Is there an objective morality?

[Makaze]

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.

Missed the point of my post.

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.

Better.

"The" moral realist view already has an absolute set of identifiable values, one of which is "slavery is wrong"?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Makaze

[Chiki]

"The" moral realist view already has an absolute set of identifiable values, one of which is "slavery is wrong"?

No, the moral realist view has axioms such as "increase the overall happiness in the world." Those axioms lead to the conclusion "slavery is wrong."

It has nothing to do with what people think. Morality is completely independent of what people think.

[Blaze The Great]

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.

Why do you think that? I'm just curious, because it seems fairly obvious that ethics are derived from our morality, but are they really as simple as a bunch of people's moral beliefs put together?

As for me, I'm more or less a moral realist. I don't think morality can be totally objective, nor can it be totally subjective. If it was totally objective, and we weren't supposed to lie, but lying could save someone's life, then that person would be dead. While on the other hand, if morality is completely subjective, going on a killing spree could have the same moral value for one person as donating $1 million to charity could have for another. But more or less, even if God didn't exist, I'd be a moral realist.

[Rapier]

"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.

True, my wording was bad. Assuming facts exist independently from us, and morality is included on these facts, then that means morality is objective, even if you may argue that any person can have their own views about morality. Therefore, the statement "morality is objective" does not conflict with the statement "everyone has their own moral views", in fact both can coexist.That's what I meant, and it does seem logical to me. Now, proving these facts exist is another completely different story. I think they do, but I don't have such a strong and well elaborated opinion about it, yet.

As for me, I'm more or less a moral realist. I don't think morality can be totally objective, nor can it be totally subjective.

It's not possible, I think. Objectiveness and subjectiveness are complete opposites in nature. It's like being 50% alive and 50% dead, or claiming something is composed of 50% matter and 50% antimatter. It's not possible. If morality does not depend on what we think, then it is definitely objective. If it does, then it is definitely subjective. There's no middle term, like "morality depends on what we think and doesn't depend on what we think". It would be a self contradictory definition.

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.

Two things. You can't prove there is no objective morality, much like I can't prove there is. And another thing you said that makes me think about the case:

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.

Since an objective morality might not be ultimately true, can we not invent it so that it is useful to us? Maybe it is not ultimately true that rape, slavery, eatinng children alive and bombing innocent people is wrong, but it is useful to us to say these actions are wrong because they do us harm, so should we not use it in our favor as we use rights?

Basically, because it should be the case (but ultimately isn't), can't we treat and uphold it as if it is the case?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Rapier

[Blaze The Great]

It's not possible, I think. Objectiveness and subjectiveness are complete opposites in nature. It's like being 50% alive and 50% dead, or claiming something is composed of 50% matter and 50% antimatter. It's not possible. If morality does not depend on what we think, then it is definitely objective. If it does, then it is definitely subjective. There's no middle term, like "morality depends on what we think and doesn't depend on what we think". It would be a self contradictory definition.

I don't know. Maybe you're right. But in the examples I provided, if morality is objective, then you could let the world die instead of killing the person who intended to launch the worldwide nuclear arsenal, because killing is immoral (according to your personal morality. I don't know). However, on the flipside, if morality is subjective, then nothing can be called immoral. And if laws are based in morality (as it seems to me they are), and everyone has subjective morality, then what basis do we even have for laws? Maybe I'm appealing to consequences here, but I see the negatives outweighing the positives from a subjective morality. Subjective overall morality is far worse than objective overall morality, but neither is a perfect solution. Objective morality should have common sense used alongside of it, and subjective morality...well, when everything is permissible if you believe in it, then you need to be REALLY careful.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Blaze The Great

[Chiki]

Why do you think that? I'm just curious, because it seems fairly obvious that ethics are derived from our morality, but are they really as simple as a bunch of people's moral beliefs put together?

As for me, I'm more or less a moral realist. I don't think morality can be totally objective, nor can it be totally subjective. If it was totally objective, and we weren't supposed to lie, but lying could save someone's life, then that person would be dead. While on the other hand, if morality is completely subjective, going on a killing spree could have the same moral value for one person as donating $1 million to charity could have for another. But more or less, even if God didn't exist, I'd be a moral realist.

Why do I think that? It's just by definition true. Ethics = morality = system of beliefs about right and wrong. Go look at a dictionary.

Morality has to be totally objective or subjective. There's no middle ground.

True, my wording was bad. Assuming facts exist independently from us, and morality is included on these facts, then that means morality is objective, even if you may argue that any person can have their own views about morality. Therefore, the statement "morality is objective" does not conflict with the statement "everyone has their own moral views", in fact both can coexist.That's what I meant, and it does seem logical to me. Now, proving these facts exist is another completely different story. I think they do, but I don't have such a strong and well elaborated opinion about it, yet.

It's not possible, I think. Objectiveness and subjectiveness are complete opposites in nature. It's like being 50% alive and 50% dead, or claiming something is composed of 50% matter and 50% antimatter. It's not possible. If morality does not depend on what we think, then it is definitely objective. If it does, then it is definitely subjective. There's no middle term, like "morality depends on what we think and doesn't depend on what we think". It would be a self contradictory definition.

Two things. You can't prove there is no objective morality, much like I can't prove there is. And another thing you said that makes me think about the case:

Since an objective morality might not be ultimately true, can we not invent it so that it is useful to us? Maybe it is not ultimately true that rape, slavery, eatinng children alive and bombing innocent people is wrong, but it is useful to us to say these actions are wrong because they do us harm, so should we not use it in our favor as we use rights?

Basically, because it should be the case (but ultimately isn't), can't we treat and uphold it as if it is the case?

"You can't prove there is an objective morality." Lol we went through similar arguments like this, when you kept repeating "You can't prove pink unicorns don't exist!!!" So what? I don't need to prove they don't exist, I just use Occam's razor.

You can invent it, that's what I just said.

I don't know. Maybe you're right. But in the examples I provided, if morality is objective, then you could let the world die instead of killing the person who intended to launch the worldwide nuclear arsenal, because killing is immoral (according to your personal morality. I don't know). However, on the flipside, if morality is subjective, then nothing can be called immoral. And if laws are based in morality (as it seems to me they are), and everyone has subjective morality, then what basis do we even have for laws? Maybe I'm appealing to consequences here, but I see the negatives outweighing the positives from a subjective morality. Subjective overall morality is far worse than objective overall morality, but neither is a perfect solution. Objective morality should have common sense used alongside of it, and subjective morality...well, when everything is permissible if you believe in it, then you need to be REALLY careful.

People keep making a basic mistake here. Just because morality isn't objective doesn't mean that it's subjective. Maybe it's just neither objective nor subjective? Neither true nor false. It's just a big fat nothing.

[Blaze The Great]

Why do I think that? It's just by definition true. Ethics = morality = system of beliefs about right and wrong. Go look at a dictionary.

Morality has to be totally objective or subjective. There's no middle ground.

Again, from what I've read, they are not the same. The articles seem to be very confused as to whether morality is a personal system and ethics are more widely used principles, or vice versa, but they all seem to agree that they are different. They are both beliefs about right and wrong, yes, but they are different in the way they are applied to said beliefs.

[Irysa]

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.

The prospect of the Abrahamic God existing or an eternal afterlife actually do quite the opposite in terms of making many people feel comfortable, myself included.

It's really not so much that objective morality makes me feel more comfortable either that makes me support it either. It's just completely intuitive to me, and there are no indications that this intuition is wrong. When I try to expand "Why is killing innocents wrong?", I can come up with basic tenants such as;

I exist by living and vice versa.

Life itself almost certainly has no objective meaning but beings with capacity for higher levels of thought (humans) can create and experience personal meaning in their lives.

These sensations are powerful in spite of their subjective nature, and have real impacts on people's perception of reality.

The experience of life itself is thus potent and unique; there is nothing quite like life.

The potential within a life to cultivate unique sensations for an individual makes the value of each life immeasurable.

To terminate something of immeasurable value neccessitates justification. It's like destroying a library full of historical texts that do not exist anywhere else. They don't have innate individual value alone, but the value extracted from them is nearly unlimited.

If an action cannot be justified, it must be wrong.

Killing another innocent healthy human cannot be justified.

Ergo, killing innocents is wrong.

There's things that can be expanded on in terms of who has agency of what in terms of what constitutes "killing" but that's for another discussion.

"You can't prove there is an objective morality." Lol we went through similar arguments like this, when you kept repeating "You can't prove pink unicorns don't exist!!!" So what? I don't need to prove they don't exist, I just use Occam's razor.

You can invent it, that's what I just said.

I'm going to paste a counterobjection to the use of Occam's Razor here because I don't want to pretend I came up with this, but I'm curious as to what you'd think.

A counter-objection is that the very fact we do postulate the independent feature regarding morals is indicative, and the fact we do not feel the need to do this for queasiness is itself an argument for objective morality. Moral sense might inform us of the existence of objective morality, just as eyesight informs us of the existence of colors. Occam's Razor wouldn't dismiss the existence of eyesight or colors, but would require the simplest explanation of how they work.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irysa

[Chiki]

Blaze, just check a dictionary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethics

Also known as "moral philosophy."

A counter-objection is that the very fact we do postulate the independent feature regarding morals is indicative, and the fact we do not feel the need to do this for queasiness is itself an argument for objective morality. Moral sense might inform us of the existence of objective morality, just as eyesight informs us of the existence of colors. Occam's Razor wouldn't dismiss the existence of eyesight or colors, but would require the simplest explanation of how they work.

But intuitions about basic things like the existence of the external world, free will, the existence of colors etc. don't vary at all while intuitions about ethics vary greatly. No one at all (who isn't a philosopher) denies these things.

What do you have to say about cannibals in Papua New Guinea who think raising and fattening innocent children to slaughter them is totally ok?

[Blaze The Great]

Blaze, just check a dictionary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethics

Also known as "moral philosophy."

I never said you were wrong, I just said that your statement contradicted what I had already read.

[Irysa]

But intuitions about basic things like the existence of the external world, free will, the existence of colors etc. don't vary at all while intuitions about ethics vary greatly. No one at all (who isn't a philosopher) denies these things.

What do you have to say about cannibals in Papua New Guinea who think raising and fattening innocent children to slaughter them is totally ok?

Human beings are generally bad at recognising moral facts. Our moral sense and intuitions exist on some level near universally (mental deficiencies aside, who would probably be comparable to the blind with the colour example), but the sense has to be properly cultivated for it to develop appropriately. I'm stretching it with analogies here, but you could think of it like the brain; you don't really get any more capable of putting your potential intelligence to use without being subject to more information and processing it.

Having done some reading, those cannibals actually do have a moral sense of not killing random innocents (this is obvious anyway, if they killed and ate each other wantonly they would have died out). What distorts their understanding to the point of enabling killing innocents is actually their tribal religion.

Can you explain the reasoning behind the Korowai tribe's cannibalism?

​For the Korowai, if someone falls out of a tree house or is killed in battle then the reason for their death is pretty obvious. But they don't understand microbes and germs (which the rain forests are rife with) so when somebody dies mysteriously to them (of a disease), they believe it is due to a khakhua, a witch man who comes from the netherworld.

A khakhua possesses the body of a man (it can never be a woman) and begins to magically eat their insides, according to logic of the Melanesian imperative you must pay back in kind. They must eat the khakhua as it ate the person who died. It is part of their revenge based justice system.

Cannibalism is, perhaps other than incest, the idea that fills the majority of humanity with the strongest sense horror. Is this something that has been learned rather than a trait innate to our species? Why don't the Korowai share that sense of disgust?

I asked them why they eat people and they said, "We don't, we eat khakhua." They don't consider khuakhua as people, even though it could be their brother or their uncle or their cousin.

It seems that cannibalism is still carried out by the Kombai. It appears to be a form of tribal punishment: only men identified as witches by the communities - known as Khakhua-Kumu or men who practice witchcraft - are killed and eaten. There are tribe members living who have clearly eaten male witches.

'I am scared of Khakhua-Kumu', one Kombai man tells Bruce Parry. 'Every time I am walking alone or hunting alone I think about them and I'm scared... If a Khakhua-Kumu kills either of my brothers, I will kill that man. If he comes from another clan I will kill him and eat him. If he comes from among us, I will give him to other people to be eaten.

The Kombai believe that the Khakhua-Kumu eat the souls of their victims, and that they must be killed and eaten in return. As the soul is thought to lie in the brain and the stomach, retribution comes by eating those organs of the Khakhua-Kumu, to bring their terror to an end.

Basically, they're dehumanising their victims and using a justification that is rooted in misunderstanding. Human sacrifices throughout history have generally been rooted in these misunderstandings towards the natural world. In some other cases I read about, it's mostly an in group/out group problem that results in failure to recognise other humans as human; one of the primary reasons slavery was so predominant.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

even if there are variations in ethical intuitions between cultures, i would assert that there exist consistencies between them for the reason that some hypothetical ethical constructs are incompatible with the survival of a population. would those ethics be considered objectively wrong?

[Augestein]

even if there are variations in ethical intuitions between cultures, i would assert that there exist consistencies between them for the reason that some hypothetical ethical constructs are incompatible with the survival of a population. would those ethics be considered objectively wrong?

No. But I would say that they wouldn't be considered objectively right either.

In general though, morality is one of those subjects that is influenced by culture and the presence of a society. Therefore, it's difficult to make it "objective," especially when you consider that morality is shaped and influenced by the demands of the people during certain times and moments.

[Irysa]

even if there are variations in ethical intuitions between cultures, i would assert that there exist consistencies between them for the reason that some hypothetical ethical constructs are incompatible with the survival of a population. would those ethics be considered objectively wrong?

Your statement is too broad, so I'm unwilling to give a direct answer. One must always guard against generalisations in such a field. Additionally, correlation does not imply causation, although I'd agree that the argument holds merit. To me though, I'd say that they simply coincide.

A larger problem with that analysis is that such things can be examined on a higher level; if developed alien life that isn't related to us in any way came to Earth and communicated peacefully with us, I'd contest it would still be morally wrong to kill them, despite the fact that they aren't related to us at all, and thus can't propagate the survival of our species. I reach this conclusion through reasoning and empathy, rather than neccessarily a biological drive.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Irysa

[dondon151]

Your statement is too broad, so I'm unwilling to give a direct answer. One must always guard against generalisations in such a field. Additionally, correlation does not imply causation, although I'd agree that the argument holds merit. To me though, I'd say that they simply coincide.

i feel that my statement is the opposite - too narrow - because it can only describe a very small group of ethical constructs, e.g. is it okay to murder another member of one's in-group for no reason at all. but i'm not concerned about applying this statement to all of ethics; i'm simply trying to find an example of an ethical construct that is universally present and necessarily exists.

[Makaze]

No, the moral realist view has axioms such as "increase the overall happiness in the world." Those axioms lead to the conclusion "slavery is wrong."

It has nothing to do with what people think. Morality is completely independent of what people think.

Moral realism already has absolute and identifiable values, one of which is "increasing the overall happiness of the world is good"?

To get right to point, any definition of moral realism is just that: a definition. Definitions are created by people. If there are alternative definitions then the contradiction in Rapier's post applies to his whole argument. Any argument for a particular set of axioms is an argument that objective morality can be defined by humans.

[Chiki]

Human beings are generally bad at recognising moral facts. Our moral sense and intuitions exist on some level near universally (mental deficiencies aside, who would probably be comparable to the blind with the colour example), but the sense has to be properly cultivated for it to develop appropriately. I'm stretching it with analogies here, but you could think of it like the brain; you don't really get any more capable of putting your potential intelligence to use without being subject to more information and processing it.

Having done some reading, those cannibals actually do have a moral sense of not killing random innocents (this is obvious anyway, if they killed and ate each other wantonly they would have died out). What distorts their understanding to the point of enabling killing innocents is actually their tribal religion.

Can you explain the reasoning behind the Korowai tribe's cannibalism?

​For the Korowai, if someone falls out of a tree house or is killed in battle then the reason for their death is pretty obvious. But they don't understand microbes and germs (which the rain forests are rife with) so when somebody dies mysteriously to them (of a disease), they believe it is due to a khakhua, a witch man who comes from the netherworld.

A khakhua possesses the body of a man (it can never be a woman) and begins to magically eat their insides, according to logic of the Melanesian imperative you must pay back in kind. They must eat the khakhua as it ate the person who died. It is part of their revenge based justice system.

Cannibalism is, perhaps other than incest, the idea that fills the majority of humanity with the strongest sense horror. Is this something that has been learned rather than a trait innate to our species? Why don't the Korowai share that sense of disgust?

I asked them why they eat people and they said, "We don't, we eat khakhua." They don't consider khuakhua as people, even though it could be their brother or their uncle or their cousin.

It seems that cannibalism is still carried out by the Kombai. It appears to be a form of tribal punishment: only men identified as witches by the communities - known as Khakhua-Kumu or men who practice witchcraft - are killed and eaten. There are tribe members living who have clearly eaten male witches.

'I am scared of Khakhua-Kumu', one Kombai man tells Bruce Parry. 'Every time I am walking alone or hunting alone I think about them and I'm scared... If a Khakhua-Kumu kills either of my brothers, I will kill that man. If he comes from another clan I will kill him and eat him. If he comes from among us, I will give him to other people to be eaten.

The Kombai believe that the Khakhua-Kumu eat the souls of their victims, and that they must be killed and eaten in return. As the soul is thought to lie in the brain and the stomach, retribution comes by eating those organs of the Khakhua-Kumu, to bring their terror to an end.

Basically, they're dehumanising their victims and using a justification that is rooted in misunderstanding. Human sacrifices throughout history have generally been rooted in these misunderstandings towards the natural world. In some other cases I read about, it's mostly an in group/out group problem that results in failure to recognise other humans as human; one of the primary reasons slavery was so predominant.

This tribe doesn't represent the intuitions of every cannibal out there in the world. But it would be a very interesting finding if all of these cannibals had intuitions that were rooted in misunderstanding.

If you're looking for more examples, the Mongol Empire had no problem massacring millions and millions of innocent people. They likely had no understanding of the value of innocent human lives. People had no problem with slavery up until recent times; it seems like this intuition was a major change that developed recently.

http://www.wonderslist.com/10-most-terrifying-civilizations-in-the-history-of-the-world/

The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s, and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. They believed that for every 52 years that passed, the world would end unless the gods were strong enough. And, as is common knowledge, the best way to toughen up a god is with a steady stream of constant human sacrifice (along with a dash of cannibalism, just for good measure). About 20,000 people were killed yearly towards keeping their Sun god happy. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights.

even if there are variations in ethical intuitions between cultures, i would assert that there exist consistencies between them for the reason that some hypothetical ethical constructs are incompatible with the survival of a population. would those ethics be considered objectively wrong?

I don't think you'll find an ethical law that universally exists. Because the moment you have varying intuitions, ex. raising and slaughtering children to eat is ok, then you're already undermining a fundamental ethical law. Basically, it only takes a small variation to bring everything down: raising and slaughtering children to eat already violates the maximize happiness axiom of utilitarianism, for example.

Moral realism already has absolute and identifiable values, one of which is "increasing the overall happiness of the world is good"?

To get right to point, any definition of moral realism is just that: a definition. Definitions are created by people. If there are alternative definitions then the contradiction in Rapier's post applies to his whole argument. Any argument for a particular set of axioms is an argument that objective morality can be defined by humans.

Yep, is that a problem?

Definitions are created by people to explain real life phenomena. We have defined what a black hole is to talk about black holes that we see. Similarly, we have defined what moral realism is to explain genuine moral properties that actually exist.

[Makaze]

Yep, is that a problem?

Definitions are created by people to explain real life phenomena. We have defined what a black hole is to talk about black holes that we see. Similarly, we have defined what moral realism is to explain genuine moral properties that actually exist.

I think we can all agree on which properties actually exist, even if someone disagrees.

Definitions are created by people to communicate concepts to others. Some of them describe real life phenomena, some of them do not. The definition of a unicorn is not used to describe real life phenomena. Moral realism has about as many contradicting definitions with different sets of properties as there are moral realists. It cannot be tested. The only way to observe moral realism outside of your own personal gut is to see what morality a majority observe to be true. That leads back to the contradiction: You can't argue for objective morality by using majority intuition and then say that majority intuition is independent of the concept.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Makaze

[Chiki]

I think we can all agree on which properties actually exist, even if someone disagrees.

We already established Rapier was wrong, so there's no need to repeat what he said.

Also, people's opinions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not moral properties actually do exist. If people were all exterminated by a meteor, according to moral realism, moral properties would still be the same.

[Makaze]

We already established Rapier was wrong, so there's no need to repeat what he said.

Also, people's opinions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not moral properties actually do exist. If people were all exterminated by a meteor, according to moral realism, moral properties would still be the same.

Definitions are created by people to communicate concepts to others. Some of them describe real life phenomena, some of them do not. The definition of a unicorn is not used to describe real life phenomena. Moral realism has about as many contradicting definitions with different sets of properties as there are moral realists. It cannot be tested. The only way to observe moral realism outside of your own personal gut is to see what morality a majority observe to be true. That leads back to the contradiction: You can't argue for objective morality by using majority intuition and then say that majority intuition is independent of the concept.

[Chiki]

The only way to observe moral realism outside of your own personal gut is to see what morality a majority observe to be true. That leads back to the contradiction:

There you go, you're wrong. Philosophers don't give a flying fuck about what the majority think.

[Makaze]

There you go, you're wrong. Philosophers don't give a flying fuck about what the majority think.

All other methods to derive objective morality rely on axioms. Why assume those axioms instead of others? If it is not related to what a majority of people want, i.e. to be happy, then that question is not rhetorical. What criteria is used to choose the axioms? You led me to believe that morality was defined relative to what makes the most humans happy a bit ago. Forgive me.

[Chiki]

All other methods to derive objective morality rely on axioms. Why assume those axioms instead of others? If it is not related to what a majority of people want, i.e. to be happy, then that question is not rhetorical. What criteria is used to choose the axioms? You led me to believe that morality was defined relative to what makes the most humans happy a bit ago. Forgive me.

What criteria is used to choose the axioms? Debating, the intuitions of philosophers themselves. They don't go around taking surveys of what people think, because people tend to be kinda clueless about philosophy (most believe in God, in ghosts, etc.). It would be a bad thing to consider the opinion of the majority when it comes to certain things.

They have theoretical tools to compare two kinds of actions to each other by using possible worlds, the ways our world could be. People use this test to determine the intrinsic value of something (such as non-sentient life, beauty, revenge, anything concept really). Is beauty desirable for the sake of itself? Let's find out. For example, consider our own world (which is a possible world since it's the actual world!). Now consider our own world with the crucial difference: there is no trash anywhere, there are no deserts, everywhere is filled with sakura trees and grass and whatever. Nowhere is ugly.

Suppose this has no effect whatsoever on the overall happiness of everyone in these two worlds, so you don't have to worry about things like garbage men not having jobs, people getting sick from garbage in our own world and dying, etc.

Is beauty valuable in and of itself? Is a much more beautiful Earth, all other things being equal, better than our world? Honestly, I think both worlds are worth an equal amount. But some philosophers think otherwise. So they don't go around taking surveys of people's opinions.

Bolded part: Don't blame me if you misunderstood what I said!

On the moral realist view, it's very mathematical and objective, and it is not about people's subjective thoughts about happiness. We have a theoretical tool, a happiness calculator tool, that measures the overall amount of happiness each person in the world has at the time of measurement. It calculates the overall happiness of each and every person on the globe and adds them up. Let me over simplify this view. We have an axiom for morality: the action that maximally increases (maximal by definition means that, compared to all other possible actions an agent can take, this action increases happiness the most) happiness is the righteous one. By this axiom, eating innocent children is wrong since innocent children experience happiness too and can become very upset by being fattened up and eaten.

None of this has anything to do with what people think is moral.

[Augestein]

I reiterate my statement: there isn't an objective morality.

[Makaze]

What criteria is used to choose the axioms? Debating, the intuitions of philosophers themselves. They don't go around taking surveys of what people think, because people tend to be kinda clueless about philosophy (most believe in God, in ghosts, etc.). It would be a bad thing to consider the opinion of the majority when it comes to certain things.

They have theoretical tools to compare two kinds of actions to each other by using possible worlds, the ways our world could be. People use this test to determine the intrinsic value of something (such as non-sentient life, beauty, revenge, anything concept really). Is beauty desirable for the sake of itself? Let's find out. For example, consider our own world (which is a possible world since it's the actual world!). Now consider our own world with the crucial difference: there is no trash anywhere, there are no deserts, everywhere is filled with sakura trees and grass and whatever. Nowhere is ugly.

Suppose this has no effect whatsoever on the overall happiness of everyone in these two worlds, so you don't have to worry about things like garbage men not having jobs, people getting sick from garbage in our own world and dying, etc.

Is beauty valuable in and of itself? Is a much more beautiful Earth, all other things being equal, better than our world? Honestly, I think both worlds are worth an equal amount. But some philosophers think otherwise. So they don't go around taking surveys of people's opinions.

Bolded part: Don't blame me if you misunderstood what I said!

On the moral realist view, it's very mathematical and objective, and it is not about people's subjective thoughts about happiness. We have a theoretical tool, a happiness calculator tool, that measures the overall amount of happiness each person in the world has at the time of measurement. It calculates the overall happiness of each and every person on the globe and adds them up. Let me over simplify this view. We have an axiom for morality: the action that maximally increases (maximal by definition means that, compared to all other possible actions an agent can take, this action increases happiness the most) happiness is the righteous one. By this axiom, eating innocent children is wrong since innocent children experience happiness too and can become very upset by being fattened up and eaten.

None of this has anything to do with what people think is moral.

That axiom is directly linked to what people want. It literally is satisfying the most desires possible. It may be only indirectly linked to their personal definition of morality, but what makes them happy and what they consider moral are closely linked. That axiom leads to the logical conclusion that the majority's moral compass ranks highly in calculating the best move.

But I don't want to get sidetracked on semantics. The axiom itself is what I'm arguing against. The definition is based on the axiom and the axiom is based on what humans want. What makes one group of humans happy may not make another group happy. In that case, separating the groups completely and running both groups under different moral principles will lead to the greatest happiness. Separation based on subjective moral dissonance is objectively moral. Therefore this "objective" morality is actually defined within the relative context of what makes humans happy at the time and place they happen to be, not observed objectively within the universe itself.

Under some definition of moral realism, it may be moral for humans to be eradicated. Say, if the axiom is: "That which sustains or improves the overall equilibrium in ecosystems is good." Why isn't that the axiom used for moral realism? It can be applied just as objectively. The answer: Moral realism is based on human values. It is derived relative to humans. It is derived for the benefit of humans. The concept of its objectivity in the face of that is self-defeating.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Makaze