Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[JackRussell]

This merry go 'round is making me dizzy....

[Astonished]

I don't think Harm can stand alone as a moral theory let along be objective in its own right.

1. I keep seeing the statement "harm is objective". That is true only in the sense that there is harm or there isn't harm--which, by iteself, is insufficient to make moral judgments. It does nothing to address categories of harm (and their relative weight in an equation), thresholds of harm, intensity of harm, competing harms, exceptions to harm -- all of which are needed to assess moral choices--all of which are subjective.

Additionally, to assess harm, all kinds of moral value must be inferred and assigned to issues like relative (quantity) harm, comparing and grading different types of harm (physical, mental, slander, other intangible harms), intent, a higher value placed on humans, exceptions in war, punishment for crimes that can't possibly be repeated, etc. Over time and across cultures these underlying values are different, so any moral system based on harm changes along with it.

2. It does not take into account actions which may cause no harm like undiscovered adultery, instances of lying that don't have real consequences, breaking promises, etc., OR consensual harm like drug use, assisted suicide, voluntary slavery, medical testing.

3. Morality based on Harm does little to instruct us on our moral obligations to act and if you claim it can compel us to act, on what grounds?

4. It seems to hang your hat on harm alone is just a huge ball of situational ethics (the very definition of subjective) or is riding on top of another moral theory that has already established value to all the moving parts.

I partially agree with you on parts 1 and 4, in that there's nuance that is inevitably subjective, but disagree about everything else, especially 3. If what we agree on is that minimizing harm and maximizing well-being, that informs our actions because we will contemplate the ramifications of them in those terms. It's not like we're children learning how the world works, we're adults and we have functioning rational capacities. You'd have to be utterly addled to be incapable of thinking about this in critical terms and the fact that we have in-built empathy and experience with what harms us, we know how to evaluate similar situations when we see them. Yes, some situations are pretty extreme and don't necessarily have a readily evident answer but those are the vast minority but nothing prevents us from drawing upon the cumulative experiences and other objective information to come to a conclusion even if in hindsight we feel we should have acted differently, or if no one can come to a consensus and a less preferable or no action is taken. If something is so wrong with you that you don't feel compelled to act on your own moral convictions, you're either in possession of a very unsound moral foundation or are misunderstanding the entire position.

[SteveII]

Indeed living a lie is harmful and relationship built on lies is harmful

That is not necessarily true. If someone decides to inflict that burden on themselves, it can't be considered harm in a moral system sense. It is analogous to a person deciding to smoke.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think Harm can stand alone as a moral theory let along be objective in its own right.

Harm -isn't- a moral theory, it's a moral axiom...a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief of objective harm as a moral axiom is a properly basic belief in objective morality, but not a full moral theory, objective or otherwise.

1. I keep seeing the statement "harm is objective". That is true only in the sense that there is harm or there isn't harm--which, by iteself, is insufficient to make moral judgments. It does nothing to address categories of harm (and their relative weight in an equation), thresholds of harm, intensity of harm, competing harms, exceptions to harm -- all of which are needed to assess moral choices--all of which are subjective.

Do you think it;s impossible to objectively assess categories and relative weights of harm?  What's more harmful, a fishing story, attempted rape, one instance of manslaughter, two of murder, or genocide?  

Additionally, to assess harm, all kinds of moral value must be inferred and assigned to issues like relative (quantity) harm, comparing and grading different types of harm (physical, mental, slander, other intangible harms), intent, a higher value placed on humans, exceptions in war, punishment for crimes that can't possibly be repeated, etc. Over time and across cultures these underlying values are different, so any moral system based on harm changes along with it.

OFC things must be inferrred, that's called moral reasoning.  How do you plan on getting a true conclusion from moral reasoning without sound propositions?  

2. It does not take into account actions which may cause no harm like undiscovered adultery,

another one who thinks that if he gets away with it he hasn;t harmed his wife..huh?  You fucking people, lol.

instances of lying that don't have real consequences,

You mean..a harmless lie?  Why yes, yes it does address that.  It's not a moral issue.  Lemme tell you about this 9 foot hammerhead I almost caught with my bare hands.  

breaking promises,

did the broken promise cause harm, was it broken because of harm keeping it would have caused?

etc., OR consensual harm like drug use

Unless you're driving drunk, hopelessly addicted, or you get your drugs from a bad, bad man...not a moral issue.

 assisted suicide,

Mercy or murder?

voluntary slavery

Harmful by simple complicity in an intrinsicly harmful system

, medical testing.

The mountain of ethics laws related to medical testing suggests that this, too, is addressed.

3. Morality based on Harm does little to instruct us on our moral obligations to act and if you claim it can compel us to act, on what grounds?

Do you wish to harm others or be harmed? Can a truly immoral society survive and if it could would you live there? We can go high or low with this one.

4. It seems to hang your hat on harm alone is just a huge ball of situational ethics (the very definition of subjective) or is riding on top of another moral theory that has already established value to all the moving parts.

Except that situational ethics isn't the definition of a subjective morality at all.  All ethics are inherently situational...as there has to be a moral situation for it to be a moral issue in the first place.  Circumstances are as objective as harm is.

This is why, for example, we call one killer a hero and another a monster and another unfit to be held accountable. Nothing about the act has changed, killing is objectively harmful, but we modify or withold moral desert based upon the agency of the subject in question and the circumstance in which (or even by which) the act was carried out. Here again, you've -explicitly- confused moral absolutism for moral objectivity.

Situational ethics, or situation ethics, takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

How are you going to competently comment on an objective morality of -any- foundation if you don;t even know what that is Steve? If...you do not possess....sound propositions?

---

-after having cheated on her, perhaps he;s faced with an exclusively sub-optimal field of moral decisions.

Divorce her, causing harm (though, probably more harm to himself than her at this point.....)
Tell her, causing harm (here again, more to him than to her, lol)
Lie to her, causing harm

Hilariously, your hypothetically not-immoral prick.... chooses the option of greatest harm.  Good job, bet he believes in jesus, at least he avoided two of the things that would cause harm to himself.  

Vir-tu-ous

How is "lie to her" causing harm?

Ask your wife, then ask her if it's worse to lie about her dress or about fucking another woman.  I'm sure she'll clear it up for you.

---

I partially agree with you on parts 1 and 4, in that there's nuance that is inevitably subjective, but disagree about everything else, especially 3. If what we agree on is that minimizing harm and maximizing well-being, that informs our actions because we will contemplate the ramifications of them in those terms. It's not like we're children learning how the world works, we're adults and we have functioning rational capacities. You'd have to be utterly addled to be incapable of thinking about this in critical terms and the fact that we have in-built empathy and experience with what harms us, we know how to evaluate similar situations when we see them. Yes, some situations are pretty extreme and don't necessarily have a readily evident answer but those are the vast minority but nothing prevents us from drawing upon the cumulative experiences and other objective information to come to a conclusion even if in hindsight we feel we should have acted differently, or if no one can come to a consensus and a less preferable or no action is taken. If something is so wrong with you that you don't feel compelled to act on your own moral convictions, you're either in possession of a very unsound moral foundation or are misunderstanding the entire position.

When we cannot objectively establish some deciding moral fact of the matter x, we have a tendency to withhold condemnation or err on the side of caution.  So, for example, when our own subjectivity or any number of competing moral facts of the matter make it difficult to authoritatively pronounce some x wrong, immoral, or even blatantly illegal (ala murder) We let the thing go as being "arguable".  That's objective moral integrity.  Not moral subjectivity. We say things like "I still think it was wrong"..rather than "I know it was wrong". We let someone slide in their criminal trial, and then hammer them in civil court on grounds of legalism, ALA OJ.

[SteveII]

I don't think Harm can stand alone as a moral theory let along be objective in its own right.

Harm -isn't- a moral theory, it's a moral axiom...a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief of objective harm as a moral axiom is a properly basic belief in objective morality.

1. I keep seeing the statement "harm is objective". That is true only in the sense that there is harm or there isn't harm--which, by iteself, is insufficient to make moral judgments. It does nothing to address categories of harm (and their relative weight in an equation), thresholds of harm, intensity of harm, competing harms, exceptions to harm -- all of which are needed to assess moral choices--all of which are subjective.

Do you think it;s impossible to objectively assess categories and relative weights of harm?  What's more harmful, attempted rape, one instance of manslaughter, two of murder, or genocide?  

Additionally, to assess harm, all kinds of moral value must be inferred and assigned to issues like relative (quantity) harm, comparing and grading different types of harm (physical, mental, slander, other intangible harms), intent, a higher value placed on humans, exceptions in war, punishment for crimes that can't possibly be repeated, etc. Over time and across cultures these underlying values are different, so any moral system based on harm changes along with it.

OFC things must be inferrred, that's called moral reasoning.  How do you plan on getting a true conclusion from moral reasoning without sound propositions?  

And that is my point. You have to have a system of values to even begin to reason morally (as in some of my examples above) before you make a judgement based on harm.  So while harm is certainly a component, I think it is more that the underlying values are 'properly basic'. 

3. Morality based on Harm does little to instruct us on our moral obligations to act and if you claim it can compel us to act, on what grounds?

Do you wish to harm others or be harmed?  Can a truly immoral society survive and if it could would you live there?  We can go high or low with this one.  

Are you saying that your measuring stick of harm somehow migrating from measuring to proscribing/compelling? No, it hasn't because it can't. It is the underlying values that inform moral reasoning that proscribes and compels action. Again, harm is only a component. 

4. It seems to hang your hat on harm alone is just a huge ball of situational ethics (the very definition of subjective) or is riding on top of another moral theory that has already established value to all the moving parts.

Except that situational ethics isn't the definition of a subjective morality at all.  All ethics are inherently situational...as there has to be a moral situation for it to be a moral issue in the first place.  Circumstances are as objective as harm is.

You continue to ignore the framework that enables harm to be applied to a moral situation.

[The Grand Nudger]

And that is my point. You have to have a system of values to even begin to reason morally (as in some of my examples above) before you make a judgement based on harm.  So while harm is certainly a component, I think it is more that the underlying values are 'properly basic'. 

I disagree, the values aren't underlying, they're pursuant to the axiom of harm.  At least, in my objective morality they are.  I think we're all aware that you can pretend otherwise until theres a cure for cancer...I still don;t see the point. Carry on. / shrugs.  

Are you saying that your measuring stick of harm somehow migrating from measuring to proscribing/compelling? No, it hasn't because it can't. It is the underlying values that inform moral reasoning that proscribes and compels action. Again, harm is only a component. 

Actually I'm just asking you whether or not you wish tyo harm or be harmed, and whether or not a society which harms or is complicit in the face of harm is a society which can survive, or one you would live in.........simple questions, that we get no answers for.  OFC, the question was rhetorical, I only asked it so that I could watch you refuse to answer.  

In an objective morality based upoin a harm, a "naturally good" person simply wants to do the moral thing, a person who has no specific desire to be moral still has compelling self interests, and a person who is neither naturally "good" or self interested does not get to determine the status of moral compulsion for others who either do want to be good, wish to avoid being harmed, or frankly, possess either the agency or the rationality required to competently comment.

You continue to ignore the framework that enables harm to be applied to a moral situation.

Are you still unclear on something in my description of the objective morality I use?  Harm isn't applied to a moral system, it's a foundational axiom -of- moral systems. A properly basic belief. Some things are objectively harmful. These things, are immoral things, in an objective moral system based upon harm.  If there is no objective harm, there is no moral component. If there is a moral component, there is a reference to objective harm. That's what it means for something to be axiomatic, that's what it means for something to be a properly basic belief. All subsequent things flow from this as an inescapable referent. We can apply any number of other things to that axiom, to that inescapable referent, to that foundation, to that properly basic belief.

For example, the foundational axiom of logic is that knowledge can be had. That something can be known. That there is a fact of the matter. That doesn't tell us how to demonstrate it, for that we require rules of inference, and standards of evidence. The latter modify the former. In an objective morality based upon harm, harm is the moral fact of the matter. We still require rules of inference - moral reasoning. We still require a standard of evidence. Objectivity.

[Brian37]

Harm -isn't- a moral theory, it's a moral axiom...a properly basic belief. A properly basic belief of objective harm as a moral axiom is a properly basic belief in objective morality.

Do you think it;s impossible to objectively assess categories and relative weights of harm?  What's more harmful, attempted rape, one instance of manslaughter, two of murder, or genocide?  

OFC things must be inferrred, that's called moral reasoning.  How do you plan on getting a true conclusion from moral reasoning without sound propositions?  

And that is my point. You have to have a system of values to even begin to reason morally (as in some of my examples above) before you make a judgement based on harm.  So while harm is certainly a component, I think it is more that the underlying values are 'properly basic'. 

Do you wish to harm others or be harmed?  Can a truly immoral society survive and if it could would you live there?  We can go high or low with this one.  

Are you saying that your measuring stick of harm somehow migrating from measuring to proscribing/compelling? No, it hasn't because it can't. It is the underlying values that inform moral reasoning that proscribes and compels action. Again, harm is only a component. 

Except that situational ethics isn't the definition of a subjective morality at all.  All ethics are inherently situational...as there has to be a moral situation for it to be a moral issue in the first place.  Circumstances are as objective as harm is.

You continue to ignore the framework that enables harm to be applied to a moral situation.

Yes, because allowing harm to the Egyptian first born over a beef you have with an adult is so moral. By your logic a cop is allowed to shoot a toddler because their daddy was arrested for robbing a bank.

[Foxaèr]

By your logic a cop is allowed to shoot a toddler because their daddy was arrested for robbing a bank.

As long as it is sanctioned by god, of course.

[SteveII]

Except that situational ethics isn't the definition of a subjective morality at all.  All ethics are inherently situational...as there has to be a moral situation for it to be a moral issue in the first place.  Circumstances are as objective as harm is.

This is why, for example, we call one killer a hero and another a monster and another unfit to be held accountable.  Nothing about the act has changed, killing is objectively harmful, but we modify or withold moral desert based upon the agency of the subject in question and the circumstance in which (or even by which) the act was carried out.  Here again, you've -explicitly- confused moral absolutism for moral objectivity.

Right, but you have just illustrated that harm is not the measurement in the three scenarios. It was an underlying set of values that say that say humans have value, individually, they have intrinsic rights not to be killed, that these rights can be superseded in certain circumstances, and accountability requires an understanding of these underlying values. Regarding this last example, someone unfit to be held accountable might be a person that knew very well that killing would create harm (resulting in a dead guy), but did not have a firm grasp on the underlying value framework to make sense of it.

[Brian37]

By your logic a cop is allowed to shoot a toddler because their daddy was arrested for robbing a bank.

As long as it is sanctioned by god, of course.

It is sad people cling to this old mythology. Even in polytheism back then, loyalty to the ruling class did not allow for dissent so if you didn't obey the warrior class or the royalty you lived under, you would pay. 

I do not consider myself property to be bullied never to question. If someone wants me to worship such an asshole nope sorry. In modern reality I chose who leads me and they need my consent first. In the west we have the power to challenge and even remove leaders we deem unfit. 

1. "I don't have to explain myself to you"
2. "I can do whatever I want to you without your consent".
3. "I work in mysterious ways".

Ok if that is the case and you don't want to give me consent in that, fuck you.