Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

The idea of an objective moral system is contradictory; a system cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time.

Is the brain a system?

[Nonpareil]

Sure it can. A single event can include both first-person experience and third-person processes.

In which case the first-person things would be subjective, while the third-person are objective. For the sake of this discussion, anyway; I'm fairly sure that if you clarified, there would be more nuance necessary, but I don't really care at the moment.

No matter. I don't think you truly know what objective means anyway.

Your snideness is noted, but I have to point out the lack of actual objection to the point.

Value systems are inherently subjective. The idea of an objective value system is incoherent.

If you disagree, then you can supply a coherent definition for "objective morality".

---

Is the brain a system?

Not a value system, no.

[bennyboy]

Not a value system, no.

Okay, so a system can be both objective and subjective, but not a value system. Let's consider the possibility that the brain makes the value system. We experience that process of value formation subjectively, but the brain functions objectively, i.e. by the rules of physics. Unless you want to demonstrate things like free will, then we're left with all moral systems being both subjective and objective. That they vary among individuals is not surprising, since each biology has variations in its mechanism.

[Jesster]

Huh? How can something be both subjective and objective at the same time? That's like saying something can be "A" and "not A" at the same time. This does not compute. Pick one.

[bennyboy]

Huh? How can something be both subjective and objective at the same time? That's like saying something can be "A" and "not A" at the same time. This does not compute. Pick one.

1.  Things in reality ARE both "A" and "not A" at the same time.  That's the essence of QM superposition.
2.  Consciousness.

I see no reason why you couldn't view normal morality as either subjective or as objective. If I develop a moral idea, and you watch me doing it equipped with an fMRI or whatever, then it's a matter of chosen perspective, not of establishing that it must be one or the other.

[Jesster]

1.  Things in reality ARE both "A" and "not A" at the same time.  That's the essence of QM superposition.
2.  Consciousness.

I see no reason why you couldn't view normal morality as either subjective or as objective.  If I develop a moral idea, and you watch me doing it equipped with an fMRI or whatever, then it's a matter of chosen perspective, not of establishing that it must be one or the other.

This is not quantum mechanics, which is something I can't even begin to make any educated assertions about and I doubt you can either. This is a plain logical negation argument, which you are blatantly violating. Do you understand the basis of logic?

I don't care too much which side of the subjective/objective argument you are going for (although I have my own opinion about that). Just at least pick one.

[Alex K]

What does objective morality mean? I remain unconvinced that it's a thing at all

[bennyboy]

1.  Things in reality ARE both "A" and "not A" at the same time.  That's the essence of QM superposition.
2.  Consciousness.

I see no reason why you couldn't view normal morality as either subjective or as objective.  If I develop a moral idea, and you watch me doing it equipped with an fMRI or whatever, then it's a matter of chosen perspective, not of establishing that it must be one or the other.

This is not quantum mechanics, which is something I can't even begin to make any educated assertions about and I doubt you can either. This is a plain logical negation argument, which you are blatantly violating. Do you understand the basis of logic?

I don't care too much which side of the subjective/objective argument you are going for (although I have my own opinion about that). Just at least pick one.

I drink hot chocolate.  I experience what the hot chocolate is like.  My brain is doing stuff, which is physical stuff, and the physical process can (to a degree) be observed-- there's brain activity happening.  So it's both subjective and objective.

[Mister Agenda]

I think objective morality is commonly taken as there being things about the universe that can make at least some moral claims objectively true (or false). I think that leaves room for variation, a moral claim that is true for the octo-aardvaark people of Life Mother Star 12 may not be true for humans because of our different natures and situations. So I don't think objective morality means universal or absolute morality. It would mean that it's possible to say that one action is more or less moral than another for a particular person in a particular situation, and that saying that could be true.

You could have a logical morality based on at least one axiom. like Harris's 'human thriving'; but since the axiom can be rejected, there doesn't seem to be a way to escape from subjectivity. It could, however, be objective in the sense of the moral arguments derived from it being unbiased and impartial except for the assumption that human thriving is good. It may be worth noting that the axiom 'reality is real' can also be rejected, so we can dispense with the idea of objectivity entirely unless we're willing to concede an imperfect 'middle world' that allows for relative instead of perfect objectivity.

[Nonpareil]

Okay, so a system can be both objective and subjective, but not a value system.

No, benny. I was pointing out that you were going off track, not backpedaling. Brains are objective, inasmuch as they can be stated to have objective existence. The value judgments that they make are subjective. Et cetera. It is still not possible for a thing to be both A and not-A.

Let's consider the possibility that the brain makes the value system.

In which case said value system is subjective.

We experience that process of value formation subjectively, but the brain functions objectively, i.e. by the rules of physics.

That is not what "objective" means. "Objective" means "true from every frame of reference". That the brain is functioning is objectively true; the ideas that it comes up with may be only subjectively true.

Unless you want to demonstrate things like free will, then we're left with all moral systems being both subjective and objective.

No.

1.  Things in reality ARE both "A" and "not A" at the same time.  That's the essence of QM superposition.

There is an equivalent to Godwin's Law which applies to quantum mechanics.

If you try to bring it up in a discussion without at least three doctorates in related fields, you have automatically lost.