RE: God & Objective Morals
April 17, 2013 at 11:58 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2013 at 11:59 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
I found that exchange interesting as well. I also found your reasoning sound. Recently this problem has been something I ponder much. I offer the following thoughts.
My particular interest, like yours, revolves around what it actually means to say something is objective. You apply the term objective to physically definable things and systems. I consider physical things quantifiable, i.e. measurable, expressible as empirically observable processes, or capable of being defined as algorithms. (I welcome further additions or refinements to this notion of ‘objective’.)
If morality is indeed objective, then it is reduces to a physically process. Since physical processes are definable by algorithms and algorithmic processes are quantifiable, it follows that objective morality is quantifiable. But morality is not quantifiable, therefore morality cannot be objective.
Indeed, moral dilemmas express a qualitative aspect of life. In order to reduce morality to physics, you must be able to measure degrees of subjective experiences, like suffering and pleasure, as quantifiable brain states. I find that highly unlikely, given my own position on the mind/body relationship. Also it seems inconceivable that you could make a formula of measurable units, like electro-chemical life processes, that has an outcome like 52% moral & 48% immoral.
Considering the above analysis of objectivity with respect to morality, does it follow that morality is arbitrary. It seems to me that objective may not serve as the appropriate way to evaluate moral problems. Perhaps it might be better to focus on whether morality is arbitrary or not. Are there consistent guides, of whatever origin, you can apply to determine if something is fair or just?
My particular interest, like yours, revolves around what it actually means to say something is objective. You apply the term objective to physically definable things and systems. I consider physical things quantifiable, i.e. measurable, expressible as empirically observable processes, or capable of being defined as algorithms. (I welcome further additions or refinements to this notion of ‘objective’.)
If morality is indeed objective, then it is reduces to a physically process. Since physical processes are definable by algorithms and algorithmic processes are quantifiable, it follows that objective morality is quantifiable. But morality is not quantifiable, therefore morality cannot be objective.
Indeed, moral dilemmas express a qualitative aspect of life. In order to reduce morality to physics, you must be able to measure degrees of subjective experiences, like suffering and pleasure, as quantifiable brain states. I find that highly unlikely, given my own position on the mind/body relationship. Also it seems inconceivable that you could make a formula of measurable units, like electro-chemical life processes, that has an outcome like 52% moral & 48% immoral.
Considering the above analysis of objectivity with respect to morality, does it follow that morality is arbitrary. It seems to me that objective may not serve as the appropriate way to evaluate moral problems. Perhaps it might be better to focus on whether morality is arbitrary or not. Are there consistent guides, of whatever origin, you can apply to determine if something is fair or just?
