Since objective morality is The Topic That Won’t Die here at TSZ, I think we need Yet Another Thread to Discuss It.
A Sam Harris quote to get things rolling (h/t walto):
There are two mistakes I see moral subjectivists making. The first mistake is believing in the fact-value dichotomy. The second mistake is conflating moral philosophy and psychology, suggesting that our psychology ought to be the sole determinant of our beliefs.
I’ll only address the fact-value dichotomy mistake here. Subjectivists typically exaggerate the gap between facts and values. While there is a useful distinction to be made between facts and values, it’s usually taken too far.
Let me explain. Facts in science are held in high epistemic regard by non-religious people, including me. But scientific facts are theory-laden. And theory choice in science is value-laden. What values inform choices of scientific theory? Verifiability, falsifiability, explanatory value, predictive value, consistency (logical, observational, mathematical), parsimony, and elegance. Do these values, each taken alone, necessarily make or prove a scientific theory choice correct? No. But collectively, they increase the probability that a theory is the most correct or useful. So, as the philosopher Hilary Putnam has put it, facts and values are “entangled.” Scientific facts obtain their veracity through the epistemic values listed above. If I reject those epistemic values (as many religious people do), and claim instead that a holy book holds more epistemic value for me, does that mean science is subjective?
I maintain the same is true of morality. Moral facts, such as “X is right or good,” are at least value-laden, and sometimes also theory-laden, just like scientific facts. What values inform choices of moral belief and action? Justice, fairness, empathy, flourishing of conscious creatures, and integrity (i.e. consistency of attitudes, beliefs, and behavior between each other and over time). Do these values, each taken alone, necessarily make or prove a moral choice correct? No. But collectively, they increase the probability that a moral choice is the most correct or useful. So again, as the philosopher Hilary Putnam has put it, facts and values are “entangled.” Moral facts obtain their veracity through the values listed above (and maybe through other values as well; the list above is not necessarily complete).
Now, the subjectivist can claim that the moral values are subjective themselves, but that is no different than the religious person claiming scientific values are subjective. The truth is that we have no foundation for any knowledge whatsoever, scientific or moral. All we have to support scientific or moral knowledge is a web of entangled facts and values, with values in science and morality being at the core of our web. Our values are also the least changeable, for if we modify them, we cause the most disruption to our entire web. It’s much easier to modify the factual periphery of our web.
If we reject objectivity in morality, we must give up objectivity in science as well, and claim that all knowledge is subjective, since all knowledge is ultimately based in values. I reject this view, and claim that the scientific and moral values listed above provide veracity to the scientific and moral claims I make. Religious people disagree with me on the scientific values providing veracity, and moral subjectivists disagree with me on the moral values providing veracity. But disagreement doesn’t mean there is no truth to the matter.
Thank you! Sadly, the tournament generally makes me MORE grumpy, though.
BTW, speaking of approbation, why the hell is approbation hearty approval while opprobrium is harsh criticism? What kind of asshole would make rules like these?! X>{
Probably due to the probative value of getting approval in a probe for truth, vs. the opposing oppression of yet being in a probationary period that is yet probing for problems.
Or more straightforwardly, “ad-” is forward looking and often optimistic (adprobrium (changed to approbrium) suggesting that it will be proved, “adproved”), while “ob” often denotes the object being under something, like investigation (probe) or pressure. Useful distinction, but subject to confusion in sound (as in “ap-” vs. “op-” as “ad-” and “ob-” shift to as prefixes to “prob-” (or whatever the latin word is)). Otherwise, mostly consistently applied.
Glen Davidson
That seems like a reasonable definition, but I don’t see how it applies to morality. We had a disagreement earlier where you supported restricting freedom of speech and I did not. How do we determine who is objectively correct and who is mistaken?
Moral claims may be more important but I don’t see that you’ve made the case that they are objective in the way you define it above.
Saying a claim is objective rather than subjective isn’t the same as making the case that it’s true, Patrick. Capiche?
Yikes! You’re making bracket choices almost seem simple! I thought Erik was the linguist here. You know what I’m an expert on?-
No. I mean, really. If you do, could you please let me know? Thx.
very interesting. We might at last be getting to the nub of the subjective/objective divide
If two of your own values “clash” how do you determine which one wins?
peace
fifth:
Moral intuition. But it usually isn’t as simple as declaring one the “winner” and abandoning the “loser”. More often, I keep both but find a way, often context-dependent, of adjudicating the cases in which they clash.
Now let’s take a look at how you deal with clashing values:
keiths July 31, 2016 at 1:07 am
keiths July 31, 2016 at 2:34 am
fifthmonarchyman July 31, 2016 at 6:03 am
keiths July 31, 2016 at 6:47 am
keiths July 31, 2016 at 6:54 am
keiths July 31, 2016 at 7:30 am
walto,
Read what he wrote:
walto,
I’ve raised some issues regarding your model of objective morality. Your response?
cool, It’s exactly as I thought
It’s my tentative hypothesis that since morality is objective your system of values will always contain contradictions (clashes) that must be “adjudicated” (read papered over).
quote;
They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their
conflicting thoughts
accuse or even excuse them
(Rom 2:15)
peace
Patrick does not make claims. His entire schtick is to shift the burden of proof on others and then dismiss their claims because they don’t meet his standard of “objective empirical evidence.” Whatever that means.
fifth,
Your own morality is hopelessly subjective by that standard, since you are trying to “paper over” God’s approval of slavery, stoning, and the mutilation of women for the “sin” of defending their husbands.
Dissonance. thy name is “fifth”.
You completely missed the point
If any of us must “paper over things” when it comes to our conscience it is ultimately because morality is objective.
If morality was subjective there would be no inherent reason to “paper over things” in order live with our “conflicting thoughts”.
Since I am a unitary consciousness If my my values originated only with me I could with some effort completely remove any contradiction that might arise in my conscience.
That is the tentative hypothesis any way
Get it now?
peace
That’s goofy, fifth. People want their views to be internally consistent even when they are subjective.
Good of you to admit that you are papering over things and that your morality is subjective, though.
Yep that is what we want
But my hypothesis is that even though we want our moral views to be consistent we can never quite achieve that goal on our own.
The unavoidable inconsistencies are because we are dealing with more than one set of values one that originates with us and one from outside of us.
You have just granted that you deal with moral inconsistencies and I expect the feeling is universal.
I’m not sure what you mean by “my” morality is subjective. If you only mean that my moral choices reflect my personal perspective then of course that is the case.
My position is that there is an objective morality even though I have no way to access it unless God chooses to reveal himself to me.
peace
fifth,
The fact that your own subjective morality is confused hardly means that there must be an unconfused objective morality out there somewhere.
That’s the problem. This entire topic seems to be beyond your intellectual reach.
right, I’m sure we can’t prove that an unconflicted conscience is impossible. It’s very difficult to prove a negative
If we could “demonstrate” that objective morality exists in this way it would make objective morality a contingent conclusion rather than a presupposition
However yours and my conflicted consciences do bear witness (συμμαρτυρέω) to the fact that objective morality exists.
Try as we might we can’t escape the inconsistency in our values and the reality it points to.
I think that it’s you who is having a hard time keeping up.
But everyone is entitled to his own subjective opinion
😉
peace
How so? (And please don’t cite that dumb verse from Romans.)
I think I will give you the opportunity to catch up on your own.
Go back and reread the last few comments think about it for a while and if you still are in the dark I’ll explain it again tomorrow
peace
Another claim you can’t back up.
World’s Worst Apologist.
Since apparently you need to be spoon fed on this one
I’ll make it as simple and straightforward as I can
suppose you hold both of the following contradictory moral positions at the same time
1) X is the only morally correct course of action
2) X is not the only morally correct course of action
here is the syllogism
Premise 1) It’s logically the case that either belief 1 or 2 must be mistaken. (since they are mutually exclusive)
Premise 2) a moral position is objective just in case you can be mistaken about it
Conclusion) either moral position 1 or 2 is objective
peace
I guess we can add “World’s Worst Logician” to your “World’s Worst Apologist” title.
His logic in this case seems perfectly sound to me.
P2 reflects what KN said here about what subjective/objective means.
If you disagree you should show that his conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises or else, dispute some of his premises, presumably P2
Incidentally, keiths agrees with this concept, except that he terms it “subjective”. Go figure.
dazz,
Without realizing it, fifth is assuming his conclusion.
how so?
dazz,
He assumes that objective morality exists in order to demonstrate that objective morality exists.
In effect, he’s arguing as follows:
Assume that objective morality exists, and conclude that objective morality exists. Perfectly circular reasoning.
KN:
Erik:
No, Erik. Please focus.
Did you miss this?
keiths,
I didn’t miss that. I also didn’t miss this, “It’s possible for subjectively chosen moral values to clash, indicating a mistake.” Here you are saying subjective moral values can be mistaken, leaving one to wonder why you should call it subjective. If there’s a mistake, it can be demonstrated. If it can be demonstrated, then it’s not subjective.
Or there’s no mistake other than that you talk too much, you fail to follow what you are saying and you end up making no sense.
So if those are subjective morals, then there’s no such restriction, and you can have both [X] and [not X] being “true”
Can one call that truth at all? You are conceding right there that unless morality is objective, it makes no sense to talk about moral truths, except perhaps your truth, my truth, Erik’s truth, etc…
What’s the point in debating morals if their truth domain, so to speak, never intersect between subjects?
No, one must be true and the other false because of the law of non-contradiction.
logically (X) and (not X) can’t both be true at the same time and in the same respect.
I will grant that according to my worldview there is not a lot of difference between moral law and the laws of logic. But I was assuming your worldview for the sake of this particular argument.
Unless I’m mistaken you do believe that logic is not subjective. Am I wrong?
peace
Erik:
No, a clash doesn’t tell you that either of the subjective values is objectively mistaken. It just tells you that your subjective moral system is inconsistent.
If two of my subjective values clash, then it is objectively true that there is an inconsistency in my subjective moral system. It remains true that my subjective values are subjective, not objective.
Think it through, Erik.
I caught that as well. That is why I asked him what he did when his morals contradict each other. He indicated that he usually held on to them both in that case.
It’s those unresolved contradictions that make my syllogism possible.
If he did not have “conflicting thoughts” he would not bear witness to objective morality. It’s funny how Paul picked up on this telling mental quirk so long ago.
peace
PS It’s very pleasant being on the same side of an argument as you for a change
dazz,
If “X is moral” and “X is immoral” are both true within your subjective moral system, then your subjective moral system is inconsistent. But as I just explained to Erik, that doesn’t transform “X is moral” or “X is immoral” into statements about objective morality.
The problem with this is that if two of your values directly clash then at least one must be mistaken according to the Law of non-contradiction.
You can’t have subjective morality and clashing values unless you want to abandon rationality.
Is that really the road you want to go down?
peace
dazz,
It’s not a concession. It’s the whole point!
That’s why I say that morality is subjective.
Exactly.
In his effort to deny objective morals he has abandoned rational discourse.
peace
What if “X is moral” in Paul’s subjective moral system while “X is immoral” in John’s? Don’t you agree it would make no sense to speak of truth of the moral statement “X is moral” in isolation?
dazz,
Yes. You’ve got it!
There is no objective fact of the matter. X can only be subjectively moral or immoral.
For instance, within Erik’s subjective moral system, stoning and adultery have roughly equal moral weight. Within my subjective moral system, they don’t.
There is no objective truth of the matter.
fifth,
If two of my subjective values clash, it does not mean that either of them is objectively mistaken. To say that either is objectively mistaken is to assume the existence of objective morality.
You are assuming your conclusion.
I reject objective morality precisely because I want to be rational. Your arguments for objective morality are irrational, so I reject them.
As for clashing values, I already told you that I don’t want my values to clash, and that if I spot such a clash I address it.
In that case, you have no business telling him he’s wrong. And no one else for that matter. That includes your partner, your kids, or a psycho who has decided to BTK you for his own pleasure
dazz,
Sure I do. The fact that my morality is subjective doesn’t require me to limit it to myself.
Suppose I know that someone is about to murder you. Are you seriously suggesting that I “have no business” intervening unless I believe that murder is objectively wrong?
Of course
dafuk
Keiths, seems to me the only way one can justify enforcing one’s subjective moral values onto others who may hold different views is to deem one’s own judgement superior to everyone else’s. Which pretty much turns you into a… I don’t know. Supremacist has terrible connotations that wouldn’t be appropriate in this case.
Maybe psychopath is more like it
dazz,
I’m a “psychopath” because I subjectively abhor murder and would intervene to save you from being killed?
That”s probably the stupidest thing I’ve seen you say at TSZ. It might be a good time for you to pause and think this through. You seem a bit… confused.
Well, keiths, laws against murder and mayhem have been on the books or clay tablets for thousands of years. Your personal take on this is hardly subjective. More nearly, consensus.
Now, if you stepped in to rescue a head of lettuce from the shredder, that might be viewed as idiosyncratic.
Please, don’t twist my words around
petrushka,
You think that mere consensus establishes something as objectively true?
keiths:
dazz:
It’s the direct implication of what you wrote:
Suppose your assailant thinks he’s morally justified in killing you. According to you, when I intervene to save your life, I’m a “psychopath” who is imposing my subjective moral values on the murderer.
You might want to rethink your position.