Objective Morality?

[Cinjin]

I generally make a distinction here between "morality" and "evolved social/consequential dynamics", the former is an evaluation of a interacting values, the latter is the product of selection pressures. If we all evolved to prefer the colour green and thought that saying we like blue more would get us locked in an orange box (and nobody liked orange) then it would be just the same as our evolved sense not to kill indiscriminately would put an individual in a situation where killing would get them killed (which nobody likes), giving them reason for action to abstain from killing and giving people who fear being killed reason for action to condemn murder.

(Your above paragraph addressed the heart of my post so I'll limit my response to this portion.)

First, let me reiterate that I'm not saying all morality in general is a product of mankind's evolution. I'm trying to say that if you keep breaking down morality you will finally arrive at a platform that all humans (excluding nut-jobs and sociopaths) accept on a primal level as right and wrong, ie. objective morality. Rape, as morally reprehensible as I find it, is actually condoned by other cultures and past time periods (the Bible comes to mind). Stealing seems morally wrong, but everyone forgives Robin Hood. Killing is unacceptable, unless of course you are killing the man that raped and murdered your wife. All of those examples are subjective ... so you have to keep breaking it down until you get to a place where people feel the same universally. It's that tiny platform that I think could be where objective morality lies, and it exists there because of man's evolution as a species. You call it "evolved/consequential dynamics" and I think it's possible that evolved/consequential dynamics indeed IS morality and that's why we have such a difficult time defining morality. After all, morality is just a word, and we slapped it on to society and bonded it to religion, not knowing that it was simply a learned condition hidden in the DNA of our very evolution.

Even the most ruthless of serial killers hide their crimes from the society in which they are in. I'm unaware of any exceptions to this in modern times. I don't think that it's because they are afraid of punishment (many often have no fear of punishment), but rather a need to protect themselves due to a subconscious warning given by evolved/consequential dynamics we now call morality.

Obviously, my whole original posting was formed around trying to define what morality even is. Regarding objective morality ... I'm purely theorizing and have no evidence to support my supposition. I want to make it clear however, that in no way am I implying that morality in general is a product of evolution. Rather I think nearly all morality is subjective and only a tiny percent of it is a result of the natural instinctual development of humans.

[Captain Scarlet]

'Moral good' and 'moral bad' are no more abstract than 'good' and 'bad' are in regards to subjective value, they are all evaluative terms that measure some quantifiable change in a system, in the latter it's quantifiable changes in an individual as they experience phenomenon that thwart or promote their desires/pleasures and in the former it's quantifiable changes in multiple individuals as they interact. Something being 'morally good' to me simply means that when two value systems interact there is a net increase in value, such as the act of voluntary charity, it promotes the values of both the person giving and the person receiving - both their values exist, moral language is simply a set of evaluative terms to describe the result of an interaction.

I find this one of the most compelling cases I've heard for a realist approach to morality. Is it possible for a desire/pleasure to become a fact about the physical universe? I'm not so sure about that, there doesn't prima facie appear to be an instantiation of a desire and what pleases me from minute to minute day to day may change rapidly. More than this can desires build to become objectively true? Is it also possible that desires are also illusory and do not really exist?

Imagine that same world where bathing was deemed to be bad. Now imagine those people had no desires, would the outcome be the same? Probably yes, but wouldn't that just be a rule that was imposed by that society and not really something that was morally good or bad.

[twocompulsive]

Objective morality is in no way related to what is deemed
acceptable. That is an error of extreme proportion. Instead it
exists outside of subjective interpretation even if it is not accepted
at all. It is a totally independent concept and is just utterly false to link
it to what a majority would accept as such. The language should provide
the clue. For once you start referencing human intention, you automatically
invoke the subjective. And so it therefore follows, that to avoid that one should
simply accept what is right for all eternity, without human interpretation. That of
course is impossibile. So we therefore have to reference human intention. It is at this
point that objective morality ceases to be. It may exist but only within the context of an
artificial framework which has zero basis in reality. And one is left with the next best thing
subjective morality. And that is the model which we have to work with. If we were hardwired
to think only logically then objective morality would be fine in principle but we are not and it isn't

[theVOID]

I find this one of the most compelling cases I've heard for a realist approach to morality.

Thanks, it's been a long time coming. I don't find too many people approach it like that but it seems to make good use of moral language.

Is it possible for a desire/pleasure to become a fact about the physical universe?

It's a fact that I desire a bong hit and blow jobs bring me pleasure and that all of this is a product of my brain experiencing various phenomenon, something that is part of the physical universe...

I'm not so sure about that, there doesn't prima facie appear to be an instantiation of a desire

Instantiation as in a property of an object/entity? Sure there are. Desires exist as an emergent property of brains.

and what pleases me from minute to minute day to day may change rapidly.

Sure, suppose one minuet you dislike being slapped in the face and the next minuet you find it pleasurable, If someone slaps you while you dislike it they have had a negative effect on your values, if someone slaps you while you enjoy it they've had a positive effect.

More than this can desires build to become objectively true?

I'm not sure what your asking... Desires are the products of neural mechanisms, it is objectively true that I desire certain things.

Is it also possible that desires are also illusory and do not really exist?

I don't see how they possibly could be. Do you have any examples of illusory desires?

Imagine that same world where bathing was deemed to be bad. Now imagine those people had no desires, would the outcome be the same? Probably yes, but wouldn't that just be a rule that was imposed by that society and not really something that was morally good or bad.

If people had no desires they would probably have no values - Someone without values wouldn't value life so they wouldn't care whether or not they had any water for drinking or what the other person did with the water, nobody would have any reasons to do anything with the water period so nothing would be done with it and nobody would have any motivation to impose any rules. There would also be no such thing as good or bad, either morally or in terms of the individuals liking or disliking anything.

Read this if you have time; http://lesswrong.com/lw/71x/a_crash_cour..._of_human/

It's a long article but it summaries the modern understanding of human motivation.

[Captain Scarlet]

There is a coherence to this view of moral realism that is attractive. Personally i've always sat on the fence wrt realism v relativism v nihilism, all seemingly having points in their favour but also flawed, although I have tended to nihilism.

If we can 'ground' morality in observable facts which are driven from desires or pleasures, which lead to actions involving value etc, it does rather suggest that we could be acting immorally by eating animals, doesn't it? It would be hard to grant desires to vegetables and some animals but not to all animals. Objectively I enjoy steak but the cow presumably does not? Furthermore what about actions and their consequences (wrt value) that involve only involuntary responses (ie those which we do not desire but are compelled to do, ie flight or fight response, breathing etc). How would these be factored into such an outlook?

[Cinjin]

Very interesting. Instincts vs. memory and how emotion plays into decision.

[kswheels]

I made the mistake of getting roped into the objective morality discussion on the Amazon review forum by a so-called "trained philosopher".

No idea how to intelligently debate this guy because I'm unfamiliar with metaphysics. All sounds like BS to me.

[theVOID]

I made the mistake of getting roped into the objective morality discussion on the Amazon review forum by a so-called "trained philosopher".

No idea how to intelligently debate this guy because I'm unfamiliar with metaphysics. All sounds like BS to me.

I'd have a hard time buying any moral theory that requires metaphysical assumptions, it seems to me that the only reason you'd need to go there is if you want to try and slip in assertions, like theists do with their claims that there is a supreme being/moral source.

[Minimalist]

a so-called "trained philosopher"

All that means is that he pisses on the newspaper.

[theVOID]

There is a coherence to this view of moral realism that is attractive. Personally i've always sat on the fence wrt realism v relativism v nihilism, all seemingly having points in their favour but also flawed, although I have tended to nihilism.

Depending on the definition of morality I'm either a moral realist (with the definition I presented) or an error theorist.

Moral relativism and subjectivism seem like pointless exercises to me, they should really just call it what it is, personal/cultural opinion - saying there is anything 'moral' about the opinions of an individual or a culture just because they have values is to me absurd.

If we can 'ground' morality in observable facts which are driven from desires or pleasures, which lead to actions involving value etc, it does rather suggest that we could be acting immorally by eating animals, doesn't it? It would be hard to grant desires to vegetables and some animals but not to all animals.

Sure, we could be in certain circumstances. As long as the animals have some conscious values and aren't just acting out evolved programming they need to be considered, so slugs, bacteria, chickens etc are out of the equation for me, anyone can do what they like to them. Someone who abuses chickens isn't so much doing anything morally wrong in my view but they are doing things that would seriously make me question their sanity and what positions of responsibility they are given.

Objectively I enjoy steak but the cow presumably does not?

Would the cow have lived at all otherwise? No, and it would also live a better life than if it was in the wild, free from hunger, disease, predators and dying of starvation once it becomes to frail to keep up with the herd. Farming animals provides them with a better quality of life and the only reason we do such a thing is because there is a pay off for us with the meat we consume - It seems to me rather clear than a farmed animal has a higher quality life, relative to both it's existence in the wild and the fact that it likely would have never existed at all - the fact that it has to be consumed as a result of this process doesn't undermine that. Obviously this excludes battery farming, the animals there have pretty miserable lives and I avoid eating battery farmed meat whenever possible.

Furthermore what about actions and their consequences (wrt value) that involve only involuntary responses (ie those which we do not desire but are compelled to do, ie flight or fight response, breathing etc). How would these be factored into such an outlook?

Fight or flight is a bit of a two sided coin, in one instance it is possible that this is done irrespective of value, a result of evolutionary programming, on the other hand more intelligent creatures do so to protect their value for life either through a conscious consideration of value or as a result of learned behaviours for avoiding pain. Suppose you can either kill or be killed, while killing someone else is generally wrong, killing in self defence doesn't change the outlook of the situation, either way someone will die and malicious killing worse in terms of negatively effecting the values of the people involved. Once someone has made a decision to kill you for all intents and purposes the choice to end life, the negative action, had already been made, whether or not you can manage to off them first isn't something that changes that and it's less bad in terms of values than premeditated murder.

Breathing doesn't seem to be an issue to me in regards to morality, it's not an interaction between value systems.