Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

A 6-word meaning might be concise enough, but you have to define the terms within it, since almost all of them are under dispute. You say, for example, that a sentient agent is not required for an "opinion." What opinions are there that do not depend on the concept of agency, then? Give examples.

You've said a subjective truth is "not true from every point of view." Why don't you give an example of a truth which is dependent on perspective? You've defined "objective" as "true from every point of view." Why don't you give an example of an objective truth, and explain why you think such a thing even exists?

You can say as much as you want that I'm using terms incorrectly, but you haven't established that your definitions are robust enough, or coherent enough, to provide any utility in actually talking about morality-- either moral ideas, or the capacity of some species to act based on moral ideas. I'd like you to get out of the online dictionary and actually immerse yourself into the real-world implications of morality in human beings.

[Nonpareil]

You say, for example, that a sentient agent is not required for an "opinion."

No, I don't. I say that your ramblings about agency are irrelevant, since they don't change the fact that you are using the words "subjective" and "objective" incorrectly.

You've said a subjective truth is "not true from every point of view."  Why don't you give an example of a truth which is dependent on perspective?

We have been over this. Opinions.

You've defined "objective" as "true from every point of view."  Why don't you give an example of an objective truth

We have been over this. Facts.

You can say as much as you want that I'm using terms incorrectly, but you haven't established that your definitions

They are not "my definitions". They are the definitions.

are robust enough, or coherent enough, to provide any utility in actually talking about morality-- either moral ideas, or the capacity of some species to act based on moral ideas.

You have yet to make any coherent statement as to why they aren't. You just ask a lot of incoherent questions, based on your misunderstanding of the terms and inability to keep them separate from unrelated concepts in your head.

I'd like you to get out of the online dictionary and actually immerse yourself into the real-world implications of morality in human beings.

I understand the implications.

You're still using the words incorrectly.

[bennyboy]

We have been over this. Opinions.

Okay. Give an example of an opinion that is subjectively true, but not objectively true, and demonstrate that it is so. It should be simple-- state any opinion you have.

I kind of sense this thread is done, because nobody is saying anything original or substantial enough to merit a philosophical discussion. Do you have actual ideas of your own you'd like to introduce, or will you just keep copy-pasting from an online dictionary? If so, say so, because I can go find something more interesting to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can, objectively, possess moral opinions at least.  However, the possession of such judgement does not make the judgements, themselves, objective.  The question of objective morality is not whether human beings are moral animals...whether this is objectively true, but whether any of our moral opinions correlate to moral facts. Or if there can be a moral fact of any matter to begin with.

[Nonpareil]

Okay.  Give an example of an opinion that is subjectively true, but not objectively true, and demonstrate that it is so.  It should be simple-- state any opinion you have.

We have been over this. In fact, we reached agreement on this. "Chocolate ice cream is the best" is only subjectively true.

You seem to be running around in circles, demanding repetition of already-established points for no reason. I am not certain what point it is that you think you are making here.

I kind of sense this thread is done, because nobody is saying anything original or substantial enough to merit a philosophical discussion.

Substantial posts have been made, benny.

The subject of this thread is whether or not objective morality (that is, the nebulous, generally theistic position that an "absolute" moral code exists, and that certain actions are always, objectively, right or wrong) can be said to exist. It cannot, since there isn't even a coherent definition for "objective morality", because morality is a value system, and value systems are by definition subjective. This is substantial.

It just doesn't leave the door open for... whatever point you want to make, apparently, so you've spent a long time trying to argue that the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are not the definitions of "subjective" and "objective", roped in a lot of incoherent statements about "agency", and so on. You claim that others' obsession with dictionary definitions is keeping them from making any sort of substantive point about morality and the human condition, or whatever, but haven't actually made any point about it yourself. You've just asserted that some things are objective that aren't objective for reasons that have nothing to do with the definition of "objective", and so on for "subjective" as well. You are effectively railing against the dictionary itself.

No one here is against having a discussion about morality and its relation to human society, or what have you. But you keep misusing terms, saying that it proves some sort of point without establishing what that point is, and then blaming others for not contributing to the discussion when they point out your misuse of terms has rendered your entire argument incoherent, even without getting into the fact that it's never been clear what your point was to begin with.

And then you tell them that their pointing out your misuse of terms is somehow a fault on their part.

It is, quite frankly, bizarre, and I have no idea what it is you think you're going to prove by it.

[bennyboy]

We can, objectively, possess moral opinions at least.  However, the possession of such judgement does not make the judgements, themselves, objective.  The question of objective morality is not whether human beings are moral animals...whether this is objectively true, but whether any of our moral opinions correlate to moral facts.  Or if there can be a moral fact of any matter to begin with.

I don't think we need to accept a Platonic idea of wing-ness to establish that wings are objectively real.  There they are.  So for morality-- there it is, whether or not there is "Morality" ingrained somehow in the universe. But fair enough-- it is clear that we are a moral species, so the second question is more interesting.

It seems to me by "moral facts" you mean individual mores-- elemental bits of "rightness" that can be considered universal. In evolutionary terms, I'd look at mores as fitness memes-- and since fitness is determined by the environment, one might say that "moral facts" are those ideas about "right" behavior which would maximally benefit the fitness of our species in the long run.  In other words, there isn't a single set of moral ideas writ in the Universe, but there may be a hypothetical "best path" which could be said to most accurately reflect maximally perfect behavior at all future points in time, regardless of anyone's opinions at each of those points.

After all, isn't that why atheists are at least as moral as Christians? Not given an "absolute" list of rules to follow, we must constantly observe our environment and attempt to act as well as we can. I'd describe that as a search for moral facts, because I think it will get us closer to a maximally perfect behavior than dogma ever will.

---

Okay.  Give an example of an opinion that is subjectively true, but not objectively true, and demonstrate that it is so.  It should be simple-- state any opinion you have.

We have been over this. In fact, we reached agreement on this. "Chocolate ice cream is the best" is only subjectively true.

That statement isn't complete enough to be called "true." You can't apply subjective terms to an object without an agent making the subjective evaluation-- that context-definer is often only implied, but it can never be absent. The complete statement is "Chocolate ice cream is the most delicious TO ME." From the stater's perspective, this can be called a subjective fact, because it is a statement about his experience as a subjective agent. It can ALSO be demonstrated to be an objective truth: you can hook me up to your Brainometer 3000 and see that when I'm given chocolate ice cream, my brain lights up like the 4th of July. Anybody can come to a consensus on this who can understand how the equipment works, and it is no longer a matter of anyone's opinion.

The subject of this thread is whether or not objective morality (that is, the nebulous, generally theistic position that an "absolute" moral code exists, and that certain actions are always, objectively, right or wrong) can be said to exist. It cannot, since there isn't even a coherent definition for "objective morality", because morality is a value system, and value systems are by definition subjective. This is substantial.

I'm not arguing for absolute morality, but I am arguing for objective morality.

It just doesn't leave the door open for... whatever point you want to make, apparently, so you've spent a long time trying to argue that the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are not the definitions of "subjective" and "objective", roped in a lot of incoherent statements about "agency", and so on. You claim that others' obsession with dictionary definitions is keeping them from making any sort of substantive point about morality and the human condition, or whatever, but haven't actually made any point about it yourself. You've just asserted that some things are objective that aren't objective for reasons that have nothing to do with the definition of "objective", and so on for "subjective" as well. You are effectively railing against the dictionary itself.

See my response to Khemikal.

No one here is against having a discussion about morality and its relation to human society, or what have you. But you keep misusing terms, saying that it proves some sort of point without establishing what that point is, and then blaming others for not contributing to the discussion when they point out your misuse of terms has rendered your entire argument incoherent, even without getting into the fact that it's never been clear what your point was to begin with.

Unless we can define terms and investigate the implications of those definitions more deeply, then there's no point being in a philosophy thread. I can say, "Of course morality is objective-- the capacity to act on ideas about right and wrong is ubiquitous to all humans" and be done. You can say, "Of course morality is subjective-- the ideas about what constitutes right and wrong vary greatly among individuals, cultures, and across the species." Then what?

[Nonpareil]

We have been over this. In fact, we reached agreement on this. "Chocolate ice cream is the best" is only subjectively true.

That statement isn't complete enough to be called "true."

Yes. That is the point. It can't be called objectively true because it is a value judgment, and is only "true" inasmuch as you share the same opinion.

Again, we reached agreement on this earlier, and I have no idea why you suddenly take issue with it now.

You can't apply subjective terms to an object without an agent making the subjective evaluation-- that context-definer is often only implied, but it can never be absent.  The complete statement is "Chocolate ice cream is the most delicious TO ME."  From the stater's perspective, this can be called a subjective fact, because it is a statement about his experience as a subjective agent.

If you want to play word games, certainly. But the grammatical definition of "subjective" ("having to do with a subject") is not relevant to the discussion at hand. We are concerned with the definition of "subjective" as opposed to "objective" - opinion versus fact, true assuming a certain perspective versus true from every perspective.

It can ALSO be demonstrated to be an objective truth: you can hook me up to your Brainometer 3000 and see that when I'm given chocolate ice cream, my brain lights up like the 4th of July.  Anybody can come to a consensus on this who can understand how the equipment works, and it is no longer a matter of anyone's opinion.

Yes. Again, it is objectively true that you have opinions. The things posited by those opinions are not objectively true, because they are claims of value. They are subjective.

I'm not arguing for absolute morality, but I am arguing for objective morality.

No. You are attempting to fallaciously equivocate between the concept of objective morality, which has to do with a nebulous and incoherent idea that there is some moral system that is true from every standpoint, and the fact that moral systems can be objectively shown to exist.

The latter is not and has never been in dispute.

Unless we can define terms

We can and have. Repeatedly.

I can say, "Of course morality is objective-- the capacity to act on ideas about right and wrong is ubiquitous to all humans" and be done.

You can say that.

You would be wrong, because that is not what "objective" means, but you can say it all the same.

You can say, "Of course morality is subjective-- the ideas about what constitutes right and wrong vary greatly among individuals, cultures, and across the species."  Then what?

Then the discussion ends, and you stop trying to play games with the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" and hoping no one will notice.

[bennyboy]

No. You are attempting to fallaciously equivocate between the concept of objective morality, which has to do with a nebulous and incoherent idea that there is some moral system that is true from every standpoint, and the fact that moral systems can be objectively shown to exist.

No, I've discarded under the term "absolute morality" what you are calling objective morality.

I'd like to float a definition for objective morality (a category of it, at least)-- a moral impulse which motivates social behaviors but does not depend on ideas incorporated into one's world view. I'd say there are moral instincts based on love or guilt, for example, which are only subjective in the sense that they apply discomfort to an individual, but are objective in the sense that they are not of the subject's world view. The subject "finds himself acting" in a particular way, not having known, perhaps, that such actions were even in his nature.

[Nonpareil]

I'd like to float a definition for objective morality (a category of it, at least)-- a moral impulse which motivates social behaviors but does not depend on ideas incorporated into one's world view.

As that is not what anyone else means by "objective morality", there is really no point to this, even if your definition were coherent.

I'd say there are moral instincts based on love or guilt, for example, which are only subjective in the sense that they apply discomfort to an individual

That is not what "subjective" means.

but are objective in the sense that they are not of the subject's world view.

That is not what "objective" means.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems to me by "moral facts" you mean individual mores-- elemental bits of "rightness" that can be considered universal.  

I mean moral facts, not universal individual mores.  If every moral agent in the universe held to a particular moral proclamation A, that universality would not demonstrate it's truth.  

A moral fact is a moral proclamation which is true. 

In evolutionary terms, I'd look at mores as fitness memes-- and since fitness is determined by the environment, one might say that "moral facts" are those ideas about "right" behavior which would maximally benefit the fitness of our species in the long run.  In other words, there isn't a single set of moral ideas writ in the Universe, but there may be a hypothetical "best path" which could be said to most accurately reflect maximally perfect behavior at all future points in time, regardless of anyone's opinions at each of those points.

That would be moral opportunism.  The moral assessment, in that case, hinges upon the selective utility of a behavior rather than any moral fact of any matter.  

After all, isn't that why atheists are at least as moral as Christians?  Not given an "absolute" list of rules to follow, we must constantly observe our environment and attempt to act as well as we can.  I'd describe that as a search for moral facts, because I think it will get us closer to a maximally perfect behavior than dogma ever will.

It would get us closer to a maximally beneficial behavior.  


Some thoughts:

That statement isn't complete enough to be called "true."  You can't apply subjective terms to an object without an agent making the subjective evaluation-- that context-definer is often only implied, but it can never be absent.  The complete statement is "Chocolate ice cream is the most delicious TO ME."  From the stater's perspective, this can be called a subjective fact, because it is a statement about his experience as a subjective agent.  

This would be the equivalent of a moral opinion.

It can ALSO be demonstrated to be an objective truth: you can hook me up to your Brainometer 3000 and see that when I'm given chocolate ice cream, my brain lights up like the 4th of July.  Anybody can come to a consensus on this who can understand how the equipment works, and it is no longer a matter of anyone's opinion.

No.  You may be able to say that Jims brain is objectively active in region X..you may be able to translate that activity into a verification of Jims firmly held opinion....but you are now talking about a brain..not ice cream, and whether or not chocolate is the best.   The latter remains a matter of opinion, even if the action in Jims brain is not.  The possession of an opinion, even if it is objectively verified as being possessed, as in your example...does not suggest or imply that the opinion itself is objective.

We possess moral opinions. We don't even need a brain decoder ring to know that. The question of objective morality is not whether we possess such opinions, and calling them objective simply because they are possessed misses the subject, not just the question, entirely.