Objective vs Subjective Morality

[Joohan]

Objective.

Murder is still wrong regardless if someone feels like it's not.

[Sovaal]

Why should they be the ones to reign in their morality, and not you?

It's not that "They should", but more of a "I won't hang out with them if they don't" kind of thing.

And I’m sure the wouldn’t care for the loss.

[Esternial]

Objective.

Murder is still wrong regardless if someone feels like it's not.

See, you make that argument based on your own moralistic framework. Plenty of other organisms kill and we don't think anything of it, so considering it "objectively" immoral doesn't work.

"Premarital sex is still wrong regardless if someone feels like it's not" holds about as much value as an argument.

[Big Jim P]

No human creation i or can be objective.

[Cute Puppies]

No human creation i or can be objective.

So you believe that morals are created by humans - and not something like a deity - and so they're subjective?

[Kilobugya]

It's both. Morality is objectively constrained by mathematical structures (such as Nash equilibrium, Schelling points, ...) and for humans by evolution and genetics, but it also has a large part of subjectivity within those constraints.

Slightly longer answer : morality is a rather vague term than encompass a broad field of related, but different things. The main difference I would do is between terminal values, things which are actually good or bad inherently in themselves (like, I would say killing or torturing people is usually bad in itself), and instrumental values, things which aren't necessarily bad in themselves, but that we consider immoral because they tend to lead to negative consequences often in ways we couldn't exactly predict (such as lying, stealing, or using goto in code). Terminal values are mostly subjective, but constrained by evolution and genes, but once your terminal values are given, the instrumental values could theoretically be objectively derived from them, even if it's not easy (so we do a lot of approximations, some of those are pretty much subjective).

[Novskya]

It seems to me that many people are conflating what is truly moral vs what is percieved moral. Personally, I believe in non-relative morals (considering that I am a deontologist.) I mostly stem my non-relative system from the fact that things are good-in-itself as:
1.) Whenever one acts, it is necessarily with some good in mind, as one intends to do some sort of good by committing to an action. Whether or not the action is good, creates good, or achieves the good intended is not the point, but rather the fact in itself that one acts for a good.
2.) All of our actions intend to realize some sort of end, the result that we call good. In this the end becomes the good, however the source of the good is placed by the agent, and so this value judgement is agent-relative.
3.) When one acts to achieve an end, the end is done in order to commit to another further end. For example, I buy a car so I can get around with greater convenience, so I can more readily convene with friends, so we can share camaraderie, etc.
4.) The notion of achieving an end for another end implies a hierarchy of ends, where the initial end becomes a mere means for the next end. By the relegation of the initial end to a means, a superior value is given the end further down the chain.
5.) There must be an end to the chain of ends or else which reach an incomprehensible chain of ends ad infinitum. This final end is an end-in-itself, in which the end is reached purely for its own sake and not for the sake of another end.
6.) All people's ends are for the achievement of the end-in-itself, and therefore an end valued by all. If we look at the notion of this hierarchy, it is appropriate to label the end-in-itself the highest good, as it is at the top of all hierarchies and one that cannot be superseded.
7.) The end-in-itself is Good.

The implication is that Good (in the context of Aristotle, a virtue) has inherent value and that it is a cornerstone of metaethical structures. What "Good" is a question that must be answered by the ethicist, and the interpretations have generally been what creates all the major ethical theories throughout history. It is thereby irrational to think of values as anything other than good in-itself (from which we can derive ethical theories from that are not based on subjective values.)

When a person calls one thing good he seeks it; and when one calls a thing bad, he wishes to avoid it. These usages can be split into areas of which things are sought as means to some further end and those which they seek as good as ends in themselves. Of course, this is not to say that ends are applicable to all. For example, a starving man finds food as a "good" whilst an overweight man sees it as "bad". In order for something to be good, it is to be "good without qualification" (as Kant puts it). For something to be "good without qualification", it has to not act as a "good" for one end and "bad" for another. It must be sought as good totally independently of serving as a means to something else; it must be "good in-itself" (see above as to justification for why). Furthermore, while one thing may be good as means relative to a particular end, that "end" becomes a "means" relative to some other "end".

It is to be noted that for something to be absolutely and universally good, it has to be good within every instance of its occurrence. All those which people call "good" (whatever that may be) can become bad if the will which one uses it is bad. That is, if we were to imagine a bad person (i.e. one who willed or wanted to do evil) in which who has all traits in which we might call "good" (such as intelligence, wit, pride, etc), then these very traits would make only that much worse his will to do what is wrong. Thus, for something to be "good", it has to be done out of Good Will.

Many facts of reality have inherent normative claims coming off of them. Organisms have ends built into them by the virtue of their structures. So, the denial of one's own teleology through some form of nihilism is rising from convolutions which problems rise up when discussing justification of our beliefs with our propositions. We can derive normative claims from the concepts of man. My bro Quine addresses this issue of emotivism which is based on a strong empiricism which leaves us with a bad theory of concepts.

What this all seems like to me is a failure to see beyond the normative claims and y'all not having an axiological anchor because you either weren't able to ground yourselves in a realist framework, even if it is secular like the utilitarians. Utilitarianism is a main choice amongst a lot of people but most ppl fall into apathy and this disconnect into moral anti-realism. First. because they are uninformed on their personal and local level and secondly due to the sociocultural conditions.

(Do I get bonus points for being the first non-moral relativist?)

a x i o m a t i c p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s d o n ' t e x i s t o u t s i d e o f h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e . o n e c a n n e v e r f o r m u l a t e a n e g a t i o n c o m p l e t e t h e o r y a s o n e c a n n e v e r f i n d t h e f u l l r a n g e o f o b j e c t i v e a x i o m s. a l s o a p r i o r i s d o n ' t e x i s t.

got me there, suds.
lmao every time I read it I laugh, seeing Gödel and nietzsche there makes it even better

[Firaxin]

Morals are subjective, but that doesn't mean one's morals are always correct.

[Novskya]

Objective.

Murder is still wrong regardless if someone feels like it's not.

See, you make that argument based on your own moralistic framework. Plenty of other organisms kill and we don't think anything of it, so considering it "objectively" immoral doesn't work.

"Premarital sex is still wrong regardless if someone feels like it's not" holds about as much value as an argument.

UH, 2 things.
1.) Morality is only applicable to rational beings.
and 2.) If a rational being murders, then that doesn't mean that murder is objectively wrong. It means that the person who murdered committed a wrong doing.

[Novskya]

Morals are subjective, but that doesn't mean one's morals are always correct.

Care to elaborate as to how? If what is moral is formulated from one self, then none can be "correct" or "incorrect". By subscribing to non cognitivism, you cannot claim that any other persons subjective morals are more valid or invalid then yours or others. If morality is subjective, then all morality is equal in worth.

[Firaxin]

Morals are subjective, but that doesn't mean one's morals are always correct.

Care to elaborate as to how? If what is moral is formulated from one self, then none can be "correct" or "incorrect". By subscribing to non cognitivism, you cannot claim that any other persons subjective morals are more valid or invalid then yours or others. If morality is subjective, then all morality is equal in worth.

I see morals as what people believe to be right and wrong, not what is truly right and wrong. The only beings who can perceive what is True are beyond human comprehension. Thus, when a believed right or wrong is actually the opposite the moral is wrong.

[Kilobugya]

Care to elaborate as to how? If what is moral is formulated from one self, then none can be "correct" or "incorrect". By subscribing to non cognitivism, you cannot claim that any other persons subjective morals are more valid or invalid then yours or others. If morality is subjective, then all morality is equal in worth.

Not necessarily - they can be inconsistent (lead to self-contradiction), or to outcomes that even the person would find abhorrent, but doesn't realize yet.

There are a lot of possible triangle shape, but (in a plan) you can't have a triangle of sizes 2, 3 and 8. The same way, there are a lot of possible morality frameworks and lots of possible variations within morality, but there also are constraints. An incorrect morality is one ridden with contradictions or one leading easily to abhorrent outcomes, for example.

[Esternial]

See, you make that argument based on your own moralistic framework. Plenty of other organisms kill and we don't think anything of it, so considering it "objectively" immoral doesn't work.

"Premarital sex is still wrong regardless if someone feels like it's not" holds about as much value as an argument.

UH, 2 things.
1.) Morality is only applicable to rational beings.
and 2.) If a rational being murders, then that doesn't mean that murder is objectively wrong. It means that the person who murdered committed a wrong doing.

Of course, but I reason that if murder would be objectively wrong, we should have issues with even non-moral agents animals committing it. Otherwise, one would concede that morality is solely limited to human beings and their moralistic framework, which makes it relative and thus, subjective.

I don't support the notion of objective morality so you're preaching to the choir. In my eyes morality aligns very well with some concepts from the theory of relativity - metaphorically speaking.

[Esternial]

Morals are subjective, but that doesn't mean one's morals are always correct.

Care to elaborate as to how? If what is moral is formulated from one self, then none can be "correct" or "incorrect". By subscribing to non cognitivism, you cannot claim that any other persons subjective morals are more valid or invalid then yours or others. If morality is subjective, then all morality is equal in worth.

Objectively, all morality is equal.

From your own perspective, you're free to make your own moral judgement and consider some morals "better", and I don't feel we need to force ourself to consider morality from a non-subjective perspective. It's just not very practical, unless you're not part of any group or society.

[Kilobugya]

I see morals as what people believe to be right and wrong, not what is truly right and wrong. The only beings who can perceive what is True are beyond human comprehension. Thus, when a believed right or wrong is actually the opposite the moral is wrong.

That's a gross abuse of the concept of true. A statement can be "true" or "false" by being correlated to the objective reality or not, such as "the weather is sunny today in Paris" or "burning hydrogen with oxygen gives water molecules". But nothing but what _should_ be, about morality, is "true" or "false" in absolute, that's meaningless.

What can be true or false are statements like "your moral system is incoherent" or "your moral system would lead to society collapse" or "you don't really believe in the moral system you're proposing", or "the large majority of people believe murder is wrong" but not "murder is wrong".

[Firaxin]

I see morals as what people believe to be right and wrong, not what is truly right and wrong. The only beings who can perceive what is True are beyond human comprehension. Thus, when a believed right or wrong is actually the opposite the moral is wrong.

That's a gross abuse of the concept of true. A statement can be "true" or "false" by being correlated to the objective reality or not, such as "the weather is sunny today in Paris" or "burning hydrogen with oxygen gives water molecules". But nothing but what _should_ be, about morality, is "true" or "false" in absolute, that's meaningless.

What can be true or false are statements like "your moral system is incoherent" or "your moral system would lead to society collapse" or "you don't really believe in the moral system you're proposing", or "the large majority of people believe murder is wrong" but not "murder is wrong".

No. If something leads to greater evil than it is wrong. We can only see if something leads to greater evil from our own perception and experience. We can assume that murder is wrong because it removes a life, but what if death was better than life? An Omniscient Being will know for absolute sure whether or not something would truly lead to greater evil.

[Kilobugya]

No. If something leads to greater evil than it is wrong.

But what is a "greater evil" is not (and cannot be) objectively defined, it's not a matter of "true" or "false". Once you've a set of terminal values and a broad moral framework, yes, you can start asserting truth value of moral propositions, but not in absolute.

We can only see if something leads to greater evil from our own perception and experience. We can assume that murder is wrong because it removes a life, but what if death was better than life? An Omniscient Being will know for absolute sure whether or not something would truly lead to greater evil.

That has nothing to do with being omniscient - even an omniscient being (if that were possible, which is actually ruled out by each of QM, GR and Goedel, but let's forget about that) cannot assign truth values to "should" statement. And different omniscient beings, with different terminal values, would make different judgements.

Not being omniscient makes assign truth-value to sentences error-prone, you can get the answer wrong, but it doesn't change if the sentence has a truth-value or if it's not defined. And "is murder wrong" is not actually defined in absolute, it's not a property of the objective world, but the property of a mind equipped with morality.

[Cekoviu]

I see morals as what people believe to be right and wrong, not what is truly right and wrong. The only beings who can perceive what is True are beyond human comprehension. Thus, when a believed right or wrong is actually the opposite the moral is wrong.

That's a gross abuse of the concept of true. A statement can be "true" or "false" by being correlated to the objective reality or not, such as "the weather is sunny today in Paris" or "burning hydrogen with oxygen gives water molecules". But nothing but what _should_ be, about morality, is "true" or "false" in absolute, that's meaningless.

What can be true or false are statements like "your moral system is incoherent" or "your moral system would lead to society collapse" or "you don't really believe in the moral system you're proposing", or "the large majority of people believe murder is wrong" but not "murder is wrong".

But this leads us into another question: is there such a thing as objective reality? I would say no, and by extension, nothing can universally be true or false. Or more accurately, we have no way of knowing whether something can be universally true/false.

[Kilobugya]

But this leads us into another question: is there such a thing as objective reality? I would say no, and by extension, nothing can universally be true or false. Or more accurately, we have no way of knowing whether something can be universally true/false.

There is one, it's the one that answers all our tests and probes. Denying the existence of objective reality is just absurd. There is something that, when we do experiments, give us results, and consistent ones in addition to that. Perhaps it's just some layer above something else (like a Matrix-like simulation) but even then statements have truth-value within that Matrix, and the Matrix itself exists in an underlying reality.

[Telconi]

That's a gross abuse of the concept of true. A statement can be "true" or "false" by being correlated to the objective reality or not, such as "the weather is sunny today in Paris" or "burning hydrogen with oxygen gives water molecules". But nothing but what _should_ be, about morality, is "true" or "false" in absolute, that's meaningless.

What can be true or false are statements like "your moral system is incoherent" or "your moral system would lead to society collapse" or "you don't really believe in the moral system you're proposing", or "the large majority of people believe murder is wrong" but not "murder is wrong".

No. If something leads to greater evil than it is wrong. We can only see if something leads to greater evil from our own perception and experience. We can assume that murder is wrong because it removes a life, but what if death was better than life? An Omniscient Being will know for absolute sure whether or not something would truly lead to greater evil.

Evil is subjective...

[Cekoviu]

But this leads us into another question: is there such a thing as objective reality? I would say no, and by extension, nothing can universally be true or false. Or more accurately, we have no way of knowing whether something can be universally true/false.

There is one, it's the one that answers all our tests and probes. Denying the existence of objective reality is just absurd. There is something that, when we do experiments, give us results, and consistent ones in addition to that. Perhaps it's just some layer above something else (like a Matrix-like simulation) but even then statements have truth-value within that Matrix, and the Matrix itself exists in an underlying reality.

But we have no way of proving that that's actually what happens in the universe of everybody. For all I know, you're a figment of my imagination and nobody is actually real aside from me, and I exist in a void unconstrained by the laws of physics. No real way of proving or disproving that.

[Novskya]

Care to elaborate as to how? If what is moral is formulated from one self, then none can be "correct" or "incorrect". By subscribing to non cognitivism, you cannot claim that any other persons subjective morals are more valid or invalid then yours or others. If morality is subjective, then all morality is equal in worth.

I see morals as what people believe to be right and wrong, not what is truly right and wrong. The only beings who can perceive what is True are beyond human comprehension. Thus, when a believed right or wrong is actually the opposite the moral is wrong.

Lmao wtf. Considering how I am a Gilsonian Realist rather then an idealist, I rejection this notion lol. What we know from "truth" is more complicated then most people think.

Rationality affords, as best one can determine, the optimal chances of success in realizing one's appropriate ends. But how can one really be sure that what is optimal only 'as far as we can now tell' is actually optimal?

Well, you can't. There's no way to prove that rationality pays. We can only achieve the essentially pragmatic justification of showing that, as best we can judge the matter, the counsel of reason represents the most promising prospect of realizing our objectives; even cognitive rationality is ultimately justifiable only in the practical order of reason.

In providing a rational justification of rationality (and what other kind would we want?), the most and best that one can do is to follow the essentially circular (but non-viciously circular!) line of establishing that reason itself endorses taking this course.

In a way, the answer is only too obvious, given that the rational thing to do is that for which the strongest reasons speak, we ipso facto have good reason to do it.

Not necessarily - they can be inconsistent (lead to self-contradiction), or to outcomes that even the person would find abhorrent, but doesn't realize yet.

There are a lot of possible triangle shape, but (in a plan) you can't have a triangle of sizes 2, 3 and 8. The same way, there are a lot of possible morality frameworks and lots of possible variations within morality, but there also are constraints. An incorrect morality is one ridden with contradictions or one leading easily to abhorrent outcomes, for example.

So, you concede to a cognitivist notion of morality. While I would concede to your notion of what makes a moral system incorrect, this is really applicable only to systems utilizing objective morality. Subjective morality inherently rejects the concept of "good-in-itself", leaving the individual to decide as to what is good/bad. Since formulations of subjective morality is non-cognitivist, thus its contradictions with other systems does not invalidate it as it does not adhere to conceptions such as the ones the objective moral systems do, as the subjective system rejects the objectivity of goodness. When two people, both formulating a subjective concept of good have their conceptions contradict, neither are correct or incorrect. The one who is formulating is correct only to themselves while the contradiction is incorrect and visa versa.

When you used your triangle example, you ignored as to why it is false. The reason for it being false is that the lengths do not match with reality. If we have a line ABC, where C is the longest side, for it to be a triangle (aside from them connecting ofc) then A+B>(or equal to) C. Since all triangles exhibit this property, then it must be true. The same applies to morality, as morality is derived from reason. More specifically, morality can be derived a a priori (such as within the triangle example). What we call "cognitivism" is the belief that moral statements can be true, for it exhibits an aspect of reality. Again, we derive such moral statements from reason.

I would contest your conclusion that a subjective moral system invalidates itself if it is "leading easily to abhorrent outcomes". Instead, the moral system could easily be changed to make such action moral or immoral. Under an objective system, then if proves something we emotivist-ly call immoral to be moral, then it is not immoral, even thigh we find it contemptible.

(Sorry for late responses, my time to type is limited due to school.)

[Novskya]

There is one, it's the one that answers all our tests and probes. Denying the existence of objective reality is just absurd. There is something that, when we do experiments, give us results, and consistent ones in addition to that. Perhaps it's just some layer above something else (like a Matrix-like simulation) but even then statements have truth-value within that Matrix, and the Matrix itself exists in an underlying reality.

But we have no way of proving that that's actually what happens in the universe of everybody. For all I know, you're a figment of my imagination and nobody is actually real aside from me, and I exist in a void unconstrained by the laws of physics. No real way of proving or disproving that.

>no axiology to back that up
smh

Solipsism is one of those artificial doctrines that has never actually been held by any flesh-and-blood exponent, but was simply invented by some theorists as a rod with which to beat others whom they opposed.

A cognitive solipsism that would preclude reference to intersubjectively identifiable particulars, and would thus block the possibility of interpersonal communication, is just unpleasant and patently false.

[Novskya]

UH, 2 things.
1.) Morality is only applicable to rational beings.
and 2.) If a rational being murders, then that doesn't mean that murder is objectively wrong. It means that the person who murdered committed a wrong doing.

Of course, but I reason that if murder would be objectively wrong, we should have issues with even non-moral agents animals committing it. Otherwise, one would concede that morality is solely limited to human beings and their moralistic framework, which makes it relative and thus, subjective.

I don't support the notion of objective morality so you're preaching to the choir. In my eyes morality aligns very well with some concepts from the theory of relativity - metaphorically speaking.

How do you believe that morality extends to animals if you concede that morality is subjective? Plus, since morality is found through reason, thereby non rational agents do not exhibit morality.
Also, "one would concede that morality is solely limited to human beings and their moralistic framework" Correct!

[Cekoviu]

But we have no way of proving that that's actually what happens in the universe of everybody. For all I know, you're a figment of my imagination and nobody is actually real aside from me, and I exist in a void unconstrained by the laws of physics. No real way of proving or disproving that.

>no axiology to back that up
smh

Solipsism is one of those artificial doctrines that has never actually been held by any flesh-and-blood exponent, but was simply invented by some theorists as a rod with which to beat others whom they opposed.

A cognitive solipsism that would preclude reference to intersubjectively identifiable particulars, and would thus block the possibility of interpersonal communication, is just unpleasant and patently false.

That's not a particularly strong debunking of the concept I've put forth. Assuming that you exist, it would follow that the reality I live in is objective (or itself within a reality that is objective), but I cannot say with certainty that you do. Until definitive proof is given for the existence of this reality, I'm sticking with epistemological solipsism.