Is there an objective morality?

[Chiki]

what if everyone had the same culture, thus (roughly) the same intuitions? or, if we "close off" differing cultures from each other, are each respective culture's morals objective within their own culture?

Doesn't matter.

Can you imagine a world in which people have the common sense intuition to make children fat in order to cook them? Yes.

Can you imagine a world in which people think 1+1=3? I think that would be logically contradictory since it's in the innate nature of a human being to not be that stupid.

[Phoenix Wright]

if it doesn't matter then why make the claim,

So I think morality can't be objective since intuitions about them vary depending on one's culture.

my question was that if everyone had the same culture, and thus intuitions didn't vary, is morality objective? according to you, one criterion is everyone having the same intution based off of culture. or am i incorrect in my reading of your post?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

So you don't understand error theory of morality, ok.

Yes, people can have common sense intuitions completely contradictory to ours. People in Papua New Guinea might think flying a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children might be fine in order to cook their meat and eat them, for example.

But error theory says that nothing can be justified or unjustified based on morality. Morality is just nothing at all.

It doesn't matter, my point stands. If it is true, then killing children to eat them with soups and cut vegetables is morally acceptable. That can't be acceptable.

[Phoenix Wright]

It doesn't matter, my point stands. If it is true, then killing children to eat them with soups and cut vegetables is morally acceptable. That can't be acceptable.

i've done no research on error theory at all, in fact my introduction to the idea was about 15min ago here, but i think it does matter. the argument is that morality doesn't exist in error theory, so it's not "morally acceptable" because morals aren't present.

[Rapier]

i've done no research on error theory at all, in fact my introduction to the idea was about 15min ago here, but i think it does matter. the argument is that morality doesn't exist in error theory, so it's not "morally acceptable" because morals aren't present.

But subjectivism is not locked to error theory, and I was addressing subjectivism in a whole, which believes morals are dependant of what we think and believe. I've pointed the moral problem that this view brings.

Also, to moral error theory it might be right, but is it right in the big picture?

Consider a community like Papua New Guinea in which cannibalism is accepted. (...) They think what they're doing is right and this is a very natural intuition for them. Who are we to tell them that what they're doing is wrong? They grew up in that way and they think they're right.

I highly question any person who believes this can be right.

[Chiki]

Lol Rapier, you're so naive. Ok here's some proof:

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/johnlocke/BOOKIChapterII.html

And are there not places where, at a certain age, they kill or expose their parents, without any remorse at all? In a part of Asia, the sick, when their case comes to be thought desperate, are carried out and laid on the earth before they are dead; and left there, exposed to wind and weather, to perish without assistance or pity. It is familiar among the Mingrelians, a people professing Christianity, to bury their children alive without scruple. There are places where they eat their own children. The Caribbees were wont to geld their children, on purpose to fat and eat them. And Garcilasso de la Vega tells us of a people in Peru which were wont to fat and eat the children they got on their female captives, whom they kept as concubines for that purpose, and when they were past breeding, the mothers themselves were killed too and eaten.

http://www.vice.com/read/hanging-out-with-cannibals-georgia-rose-377

It doesn't matter, my point stands. If it is true, then killing children to eat them with soups and cut vegetables is morally acceptable. That can't be acceptable.

Stop repeating this. Nothing is acceptable OR unacceptable in error theory. I'm not going to explain this over again, reread my posts. Phoenix Wright has the right (pun not intended) idea.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Borz]

They don't deal with actions taken to achieve goals. For example, to say "this child has sepsis" does not mean that the doctor is taken any action to achieve any goal whatsoever.

No, they both deal with propositions such as the following:

"This infant is suffering from sepsis."

"It is moral to save a dying person's life.

And so on. Both kinds of intuitions deal with the truth value of propositions such as these.

But how do we determine who is an "expert" in morality and who isn't? You say that all humans are, but then why would some people's intuitions regarding morality contradict those of others(like the cannibalism example you've talked about)? I have an idea, but I would very much appreciate if you expand on this. Also, could you explain to me what the difference is between relative and subjective morality?

I made a typo in my second post. I meant to write "some utilitarians also avoid this". Sorry for any confusion.

Where did you read this? Has this view actually been defended by a professional philosopher? It sounds like a complete joke to me.

This view was expressed by Karl Popper in his series of books titled "The Open Society and Its Enemies", though the term negative utilitarianism was not coined by him, but R.N. Smart when he wrote a response to it:http://www.utilitarianism.com/rnsmart-negutil.html

Imagine a world which has no pain or happiness whatsoever. Like a world with no sociopaths. Is that the best possible world? Negative utilitarianism would say so, but ABSOLUTELY NOT. That's a horrible world to live in lol. It'd be like living in Singapore or something.

Don't you mean a world with nothing but sociopaths? I assume that's what you mean, but if not I'm confused. Well, it would be a horrible world to live in for a person who is not a perfect sociopath, but if every person was a perfect sociopath, I can't see why it would matter.

You're awfully young aren't you? Glad to see some smart kids interested in philosophy. Feel free to PM me any questions you want.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Irysa, I would respond to you as well, but I haven't collected my thoughts on what you've said yet.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Borz

[Chiki]

But how do we determine who is an "expert" in morality and who isn't? You say that all humans are, but then why would some people's intuitions regarding morality contradict those of others(like the cannibalism example you've talked about)? I have an idea, but I would very much appreciate if you expand on this. Also, could you explain to me what the difference is between relative and subjective morality?

All humans of normal intelligence are experts on basic morality based on the fact that they experience their lives and such. You don't need to teach someone advanced ethics for them to develop a rudimentary ethics from their environment, culture and innate intelligence,

I don't specialize in ethics, but:

Moral realism: ethical truths are objective, exist independently of people's opinions.

Moral relativism: ethical truths are not objective and do not exist independently, and they can vary depending on different cultures. For example, it is independently true of Nazi Germany that it is righteous to kill Jews. Ethical truths exist because of the opinions of people in different cultures.

Moral subjectivism: may be a form of moral relativism, but in its most extreme, it could be the view that ethical truths exist for each individual person. Ex: it is right for Hitler to kill Jews because he hates them a lot.

Divine command theory: whatever is right is what God commands

Error theory: there are no moral truths whatsoever, ethical statements are always false

Expressivism: moral propositions (murder is wrong) express the feelings of the one who uses that claim towards murder (for example, when Rapier says murder is wrong he means "murder!!" where the "!!" is something bad)

So unlike what Rapier was saying, moral subjectivism and error theory are two _completely different views_.

Don't you mean a world with nothing but sociopaths? I assume that's what you mean, but if not I'm confused. Well, it would be a horrible world to live in for a person who is not a perfect sociopath, but if every person was a perfect sociopath, I can't see why it would matter.

Yes, that's what I meant.

No, just consider: compare the overall value of a world filled with 1000 sociopaths who experience no pain or happiness, and the overall value of a world filled with 1000 people who experience extreme happiness and no pain whatsoever.

Negative utilitarianism says both worlds are equally valuable. No, that is unintuitive. The latter world is far more valuable. Thus negative utilitarianism is false.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Chiki

[Rapier]

Lol Rapier, you're so naive. Ok here's some proof:

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/johnlocke/BOOKIChapterII.html

http://www.vice.com/read/hanging-out-with-cannibals-georgia-rose-377

Stop repeating this. Nothing is acceptable OR unacceptable in error theory. I'm not going to explain this over again, reread my posts. Phoenix Wright has the right (pun not intended) idea.

I'm not saying cases where people eat their children don't exist. I'm saying it is abominable. Simple. One would need to be brainwashed by obscure and irrational cultural and traditional views to deny this obvious truth derived from our reason and intuition, like the cannibalists you mentioned. How is this even controversial?

I don't care if it is permissible or not in error theory (yes, I understood it doesn't make any judgment of value, nothing is acceptable or unacceptable in ET, ok). I'm strictly speaking about what should be morally acceptable, regardless of what error theory says. And eating children alive should not be morally acceptable, whatever error theory says or does not say about it (because from what I understood from your post, error theory makes no judgment of value of this case). I don't need to accept error theory or operate thinking it is true - nor would I even do so, because if nothing can be acceptable or unacceptable under a view, then necessarily anything goes. After all, on moral error theory, things like rape, persecution and genocide aren't possible to be judged as right or wrong.

I thought error theory was inside moral subjectivism, but actually I was wrong. It is contained within moral anti-realism, instead. I mistook both. My bad.

Divine command theory: whatever is right is what God commands

Isn't it contained within moral realism? If not, why?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Rapier

[Borz]

No, just consider: compare the overall value of a world filled with 1000 sociopaths who experience no pain or happiness, and the overall value of a world filled with 1000 people who experience extreme happiness and no pain whatsoever.

Negative utilitarianism says both worlds are equally valuable. No, that is unintuitive. The latter world is far more valuable. Thus negative utilitarianism is false.

I suppose I agree with that, but for there to be value, there has to be a valuer. Who is the valuer in this case?

[Blaze The Great]

All humans of normal intelligence are experts on basic morality based on the fact that they experience their lives and such. You don't need to teach someone advanced ethics for them to develop a rudimentary ethics from their environment, culture and innate intelligence,

I don't specialize in ethics, but:

Moral realism: ethical truths are objective, exist independently of people's opinions.

Moral relativism: ethical truths are not objective and do not exist independently, and they can vary depending on different cultures. For example, it is independently true of Nazi Germany that it is righteous to kill Jews. Ethical truths exist because of the opinions of people in different cultures.

Moral subjectivism: may be a form of moral relativism, but in its most extreme, it could be the view that ethical truths exist for each individual person. Ex: it is right for Hitler to kill Jews because he hates them a lot.

Divine command theory: whatever is right is what God commands

Error theory: there are no moral truths whatsoever, ethical statements are always false

Expressivism: moral propositions (murder is wrong) express the feelings of the one who uses that claim towards murder (for example, when Rapier says murder is wrong he means "murder!!" where the "!!" is something bad)

So unlike what Rapier was saying, moral subjectivism and error theory are two _completely different views_.

Err...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the bolded part an impossibility? Since ethics is defined as proper conduct in society's eyes, then isn't it impossible for ethics to exist independently of the opinions of people? Or is it that ethics remain the same cross-culturally and can't be redefined by any culture?

[Irysa]

I don't really see how that's an impossibility? The only thing impossible there is a reconciliation of the view of ethics you're proposed (moral relativism) and that of moral realism. They are not compatible.

On moral realism, consider this; we accept that "truth" can exist independantly of a human mind. "The world is not flat" is a mind independant truth. If someone believes the world is flat, that does not change that the fact is independant of their thought. Equally, a moral realist believes that some ethical truths are mind independant. However, there is an obvious difference, the first is empircal, wheras the second is closer to the realm of counterfactuals, in that they do not really have a robust form to them (ie it is true that if you had killed yourself yesterday then you wouldn't be here today). So to define the existance of that truth is pretty much impossible, but to prove the opposite is also pretty much impossible. You simply have to make what you will of the world and the reasonings supporting a realist or anti-realist position. A moral realist position claims that with reasoning and intuition, we can come to know ethical truths - that humans can know The Good.

A big sticking point in realism vs anti-realism (outside of morality), is in the nature of what facts/truths are and how they relate to the world. Do facts exist and we only discover those facts, or do we create proofs that establish facts?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irysa

[Rapier]

Incredible how Irysa words perfectly what I tried to say some posts ago. I wish I was anywhere close to his level. =P

A big sticking point in realism vs anti-realism (outside of morality), is in the nature of what facts/truths are and how they relate to the world. Do facts exist and we only discover those facts, or do we create proofs that establish facts?

Don't facts precede us? Aren't facts naturally a priori and our discernment naturally a posteriori by necessity?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Rapier

[Comet]

since people have differing views of what is moral and what isn't, no. there could be things that would be considered objectively moral or the opposite within a group of like-minded people, but that is the limit of where views that are "objectively moral" can possibly exist.

[Blaze The Great]

I don't really see how that's an impossibility? The only thing impossible there is a reconciliation of the view of ethics you're proposed (moral relativism) and that of moral realism. They are not compatible.

On moral realism, consider this; we accept that "truth" can exist independantly of a human mind. "The world is not flat" is a mind independant truth. If someone believes the world is flat, that does not change that the fact is independant of their thought. Equally, a moral realist believes that some ethical truths are mind independant. However, there is an obvious difference, the first is empircal, wheras the second is closer to the realm of counterfactuals, in that they do not really have a robust form to them (ie it is true that if you had killed yourself yesterday then you wouldn't be here today). So to define the existance of that truth is pretty much impossible, but to prove the opposite is also pretty much impossible. You simply have to make what you will of the world and the reasonings supporting a realist or anti-realist position. A moral realist position claims that with reasoning and intuition, we can come to know ethical truths - that humans can know The Good.

A big sticking point in realism vs anti-realism (outside of morality), is in the nature of what facts/truths are and how they relate to the world. Do facts exist and we only discover those facts, or do we create proofs that establish facts?

Well unless everything I have read is wrong (I haven't done thorough research, mind you, but I've read several different things), then ethics are generally societal principles created for determining proper conduct, whereas morals are generally more personal judgments about right vs. wrong. So, if ethics are created by society to focus on conduct, then it is impossible for them to exist independently of people. Now, MORALS can definitely exist independently of people, as they are our personal biases towards right and wrong, as opposed to the biases of a group on proper conduct. However, if ethics are society's method of determining good conduct, then they can't exist without our opinions.

...Maybe I'm looking into this too much/too little. Like I said before, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, upon studying a little more, I realized that this entire time I've been debating for subjective ETHICS, as opposed to subjective MORALS. Woops.

[Irysa]

I am going to grossly simplify this.

"Ethics" have nothing to do inherantly with societies. Ethics are just principles. Where they come from depends on your situation, and how you determine which ethical principles are true depends on your position.

"Morals" are our own understandings of what is right and wrong. Morals give rise to ethics.

since people have differing views of what is moral and what isn't, no

Disagreement over something does not neccessarily indicate that there is no truth to the matter. People can be wrong.

"Australia does not exist", is an empirically false statement, because Australia exists in the physical world. "If Comet had said Australia does not exist, then he would be wrong" is something that I think we'll intuitively accept as a truth, yet it has no physical root in reality; it did not actually happen. It doesn't exist in the same way, but it but it is true. Additionally, whilst I could move my bike from the back of my house to the front, I can't really move the fact that my bike is at the back of the house. The fact does not occupy the same plane of existance.

Don't facts precede us? Aren't facts naturally a priori and our discernment naturally a posteriori by necessity?

Well, as a realist, I'd adhere to the correspondence theory, so in my view, yes. Anti-realists are a real headache to try to talk to though, because they can just deny anything actually exists, including facts. I introduced a similar problem to you in a thread a few months ago about the concept of free will; if you assert it does not exist, as far as a self contained process goes it is sound. Solipsism is effectively what this is called when taken to it's extreme.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irysa

[Comet]

mo·ral·i·ty

məˈralədē/

noun

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

morality is not associated with whether statements and what not are factually correct or not. it describes stances about people's opinions. i think eating babies is wrong, yet other people may disagree with me. does that mean anybody in this situation is objectively flawed for his/her beliefs? who is wrong and why? the answer to those questions would depend on who answers them.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Comet

[Irysa]

That definition has absoloutely no impact on either of our arguments.

morality is not associated with whether statements and what not are factually correct or not.

This is only the case if you believe that there are no "facts" in regards to morality and ethics. I'm making the claim that these facts exist, and have demonstrated that there are facts that don't neccessarily "exist" in the same plane of physical reality. Here's another example, as an epistemological norm; You cannot believe p and not-p. Aka, you cannot believe something and simulteanously not believe it. You either do or you don't.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irysa

[Chiki]

I'm not saying cases where people eat their children don't exist. I'm saying it is abominable. Simple. One would need to be brainwashed by obscure and irrational cultural and traditional views to deny this obvious truth derived from our reason and intuition, like the cannibalists you mentioned. How is this even controversial?

I don't care if it is permissible or not in error theory (yes, I understood it doesn't make any judgment of value, nothing is acceptable or unacceptable in ET, ok). I'm strictly speaking about what should be morally acceptable, regardless of what error theory says. And eating children alive should not be morally acceptable, whatever error theory says or does not say about it (because from what I understood from your post, error theory makes no judgment of value of this case). I don't need to accept error theory or operate thinking it is true - nor would I even do so, because if nothing can be acceptable or unacceptable under a view, then necessarily anything goes. After all, on moral error theory, things like rape, persecution and genocide aren't possible to be judged as right or wrong.

I thought error theory was inside moral subjectivism, but actually I was wrong. It is contained within moral anti-realism, instead. I mistook both. My bad.

Isn't it contained within moral realism? If not, why?

I don't care about what you think should be the case. It should be the case that eating children alive isn't ok, but just because it should be the case doesn't mean it is the case. The world isn't a nice and fair place. There is no objective morality, just like how there is no God, or afterlife. These things make us feel comfortable and we believe in them because they make us feel comfortable, but they don't exist.

I suppose I agree with that, but for there to be value, there has to be a valuer. Who is the valuer in this case?

Here's how it works. In ethics, you determine the one thing that has intrinsic value (value for the sake of itself). In some views, this might be happiness, or pleasure, or whatever. Everything else has extrinsic value. Everything else has value/negative value in so far as it leads to the increase or decrease of pleasure, or happiness.

You measure the value of a world, or an action, based on the overall intrinsic value. The world with the most intrinsic value overall is a world that is objectively better than a world with less intrinsic value, according to the moral realist.

According to the negative utilitarian, a world of sociopaths has the same intrinsic value as the world of happy people. This is intuitively false, so negative utilitarianism is false.

Well unless everything I have read is wrong (I haven't done thorough research, mind you, but I've read several different things), then ethics are generally societal principles created for determining proper conduct, whereas morals are generally more personal judgments about right vs. wrong. So, if ethics are created by society to focus on conduct, then it is impossible for them to exist independently of people. Now, MORALS can definitely exist independently of people, as they are our personal biases towards right and wrong, as opposed to the biases of a group on proper conduct. However, if ethics are society's method of determining good conduct, then they can't exist without our opinions.

...Maybe I'm looking into this too much/too little. Like I said before, correct me if I'm wrong. Also, upon studying a little more, I realized that this entire time I've been debating for subjective ETHICS, as opposed to subjective MORALS. Woops.

Ethics and morality are the same thing.

You're religious right? You have to be a moral realist, because according to religion there is an objective morality determined by God.

===

A note about error theory. I think that, for semantic reasons, the view that every ethical statement is false is not a good one. Rather, every ethical statement is neither true nor false. This version of error theory is much more reasonable.

[Dwalin2010]

It should be the case that eating children alive isn't ok, but just because it should be the case doesn't mean it is the case.

"Doesn't mean it's the case"? By itself the sentence (considering how it's worded) sounds like "it's not true that eating children alive isn't ok". I hope you didn't mean that eating them alive IS ok or that you would be willing to have anything to do with somebody who eats them alive?

[Chiki]

"Doesn't mean it's the case"? By itself the sentence (considering how it's worded) sounds like "it's not true that eating children alive isn't ok". I hope you didn't mean that eating them alive IS ok or that you would be willing to have anything to do with somebody who eats them alive?

Eating children alive is neither ok nor not ok. The proposition "eating children alive is morally acceptable" is neither true, nor false. So it's not the case that it is true, and it's not the case that it is false.

[Dwalin2010]

Eating children alive is neither ok nor not ok. The proposition "eating children alive is morally acceptable" is neither true, nor false. So it's not the case that it is true, and it's not the case that it is false.

Sorry, but this statement seems shocking to me. If we distance ourselves completely from reality and reason on a purely abstract/philosophical point of view, then ANY action might theoretically be defined like that, but in real life, imagine how you would deal with somebody who tries to eat a child alive. I understand it might be interesting to somebody to reflect in abstract ways, but "eating children" is just too much....

[Chiki]

Sorry, but this statement seems shocking to me. If we distance ourselves completely from reality and reason on a purely abstract/philosophical point of view, then ANY action might theoretically be defined like that, but in real life, imagine how you would deal with somebody who tries to eat a child alive. I understand it might be interesting to somebody to reflect in abstract ways, but "eating children" is just too much....

One way of dealing with it is to invent an ethics, much like how we invent mathematics. So utilitarianism might not be ultimately true, but it's still useful to us.

It's also not ultimately true that Jill is a better unit than Volug, but it would be useful for us to say so.

[Makaze]

I particularly don't see a contradiction between the statement "morality is objective" and "each person has their moral views". To say that each person has their moral views ("their views are relative") is not to say morality itself is relative. The former is a statement that regards one's perceptions and references, which can be right or wrong (because, as you said, those are heavily biased), whereas the latter addresses the subject itself. I think we can all agree that killing innocent people is wrong even if someone else's moral views tells them they're right. This is only possible if morality is essencially independent from what you, I or anyone else believes; that is, if morality is objective.

"We can all agree" "even if someone disagrees" is the contradiction. "We can all agree" is meaningless when you limit "all" to people who agree with you. I think we can all agree that this is a contradiction, even if someone else disagrees.

[Chiki]

"We can all agree" "even if someone disagrees" is the contradiction. "We can all agree" is meaningless when you limit "all" to people who agree with you. I think we can all agree that this is a contradiction, even if someone else disagrees.

There is no contradiction whatsoever between the statement "morality is objective" and "people can have different moral views."

To say that "we can all agree" is not the same thing as "morality is objective." Say everyone thinks slavery is right. On the moral realist view, that does not mean that slavery is objectively right. Because on the moral realist view, slavery is wrong.

You nitpicked a part of Rapier's argument that was wrong, but the rest of his argument is right.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Chiki