Can morality exist without people?

[Vulijigo]

The the earth explodes, does morality cease to exist?

[Kevin Beal]

Morality doesn't exist.

 

Math doesn't exist either, but neither do we consider it invalid or subjective, right? Why is that?

 

There are two different meanings of the word "objective" (and subjective). First is in the ontological sense: what we know objectively exists and what are the features of that object. The second is epistemic sense: what we know is true objectively, even if no existing objects are referred to.

 

The actual fibers and inks in a dollar bill can be objectively accounted for in an ontological sense, but the fact that this dollar bill is a ten dollar bill and it was legitimately printed by the printing press in Denver, and is not counterfeit, that is objective in an epistemic sense. If I had a counterfeit machine that reproduced a perfect copy of a ten dollar bill, that is, it is made out of the same fibers and inks, it's still not a legitimate dollar bill. The ontology, it's existence and physical features do not determine the objectively true or false legitimacy of my copy.

 

When looking at ethics, we mean to describe an epistemic phenomena. Being that it is epistemic in nature, we as humans represent it as being true / false or otherwise satisfying some standard. The implication here is as you suggested: without human minds to think it, ethics would not be, well, let's just say applicable. Since the logic itself is no different if human minds think it or nobody thinks it, but neither does it mean anything without human minds to think about it and reason it through.

 

So in a sense, the answer to your question is "no" (although an incomplete answer).

 

On the flipside, the ontology of ethics and money is subjective, since it's mode of existence is entirely within the minds of people who serve to represent it institutionally. Despite being ontologically subjective, the reasoning we do about it (assuming it's a valid methodology) is epistemically objective.

 

Like ethics, money requires human minds as well, but that doesn't stop us from having a science of economics that relies on this ontologically subjective phenomena: the value of goods generally and the dollar in particular. We can even discover things new about it. The way that we discover things new about an ontologically subjective discipline is by either by looking at the ways that it manifests ontologically, or by working more through the logic itself.

 

With ethics, there should be some ontologically objective way that it manifests, and the general theory (e.x. atomic theory of matter, evolutionary theory of biology, Universally Preferable Behavior) should provide a way that we can establish logical consistency.

 

One way that ethics produces itself in an ontologically objective manner is when we institutionally use violence to achieve virtue, and how this inevitably results in the problem only getting worse (think welfare programs, public education, minimum wage laws etc).

 

One way that the logic can be worked through toward greater advancement is through good logical standards like universality (beyond simple logical consistency). A moral proposition must apply to the person making the argument just as much as to the person they are addressing. So, of course you can imagine a situation where I can tell you to never eat black liquorice because it's morally wrong, all the while eating it myself, that there has to be some kind of logical problem here. I'm being a hypocrite obviously, but the logic itself may be less obvious.

 

And to understand further how the logic works, and how moral propositions can be reasoned about, I would highly suggest reading Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Stef-dawg.

[Vulijigo]

Thank you!

[cynicist]

Trick question! The answer is no and no because morality never existed in material reality but it also will cease to exist as a concept in our minds once we are no longer around. See Kevin's answer for more details!

[Daniel Unplugged]

Trick question! The answer is yes and no because morality never existed in material reality but it also will cease to exist as a concept in our minds once we are no longer around. See Kevin's answer for more details!

You hit the nail on the head, but didn't you mean no and no?

[cynicist]

You hit the nail on the head, but didn't you mean no and no?

 

Lol yes I did. Thank you for the correction.

[FriendlyHacker]

There is no human conscience without humans, but our conscience is now 100 light years away because of radio and something out there might find it useful, even if the planet explodes.