Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

I see this quite a bit in response to the discussion of objective morality.  I don't believe that it is a good argument for a morality that is subjective.  This argument (if correct) would also mean that science and our understanding of the universe is also subjective. Would you make the same comparison between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Japanese and come to the same conclusion in regards to their scientific beliefs?  This clearly not the case, because the universe doesn't change, based on the subject.  It is a difference between how or what we know, and what is the nature of the topic being discussed (epistemology vs ontology).  Knowledge by it's nature is necessarily subjective.  What you know, is not what I know (it is based on us as individuals). That which is objective however is independent of our knowledge of it. Normally from scholars what I see being discussed is the ontology of morality, not it's epistemology or even evolution.  In fact, when one compares the moral principles or practices of a person or culture, they are necessarily weighing it against a standard which is outside of that culture or subject.

I would disagree that equating objective with universal is a mistake (although I'm open to argument on this).  If it is objective, then by definition it is independent of the subject or universal among subjects.  This is regardless of their belief of the topic, and whether it is correct or wrong.  I would agree, that objective does not mean absolute.  The boiling point of water at a given altitude and pressure is objective and universal regardless of the person or even their mistake in measuring it.  However I specify the pressure, because the boiling point of water is not absolute, but relative pressure.  Someone boiling water at sea level is going to get a different result then someone doing the same in Denver.  However not because it is based on the subject observing or anything within them.

I find that most who argue for moral subjectivity either don't understand the argument (that it is talking about ontology and not epistemology).  Or that they are inconsistent between their belief in moral subjectivity and their actions.  It is quite difficult for us to act as if morality is subjective.   Here is and article about Seven Things you cannot do as a Moral Relativist  I might quip a little over the authors choice to call it relativism vs subjectivism (as I already discussed that objective does not equate to absolute).  However I think his reasoning is sound, with this small change, and I believe that it is the meaning that the author intended to convey.  Normally, when someone insists that morality is subjective, I ask what in the subject; morality is based on?  In application, I find that almost no one is a moral subjectivist.  And if there is someone who applied this belief consistently, most would think that there is something wrong with them.

That seems an enormous strawman to me.
We arent claiming that we apply the morals subjectively, but that we derive them that way as individuals and as societies. Once settled upon, we tend to apply them uniformly, with a great deal going onto any changes, though naturally changes do happen.

That entire piece relies on the notion that people who are moral relatavists wish to apply their morals relatively, or subjectively if you will. That is not at all what a person who says morals are subjective is claiming.

I don't think that it what the author is trying to convey.  He is working through logically what it entails if morality is subjective by nature (ontologically)  Most people and societies do not behave in this way.  If morals are subjective, then wouldn't it follow that you treat them on a per subject basis?  It is inconsistent to say that they are subjective, but then act as if they are objective. 

Expanding them to a societal agreement or cultural norm, doesn't help either.  You are just shifting the basis for the moral comparison to a larger group which comes to an agreement.  And it would be equally incorrect to compare one group to another in this case, as they do not share a common basis for their morality.  In this case, you cannot make any claim about justice or rights which countermand the group upon which they are based. 

Now the one thing that I have found in these conversations, is that a number of people misunderstand what is being talked about by saying "subjective".  It is not saying that I think that X is immoral here are the reasons why.  This has to do with how we know (epistemology).  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action.  Do you think that something becomes moral or immoral, because a person or society accepts or rejects it?   Or was it moral or immoral all along, and was discovered or realized by that person or society?

[Thumpalumpacus]

God thinks rape is wrong, rape happens god does nothing, people think rape is bad.

The fact that Yahweh ordered his followers to rape and commit genocide puts paid to the idea of moral objectivity, because the very deity that they themselves worship is ordering something that they consider morally repugnant -- yet this is the very same deity that they proclaim to be the arbiter of what is moral.

So if the order to rape comes from the god they worship then that order is moral -- and if the same order comes from a Soviet army commander on his unit's march through Prussia, such an order they consider evil.

That is the very essence of moral subjectivity -- that the morality of an act depends upon the actor. Funny how they don't often seem to get that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

<double-post deleted>

[The Grand Nudger]

  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action. 

That's moral absolutism, not moral objectivism.  An objective morality -can- include objectively true things about particular moral agents, particular times, and particular cultures. In fact it -has- to...or it isn't meaningfully objective.

An objective morality, as opposed to an absolutist morality, can tell you, for example..that it would be bad™ to do some thing x in one scenario...but not bad™ or even good™ in another. Particularly in that the act is only bad if it meets the objective -conditions- for being bad...the same act in different conditions will not support the same moral conclusions.

It would be bad™ for example..for me to loot here, today, in my hometown. It was -not- bad™ for a russian to loot, in stalingrad, during ww2. Only in an absolutist morality can something be bad no matter who does it, where, or when.

In my experience (big disclaimer), religious nutters are moral absolutists (except when god does it, ofc)...not moral objectivists. See what religious nuttery does to people? Even when you identify some way that people are actually mistaken (alot of these supposed moral subjectivists describe a distinctly objective moral system)...you;'re compelled to pile further error atop that in order to "educate" them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

An objective morality, as opposed to an absolutist morality, can tell you, for example..that it would be bad™ to do some thing x in one scenario...but not bad™ or even good™ in another.  Particularly in that the act is only bad if it meets the objective -conditions- for being bad...the same act in different conditions will not support the same moral conclusions.

That's right -- there's a difference between subjective morality and relative morality.

[Aroura]

That seems an enormous strawman to me.
We arent claiming that we apply the morals subjectively, but that we derive them that way as individuals and as societies. Once settled upon, we tend to apply them uniformly, with a great deal going onto any changes, though naturally changes do happen.

That entire piece relies on the notion that people who are moral relatavists wish to apply their morals relatively, or subjectively if you will. That is not at all what a person who says morals are subjective is claiming.

I don't think that it what the author is trying to convey.  He is working through logically what it entails if morality is subjective by nature (ontologically)  Most people and societies do not behave in this way.  If morals are subjective, then wouldn't it follow that you treat them on a per subject basis?  It is inconsistent to say that they are subjective, but then act as if they are objective. 

Expanding them to a societal agreement or cultural norm, doesn't help either.  You are just shifting the basis for the moral comparison to a larger group which comes to an agreement.  And it would be equally incorrect to compare one group to another in this case, as they do not share a common basis for their morality.  In this case, you cannot make any claim about justice or rights which countermand the group upon which they are based. 

Now the one thing that I have found in these conversations, is that a number of people misunderstand what is being talked about by saying "subjective".  It is not saying that I think that X is immoral here are the reasons why.  This has to do with how we know (epistemology).  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action.  Do you think that something becomes moral or immoral, because a person or society accepts or rejects it?   Or was it moral or immoral all along, and was discovered or realized by that person or society?

I think things are moral or amoral because societies and individuals accept or reject it. There is no such thing as moral or immoral outside of person, place and time. Those very things define the very nature of morality.
As comforting as the idea may be, we do not discover true morals, tm, the way we discover laws of physics. What is moral and right and seems obvious for us today may be horribly immoral and seen as harmful 100 years from now.

Also, as Kem explianed, it is clear that morals are derived subjectively, but then applied objectively. And you and the author are both confusing objectivity with absolutism. I can say that forcing someone to commit suicide when they turn 70 is, right now in my society, objectively immoral. No death panels. I cannot say that every society everywhere at everytime would agree, nor can I say it is absolutely immoral. Perhaps there will come a time when resources are so scarce, it is actually harmful to society to live much past your breeding and child rearing years. Once your children are grown, you need to free up resources for the next generation.

We cannot aply our morals derived today to any other place and time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Saying rape is wrong because it objectively causes harm only shifts the argument to whether or not causing harm is wrong.

Sure, but it's an argument that I'm going to win with ease.  

Then when asked why causing harm is wrong, you say something about empathy which varies incredibly widely from person to person and species to species.  

I wouldn't say anything at all about empathy.  It's helpful, but not required.  Other species™ are patently irrelevant, I;m only concerned with a human morality for humans...and while we vary greatly....we share much, much more with each other than we differ - even in relation to other species. Fun fact, a brother and sister chimp share less with each other than -I- do with some guy halfway across the world in Shittistan™.

Nothing wrong with appealing to the common good.  But empathy is weak sauce as a foundation, particularly given the behavior of humans throughout history, where it's shown to be very different than 21st century 1st world countries than everywhere else.

Empathy, as a tool, is limited...and we don't always employ it well..true.

---

We cannot aply our morals derived today to any other place and time.

We can, but the application is limited (just closing the door before some christer flings himself through it).

[henryp]

Saying rape is wrong because it objectively causes harm only shifts the argument to whether or not causing harm is wrong.

Sure, but it's an argument that I'm going to win with ease.  

If someone is trying to rape you, you can stab them in the face, and that would not be wrong in my opinion.  Stabbing someone in the face certainly qualifies as causing harm.  So you'd at a minimum have to sharpen up the idea of 'doing harm'.

[RoadRunner79]

  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action. 

That's moral absolutism, not moral objectivism.  An objective morality -can- include objectively true things about particular moral agents, particular times, and particular cultures.  In fact it -has- to...or it isn't meaningfully objective.

An objective morality, as opposed to an absolutist morality, can tell you, for example..that it would be bad™ to do some thing x in one scenario...but not bad™ or even good™ in another.  Particularly in that the act is only bad if it meets the objective -conditions- for being bad...the same act in different conditions will not support the same moral conclusions.

It would be bad™ for example..for me to loot here, today, in my hometown.  It was -not- bad™ for a russian to loot, in stalingrad, during ww2.  Only in an absolutist morality can something be bad no matter who does it, where, or when.

In my experience (big disclaimer), religious nutters are moral absolutists (except when god does it, ofc)...not moral objectivists.  See what religious nuttery does to people?  Even when you identify some way that people are actually mistaken (alot of these supposed moral subjectivists describe a distinctly objective moral system)...you;'re compelled to pile further error atop that in order to "educate" them.

I think I agree.... to take a simple principle and make it absolute no matter what is.... well and oversimplification. 
I don't know that I share in your experience, but I don't think that morality is based on or dependent on the subject.  And most people do not act as if it is.

---

I don't think that it what the author is trying to convey.  He is working through logically what it entails if morality is subjective by nature (ontologically)  Most people and societies do not behave in this way.  If morals are subjective, then wouldn't it follow that you treat them on a per subject basis?  It is inconsistent to say that they are subjective, but then act as if they are objective. 

Expanding them to a societal agreement or cultural norm, doesn't help either.  You are just shifting the basis for the moral comparison to a larger group which comes to an agreement.  And it would be equally incorrect to compare one group to another in this case, as they do not share a common basis for their morality.  In this case, you cannot make any claim about justice or rights which countermand the group upon which they are based. 

Now the one thing that I have found in these conversations, is that a number of people misunderstand what is being talked about by saying "subjective".  It is not saying that I think that X is immoral here are the reasons why.  This has to do with how we know (epistemology).  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action.  Do you think that something becomes moral or immoral, because a person or society accepts or rejects it?   Or was it moral or immoral all along, and was discovered or realized by that person or society?

I think things are moral or amoral because societies and individuals accept or reject it. There is no such thing as moral or immoral outside of person, place and time. Those very things define the very nature of morality.
As comforting as the idea may be, we do not discover true morals, tm, the way we discover laws of physics. What is moral and right and seems obvious for us today may be horribly immoral and seen as harmful 100 years from now.

Also, as Kem explianed, it is clear that morals are derived subjectively, but then applied objectively. And you and the author are both confusing objectivity with absolutism. I can say that forcing someone to commit suicide when they turn 70 is, right now in my society, objectively immoral. No death panels. I cannot say that every society everywhere at everytime would agree, nor can I say it is absolutely immoral. Perhaps there will come a time when resources are so scarce, it is actually harmful to society to live much past your breeding and child rearing years. Once your children are grown, you need to free up resources for the next generation.

We cannot aply our morals derived today to any other place and time.

If you do hold to that, then I think that many of the things that Koukl derived would also apply.

[Whateverist]

According to you, a Theist is someone who is delusional because according to you, God does not exist and the Theist is imagining God exists  and is acting according to it.

Sure, no point in wasting ink trying to communicate why -I- think you're delusional, because it doesn't matter to our discussion.  If ghosts aren't telling you what's right and wrong, you still think that some act x is wrong.  It doesn't actually matter whether or not ghosts are telling you that.  

Similarly, if it's.."just like, a subjectivists opinion..man," that some act is wrong....it's still their opinion that some x is wrong.  You don't really have to agree with them (and vv) as to why it's wrong, but you both agree that it is.  This is how objective and subjective moral theorists can come to moral agreement.  It;s how believers and non-believers can come to moral agreement.  There's alot of moral overlap between all four groups, and between the moral statements of all four groups.

@Little Henry - So here is how morality can be objective without any gods. It starts out as subjective. But then you take note of what morals people just do happen to have in common - and by far nearly everyone shares almost all morality in common. So then you look through all the morals people have in common and you start noticing common themes. From those you distill a hierarchy of morality - things like non-harm, mutual support, reciprocity, the usual suspects. That hierarchy of morals is objectively the morality of our species, the distillate of those 'shoulds' which have best served us and therefore been selected for through natural selection and culture.

If this seems hard it is probably because you subscribe to belief in radical free will. No one has dispositions which largely determine actions; according to that point of view all actions are freely chosen. This leads those who share this POV to imagine that either behavior must be governed by OM facts or else behavior would simply be random - which clearly it is not. But our actions are not chosen on a purely rational basis. I'm sure to a highly intelligent alien our actions would seem as predictable as those of a pet dog. We just don't see it from within our human framework. It is very hard to distinguish which actions reflect a rational decision and which show the sway of our dispositional heritage. That doesn't mean we don't have one. Those are the facts.