Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

What would be the test to verify you had the right ones?

It would, objectively, depend on whatever matter we were discussing, wouldn't it?  That's an impossible question to answer in a vacuum.  We'll continue with the rape theme..since it's whats on every frothing christers mind when they barge in talking about morality (and isn;t -that- disturbing?, lol?)

Is there something or somethings about rape that makes it a moral matter?  That makes it bad?  Something verifiable, something objective?  I think there is.  Can you identify anything like that?  

I think that's where the problem lies.

Why?  What's the problem?

Do we get to vote?  

Sure, but it wont be your vote that decides anything, objectively...it would be a fact of the matter, or many facts of the matter, that decided the matter

So, this is just my pedantic brain working here, but it's about definitions. See, you don't look at the mechanism the way I do. I see a, for example, mathematical expression f(x) which I'm positive you must be familiar with. Now let's say that our machine for gauging morality is that function. You can plug whatever in the fuck you want as your x. Well-being, god-dick, WHATEVER. THE. FUCK. The choice of what to put in there is subjective. It is also subject to change. Someone with a fundamentalist morality can become an atheist and have to forcefully change that view and insert something else in place of whatever 'x' they had in there. But again, that is something that needs to be chosen, subjectively.

Once you settle on your particular x, then yes, I agree, there are certain concrete goals you can set as far as things to strive for and things to avoid. So in this one very, very limited aspect, there is some objectivity; we can determine what tends to contribute more to one side or another; however, there is no means by which to say one action will universally have the same effect or consequences so you can never say that objectively, throwing a turd at someone's head will be a wrong thing, or that one person firing a gun is good while another is bad (like a police officer compared to a former inmate out on parole who's not supposed to have possession of firearms anyway). That there are gradients in this and that arguments need to be made about what factor might outweigh what consequence is, surprise surprise, largely subjective even if they justify/rationalize it with empirical data. Also as we continue to grow and learn, both the goal posts we thought were set in concrete might shift, and the means by which to attain them correspondingly. And again, by how much? Who decides by how much if it's a subjective choice? Too much grey area here for objectivity to really play a factor except in the bare minimum capacity. Two people can use the exact same piece of objective data to support two different positions. Case in point...the wholly babble.

But, going back to our foundations, because we chose subjectively to say that one thing is preferable to another, where we set the goal posts is also subjective; that we generally consider well-being to be the one to strive for and suffering to be the one to avoid does not mean this is always the case. I know how utterly insane this is but remember, people manage to make this happen whether we like it or not. Apparently god-dick tastes good or something, I wouldn't know. But they have the subjective freedom to insert any alternate 'x' compared to the secular humanist or general well-being model or whatever you want to call it. Whether it's all about god-dick or just a completely rampantly psychotic reversal of well-being and maximum suffering is preferred (I can't help but think of the Joker from The Dark Knight here) there are irrational models one can place into that function f(x) that shift emphasis away from well-being and into utter madness.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting the definitions of anything else, I would appreciate that being pointed out with citations but it seems to me like if there is any objectivity to be had in morality, it's about 15% of the overall equation at most.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1575156' dateline='1498496953']

Not really you are confusing what is objective and what is subjective.
I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!

This bit isn't true at all.  Moral disagreement exists.  Moral disagreement would still exist if morality were objective.

No they wouldn't.

 Those moral disagreements would be better informed disagreements than any "just-so" disagreements.  

What you are referring to, is what would be the case if morality was completely uniform.

If morality was objective it would be completely uniform.
It isn't hence subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

[quote='Khemikal' pid='1575165' dateline='1498497335']

No they wouldn't.

Why not, can't there be competing facts?  

If morality was objective it would be completely uniform.

Why?

It isn't hence subjective.

How would that follow...even if any of the above were true? How would that follow, even if knew that morality wasn't and couldn't be objective - if we could rule that out with authority? It's not like it just tumbles into the subjective bin by default. Perhaps it;s arbitrary? Perhaps it's absurd?

[downbeatplumb]

downbeatplumb Wrote:
(11 minutes ago)
Khemikal Wrote:
No they wouldn't.
Why not, can't there be competing facts?  

Quote:
If morality was objective it would be completely uniform.
Why?

Quote:
It isn't hence subjective.
How would that follow...even if any of the above were true?

The quote facility dosent work for some reason, anyhoo.

If morality was objective everyone would have the same morals. They don't so it isn't.
You may say ah but we could argue about it. But morality would be different than something we could argue about it would be like the a colour, a sense that we all share. It isn't. So subjective.

[Astonished]

Not really you are confusing what is objective and what is subjective.
I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!

This bit isn't true at all.  Moral disagreement exists.  Moral disagreement would still exist if morality were objective.

No they wouldn't.

 Those moral disagreements would be better informed disagreements than any "just-so" disagreements.  

What you are referring to, is what would be the case if morality was completely uniform.

If morality was objective it would be completely uniform.
It isn't hence subjective.

Well, hold on, you can still have moral disagreements even if you both agree on where the goal posts are, since you can say that homophobia is objectively bad for well-being but perhaps not see eye-to-eye on...just how much? Or something. As long as the goal posts stay put then there's an overwhelming amount of subjective argument that can and does take place but you can both agree that the results of any action in any instance are objectively verifiable.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, this is just my pedantic brain working here, but it's about definitions.

No, again, it's about whether or not there are or can be any moral facts of a matter.  

See, you don't look at the mechanism the way I do. I see a, for example, mathematical expression f(x) which I'm positive you must be familiar with. Now let's say that our machine for gauging morality is that function. You can plug whatever in the fuck you want as your x. Well-being, god-dick, WHATEVER. THE. FUCK. The choice of what to put in there is subjective. It is also subject to change. Someone with a fundamentalist morality can become an atheist and have to forcefully change that view and insert something else in place of whatever 'x' they had in there. But again, that is something that needs to be chosen, subjectively.

Yes, you -can- plug whatever you want into it, but that doesn't make whatever you plug in the actual matter of discussion.  Is there or can there be an objective fact of the matter, here?  As to what, for example...we're talking about when we talk about morality.  You feel that you have created a problem by insisting that there is some disparity between god dick pleasing and well-being.  You haven't.  Particularly if the god dick pleasings purpose is to avoid harm or to help.  They may be wrong about what causes harm, about what helps...but can't we objectively show that this is -why- they think that god dick pleasing is good?  That this is what we are both talking about, when we discuss morality?

Once you settle on your particular x, then yes, I agree, there are certain concrete goals you can set as far as things to strive for and things to avoid. So in this one very, very limited aspect, there is some objectivity; we can determine what tends to contribute more to one side or another; however, there is no means by which to say one action will universally have the same effect or consequences so you can never say that objectively, throwing a turd at someone's head will be a wrong thing, or that one person firing a gun is good while another is bad (like a police officer compared to a former inmate out on parole who's not supposed to have possession of firearms anyway). That there are gradients in this and that arguments need to be made about what factor might outweigh what consequence is, surprise surprise, largely subjective even if they justify/rationalize it with empirical data. Also as we continue to grow and learn, both the goal posts we thought were set in concrete might shift, and the means by which to attain them correspondingly. And again, by how much? Who decides by how much if it's a subjective choice? Too much grey area here for objectivity to really play a factor except in the bare minimum capacity. Two people can use the exact same piece of objective data to support two different positions. Case in point...the wholly babble.

You keep referring to the agent.  "Who decides".   Astonished, we -are- subjective agents..but an objective morality is about the system, not the agent that employs it.  So, just assume for the sake of argument that an objective morality does exist.  That doesn't actually mean that any of us know what it is - that we have access to it.  Maybe we don;t have the relevant information.  Maybe our biasis in some instance or all instances are insurmountable, such that, even understanding those objective moral principles would not promise that we acted in accordance with them or even reliably grasped their accurate conclusions.

This seems, to me, to be exactly the state we're in..regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality.

But, going back to our foundations, because we chose subjectively to say that one thing is preferable to another, where we set the goal posts is also subjective; that we generally consider well-being to be the one to strive for and suffering to be the one to avoid does not mean this is always the case. I know how utterly insane this is but remember, people manage to make this happen whether we like it or not. Apparently god-dick tastes good or something, I wouldn't know. But they have the subjective freedom to insert any alternate 'x' compared to the secular humanist or general well-being model or whatever you want to call it. Whether it's all about god-dick or just a completely rampantly psychotic reversal of well-being and maximum suffering is preferred (I can't help but think of the Joker from The Dark Knight here) there are irrational models one can place into that function f(x) that shift emphasis away from well-being and into utter madness.

Again, still comments about the agent.  We can't just "choose" an objective moral foundation.  We have to be able to demonstrate that this -is- the foundation.  That this -is- what we are talking about.  

Now, if I'm misinterpreting the definitions of anything else, I would appreciate that being pointed out with citations but it seems to me like if there is any objectivity to be had in morality, it's about 15% of the overall equation at most.

A sign in the distance objectively says a specific thing.  It 100% says it.  That doesn;t mean I can see it or read it, so...there may be zero objectivity here, at the point of use.  That's a hypothetical we could explore...but...it certainly seems like it;s possible to see more than zero or even 15% of a moral issue.  Are you 0-15% sure that rape is wrong?

---

The quote facility dosent work for some reason, anyhoo.

That shit happens to me constantly.  There are some quote issues I can;t fix without posting and editing, lol.

If morality was objective everyone would have the same morals.

No, if everyone had the same morals everyone would have the same morals.  

They don't so it isn't.

It's still a non-seq.

You may say ah but we could argue about it. But morality would be different than something we could argue about it would be like the a colour, a sense that we all share. It isn't. So subjective.

We don't all perceive color in the same way, I'm not sure how this establishes your point..it seems, rather, to erode it.  Our views on whatever moral fact of the matter there may be would be necessarily clouded by our individual perception, just as it is with color...but that;s something to do with us, not with the morality in question.  

Now, just like I can use a tool to overcome any "I think this one is more red/ no i think that one is more red" argument to definitively answer that question....couldn't there be a tool to help us, in our subjective assessments of objective facts....overcome our natural limitations?  Can you think of any tool that we possess...that's good at assessing the relative accuracy of competing factual claims regarding a matter?

An objective morality states that there is something about a -rape- that makes it bad.  That it's not the opinion of the observer, of the moral assessor..that makes it bad.  That it's not subject to something about -that- guy.  It doesn't state that everyone would see it, or that everyone would see it the same way, though it holds out the possibility that we might, that there could be a way to bring those disparate viewpoints together in the light of fact on a matter.

[Astonished]

So, this is just my pedantic brain working here, but it's about definitions.

No, again, it's about whether or not there are or can be any moral facts of a matter.  

You seriously can't even meet me halfway here? Jeebus H. Jones. That we arbitrarily choose to define things in the way we do is...da da da da...a subjective choice.

See, you don't look at the mechanism the way I do. I see a, for example, mathematical expression f(x) which I'm positive you must be familiar with. Now let's say that our machine for gauging morality is that function. You can plug whatever in the fuck you want as your x. Well-being, god-dick, WHATEVER. THE. FUCK. The choice of what to put in there is subjective. It is also subject to change. Someone with a fundamentalist morality can become an atheist and have to forcefully change that view and insert something else in place of whatever 'x' they had in there. But again, that is something that needs to be chosen, subjectively.

Yes, you -can- plug whatever you want into it, but that doesn't make whatever you plug in the actual matter of discussion.  Is there or can there be an objective fact of the matter, here?  As to what, for example...we're talking about when we talk about morality.  You feel that you have created a problem by insisting that there is some disparity between god dick pleasing and well-being.  You haven't.  Particularly if the god dick pleasings purpose is to avoid harm or to help.  They may be wrong about what causes harm, about what helps...but can't we objectively show that this is -why- they think that god dick pleasing is good?  That this is what we are both talking about, when we discuss morality?

Then what the fuck have we been talking about the last few pages?
When I hear someone say 'god matters, we don't', that has to fucking mean something is royally fucked there.

Once you settle on your particular x, then yes, I agree, there are certain concrete goals you can set as far as things to strive for and things to avoid. So in this one very, very limited aspect, there is some objectivity; we can determine what tends to contribute more to one side or another; however, there is no means by which to say one action will universally have the same effect or consequences so you can never say that objectively, throwing a turd at someone's head will be a wrong thing, or that one person firing a gun is good while another is bad (like a police officer compared to a former inmate out on parole who's not supposed to have possession of firearms anyway). That there are gradients in this and that arguments need to be made about what factor might outweigh what consequence is, surprise surprise, largely subjective even if they justify/rationalize it with empirical data. Also as we continue to grow and learn, both the goal posts we thought were set in concrete might shift, and the means by which to attain them correspondingly. And again, by how much? Who decides by how much if it's a subjective choice? Too much grey area here for objectivity to really play a factor except in the bare minimum capacity. Two people can use the exact same piece of objective data to support two different positions. Case in point...the wholly babble.

You keep referring to the agent.  "Who decides".   Astonished, we -are- subjective agents..but an objective morality is about the system, not the agent that employs it.  So, just assume for the sake of argument that an objective morality does exist.  That doesn't actually mean that any of us know what it is - that we have access to it.  Maybe we don;t have the relevant information.  Maybe our biasis in some instance or all instances are insurmountable, such that, even understanding those objective moral principles would not promise that we acted in accordance with them or even reliably grasped their accurate conclusions.

This seems, to me, to be exactly the state we're in..regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality.

Um...did you just make the 'just because you can't see god doesn't mean he isn't there' or 'is beyond our comprehension' argument? You're making it sound like this intrinsic thing which is frighteningly close to where our problematic folks are coming from. In any case it seems like if they're this woo-sounding thing you're going on about, it's about as pointless as contemplating the deist god to waste time on them.

But, going back to our foundations, because we chose subjectively to say that one thing is preferable to another, where we set the goal posts is also subjective; that we generally consider well-being to be the one to strive for and suffering to be the one to avoid does not mean this is always the case. I know how utterly insane this is but remember, people manage to make this happen whether we like it or not. Apparently god-dick tastes good or something, I wouldn't know. But they have the subjective freedom to insert any alternate 'x' compared to the secular humanist or general well-being model or whatever you want to call it. Whether it's all about god-dick or just a completely rampantly psychotic reversal of well-being and maximum suffering is preferred (I can't help but think of the Joker from The Dark Knight here) there are irrational models one can place into that function f(x) that shift emphasis away from well-being and into utter madness.

Again, still comments about the agent.  We can't just "choose" an objective moral foundation.  We have to be able to demonstrate that this -is- the foundation.  That this -is- what we are talking about.

So, we chose to define it as such. We can verify the its and whats about it but we chose to use it as our baseline in a way that pleases us. That the goal posts we rooted in opposing directions we specifically determined were the most personally preferable. You're making it sound like it's something the universe willed into existence here and we have no say in what it is or anything. This is why I'm unable to agree on this point.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting the definitions of anything else, I would appreciate that being pointed out with citations but it seems to me like if there is any objectivity to be had in morality, it's about 15% of the overall equation at most.

A sign in the distance objectively says a specific thing.  It 100% says it.  That doesn;t mean I can see it or read it, so...there may be zero objectivity here, at the point of use.  That's a hypothetical we could explore...but...it certainly seems like it;s possible to see more than zero or even 15% of a moral issue.  Are you 0-15% sure that rape is wrong?

Wow, a false equivalency of this magnitude is just...just staggering. I mean, shit, a chocolate bar with 15% nuts is far more apt because I'm talking about the FRAMEWORK of a moral system and not whatever the hell it is you seem to be rambling about here. You keep insisting there's this objectivity thing here which I continue to point out is not that, at least not the way you define it, and I personally can't define it because I'm convinced it doesn't exist. We can use all the objective data we want and still disagree about to which degree x and y are good or bad, hell, like I said, we can even use the same exact data point to do just that. So whatever little use objectivity has in the overall equation, it's vastly dominated by subjectivity. I don't know what was so hard to grasp about that. How much worse is it if someone commits murder vs. involuntary manslaughter if the circumstances that led to a person's death were identical? I mean, I honestly couldn't think of a way to quantify that or even find any empirical data about how to go about determining that. Yes, objectively a person is dead and a person is at fault, but beyond that...fucking minefield. At some point subjectivity isn't just the one driving, it's kicked objectivity out the passenger door.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wow, a false equivalency of this magnitude is just...just staggering.

What would the point in calling a maintenance of your own analogy a false equivalence be?  I'm trying to find agreement here and when I do...you find a way to argue with yourself?

I mean, shit, a chocolate bar with 15% nuts is far more apt because I'm talking about the FRAMEWORK of a moral system and not whatever the hell it is you seem to be rambling about here.

Okay..but, if I now use your chocolate bar analogy...will you accuse me of leveraging a false equivalence for having done so?  Let's say that a chocolate bar is, objectively, 15% nuts.  Does that then ensure that I will be able to accurately identify either the ratio, the nut, r even that it has nuts?  Presumably, something could be wrong with my tastebuds.  That wouldn't make the chocolate bar any less than 15% nuts.  Suppose something -was- wrong with my tastebuds. Is there no other way to figure out how much nut is in a chocolate bar?

You keep insisting there's this objectivity thing here which I continue to point out is not that, at least not the way you define it, and I personally can't define it because I'm convinced it doesn't exist.

I'm asking you if there can be.  You seem to be the kind of guy who could identify an objective fact about rape, for example.  

We can use all the objective data we want and still disagree about to which degree x and y are good or bad, hell, like I said, we can even use the same exact data point to do just that.

OFC we can..though, we assume that an insistence on objective data would help us to resolve those issues, those arguments..when we encounter them.  That;s already how we employ objective data, isn't it?  

So whatever little use objectivity has in the overall equation, it's vastly dominated by subjectivity.

I suppose, if you give it no effort, and no thought, and employ no tools, and refuse to engage in a back and forth discussion of those facts..then yeah..it's dominated by subjectivity.  Though theres somethng to be said for our behaviors accurately modeling the objective good by instinct alone.

This, to me, suggests that we need that objective schema and those tools if we want to make competent moral judgements with any sort of reliability.

I don't know what was so hard to grasp about that. How much worse is it if someone commits murder vs. involuntary manslaughter if the circumstances that led to a person's death were identical?

If one person committed murder and the the other involuntary manslaughter the circumstances that led to those deaths -weren't- identical.....so?  That's a good place to try a little objective morality, though.  What is it, about the manslaughter charge, that makes it less bad?  Is it the lack of intent to do harm?  

I mean, I honestly couldn't think of a way to quantify that or even find any empirical data about how to go about determining that. Yes, objectively a person is dead and a person is at fault, but beyond that...fucking minefield. At some point subjectivity isn't just the one driving, it's kicked objectivity out the passenger door.

Well, then perhaps you should leave it to those who can?  We'll give you the list when we're done with it.  

[brewer]

---

Sorry, my mistake. Found it in an article by WLC. Does it matter who you took it from without giving credit? Or do you plan to dodge and by default take the moral high ground?

I actually did. Check out page 8.

Apologies. If you alter the way that you respond so that people can tell it's your text and not someone else's (in this case the person you were responding to) this might not have been a distraction or issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some filthy heathen told him to learn to quote..so he just knew it was a bad idea.