Can Morality ever be objective?
I will argue that it can be objective.
What makes anything "objective"? Let us consider, for example, the proposition "The Sun has planets, including the planet, Earth." Most thinking people would concur that that proposition is objective. Why? Because astronomers reached a consensus that this is how they will employ language to refer to some data that they observe with their five senses.
The best I understanding I gained from the Philosopher of Science, Hans Vaihinger, is that a science is very-much like a trial-lawyer’s presentation of his client’s case: it is a hypothetical scenario. [See, for details see Vaihinger’s well-reasoned book, THE PHILOSOPHY OF AS IF.]
A scientific theory is purported to explain things the best the scientists know how to do so; yet it is all a hypothesis
This implies it is highly-subject-to-revision should better interpretations come along in time. What is good enough for scientists [regarding the latest and best formulation of reliable knowledge] ought to be good enough for the rest of us. The fact is that t their correlations are all [list]
[*] hypothetical and tentative. Yet their statements I would argue are the very model of objectivity. The findings they issue are objective.
Even if you say,"it's raining outside," it is subject to testing ...say by your putting your nose up against the window and thus seeing (or failing to see) raindrops and puddles in the street. Until you do this, the sentence is a hypothesis (a guess) on your part. This alludes to The Correspondence Theory of Truth …which, along with the Coherence Theory of Truth, is widely-accepted as our best guide to truth.
Plane Geometry is able to be put on a blackboard, and in textbook form. and thus becomes universally-agreed-upon as objective - even though we know there are rival geometries which are just as "true" in their own domain. Would you agree that Plane Geometry is objective?? I would.
If anything is objective, it is!
What is the relevance of the above discussion to the topic: Can Morality Ever Be Objective? I set out to systematize Ethics into a coherent, teachable theory that could be explained in a classroom. Its premiss is in accord with the views of those philosophers who argue that an individual (a human life with a personality) has some value. [My understanding of the concept is related to something Shakespeare had a character in one of his plays say; it is not relative to local culture. "Moraliry" is not merely a shifty social construct. It is now a term in a system.
{For more details, see M.C. Katz, Ph.D, The Structure of Ethics. [A free pdf copy of the paper is available courtesy of Wade Harvey.] Reflect on the points it makes. And if you are so inclined, let's have a discussion of its concepts after you have had a chance to look the text over.}
Morality, according to some who have thought deeply about it, means principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad conduct with the focus on being morally-right and good, while avoiding doing wrong and evil.
As viewed in the new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz theory, “morality” is a relation between an individual and that set of self-imposed principles. It helps if these standards derived within a sound, systematic, rational and logical Ethical Theory.
The concept, morality, is now a term in a system; it is to be understood as a measure of the degree to which an individual lives up to the standard (or set of such principles), how well he or she applies the set of standards to daily life.
If one expresses the principle(s) in everyday life, then one rates being described as having high morality. Also, and equally-important, morality in this new paradigm now indicates growth and moral- development throughout life. It recommends that we keep growing by adding new standards to live by as we progress through life – and actually live by them, practice them!
Questions? Comments? Discussion?
What makes anything "objective"? Let us consider, for example, the proposition "The Sun has planets, including the planet, Earth." Most thinking people would concur that that proposition is objective. Why? Because astronomers reached a consensus that this is how they will employ language to refer to some data that they observe with their five senses.
The best I understanding I gained from the Philosopher of Science, Hans Vaihinger, is that a science is very-much like a trial-lawyer’s presentation of his client’s case: it is a hypothetical scenario. [See, for details see Vaihinger’s well-reasoned book, THE PHILOSOPHY OF AS IF.]
A scientific theory is purported to explain things the best the scientists know how to do so; yet it is all a hypothesis
This implies it is highly-subject-to-revision should better interpretations come along in time. What is good enough for scientists [regarding the latest and best formulation of reliable knowledge] ought to be good enough for the rest of us. The fact is that t their correlations are all [list]
[*] hypothetical and tentative. Yet their statements I would argue are the very model of objectivity. The findings they issue are objective.
Even if you say,"it's raining outside," it is subject to testing ...say by your putting your nose up against the window and thus seeing (or failing to see) raindrops and puddles in the street. Until you do this, the sentence is a hypothesis (a guess) on your part. This alludes to The Correspondence Theory of Truth …which, along with the Coherence Theory of Truth, is widely-accepted as our best guide to truth.
Plane Geometry is able to be put on a blackboard, and in textbook form. and thus becomes universally-agreed-upon as objective - even though we know there are rival geometries which are just as "true" in their own domain. Would you agree that Plane Geometry is objective?? I would.
If anything is objective, it is!
What is the relevance of the above discussion to the topic: Can Morality Ever Be Objective? I set out to systematize Ethics into a coherent, teachable theory that could be explained in a classroom. Its premiss is in accord with the views of those philosophers who argue that an individual (a human life with a personality) has some value. [My understanding of the concept is related to something Shakespeare had a character in one of his plays say; it is not relative to local culture. "Moraliry" is not merely a shifty social construct. It is now a term in a system.
{For more details, see M.C. Katz, Ph.D, The Structure of Ethics. [A free pdf copy of the paper is available courtesy of Wade Harvey.] Reflect on the points it makes. And if you are so inclined, let's have a discussion of its concepts after you have had a chance to look the text over.}
Morality, according to some who have thought deeply about it, means principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad conduct with the focus on being morally-right and good, while avoiding doing wrong and evil.
As viewed in the new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz theory, “morality” is a relation between an individual and that set of self-imposed principles. It helps if these standards derived within a sound, systematic, rational and logical Ethical Theory.
The concept, morality, is now a term in a system; it is to be understood as a measure of the degree to which an individual lives up to the standard (or set of such principles), how well he or she applies the set of standards to daily life.
If one expresses the principle(s) in everyday life, then one rates being described as having high morality. Also, and equally-important, morality in this new paradigm now indicates growth and moral- development throughout life. It recommends that we keep growing by adding new standards to live by as we progress through life – and actually live by them, practice them!
Questions? Comments? Discussion?
Comments (87)
But here is something:
Quoting Angelo Cannata
Angelo pinpoints the problem with our understanding of objectivity. But he stops short of explaining further what's missing.
So, I think from your post, Marvin, objective to you means that there is either a scientific consensus or an individuals' affirmation of moral principles incorporated in their daily lives. And I disagree to the fullest that, philosophically speaking, this is what we mean by objective reality. Objectivity means that meaning is out there. And that we didn't improvise, create, influence this objective reality in one way or another. Neither is objectivity to be understood as a consensus among people: an objective reality could be one that's never been discovered due one reason or another, namely, we do not have the right faculties to discover it.
One of the examples that's commonly used by philosophers is the existence of a triangle. This is what I would call the epitome of objective reality, if I believe in objective reality.
Good point. It does not. (But it doesn't mean that one is free to do whatever they please).
Whether it's objective or subjective, or whatever form it comes, morality is a set of principles that needs reconciling with other sets of moral principles. And this is an ongoing thing.
Yes, agree. When I debate anti-abortion people I always ask them how it comports with their other moral ideas. (They never respond.)
Good inquiry.
I shall try again. I believe we all project our own reality. I hold that there is, in practice, no such thing as objectivity: only subjectivity.
There can be, and often is, a "meeting of minds." We do find an overlapping of individual's projections ...such that we get a consensus now and then, an agreement. - and this is a happy coincidence.
What I am arguing is that "objectivity" is shared subjectivity. For example, "George Washington was the first U.S. President" is 'an objective fact' only because a consensus of reporters and historians have agreed that it is, and the rest of us are willing to accept this as so! [I;m sure there are a few exceptions, since there always are.]
We cannot get the subjectivity out of any human assertion. There is, I will grant, a thin line between fact and value, a line which is a bottomless chasm: "Value" and "fact" are distinct concepts. Facts are perceived by our senses. And any decision we make is, hopefully, grounded in facts as well as being partially a value-judgment.
My post attempted to make the case that if something can be put on the blackboard in a classroom of students eager to learn and to make sense out of what they see there, that maybe is enough to render it as "obfective." And this would apply equally to lessons in geometry or lessons in Ethics, when the lattrer has been systematized, put into a framework where its terms are related to one another, and has been generated by a fertile concept (which could be designated as "an Axiom."
Thanks to Formal Axiology employed as a meta-ethics, Ethics is now at a point where this has been achieved. [Ask Google for M.C. Katz, Unified Theory of Ethics.] I have written several other booklet-length texts since that one. {Being new here, I am not sure I can offer you links to those however ...even though they are free of charge. and even though I am making an assumption here that anyone here is that interrested in a semi-scientific Ethics theory.}
(If such an "inquiring mind" exists, he or she could perhaps sens me a memo, a private message, to that effect.) Maybe, perhaps, I could hear from a Moderator as to whether I will get banned if I give a link to a free pdf. for those who want more detail on a topic. (?)
BTW
L'éléphant wrote: " One of the examples that's commonly used by philosophers is the existence of a triangle. This is what I would call the epitome of objective reality, if I believe in objective reality. "
A triangle does NOT exist; it only consists as a conception in the mind.. Here below, is an application of the basic Dimensions of Value described in the early pages of BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach by yours truly -- ask in a search box for it -- the Dimensions are S (for Systrmic Value) E(for Eztrinsic Value) and I(for Intrinsic Value They were conceived of, and rigorously explained by Dr. Robert S. Hartman. You can read up on this polymath genius in Wikipedia. [See also the entry there captioned Science of Value.]
When those Dimension areapplied to Ontology, we get:
S: Essence E: Existence I: Reality
Essences consist. Existents exist. Realities persist.
I do think so. If you consider morality as objective, you can discern man-made morality as a mere illusion, a fiction, a fantasy, a false morality even. A morality which can be surpassed, not obeyed to. Every man-made moral is a moral to which you don't need to feel submitted to. An objective moral is one to which we all should conform. Which is not to say that the moral should be obeyed to. And of course, one's objective morality can be different from the other's. An objective morality gives a feeling of certainty.
I think that is intersubjectivity, not "objectivity". The latter – "shared" or not (known or unknown) is epistemological and the former is sociological / ecological. That quibble aside, your insights seem commensurable with my own which are summarized below in an old post:
Quoting 180 Proof
Thus, my metaethics is Ethical Naturalism (i.e. "good" is agency (i.e. capabilities – virtues, habits – for nonzero sum caring for the functional defects of self, others & commons) optimized by praxes of preventing and reducing harms & injustices, respectively); my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices which prevent or reduce injustice).
But like any science, it is not just the individual's judgment. It is a judgment civilized people share.
@ Marvin Katz's explanation is essential to democracy, which is a systematic system of raising the human potential by arguing like the gods until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.
Coming from Greek philosophy democracy is an ongoing search for truth and the object of this search is happiness, not just for oneself but for the entire social/political system. That philosophy was hijacked by Christians who then proceeded to create heaven on earth. Unfortunately, the Holy Bible does not explain universal law and the human effort as well as philosophy does, and religion becomes tribalism that stands in the way of knowing truth and manifesting happiness.
I don't think masochism is a popular choice. I think humans are more prone to want happiness, but many get lost in Hades and without the help of the gods (necessary concepts), they may not find their way out.
To not feel subject to our morals is to be a bad citizen. We do not make morals, but through effort we become aware of them as universal laws, and just as our understanding of science can change, so can our understanding of morals change.
A moral is knowledge of universal law and good manners.
Can Morality ever be objective? Very interesting question and topic! :up:
Morality too, like science, has to do with common agreement on principles concerning "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" behavior. Which of course are subjective. They differ from culture to culture, even there are some basic principles that are common to almost all (civilized) cultures. Moreover, these principles too may change through time, although not so easily and often as in astronomy and the science in general.
So, morality --as we understand the term in general-- is subjective.
Can it be objective?
I have to replace here the term "morality" with "ethics". Although these are considered synonyms in general, they differ in that the term "morality" has a much wider use than "ethics", which can be treated as a system and a branch of philosophy.
An objective ethics system must be universal, i.e., that can be always applied, independently of the circumstances. And it must be based on a fundamental element or principle of life. It will itself then be the base of ethical behavior.
This fundamental element is the purpose of life itself. And the fundamental purpose of life is Survival.
Survival -- is the purpose of all life. That's what life --in its basic state, raw form-- wants: To exist and continue to exist! This is the fundamental law of life and it is where ethics must be based on. Ethics must protect, support and enhance Survival.
A secondary law of life is that it seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Life responds instinctively in a positive way to pleasure stimuli and in a negative way to pain stimuli. This law too must be adopted and applied by our ethics system. In short, our ethics system must support and apply all the laws of life.
So, the basic principle and purpose of such an ethics system is: Support and promote survival for as many lives as possible and to the highest possible degree. This is an objective and absolute principle and purpose.
(Note: The terms "survival" and "life" must be considered beyond just "being and staying alive". Life can and does exist in many levels, areas and forms beyond bare existence. [s][/s]I believe that this is quite obvious, yet I could expand it, but not in here.)
What other morality is there?
Great topic. One particular challenge when it comes to morality is establishing a basis for which to judge moral codes and statements. For instance, when we say
It is generally agreed, despite our definitions of things, they would exist even if humans did not. Mathematics is a tricky one, but a majority of mathematicians are platonists. I’ve heard different surveys but the number tends to be 60-80% (I am as well, for the record).
The issue with morality is what standard we have to build an objective morality on (unless moral realism is true and these principles are out there). In this case, the theist has a huge advantage-they can argue that God created the world and also gave us a set of moral principles as well as an internal moral sense that is generally pretty accurate.
From a purely naturalistic perspective, it is difficult to see why humans, sentient life, etc have any cosmic moral worth (Note that I am not a naturalist). For instance, J.L. Mackie said in his “Argument from Queerness” (Paraphrased)
We can say moral values are subjective, but this is unsatisfying to me. Without an objective moral standard, we can’t say that moral “progress” can be made (i.e. that abolishing slavery was somehow a good thing)
Some areas of morality can advance. But as a nation, for every move forward there is always move backwards.
Natural morality.
Humans are not natural?
No. They act unnatural. Against the natural eternal objective moral. Which is fine by me but no good.
Which is?
To act naturally, in agreement with nature. Agreement is gone nowadays.
What is that agreement, exactly?
Not to posit yourself opposite to nature.
I see.
Do you?
You are saying nothing and are very inarticulate.
Then what do you see?
What I just said.
That Im inarticulate?
Haven't been following the thread but I remember C. S. Lewis was aiming at objective values in The Abolition of Man and elsewhere.
Relax, brother Elephant... Take a deep breath or light a cigarette.
Not a quibble. QAnon is intersubjective, but I don't think anyone here would label it objective. The fact that a belief is intersubjective (many fools, vs one) grants it nothing.
Quoting 180 Proof
It is all injustice, justice is the elemental concept in ethics. Harm is just a salient instance of injustice, but harm is not always unjust. Redressing a wrong may inflict more harm on the perpetrator than what was inflicted on the victim, and in any event, by the perp's suffering, increases the total suffering in the world. Nonetheless, if we consider the redress to bee just, we do not consider it wrong.
.
If not, then what? You seem to repeat my point unless I'm missing something ...
i agree with hypericin that "justice" is a quite-important concept in
Ethics -- especially Social Justice at present. The Unified Theory of Ethics, the new paradigm based on the work of Robert S. Hartman in Value Theory [which is meta-ethics] is what I mean when I say "Ethics."
I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,[u]ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u
To learn more about the Unified Theory of Ethics, peruse the pdf text, a link to which is offered at the top of this post. This is my latest effort at writing. I could have done better by placing what is now Ch. 1 as an Epilogue. I ought to have started right off with the chapter: What is Ethics? So it is recommended you skip to that when studying the manuscript. ...the first chapter, on "structure," may be off-putting because to most folks structure is boring.
In my original post of this thread there occurs an update, on the best way to interpret and understand the concept "morality" in the lens of this new paradigm for ethics. So check that out, and see why it's an improvement. It is, so to speak, Morality(sub)2.
Humans create morality to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. If everyone agrees to a foundational principle (eg, human flourishing) then a type of objective moral system can probably be built, subject to this foundation. But the initial presupposition that underpins such a system is a subjective preference.
Your first paragraph quoted above informs me that you are using a different definition of "morality" than I am. I gave mine toward the bottom of my first post in this thread. Also gave further details in the third chapter of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper; a link to it is given at the top of my previous posst in this thread.
agree with the thrust of your second paragraph. Any primitive assumption for a system (including a systematic Ethics theory - which is what I solicit your cooperation to help build) will be subjective.
In my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. In stating this I think I may be in accord with Jurgen Habermas.
My attempt to get this point across may not have been clear enough. The lesson (say in Ethics as science) was put on the whiteboard, and so in that one sense it is objective; yet anything said by humans has to be subjecttive, for we conceive of it, and we are conscious autonomous subjects.
{We have freedom of thought even if we are in a Chinese concentration camp, or in a Gulag.} Many people, in recentt history, though, have been gaslighted and brainwashed by Donald, the disgrased defeated ex-president. They didn't know their Ethics, or their conscience was not awake upon first encountering him. An individuaal with a sensitive conscience would have immediately detected a phony and a grifter when he ridiculed and attempted to humiliate his fellow candidates for the nomination.
In other words, morality only appears subjective because not much intercourse has taken place between relevant parties/cultures. Cultures tend to put up invisible barriers against influences (customs, beliefs) from other cultures. This self-isolationism is most evident among some Moslem countries (Afghanistan being an exemplar).
Give it time...we'll all be on the same page in (say) another century or so.
Arithmetic is objective, yet many are (functionally?) innumerate. Grammar is objective, yet too many are (functionally?) illiterate. This planet is objectively 'round', yet more and more socially-mediated Earthlings subjectively (make)believe "Earth is flat". :mask:
NB: By objectivity I understand demonstrably subject-invariant (as well as language/pov/gauge?invariant).
Thanks Marvin. My fault, I was just making some general, ill-educated comments without clearly addressing your point. I understand your reference to communities of intersubjecive agreement and have applied this notion to a range of subjects. Some postmodernists would say this intersubjectivity applies to science, not just morality or history. While I am interested in the subject, I am not a student of philosophy and don't read much on the subject. I am not a philosophical idealist, nor do I have reason to accept any transcendental realities, so for me morality can only come down to humans establishing value based agreements about how we should live together.
Nice!
All I can say, for the moment, is that morality is objective and appears to be subjective. The purported subjectivity is simply an artifiact of social dynamics and different rates of progress in re rationality.
That's a subjective judgment. Like the universe being flat.
Quoting 180 Proof
Science is objective, yet many are (functionally?) ignorant.
:rofl:
Quoting Marvin Katz
You shouldn't ask for all that if you are not interested.
My constructive comment that I posted in your topic 3 days ago has been wasted. No response. Quite frustrating.
I believe that when one posts a topic, it is becoming to at least acknowledge replies addressed to him, even with just a "Thanks" or "OK".
So, you won't hear from me again ...
:up:
Glad you agree with that! :smile:
Yeah, I mean, you wrote a pretty substantive comment, and even wrote it to be a great thread (which it is)... Just one word in reaction would suffice, as you wrote.
I think, BTW, that ethics or morals (I can't really see the difference) is objective. What the objective morals are then depends on who you ask. And somehow a world in which the bad or evil is not allowed to exist seems a worse world than a world in which it can exist.
I'm on board with this! If moral psychology is recognized as testable, verifiable findings on morality, I am a subscriber. I already reject relativism -- this is a sorry-ass approach to morality. But pluralism can be incorporated into your paradigm. I think it is already.
To me, this would imply morality is subjective. If we take objective to mean it does not depend on the mind for existence, then if it depends on who you ask (and there is no outside standard to measure such statements by) then it is indeed subjective, despite individuals claiming it is objective.
Indeed, to you. But when you ask the people involved, and they say their morality is not how they want it, but an objective morality, then it is an objective morality. It's the experience that counts, not what you think it is.
If a person aaserts their morality is objective then their morality is objective? This suggests an odd infallibility.
You can always ask them to change to other objective morals. You might convince them.
How do you know their morality is objective? Because they say it is?
I totally agree. But people wanting their morality to be objective (or claiming it is objective) does not necessarily make it true. To me, this is a huge problem with any naturalistic, secular ethics. You cannot claim objective moral values and duties do not exist and yet expect people to follow your ethical code, or assert your ethical code is "better" than any other. And while a lot of people do seem to agree on moral stuff to get a "fuzzy" picture of ethical values, there is plenty of disagreement about who or what should receive ethical consideration.
Of course, none of this proves that objective moral values don't exist. But I've come to the conclusion that if they do, you have to appeal to the supernatural to have any satisfactory account for their existence (thanks to Mackie).
It's a sub of the problem of an absolute, objective reality. Why should there be one such reality? You can say because that's by definition the case, but we can change the definition. The morality of the atheist is not god-given, but an evolutionary feature, serving the passing of genes or memes. But it's an objective morality just the same. I don't believe in it. My objective morality is a different one.
How we know their morality is objective? If they have an objective (non-moral) principle to derive their moral from. How do we know that objective principle is objective? Because it is thought to exist independently of them. Like genes or memes selfishly trying to be passed on.
You mean moral is divinely inspired? Say, that life is sacred because life is divinely "created" or evolution invented by gods or God?
But it depends on your view of gods or God what the morals are then.
We know that they think their morality is objective. Just as we know that that this "objective principal... is thought to exist independently of them. "
We don't know whether their morality is objective. We only know what they think of it.
Sorry I was probably unclear. I think any moral system that claims life has any cosmic value is making a claim about what is worthy of reverence, sacred, divine, etc. The question is how do we metaphysically justify this (other than just saying "I like it" or "I don't like it")?
Yes, indeed. But what else can we do than think they are objective? Why do we think they are objective? I think for a lot of people it's the easy way. "Its just like that, so stop whining!" Somehow it's like putting the blame outside of yourself.
Take abortion (a lot of ado about that in the US, so I heard). You can say it's God's fruit that a pregnant woman wears, so it can't be aborted, or if you think differently about God or gods,, it would be no problem. Now whose morality is objective? I go with the liberal view, but is that objective? To me yes. And the pregnant woman? Difficult!
We need a wider metaphysical framework, a theology, or maybe a cosmology. How you view, say gods or God, seems to influence your morals. Maybe the best moral is to give all forms of life equal chances. So not necessarily about good and evil, which is just there, and the "evil" is somehow stimulated in modern society. But why should the bad be no good?
We can think they're subjective.
Quoting Hillary
We don't. I certainly don't. They do. And apparently you do.
Quoting Hillary
Neither. Both are subjective and reflective of the erroneous subjective belief that they're objective.
Quoting Hillary
The formula "X (any X at all) is objective to me" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the notions of subjective and objective. I suggest further research and further pondering of the notions of subjective and objective.
Cheers. :smile:
But why should you want them to be subjective? It's a more human approach if you think that the morality people hold as objective are considered objective instead of projecting your subjectivity on them. :smile:
I have pondered too much about this and have come to the conclusion that the idea of one and only absolute reality is a useless idea having its roots in Plato and Xenophanes. Plato's idea continued in science, and X's idea in theology. There are as many objective realities as there are living creatures.
Cheers! :party:
Again, this is mistaken. "There are as many subjective realities as there are living creatures." That makes some sense, at least. The above does not.
The formula "X is objective to me" is more accurately rendered: "I have an (unwittingly erroneous) subjective belief that X is objective."
Good to know you've been pondering it. :smile:
Again, you adopt an old view on objective reality. That view holds that there is one such reality. Which is ostensibly wrong. Just ask two different scientists about any subject. You might claim that in time agreement is reached, like in the ideal world of Popper, but in reality (there you go!) this is not so. Everyone has, sees, thinks, experiences another objective reality. You might claim that they think it to be objective and thus it is subjective, but that's you projecting your idea of objectivity. Which is subjective... :grin: .
Are you able to objectively justify that “ought?”
Yeah, I know ... Ethics, morality and morals are used interchangeably in common language. That's why I have made a distinction and got "ethics" out of the basket with all kinds of fish, using it in a more strict way, i.e. as a philosophical sytem or branch. Wiki says, "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that 'involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior'. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology." This is a totally different approach from what is assumed in common language.
Is axiology the "study of goodness and values"? Aesthetics included? I used to mix ethics and aesthetics up a lot. "What an evil painting". "What ugly bankrob!" "What a friendly well behaving statue!" "What beautiful murder!"
... That's maybe how ethics look like after taking anesthetics! :grin:
Anyway, good that you have finally sorted all this out! :smile:
:lol:
A nice mix!
Your first paragraph quoted above informs me that you are using a different definition of "morality" than I am. I gave mine toward the bottom of my first post in this thread. Also gave further details in the third chapter of THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS paper; a link to it is given at the top of my previous posst in this thread.
agree with the thrust of your second paragraph. Any primitive assumption for a system (including a systematic Ethics theory - which is what I solicit your cooperation to help build) will be subjective.
In my first post, the o.p. above, I tried to convey that a presentation of academic material in a classroom (no matter how technical) which can be properly described as 'objective' is in fact,inter-subjective. In stating this I think I may be in accord with Jurgen Habermas.
My attempt to get this point across may not have been clear enough. The lesson (say in Ethics as science) was put on the whiteboard, and so in that one sense it is objective; yet anything said by humans has to be subjecttive, for we conceive of it, and we are conscious autonomous subjects.
{We have freedom of thought even if we are in a Chinese concentration camp, or in a Gulag.} Many people, in recentt history, though, have been gaslighted and brainwashed by Donald, the disgrased defeated ex-president. They didn't know their Ethics, or their conscience was not awake upon first encountering him. An individuaal with a sensitive conscience would have immediately detected a phony and a grifter when he ridiculed and attempted to humiliate his fellow candidates for the nomination.
1. Morality is objective: Pain Bad. Pleasure Good.
2. Morality is subjective: Differences in what is painful and what is pleasurable.
For the sake of amusement:
The fact of harm requires far more proof (certainty) than the quantum of damages stemming from the harm. Although this case is about lost profits, the general sentiment is there - defendants do not get rewarded by the fact that the difference between being unharmed and harmed is non-objective because the unharmed case is counterfactual. One cannot be "certain" or "objective" about that which isn't the case - one can only form a reasonable conclusion about what might have been. Granted, certain sorts of damages are more amenable to "objective" analysis because of the sort of harm suffered (e.g. the cost to replace a new 1993 Ford Focus destroyed when the defendant ran a fork lift into it), but other sorts are far more "subjective" and can result in wide variances in award/calculation.
Emotional distress damagss
As the linked article suggests, calculating emotional distress damages is, at present, just approximating the "pain & suffering" the injured party had to go through. I'd advise utilitarian ethicists to keep an eye out for fresh developments in this particular area of law.
Objectivity is obtained by demonstration. 'Show, don't tell' - as the novelist has it.
If one believes in fair punishment, or in just war, or defends rugby or mountain-climbing, or fireworks, or surgery, then one believes in the virtue of measurable harm.
Nevertheless, I think there is a property of harm, that I suggest it cannot be valued in itself, other things being equal. One can value gambling, and the excitement of gambling lies in the possibility of losing, but one cannot value losing itself because losing means losing what is valued; and likewise, the surgeon cuts flesh, harming it in order to heal it, and cannot value causing harm for its own sake, because to harm is to destroy/reduce value. Even the vandal destroys, not because destruction can be seen as good, but because it gives him some satisfaction to have agency and power in the world. And even the curious case of the masochist, who seeks out pain and damage to his own flesh, is seeking not the harm that is done but the peace of mind and release that the harm brings to him.
So one can say in general that values are subjective in the sense that they arise in subjects, but that they are nevertheless potentially universal in the sense that subjects themselves have a common nature, that necessarily values health over harm, truth over falsehood, comfort over discomfort, etc. And yet, as we see, this fundamental necessity leaves plenty of room for disagreement and internal conflict, making the particularities seem almost arbitrary in the way they vary from one person to another and one culture to another. The world is unpredictable and the human world is radically unpredictable, and folks can make a case for lying, for torture, for war, and all manner of things that in themselves have objective negative value, but might possibly have positive consequences.
It's the same algorithm Netflix uses to make recommendations of what you'll like.
What's good and bad for me is objective.
That I should be well rather than ill, is a personal preference.
Put interpersonally:
-Its objectively true that living beings value wellbeing.
-Its objectively true that wellbeing is somewhat interdependent.
-Its objectively true that when we harm our community, we are harming a community which we partially depend on for our wellbeing, therefore negatively effecting our own wellbeing.
Put another way, there are objective truths about what is good and bad WITHIN the context of an interdependent community. But I don't see how good and bad can exist independent of the shared personal preferences of a community.
That depends. If a person were to live in complete isolation, is it possible for good/bad to exist for him, or would every norm simply be about preference and practicality?
The "dark side" is generally an unsatisfactory position, and it it is unfortunate that it has as much validity as the "sunny side". Whatever the case, each side makes absolute demands, and holds hypocrisy in great contempt. And I can't think of anything that is more necessary or universal to morality.