Objective vs. Subjective morality: what's the diff?

[bennyboy]

A few people in CL's objectivity thread said that thread should die and someone should make a new thread about the philosophy of morality.  This is me, doing that.

I'd argue that in a monist material determinist world view (i.e. that held by scientists and many here on AF), the separation is incoherent.  This is because everything subjective is also objective: mind is brain, and brain function is determined by its own chemistry and by effects of stimuli from the environment.  Our moral instincts, which are genetic, are objective too: they are a product of a physical structure: the DNA, over which each individual had no control.

I don't think instinct alone can be called moral, because the word implies a quality of the agency of self.  However, if the brain is part of a determinist universe, then that sense of agency of self is a philosophical illusion: you are the experience of your brain's function.  In other words, ALL morality is subjective in that it is experienced by the agent (by the definition of the term "moral"), but it is also objective, in that it is a product of determined physical interactions. This also means that while morality is objective, it need not be uniform: the human species' morality is a kind of conglomeration of 7 billion unique "objective" moralities.

If all morality is both subjective and objective, then the distinction is meaningless, and "morality" is instead useful only as a descriptive term: of the ideas about good/bad of a culture or of a subculture.

[robvalue]

The problem is with the definition. When I try to pin people who believe in objective morality down on what it actually means, I don't think I've ever got to the stage where (a) I can understand what they're talking about and (b) I agree this is a meaningful/useful definition.

They want to skip over this step because their whole arguments (the religious at least) rely on equivocating between "what God wants" and "everyday morality".

I'd say most people have a very slightly different idea about what morality should actually be about. They may generally agree, but the details differ. So if we're not talking about the same thing, we can't discuss whether or not it's subjective, objective or anything else. If we accept were taking about different moral definitions/systems, then they are subjectively generated, and each may be objective, but not exclusively so.

In reality, which is what matters, everyone has their own opinion. Further than this, I've seen nothing of any practical use generated by the use of "objective" language. All that is objective is the actual events that happen. Any assessment of how "good" or "bad" those events are rely on an arbitrary way of measuring them, at best, or just straightforward opinions.

If all it achieves is "most people agree murder is wrong, and if they don't then they are excluded from the discussion" then really it's of no use. The fundamentals are where the problems arise, and by skipping these, we end up in an an echo chamber. Just the two people can be in two different echo chambers.

I've been meaning to do a vid about this I will soon!

[ignoramus]

If we want to know how objective morality manifests itself, then all we need to do is look at animals.
They were around before we were climbing trees.

Basically, survive without hurting others or the environment unnecessarily.
Our modern morals are an enhanced version of this basic innate understanding.

[robvalue]

Sure. We can scientifically study the emergence of morality, in an objective way. That's yet another aspect, and why it's so important to agree what we're actually talking about in the first place.

I liken it to this:

"Where's Harry?"

"Haven't seen him."

"How's his leg?"

"What do you mean? Harry's leg is fine."

"No it's not, he was just in hospital with it."

"No way, Harry has never been to hospital."

"Yes he has. Loads of times. Ever since he was injured in the war."

"War? Harry is 19."

"No, he's 76."

"No he's not. He lives next door to me, I know how old he is."

"He is. He lives next door to me too."

"Who are we actually talking about?

"Harry."

"Oh yeah. Everyone knows who Harry is."

[brewer]

A few people in CL's objectivity thread said that thread should die and someone should make a new thread about the philosophy of morality.  This is me, doing that.

I'd argue that in a monist material determinist world view (i.e. that held by scientists and many here on AF), the separation is incoherent.  This is because everything subjective is also objective: mind is brain, and brain function is determined by its own chemistry and by effects of stimuli from the environment.  Our moral instincts, which are genetic, are objective too: they are a product of a physical structure: the DNA, over which each individual had no control.

I don't think instinct alone can be called moral, because the word implies a quality of the agency of self.  However, if the brain is part of a determinist universe, then that sense of agency of self is a philosophical illusion: you are the experience of your brain's function.  In other words, ALL morality is subjective in that it is experienced by the agent (by the definition of the term "moral"), but it is also objective, in that it is a product of determined physical interactions.  This also means that while morality is objective, it need not be uniform: the human species' morality is a kind of conglomeration of 7 billion unique "objective" moralities.

If all morality is both subjective and objective, then the distinction is meaningless, and "morality" is instead useful only as a descriptive term: of the ideas about good/bad of a culture or of a subculture.

bold mine

Then it's only objective to each individual which makes it not objective, unless you're the only one alive.

[bennyboy]

A few people in CL's objectivity thread said that thread should die and someone should make a new thread about the philosophy of morality.  This is me, doing that.

I'd argue that in a monist material determinist world view (i.e. that held by scientists and many here on AF), the separation is incoherent.  This is because everything subjective is also objective: mind is brain, and brain function is determined by its own chemistry and by effects of stimuli from the environment.  Our moral instincts, which are genetic, are objective too: they are a product of a physical structure: the DNA, over which each individual had no control.

I don't think instinct alone can be called moral, because the word implies a quality of the agency of self.  However, if the brain is part of a determinist universe, then that sense of agency of self is a philosophical illusion: you are the experience of your brain's function.  In other words, ALL morality is subjective in that it is experienced by the agent (by the definition of the term "moral"), but it is also objective, in that it is a product of determined physical interactions.  This also means that while morality is objective, it need not be uniform: the human species' morality is a kind of conglomeration of 7 billion unique "objective" moralities.

If all morality is both subjective and objective, then the distinction is meaningless, and "morality" is instead useful only as a descriptive term: of the ideas about good/bad of a culture or of a subculture.

bold mine

Then it's only objective to each individual which makes it not objective, unless you're the only one alive.

I don't agree with that semantic. I think something is objective which has a truth beyond the experience of the subjective agent. An individual's beliefs, whatever they are, cannot be rooted in the self in a deterministic view-- since the self is a product of DNA, development and environment, none of which are ultimately controlled by that agent.

So yes, you can say, "These are MY beliefs. I hold them, and you do not hold exactly the same beliefs." This certainly is subjective in the sense that they are unique to you and that you experience them. However, they didn't come as a gift of the spirit or something-- they are still a product of deterministic process beyond the control of the subjective agent. It's like an apple-- yes, each apple is unique, but it's "apple-ness" really isn't: it's a thing that comes from a tree and from variations in the environment.

Remember, I'm not arguing against subjective morality. I'm arguing that all morality is both subjective AND objective, rendering a distinction between the two types incoherent.

[robvalue]

Yeah... any particular fixed moral code is subjective generated, but can be viewed as objective. You're right, it is then both.

Religious people don't mean objective. They mean either "best" or "external", as far as I can see. Objective doesn't automatically mean good. We make methods of assessment objective when it is useful to do so, such as how we measure length. It's my opinion that it's not useful to try and do the same thing with morality. You're simply not going to get people to all agree on the same standard, ever, because there is no reason for them to do so. Instead, we try to come to mutual general agreements through discussion. Anything else is unrealistic, and would amount to fascism and enforcing "morality" as law.

Religious people choose a moral code, and everyone else also chooses a moral code. They are just saying they will refuse to ever change theirs, where as everyone else is usually prepared to try and improve it with new experiences and knowledge. They often make this choice based on dogma, whereas everyone else usually bases it on what they consider to be important in the world.

Ultimately, the religious "objective morality" just means "arbitrary and unchanging". It's surrendering all your humanity, and putting blind faith into a being, while having no way to know whether or not it has our best interests at heart. If you do have a way, then you're admitting you have a standard of morality independent from this being.

[Tartarus Sauce]

The difference primarily seems to derive from how objective moral theory asserts morals as intrinsic properties while subjective moral theory claims morals are descriptive properties. Quite frankly, it's a highly convoluted, complicated, and in my honest opinion, wasteful debate. People have committed atrocities and encroachments upon other's dignity, health, and well being under both sets of philosophical outlooks. It only becomes a meaningful topic of discussion when rather serious conflicts in morality arise between different cultures and/or individuals. Within the areas of overlap, it's just wispy fluff of scant utility.

[robvalue]

Yup. People often conflate societal norms with individual morality, too.

There is no practical use in proclaiming you are "more moral" than someone else, or your society is "more moral". If anything is ever going to change, people's attitudes need to be won over by discussing why you hold the moral position that you do.