about objective morality, so there is no reason to expect that our consciences have evolved to be accurate diviners of objective morality. A false or purely subjective sense of morality is perfectly fine by the lights of evolution — all that matters is that it promotes reproductive success.

    And the two strategies you highlight — few offspring and a large investment in each versus many offspring and little or no investment — also pose a challenge for walto in this sense: his aggregating function aggregates desires across all sentient beings. How does that work? Do the mass reproducers have a moral say in how the heavy investors treat their offspring? Vice-versa? Is it species-restricted? Do the mass reproducers of Alpha Centauri, who outnumber us by many trillions, get to determine what is and isn’t objectively moral here on earth?

    It’s a bit ad hoc, to put it mildly.

    None of these problems arise with subjective morality.

  38. fifthmonarchyman: I would say that in this context the “system” would need to be comprehensive enough to account for any moral circumstance that might come up in life.

    I’ve forgotten – I’ve beaten my friends slave to death, could you remind me if that was OK or not? Would it help if my friend “sold” me the slave? Or if I converted to Judaism?

    I’m always getting confused about what you can and cannot do to your own slaves. One thing is clear, however, I can rape them whenever I feel like it.

    FMM? Could you help a brother out?

  39. OMagain: FMM? Could you help a brother out?

    Sure, I’ll give it a try

    The first thing you need to do is get beyond your debilitating irrational hatred of a God that you deny exists.

    Perhaps then you could begin to get a life and not try and derail every thread you participate in.

    After that if this sort of stuff was still an issue for you I would spend some time with folks who haven’t been hindered with the same emotional baggage you have for all theses years. They might be able to get your mind off your obsession.

    On the other hand if your comment was really just some off the cuff throwaway lines to score points against the evil Christians I would suggest your attempts would be much more effective if you spent a little time learning what your opponents actually believe.

    peace

  40. fifthmonarchyman: The first thing you need to do is get beyond your debilitating irrational hatred of a God that you deny exists.

    I don’t hate a god that does not exist. I hate you.

    fifthmonarchyman: Perhaps then you could begin to get a life and not try and derail every thread you participate in.

    Says the guy who derails every thread he participates in.

    fifthmonarchyman: After that if this sort of stuff was still an issue for you I would spend some time with folks who haven’t been hindered with the same emotional baggage you have for all theses years.

    Yes, apologists for rape and slavery do get my goat, yes.

    fifthmonarchyman: They might be able to help you to get a more accurate understanding.

    The bible talks about the permissible circumstances for rape and slavery. My understanding is as good as it needs to be.

    fifthmonarchyman: On the other hand if your comment was really just some off the cuff throwaway lines to score points against the evil Christians I would suggest your attempts would be much more effective if you spent a little time learning what your opponents actually believe.

    I’ve read your “holy” book. Every single word in it is true, according to you. And that’s where I’m getting my information about your beliefs, and the rules regarding rape and slavery.

  41. Oh, but slavery was just more like having a job in those days I hear you cry. But if objective morality is just that, objective, then why don’t I own slaves myself today? Or “employees” as FMM is wont to call them.

    What’s changed? Why can’t I go down the “employee auction” and “buy” some “employees”?

    It’s almost as if objective morality is viewed through a lens so thick it does not matter what or even if anything is on the far side of the lens.

  42. OMagain: I hate you.

    Hate is a virus it will eventually kill it’s host

    OMagain: Yes, apologists for rape and slavery do get my goat, yes

    Mine too. How many of those folks have you come across in your life?

    OMagain: The bible talks about the permissible circumstances for rape and slavery. My understanding is as good as it needs to be.

    If your understanding was a little better you might be in an actual position to say what the bible talks about, as it is all you are doing is saying what someone who does not understand thinks it says.

    You are like the ignorant hillbilly who crows that “Biology says that human babies are worth the same as bread mold. My understanding of it is a good as it needs to be ”

    OMagain: I’ve read your “holy” book. Every single word in it is true, according to you. And that’s where I’m getting my information about your beliefs, and the rules regarding rape and slavery.

    No you are not, you are getting your information from the internet.

    If you were actually getting your information from the Bible you would not have to to ask me the questions you just did.

    peace

  43. OMagain: What’s changed?

    If you honestly don’t know it means you have completely and totally missed the entire point of the Bible and of history.

    peace

  44. fifthmonarchyman: Hate is a virus it will eventually kill it’s host

    We all die.

    fifthmonarchyman: Mine too. How many of those folks have you come across in your life?

    I’m taking to one right now. Would you like me to link to your defense of the indefensible?

    fifthmonarchyman: If your understanding was a little better you might be in an actual position to say what the bible talks about as it is all you are doing is saying what someone who does not understand thinks it says.

    So the bible does not talk about the permissible circumstances for rape and slavery? Really?

    fifthmonarchyman: You are like the ignorant hillbilly who crows that “Biology says that human babies are worth the same as bread mold. My understanding of it is a good as it needs to be ”

    Remind me about your ideas regarding “species” again?

    fifthmonarchyman: No you are not, you are getting your information from the internet.

    That’s odd, the monks who taught me for a decade or so might beg to differ.

    fifthmonarchyman: If you were actually getting your information from the Bible you would not have to to ask me the questions you just did.

    I’m not really asking you anything. I don’t expect rational answers from you. Some sentences might end in question marks but that’s just convention. I don’t expect you to address the reasons why the type of “slavery” talked about in the bible is now objectionable (even if I believe your apologetics regarding what slavery really was back then) if it was accepted then and how that relates to a “so called” objective morality.

    No, you’d rather talk about my hatred of god so if that somehow elides over all the points you’ve never been able to address.

  45. fifthmonarchyman: If you honestly don’t know it means you have completely and totally missed the entire point of the Bible and of history.

    So objective morality changes over time? It’s hardly objective then is it?

    What is the point of the bible? That your god is a despicable piece of shit? Sure, I get that. And that many of his followers are basically as despicable, sure, I get that too.

    The world is ridding itself of “the bible” by virtue of the fact that fewer and fewer people give a shit about it. We can draw that graph when the number of believes will cross the zero line. We’ll all be long gone by then I’m sure but it’s going to happen…

  47. fifthmonarchyman: Do you think every form of slavery is evil?

    Yes.

    fifthmonarchyman: We both believe that the Bible does not condone slavery as it is defined defined by most people (ie race based chattel slavery as it was experienced in the U.S.).

    Many biblical scholars have the view that reliance on biblical ethics generally has delayed the abolition of slavery. Many people used the bible to justify race based chattel slavery.

    How odd that is if the two types of “slavery” were totally different, as you claim. What a shame you were not around then to correct their understanding.

    fifthmonarchyman: Do you think that adding a commandment or two would have meant less rape and slavery?

    It would have allowed those fighting against chattel based race slavery to unambiguously demonstrate that it was “wrong”, would it not?

    fifthmonarchyman: If it did not work for murder or adultery what would make you think it would work for rape?

    It’s almost as if women were second class citizens back then and your god and bible condoned that explicitly. But, as with slavery, it’s all a matter of interpretation.

    And if the commandments did nothing and achieved nothing, what was the point of them at all?

  49. OMagain: So objective morality changes over time? It’s hardly objective then is it?

    Who said anything about morality changing? Morality did not change God’s patience just reached it limit.

    end quote:

    The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
    (Act 17:30-31)

    end quote:

    peace

  50. OMagain: I was taught by monks at a religious school for a long time.

    I would say that is the root of your problem.

    OMagain: Out of interest, have these tactics of yours ever worked with anyone before at all?

    What tactics????

    If you think that human tactics could ever work to make anyone abandon their rebellion against God you understand the bible even less than I thought

    peace

Leave a Reply