Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Inkfeather132]

I've opined on this in thread, but I strongly suspect that your idea of what an objective morality is has been colored by centuries of christer bullshit.  An objective morality -must- take into account competing moral facts of a matter.  Grey areas.

Theft is wrong, in my hypothetical objective morality, because it causes harm. Theft when starving still causes harm, but the harm caused by the theft of a loaf of bread is objectively lesser than the harm caused by starvation. In a field of suboptimal choices - steal a loaf of bread or starve my family, one seeks to choose the option of lesser harm. The least harmful, among sub-optimal decisions. Just because there is an objective moral standard..doesn;t mean that we will always have choices congruent with it's adherence.

Note that in the hypothetical, both examples of theft are still wrong, but without a reference to conflicting objective moral facts of a matter..we would be at a loss to explain why we considered one less shitty than the other - and any morality than flaty requires no theft ever for any reason is a morality that, itself, becomes the cause of harm. The thief, for his part, will still be punished for his theft..but only insomuch as he has lived to -be- punished for it.

You're conflating moral absolutism, with moral objectivism...just as Steve has, repeatedly, in every "timeless and unchanging" line of tripe.

Ok, so you're saying morality involves two parts: Objective/subjective and absolute/relative? What you are describing is an objective (naturally right/wrong) and relative (changing depending on circumstance) morality. I might be starting to get it finally.

But you are also saying that the different circumstances doesn't make the deed "not wrong", just "less wrong"?

[The Grand Nudger]

-as an interesting and related aside.  A theft which causes -no- harm may still be illegal, but would not be immoral.  Creative borrowing from an abandoned property on an indefinite timescale, for example.  We make it illegal because to do otherwise would promote a society in which harmful theft was not adequately discouraged (which would, conveniently, be harmful to society)..but we generally do not attach the notion of moral desert to such a theft. Simple legalism suffices.

Or, my favorite....to Systematically Transfer Equipment to Another Location.

Has abandoned material been stolen in a meaningfully moral sense? Probably not...and provided that the person is willing to return it or make adequate compensation should the owner of said equipment suddenly find a need for it, we kindof let it slide.

"Billy, did you take Sally's pencil"
-"Yes sir, but she wasn't using it!"
"Okay, thank you for being honest, will you return her pencil?"
-"I can't, I used it, but I have another one just like it."
"That's great, now, Billy, apologize to Sally"
-"I'm sorry Sally, here's a brand new pencil, are we still friends?"

Sally would have to be a glass eyed, cold-hearted kindergartner (not that there aren't a few, lol) to maintain a grudge..agreed?

---

Ok, so you're saying morality involves two parts: Objective/subjective and absolute/relative? What you are describing is an objective (naturally right/wrong) and relative (changing depending on circumstance) morality. I might be starting to get it finally.

But you are also saying that the different circumstances doesn't make the deed "not wrong", just "less wrong"?

In a full assessment, generally speaking, at least three.  The moral fact of the matter, the moral agency of the subject, and the moral desert pursuant to the previous two.  It's only a -moral- wrong if there is a moral fact of the matter. It is only -immoral- if the subject possesses moral agency, and we can only apply moral condemnation and consequence if the previous two conditions are satisfied, and in proportion to each condition.

But, in the sense of it having two parts generally...you could say that there is the moral objective schema, and then the moral agents necessarily subjective assessment on how to apply that schema.  Most objective moral theorists refer to a hypothetical being or ability in order to make comparative judgements of the moral weight of some x.  Hyper or super rationality - with the caveat that no human being possesses this ability..but that we might all, by working real hard it at...more closely approach it.

-and yes, in some objective moral schemas there is no such thing as evil turned into good by the presence of a greater evil..only the necessity to -do- evil in order to prevent or end that greater evil. Shooting another man never makes you a good person, even if it might make you a hero. Stealing a loaf of bread makes you a thief, even if you did it to feed your children. It;s not that either thing, in and of itself, isn;t wrong, we simply understand the coircumstance and so..in that third part of the assessment up above...adjust or abandon our condemnation accordingly.

Toss some sticky shit at me, I'll give it the 1-2-3 for your enjoyment. Be an improvement over all the fairy bullshit.

[Inkfeather132]

-as an interesting and related aside.  A theft which causes -no- harm may still be illegal, but would not be immoral.  Creative borrowing from an abandoned property on an indefinite timescale, for example.  We make it illegal because to do otherwise would promote a society in which harmful theft was not adequately discouraged (which would, conveniently, be harmful to society)..but we generally do not attach the notion of moral desert to such a theft. Simple legalism suffices.

Or, my favorite....to Systematically Transfer Equipment to Another Location.

Has abandoned material been stolen in a meaningfully moral sense? Probably not...and provided that the person is willing to return it or make adequate compensation should the owner of said equipment suddenly find a need for it, we kindof let it slide.

"Billy, did you take Sally's pencil"
-"Yes sir, but she wasn't using it!"
"Okay, thank you for being honest, will you return her pencil?"
-"I can't, I used it, but I have another one just like it."
"That's great, now, Billy, apologize to Sally"
-"I'm sorry Sally, here's a brand new pencil, are we still friends?"

Sally would have to be a glass eyed, cold-hearted kindergartner (not that there aren't a few, lol) to maintain a grudge..agreed?

---

Ok, so you're saying morality involves two parts: Objective/subjective and absolute/relative? What you are describing is an objective (naturally right/wrong) and relative (changing depending on circumstance) morality. I might be starting to get it finally.

But you are also saying that the different circumstances doesn't make the deed "not wrong", just "less wrong"?

In a full assessment, generally speaking, at least three.  The moral fact of the matter, the moral agency of the subject, and the moral desert pursuant to the previous two.  It's only a -moral- wrong if there is a moral fact of the matter. It is only -immoral- if the subject possesses moral agency, and we can only apply moral condemnation and consequence if the previous two conditions are satisfied, and in proportion to each condition.

But, in the sense of it having two parts generally...you could say that there is the moral objective schema, and then the moral agents necessarily subjective assessment on how to apply that schema.  Most objective moral theorists refer to a hypothetical being or ability in order to make comparative judgements of the moral weight of some x.  Hyper or super rationality - with the caveat that no human being possesses this ability..but that we might all, by working real hard it at...more closely approach it.

-and yes, in some objective moral schemas there is no such thing as evil turned into good by the presence of a greater evil..only the necessity to -do- evil in order to prevent or end that greater evil. Shooting another man never makes you a good person, even if it might make you a hero. Stealing a loaf of bread makes you a thief, even if you did it to feed your children. It;s not that either thing, in and of itself, isn;t wrong, we simply understand the coircumstance and so..in that third part of the assessment up above...adjust or abandon our condemnation accordingly.

Toss some sticky shit at me, I'll give it the 1-2-3 for your enjoyment. Be an improvement over all the fairy bullshit.

Lol, not sure how good of an argument you'll have with me when I barely understand all this For instance, I'm still a bit fuzzy on: Is there an objective moral standard? Does objective morality even need one? If it does and there is, what is that standard?

[SteveII]

deleted - I was replying to a post that was edited so didn't apply anymore.

[Inkfeather132]

Yes, my idea of what objective morality is was missing a few pieces it seems. Though I'm still not quite convinced that you are talking about true objective morality either.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, not sure how good of an argument you'll have with me when I barely understand all this For instance, I'm still a bit fuzzy on: Is there an objective moral standard? Does objective morality even need one? If it does and there is, what is that standard?

Better a question that I ask you then tell you.  Is there something that makes some thing x, bad?  Let's take an example of something that you think is bad.  Is it bad, because it is your opinion that it is bad?  Obviously, you hold the opinion, but does your holding that opinion make that thing bad.  Could it be "not bad"..or even good, if you..personally held a different opinion, or changed that opinion?  Is it something about -you- that makes thing x bad, or is it something about that thing x? If the latter, can that be objectively verified? If you say to me "X is bad because such and such"....will I be able to look at such and such, free of your bias by simple virtue of not being you, and say - "okay, I see what you said would be there"?

Does objective morality need an objective moral standard?  By definition, yes.  Do you?  Probably not.  If you thought that something was wrong without any expllanation for why, and it happened to be the thing that some other objective standard also considered wrong..the practical difference is nil.

What do you think that standard is, what makes something bad, and why? What are we talking about when we talk about morality? What are we referring to when we determine that something is good or bad?

[Inkfeather132]

Lol, not sure how good of an argument you'll have with me when I barely understand all this For instance, I'm still a bit fuzzy on: Is there an objective moral standard? Does objective morality even need one? If it does and there is, what is that standard?

Better a question that I ask you then tell you.  Is there something that makes some thing x, bad?  Let's take an example of something that you think is bad.  Is it bad, because it is your opinion that it is bad?  Obviously, you hold the opinion, but does your holding that opinion make that thing bad.  Could it be "not bad"..or even good, if you..personally held a different opinion, or changed that opinion?  Is it something about -you- that makes thing x bad, or is it something about that thing x? If the latter, can that be objectively verified? If you say to me "X is bad because such and such"....will I be able to look at such and such, free of your bias by simple virtue of not being you, and say - "okay, I see what you said would be there"?

Does objective morality need an objective moral standard?  By definition, yes.  Do you?  Probably not.  If you thought that something was wrong without any expllanation for why, and it happened to be the thing that some other objective standard also considered wrong..the practical difference is nil.

What do you think that standard is, what makes something bad, and why? What are we talking about when we talk about morality? What are we referring to when we determine that something is good or bad?

Well, for me personally if something does harm to another person then it is wrong. But is that because an objective standard says so, or is it just my feelings? What about a sociopath? Their morality can be very different because they don't feel empathy, right? And even without being a sociopath, a person can believe that hurting a person isn't necessarily bad. Maybe they think they are above that person and therefore have the right to hurt them. Or they believe everyone must fend for themselves and if you are too weak to keep others from hurting you then that's your problem. What says I am right and they are wrong? I'm not saying that a moral standard has to be a god; it could be a natural force, a mathematical equation, or anything really. But I feel like there has to be something to make objective morality work. Otherwise, how can we know which person is right?

And just a random thought here, do animals factor into this at all? Or are we just focusing on humans?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, for me personally if something does harm to another person then it is wrong. But is that because an objective standard says so, or is it just my feelings?

Would some bad thing™ be any less harmful if you felt a different way about it, or didn't feel anything about it at all?

What about a sociopath? Their morality can be very different because they don't feel empathy, right?

What about them....are we talking about their feelings or whether or not some thing x is harmful?

And even without being a sociopath, a person can believe that hurting a person isn't necessarily bad.

Meh...ish.  In any case, moral disagreement exists.  It exists regardless of whether or not there is an objective moral standard and would continue to exist if there were one.  Moral objectivity...not moral uniformity.

Maybe they think they are above that person and therefore have the right to hurt them.

An interesting take on the idea of harm.  Is it less harmful to a person when their betters beat them, as opposed to their equal or lessers?  Is it moral harmful if ones lessers beat ones betters?  

Or they believe everyone must fend for themselves and if you are too weak to keep others from hurting you then that's your problem.

That;s not morality...in fact, that;s the opposite of morality. That's an invocation of one possessing might, not of one being right.

What says I am right and they are wrong?

An objective moral standard, if you possess one.  Do you? Or, even if you do not...you, you are there to say that you are right and they are wrong - for whatever reason you wish to field.

I'm not saying that a moral standard has to be a god; it could be a natural force, a mathematical equation, or anything really. But I feel like there has to be something to make objective morality work. Otherwise, how can we know which person is right?

By referring to an objective standard.  

And just a random thought here, do animals factor into this at all? Or are we just focusing on humans?

Sure, why not, but why would it matter either way?

[Inkfeather132]

So, what's the objective moral standard then? I want to know what things are right and what things are wrong. Can you point me to the source that will list these "rights" and "wrongs" for me?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I asked you, and you suggested harm.  I agree.  The great thing about an objective moral standard is that you don't -need- a list, ala the ten commandments (and there we are seemingly assuming that an objective morality would be like a religious decree).  You can use that standard to assess -any- potential situation with moral ramifications..and even to assess whether or not something -is- a moral situation to begin with. I could suggest refinements and additions..but, ultimately, harm seems to be sufficient as an objective moral standard. Particularly in that it is positively -inescapable- when discussing morality. This is exactly what a properly basic belief is taken to be. An axiom of any system x. It's an axiom not only for secular moralities..but also religious moralities...the latter of which go to great lengths to insert their gods into the chain..but that;s all it is, an insertion - and a needless one at that.

I'm pretty sure you already know what things are right and wrong, don't you? We have powerful heuristic mechanisms built into us (and into our interactions as a society) for determining that even in the absence of a scholarly treatise or point by point description. Even if you didn;t know, and had never seen a treatise or a description, and your give a fuck-o-meter was broken..it;s still entirely likely that your behaviors would conform to the standard we use, as we've been selecting each other for fitness along those lines for quite some time now. You're an accidental "not a rapist" for example. It's not that you don't do it because you believe it's wrong, but because you simply don't want to.

How do you reckon that happened?