Moral Acts

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, you can use your own way of measuring wellbeing to set up an objective morality. It's just not the objective morality based on wellbeing, because there isn't one. Different uses and contexts of the word objective.

I may be the one who disagrees with the objective measurement...doesn't have much to do with my own way of measuring.  Are you sure there's no objective measurement of wellbeing as it applies to morality?

Is rape objectively or subjectively wrong with regards to human wellbeing?  Is rape wrong (I assume we agree on that, lol) because of our opinions..or is it wrong regardless of our opinions? Do we have the authority to tell, for example, a rapist...that what they;ve done is wrong regardless of what they think about it? Is it sometimes okay, and sometimes not okay?

Personally, I'd say that rape is objectively wrong. It's not wrong because I think it's wrong, or because I made it wrong with my opinions, or because of any way that I, personally, measure wellbeing. I think that we -do- have the authority to tell a person who thinks rape is okay or ammoral that they're wrong about that, definitively, at any time. I'll settle for it being illegal.....ofc, we all make compromises.

[robvalue]

I'd say nothing is objectively "right" or "wrong", period. It's a simple contradiction in terms. These are value judgements, they can't be objective.

Do we both agree, in our opinion, that rape is "wrong"? Yes.

Can we agree on definitions of "wrong" which measure wellbeing in certain ways, so that rape is objectively wrong? Probably, yes.

But morality is complicated. It's really easy to take things in isolation. "Do I do [thing which almost everyone agrees is wrong] or not?" Well, no. Because almost everyone would say no. It's a tautology. It's still not objective, but it's simple. Objectively, there's no reason to care about what happens to anyone or anything.

Morality only gets difficult when you have to compromise. When outcomes conflict. When resources are limited. In other words, almost all the time. Of course we can not do unnecessary harm, but we do harm all the time just by existing, and how we measure that harm and go about minimizing it is not objective. We have to make decisions between two undesirable outcomes, very often.

A simple example: for some reason, either I rape someone or everyone on earth dies. Now there is a conflict of outcomes. Is it still immoral for me to rape the person?

Of course that's ridiculous, but people tend to go to rape because it's something people easily agree to. Morality is a massive grey area of value judgements, about absolutely everything. I couldn't codify my own morality even if I wanted to. I can make very vague statements of intent, but I know I don't even follow them all the time. I try to, but life is almost always about compromise.

Even if we agreed about rape, that's a corner case, and it leaves everything else up in the air.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say nothing is objectively "right" or "wrong", period. It's a simple contradiction in terms. These are value judgements, they can't be objective.

Why not?  Nothing about being a value judgement prevents something from being objective.  What's the contradiction?  

Do we both agree, in our opinion, that rape is "wrong"? Yes.

Can we agree on definitions of "wrong" which measure wellbeing in certain ways, so that rape is objectively wrong? Probably, yes.

If someone disagreed, would it change the status of the thing by reference to the standard?  Not sure how it could.  It;s not our agreement that makes it objective in any case, I dont know why this came up again.  

But morality is complicated. It's really easy to take things in isolation. "Do I do [thing which almost everyone agrees is wrong] or not?" Well, no. Because almost everyone would say no. It's a tautology. It's still not objective, but it's simple.

IDK, it might be pretty simple, or at least simple in principle...but difficult to assess.  

Morality only gets difficult when you have to compromise. When outcomes conflict. When resources are limited. In other words, almost all the time. Of course we can not do unnecessary harm, but we do harm all the time just by existing, and how we measure that harm and go about minimizing it is not objective.

Why not?  That we are compelled (and sometimes just feel like) making moral compromises doesn;t speak to whether or not morality is objective or subjective. We're making those compromises regardless of which is the case. It doesn; detract from o argue against the standard of wellbeing in any way.

A simple example: for some reason, either I rape someone or everyone on earth dies. Now there is a conflict of outcomes. Is it still immoral for me to rape the person?

Well, you might rape someone and save the world, which I suppose is great for the world...but you still raped someone, which is wrong, so you did an immoral thing to serve some grand end.  We do it all the time.  Or mayb you;d find that you just couldn't do it, and the world would be screwed. You managed not to do some immoral thing.

Of course that's ridiculous, but people tend to go to rape because it's something people easily agree to. Morality is a massive grey area of value judgements, about absolutely everything. I couldn't codify my own morality even if I wanted to. I can make very vague statements of intent, but I know I don't even follow them all the time. I try to, but life is almost always about compromise.

I, too, consistently fail to live up to my own objective moral standards.

[robvalue]

We seem to be disagreeing on what a value judgement is.

Mister Jimmy Rapelegs says "I think rape isn't wrong". That's a value judgement.

You and I say "I think rape is wrong". That's another value judgement.

Scientist dude says, "Rape has been shown to have the following effects on a person..." That's a scientific statement.

Jimmy Rapelegs says, "I don't care about those effects. Rape is fun." That's a value judgement.

I say, "Killing animals for food is wrong". That's a value judgement.

Many other people say, "Killing animals for food is not wrong." That's a value judgement.

[The Grand Nudger]

We seem to be disagreeing on what a value judgement is.

Mister Jimmy Rapelegs says "I think rape isn't wrong". That's a value judgement.

Is it an accurate value judgement?  I don;t think so.  I don;t think that it being an innaccurate value judgment has anything to do with my personal opinions, either.

You and I say "Rape is wrong". That's another value judgement.

Okay, and?  

Scientist dude says, "Rape has been shown to have the following effects on a person..." That's a scientific statement.

right........

Jimmy Rapelegs says, "I don't care about those effects. Rape is fun." That's a value judgement.

Whether or not Jimmy gives a shit doesn;t make his value judgements accurate, mine inaccurate, or the value judgement that rape is wrong subjective.  Is the scientist off in the corner somewhere muttering "fucking primates"?

[robvalue]

There's no such thing as an accurate value judgement, because the person doing the valuing is making the metrics. It can only be accurate with respect to a specific metric. I'm really struggling to understand your point of view You seem to be suggesting there is a correct way to come up with metrics...

You can estimate the value of something against a given metric, of course. But that's not what we're talking about. That's begging the question.

What does "wrong" mean, without referring to anyone's opinion about what is valuable, and how valuable it is?

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no such thing as an accurate value judgement, because the person doing the valuing is making the metrics.

I certainly didn't make the metrics I'm using to determine that rape is wrong.   The effect of rape on human wellbeing is not my design.  

It can only be accurate with respect to a specific metric. I'm really struggling to understand your point of view You seem to be suggesting there is a correct way to come up with metrics...

I'm suggesting that there can be a moral fact of a matter.  We might disagree on what that is, but if we're debating what the moral fact of a matter is were not debating that there are moral facts of a matter.  Even jimmy rapelegs is onboard, in his disagreement.  He simply thinks that there are different moral facts of the matter...and he's wrong about that n this one.  

You can estimate the value of something against a given metric, of course. But that's not what we're talking about. That's begging the question.

That's not what begging the question means...and why isn't that what we're talking about?  I mean, it pretty much has to be what I'm talking about since I'm suggesting an objective morality based upon human wellbeing.  

What does "wrong" mean, without referring to anyone's opinion about what is valuable, and how valuable it is?

Again, referring to someones opinion does not automatically make something subjective.  Their opinion might very well align with an objective fact of a matter.  If that's -all- we're referring to, sure, that's pretty subjective.  Plenty of morality as practiced amounts to nothing more or less.

[robvalue]

Another way of putting it: explain to a being in another reality, who doesn't care about anything in our reality, why one of us raping another is "wrong".

You have to care in the first place, before "wrong" takes any meaning.

Edit: I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm going to have to think on it

What is a moral fact? I'm saying this is a contradiction in terms. You're already assuming it's about wellbeing, and then assuming there's a 'correct' way to assess effects on it. You're saying there's a metric out there which is the "right" one. But right according to... who? The universe?

[The Grand Nudger]

Another way of putting it: explain to a being in another reality, who doesn't care about anything in our reality, why one of us raping another is "wrong".

It harms them, and tolerating it harms us all.  

You have to care in the first place, before "wrong" takes any meaning.

You don't have to give a shit to know that rape harms a person, for it;s wrongness to have meaning.  Rapists know that, they don't give a shit, but they know it harms the person.  

Edit: I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm going to have to think on it

What is a moral fact? I'm saying this is a contradiction in terms.

I'm not sure how it could be a contradiction in terms.  There's nothing contradictory about morality and facts.  A moral fact of the matter.  An objective moral statement.  Example (the easy example -because- it's easy) : rape is wrong, it's not wrong just because I think it's wrong, i didn't make it wrong, I couldn't make it right if I wanted to, it's wrong independent of anyone's personal opinion, and it's always wrong.

---

You're already assuming it's about wellbeing,

I wouldn't call that an assumption, or claim ownership for it personally.  It seems to be the subject matter of morality regardless of how people arrange the contents of heir morality.

 and then assuming there's a 'correct' way to assess effects on it. 

Do you not think that there might be an objective measurement of human wellbeing?  When we measure poverty, for example..and determine that it has a negative effect on human wellbeing, is that an objective or subjective measurement of it's effect?  

You're saying there's a metric out there which is the "right" one. But right according to... who? The universe?

Like I said, it seems to be the subject to which morality refers.  The universe, who gives a fuck about the universe, we're talking human morality.  

[robvalue]

There are many objective ways of assessing wellbeing. I'm saying that it doesn't mean anything to say one of them is "right". What could that possibly mean? I literally have no idea. How are we comparing expected lifespan, pleasure, healthiness, freedom... how can you possibly give them "correct" weightings?

Let's say all our opinions are wrong, and we somehow discover that it's a moral fact that rape is "right".

What does that even mean, what does it matter, and would it affect anyone's actions? Would you adjust your opinion to line up with this "fact"?