Objective morality: how would it affect your judgement/actions?

[robvalue]

This is mainly aimed at people who believe that "objective morality" is a coherent concept, and that there can be some sorts of statements about it which are independent of all opinion. I'll let each person approach it with whatever definition of morality they want.

Let's say you discovered that you are incorrect about some position you currently hold. You have concluded so far that, "A is a moral/immoral action, under circumstances C". Add whatever other caveats you like. Now imagine that you have access to "moral facts" somehow, and that it shows the opposite to be true.

Which of your positions would you be willing to reverse? Would you now act differently, and judge others acting that way differently?

Personally, I don't care about any such "facts", as I feel it would represent nothing more than some specific way of evaluating actions. Without a supporting argument as to why I should change my position by adopting this system, I won't be changing my actions or my judgements. I don't see it as a factual matter.

[henryp]

This is mainly aimed at people who believe that "objective morality" is a coherent concept, and that there can be some sorts of statements about it which are independent of all opinion. I'll let each person approach it with whatever definition of morality they want.

Let's say you discovered that you are incorrect about some position you currently hold. You have concluded so far that, "A is a moral/immoral action, under circumstances C". Add whatever other caveats you like. Now imagine that you have access to "moral facts" somehow, and that it shows the opposite to be true.

Which of your positions would you be willing to reverse? Would you now act differently, and judge others acting that way differently?

Personally, I don't care about any such "facts", as I feel it would represent nothing more than some specific way of evaluating actions. Without a supporting argument as to why I should change my position by adopting this system, I won't be changing my actions or my judgements. I don't see it as a factual matter.

I think after learning there are moral facts, the next step would be trying to figure out the implications.  If morality turns out to be "You can do anything you want, just don't hurt a squirrel."  I'm going to spend a lot of time wondering what the hell is up with squirrels.  

It's like any new facts.  You reevaluate, taking into consideration the new available knowledge, and react accordingly.  All hail Butternut the Squirrel God King!

[robvalue]

The "moral fact" would presumably be a declaration that I "shouldn't" do stuff to squirrels, and that its "okay" to do anything else. I'd simply have to ask what the hell those qualifiers are supposed to mean. What is being better achieved by these rules than how I'm acting now? It must be very different goals to what I have in mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's say you discovered that you are incorrect about some position you currently hold. You have concluded so far that, "A is a moral/immoral action, under circumstances C". Add whatever other caveats you like. Now imagine that you have access to "moral facts" somehow, and that it shows the opposite to be true.

Which of your positions would you be willing to reverse?

Any of them, and I've changed many.  Even the lowgrade esoterica of production ethics presents opportunity to engage in a moral assessment.

Would you now act differently, and judge others acting that way differently?

Depends.  If I thought that eating spinach flavored icecream was immoral and I learned better..I still wouldn't run out and grab a tub of spinach flavored icecream..and I'd still think that people who ate it were disgusting...but I would realize that they aren't immoral.  

Personally, I don't care about any such "facts", as I feel it would represent nothing more than some specific way of evaluating actions. Without a supporting argument as to why I should change my position by adopting this system, I won't be changing my actions or my judgements. I don't see it as a factual matter.

Moral realism does present a specific way of evaluating actions.  Moral actions..particularly.  If you learned/believed that producing some x or producing it in a specific way was immoral...in the simplest sense, because it caused or could cause immense harm, even if it was productively convenient....then you might be compelled not to produce that x or produce it in that way.

If, later, you learned/believed that it was not in fact immoral to do so because it did not cause immense harm (or the specific harm implicated) then you would have no moral reservations about producing that x.  You may even feel compelled to produce that x, if your area sorely needs more of it.  You may even feel compelled to produce it in a particular way...in order to service that need or because of a range of other benefits to the model.  

These changes in moral assessments have profound effects on people and businesses.  I've described...above, the general moral arc of producers that opt into and out of organics.

[vulcanlogician]

Exactly what Henryp said. Look at it this way, it appears that the sun revolves around the Earth. And the ancients thought as much. So you had the Ptolemaic model of the universe. It worked... sorta. It got the job done, I guess. But it was ultimately false.

Later on, the Copernican model was introduced. Turns out the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. The opposite is true. Now we know. Same thing with moral facts. Once you understand what the facts are, you know them, and can live accordingly.

Hopefully this example iterates my point:

The Quakers at one point wanted to improve conditions for prisoners. They thought that putting them all into solitary confinement would protect them from one anothers' savagery, and also give them time to reflect and attain peace. (Quakers practice meditation, and perhaps they thought solitary confinement would bring peace like meditation does.)

But it turns out, solitary confinement is actually destructive to a person's mental state rather than rehabilitative. 

This is a moral fact: Putting people in solitary confinement long term is wrong. We didn't know before. Before we thought it was right. Now we know otherwise. And we can act accordingly.

[robvalue]

Thanks for the answers

If we accept that morality is linked to how harmful something is, then what exactly counts as harm, and how that harm may trade off against any benefits being achieved at the same time, is up for grabs. Some sort of "moral fact" could essentially be telling you that the way you are deciding what is and isn't harmful, and how much that matters, is wrong. But what does that even mean?

So for example, if we were somehow magically given factual information that "putting someone in solitary confinement is not wrong", then that would mean all the things we thought were harmful about it are somehow not as important as we thought; or else, there are some sort of countering benefits that cancel it out that we're unaware of.

My point is that no one would act on this "fact". We'd retain our way of doing things. We would surely do more study, to try and understand why this "fact" is the way it is. We'd try and uncover potential hidden benefits, or consider the way we look at "harm". Not until we understand why the fact said what it says would we act on it. Yet it must be "correct", by definition. This is the contradiction I'm presenting.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no single correct way of determining "harm" or "benefits", so the idea that there can be facts about them doesn't make sense.

[Mystic]

I think Torah did a good job with Image of God, serpent, and name of God, and word of God, true Kings, etc, and the Gospels have enough truth as well with Jesus manifesting the he is the morning star from the offspring of David, the light of the world, and that he is the path, the way, and light... 

Why reinvent the wheel when God explained exactly what goodness and morality is and you can see it if you just cease rebellion and jealousy towards his grace on his chosen ones out of love of humanity.

Natural law and all that is bogus,  God explained better in the Bible and Quran.

A good clue is that God is the Living, Yahweh is a huge hint on how to connect through the living names and words of God, those created in the Image of God like Adam and Enoch, those who are living instances of the name of God and image of God and word of God that is by which God manifested the forms and names of all things, that are the navigators and ships of salvation that bring together all things.

If you can't see the living leader and guide is connected to you, and is safeguarded tablet that has all laws written on it at various levels you are download with reflection and connection and seek light by,  it doesn't matter what you think of goodness or evil, it's all useless.

[The Grand Nudger]

So for example, if we were somehow magically given factual information that "putting someone in solitary confinement is not wrong", then that would mean all the things we thought were harmful about it are somehow not as important as we thought; or else, there are some sort of countering benefits that cancel it out that we're unaware of.

You've got it backwards there, in a harm based moral realism.  We could conceptually receive factual information that tells us that solitary is not harmful, or not harmful in the manner it was supposed to be, and that would be why it would no longer be considered immoral to put people in solitary for that reason.   

My point is that no one would act on this "fact". We'd retain our way of doing things. We would surely do more study, to try and understand why this "fact" is the way it is. We'd try and uncover potential hidden benefits, or consider the way we look at "harm". Not until we understand why the fact said what it says would we act on it. Yet it must be "correct", by definition. This is the contradiction I'm presenting.

Why do you suppose that?  Yes, I understand that there's a strong trend of conservatism in all things..but, it seems to me that we do act on new information thaty some x isn;t harmful, and change our ways of doing things.  We once thought it would be harmful if women could vote, lol.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no single correct way of determining "harm" or "benefits", so the idea that there can be facts about them doesn't make sense.

Having more than one way to determine harm and benefit is greatly useful to moral realism, it's not something that makes it incoherent.  If you wanted to make factual statements, you'd want as many tools as possible that could determine either. Whenever I do a site survey, I carry all sorts of shit with me. I expect that you have alot of career specific apps and tools that you use, as well.

[vulcanlogician]

We gather moral facts the same way we gather scientific facts for the most part. It's a step-by-step process that often doesn't proceed linearly. There are paradigm shifts. New discoveries are made. Old presumptions are proven false.

You're treating moral facts as if they're somehow essentially different from other kinds of facts. They aren't different. They're just like regular facts. Otherwise we wouldn't call them moral facts. We'd call them something else. Intuitions perhaps.

So for example, if we were somehow magically given factual information that "putting someone in solitary confinement is not wrong", then that would mean all the things we thought were harmful about it are somehow not as important as we thought; or else, there are some sort of countering benefits that cancel it out that we're unaware of.

I'm not sure what you're asking here Rob. 

The Earth revolves around the Sun. But what if, for example, we were somehow magically given factual information that "the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun." The proposition seems incoherent, doesn't it? Just as an astrophysicist couldn't produce an intelligible answer to that quandary, so too a moral realist cannot produce an answer to yours.

I feel like I may be missing your point, though. Let me know if I am.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no single correct way of determining "harm" or "benefits", so the idea that there can be facts about them doesn't make sense.

I think what you are saying here is that moral facts can't be proven. So why call them facts? You can empirically prove that the Earth goes around the sun. You cannot, in the same fashion, prove that torture is wrong.

Unless one is a moral naturalist, a moral fact need not be empirically provable. (Khem has argued in favor of moral naturalism before, but I disagree with the theory, precisely because I see no way that science can determine objective moral values.)

If something is not empirically demonstrable, this does not make it non-factual. It is a fact that the square of a right triangle's hypotenuse is equal to the sum of squares of its other sides, but one can understand it a priori, without empirical proof. I take this sort of axiomatic approach to moral facts.

But before I go into further detail, I'd like to make sure I haven't completely missed the spirit of your question. Have I?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's conceivable that matters with a moral component include both empirically observable matters and axiomatic matters. More to the point..if, as you suggest, we can arrive at moral facts the same way that we can arrive at any other fact....given the incredible utility of science and empirical observation at arriving at any other kind of fact........just what is the issue supposed to be with empiricism, science, and moral facts or values?

Wouldn't sociology, anthropology, psychology, neurology, and linguistics all have utility in that regard?
(this list isn't exhaustive)

---

More production esoterica and how it can illuminate both moral realism and empirically verifiable moral realism, lol-

Let's suppose I'm asked to provide insight for a local producer who's shown interest in a UVI system.   I understand that the economic viability of the system depends on three assumptions.

Basil commands 75c an ounce @ 100k ounces in volume.
Tilapia commands 15c an ounce @150k ounces in volume.
Lettuce commands $20 a case @ 600 cases in volume.

Would it be ethical of me to recommend that the producer invest in a UVI system if any of those assumptions are not met in their particular circumstance?  I'd say no.   I'd say that I had an ethical duty to inform the producer of this first, foremost, and clearly.  Any further discussion of a UVI system depends upon clearing that initial hurdle.  Now.  Can it be shown that my omitting those facts or misrepresenting those facts would harm the producer?  OFC.  They stand to lose up to $80k in their first year (total failure pretty much half and half construction and operation cost), and there may be other production systems that generate greater revenue over a five year period by quickly hitting their roi points.  Comparatively..a UVI operation that does hit those marks will lose 1k their first year and return nearly $40k each consecutive year.  If the producer could only hit 1/4 of those marks, it would take them 4 years to return and the fifth year they would only net $10k.  In this same span of time, the operation that hit the marks will have made $160k while other..far cheaper production models would only need to return $2.25k (four out of the five years) to reach parity with the UVI systems immense upfront and operation costs.

Can I point to a published, peer reviewed paper to establish the specifics of the system, or the economic analysis?  Sure can.  Can I repeat the experiment?  I have, three times in three states.  Can you?  Absolutely, how much money are you ready to lose?  Every piece of the justification for why my advice to go ahead and break ground would cause harm is meticulously detailed in multiple publications and test site demonstrations spanning the northern hemisphere from the tropics to the near sub-arctic.....over decades of time.   The unanimity is deafening and entirely scientific. 

In what sense, in this case, would my ethical assessment not be subject to empirical demonstration, to science, or to being considered as much a fact as any other fact? Additionally, has it not been sufficiently shown, above, that persons actively posturing and selling UVI-themed paraphernalia as the new worm scam to gullible property owners and producers are a detriment to their communities, and to integrated agriculture? Does anyone have trouble concluding (axiomatically and/or empirically)that a con artist is an unethical person?