Is objective morality begging the question?

[James Dean]

I've been recently having a long string of often exiting but rather frustrating debates about the objectivity of morality with a few friends of mine. One friend said that by defining morality as objective, i.e. defining it as universally preferable behaviors which, of course, are objective, it begs the question since objectivity is the claim being contested and it is included in the definition.

 

I pointed out that by defining morality as subjective he is also begging the question if that is the standard but that didn't seem to go anywhere, and in fact it totally derailed the conversation (which is what I assume he meant to do). 

 

I guess this boils down to definitions, and since definitions are so crucial, how do you move forward when someone disagrees with a definition? It would be like trying to prove the earth is round, but the opposite party defines earth as a cardboard box that packages come in; how frustrating! How do I move forward in this argument since definitions cannot be proven as the meaning of words are subjective? 

 

For a bonus, what do you think the best way to approach objective morality is as nothing I have been trying seems to be landing emotionally with the people I debate with.

[OtherOtie]

I don't understand how he could claim you're making a fallacy about a definition. Arguments can be fallacious, but definitions really can't (unless they're self-contradictory). I think he is really trying to confuse the issue in order to shut it down without having to offer an argument or address yours. It's fair to define morality as objective and then proceed to ask whether that exists. At that point, a question is being posed, that's all. Then you make your argument (UPB, etc.) and he would have to address the premises or form of that argument. He can say that he doesn't want to define morality as objective, and he's free to do that, but then you can't really have a debate. You need to start by pinning down the thing in question before you can ask whether it exists.

 

I think it may be helpful to stop using the word "morality" altogether because it just has all of this baggage. Forget it for the sake of the debate. Say you want to talk about whether universally prefferable behavior exists or is valid. That's much more specific than "morality" which he can weasel out of quite easily.

[jpahmad]

 

 

I think it may be helpful to stop using the word "morality" altogether because it just has all of this baggage. Forget it for the sake of the debate. Say you want to talk about whether universally prefferable behavior exists or is valid. That's much more specific than "morality" which he can weasel out of quite easily.

 

That's a good idea.  Just get rid of morality.  In fact, agree with him and say that there is no morality, but then ask if he agrees that there is universally prefferable behavior.  I would take the Darwinian approach to UPB though. 

[dsayers]

For a bonus, what do you think the best way to approach objective morality

 

Humans have the capacity for reason; The capability to conceptualize the other, consequences of actions, and comparing those outcomes to ideals. This is the basis for self-ownership as I understand it. Humans are not fundamentally different in this regards, so everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is the fairly basic case for objective morality. One I've repeated many times and have yet to receive a correction. What do you think?

 

As a bonus, I've always found a great deal of comfort in the simplicity of self-ownership. It clears up SO MUCH of the obfuscation our subjugators utilize.

 

At any rate, definition is important. Governments, schools, religions, and even corrupt parents pass of a subjective set of standards or values that they call morality in order to discourage dissent. However, if it cannot be applied to everybody, everywhere, all the time, it is quite useless given that it is an ought. The truth must be consistent because the real world we are bound by is consistent. If gravity turned off every other Tuesday, then maybe there might be something to subjective morality.

[powder]

that is the best definition of objective morality that I have seen dsayers.  simple, direct, and logically consistent.  well done.  

[labmath2]

There are two ways to screw up, either by failing to provide adequate definition or by using invalid logic. Start from things that are true, by definition, by observation or by collective interaction, then logically construct (as simple as possible, easiest way is syllogistically) the arguments till they arrive at your conclusion.

[James Dean]

Humans have the capacity for reason; The capability to conceptualize the other, consequences of actions, and comparing those outcomes to ideals. This is the basis for self-ownership as I understand it. Humans are not fundamentally different in this regards, so everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is the fairly basic case for objective morality. One I've repeated many times and have yet to receive a correction. What do you think?

 

Yes, that is a great definition. I might need to mull it over more before trying to communicate about it, I'm sure it's not 100% their fault that the conversations aren't going well. 

 

If you could elaborate more on the logical step from the capacity to reason to self ownership, that would also be immensely helpful. 

[Phuein]

...how do you move forward when someone disagrees with a definition?

 

If we were to debate magic, and then the definition of magic, we would, as easily, run into an impasse, as reach any sort of understanding. This is, because magic is an abstract idea.

 

What are the definitions for morality that your friends hold?

 

More often than not, people would rather deny any clear definition of something useful, like morality, than bother to actually define it, and then have to understand their own definition. And so choosing stupidity over effort.

 

A person who does not actually practice morality, their own, cannot refer to it as anything but an abstract idea, from without (the self.)

[Wesley]

In debate, definitions must be negotiated and agreed upon. If a definition is agreed upon (or ignored and thus, implicitly agreed upon) then it is assumed to be correct for the rest of the debate. If definitions cannot be agreed upon, then the parties will be talking about different things and debate is pointless at best and actively destructive at worst.

 

There often comes a time where people who are illogical or not good in debate wish to change a definition that they had previously agreed upon. This usually is the point in which they realized that their definition creates a contradiction with one or more of their beliefs. That is the point of agreeing upon definitions though and you can point out that they agreed upon it and then maybe give someone who is inexperienced a redo. However, if definitions keep changing then debate becomes impossible as the second you adequately nail something down, it will immediately change.

 

Sometimes, people will disagree on a word, but then maybe you can use replacement words that would not carry the same connotation. Maybe ethics to you means the same thing as morality, but the other person has a connotation of morality as dealing with gods and devils and cannot get past that definition of the word. Thus, you can modify the terms you use in order to satisfy the needs of the debate at hand.

 

In my mind, morality is defined as objective in that things are either good or bad. Relative morality to me is a contradiction. Either it is relative and thus an arbitrary preference or it is in the realm of morality of good and evil. Morality thus requires objectivity. Now, people have misused morality for millennia, so it is not surprising that people would have trouble with defining morality as objective (when people have claimed so much bullshit to be objectively evil or good in the past). However, the word still defines its objectivity or else we would call it a preference.

 

If you want, you can ask them to try to use the term morality as an objective word for the purposes of the debate, and they may change their position to be "morality does not exist" rather than "morality is subjective".

 

If they can't get past that, then try using different terms. If the definition or terms cannot be agreed upon, then a meaningful debate cannot occur.

[meta]

I've been recently having a long string of often exiting but rather frustrating debates about the objectivity of morality with a few friends of mine. One friend said that by defining morality as objective, i.e. defining it as universally preferable behaviors which, of course, are objective, it begs the question since objectivity is the claim being contested and it is included in the definition.

 

I pointed out that by defining morality as subjective he is also begging the question if that is the standard but that didn't seem to go anywhere, and in fact it totally derailed the conversation (which is what I assume he meant to do). 

 

I guess this boils down to definitions, and since definitions are so crucial, how do you move forward when someone disagrees with a definition? It would be like trying to prove the earth is round, but the opposite party defines earth as a cardboard box that packages come in; how frustrating! How do I move forward in this argument since definitions cannot be proven as the meaning of words are subjective? 

When I look at the first lines of wikipedia definition of morality:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).^{[citation needed]} Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc., or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.^[

 

^{I think this is where your friend has a point. The last sentence illustrate what your friend means i think.}

Like OtherOtie has said, this word might be too blurry for you to move forward in your discussion.

Humans have the capacity for reason; The capability to conceptualize the other, consequences of actions, and comparing those outcomes to ideals. This is the basis for self-ownership as I understand it. Humans are not fundamentally different in this regards, so everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is the fairly basic case for objective morality. One I've repeated many times and have yet to receive a correction. What do you think?

Very interesting, I have a problem with the first statements though.

Don't you think that disparities in the abilities of individuals for reasonning, conceptualizing and comparing makes the ideals not so universally understandable?

 In other words I don't think those abilities are equally distributed, therefore the degree with which we owe ourselves vary.

120+ IQ FDR listeners are definilty an elite. What we see as univerally preferable might not be for others.

We cannot impose anything, so we got to spread the word and wait for people to make sense out of the freedom they  own, i think this is very frustrating, this waiting process, i am losing patience as I see the abyss get closer.

Does this conclusion make any sense to you?

 

[june]

Humans have the capacity for reason; The capability to conceptualize the other, consequences of actions, and comparing those outcomes to ideals. This is the basis for self-ownership as I understand it. Humans are not fundamentally different in this regards, so everybody owns themselves. Therefore theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is the fairly basic case for objective morality. One I've repeated many times and have yet to receive a correction. What do you think?

i have corrected you many times on your proposed definition of self-ownership and you fail to respond or acknowledge your fault (on the contrary, you still repeat the same definition). your definition of self-ownership allows for the "theft, assault, rape and murder" of young children, because young children do not have the capacity to reason, and so they therefore do not have self-ownership, according to your definition.

[James Dean]

i have corrected you many times on your proposed definition of self-ownership and you fail to respond or acknowledge your fault (on the contrary, you still repeat the same definition). your definition of self-ownership allows for the "theft, assault, rape and murder" of young children, because young children do not have the capacity to reason, and so they therefore do not have self-ownership, according to your definition.

 

children most certainly do have the capacity to reason, if they didn't, you would be saying you cannot reason because you were once a child. the thing that differentiates humans as a conceptual category from animals is the potential for reason to exist. Yes; some humans can't, some are in comas, some are born retarded, some just plain don't feel like it but this is irelevant! We all have the capacity to reason whether we utilize it or not. 

[cynicist]

Does he consider physics or logic to also be 'begging the question'? Morality is defined as objective. Whether it is valid or not is debatable (for the layman), but there is no such thing as subjective morality. It's contradictory, if 'morality' were subjective then it would be called opinion instead. I doubt your friend would accept that though, since it doesn't seem like he has thought much about it but is certain about the answers. (certain enough to call your argument fallacious I mean)

[june]

children most certainly do have the capacity to reason, if they didn't, you would be saying you cannot reason because you were once a child. the thing that differentiates humans as a conceptual category from animals is the potential for reason to exist. Yes; some humans can't, some are in comas, some are born retarded, some just plain don't feel like it but this is irelevant! We all have the capacity to reason whether we utilize it or not. 

okay firstly, i made a mistake. dsayers old definition of self-ownership was that one only has self-ownership if they can reason; dsayers has now updated this definition to include the capacity to reason. thats definitely a huge improvement in covering a larger amount of people who have selfownership, so props dsayers for altering that, it seems you were listening   

 

secondly, you mention people with retardation. can you explain how people who are severly mentally handicapped have "the capacity to reason". if their brain is biologically inhibited, its quite possible that they dont, and never will,. and thus they do not have selfownership. do you agree/disagree with that?

[James Dean]

I think stef has made this point many times, if someone could link to a podcast... just because sometimes horses are born with three legs or two heads, doesn't mean they are not horses. Yes, people with severe mental retardation may sometimes be born, but they are still human, and human beings have self ownership. Let me take a stab at a syllogism for ya

 

1. Human beings have self ownership. 

 

2. the mentally handicapped are human beings

 

3. the mentally handicapped have self ownership.

[june]

1. Human beings have self ownership. 

but you have simply removed the qualifier?? the qualifier is the capacity to reason, not to be a human being. so it should read:"1. Human beings have self-ownership because they have the capacity to reason.2. The mentally handicapped do not have the capacity to reason3. The mentally handicapped don't have self-ownership." 

[James Dean]

So it is your assertion that the mentally handicapped are not human? 

[june]

So it is your assertion that the mentally handicapped are not human? 

"human = self-ownership" was not the definition. the definition is that the capacity to reason = self-ownership. you are completely diverging from what is being discussed.

[greekredemption]

So it is your assertion that the mentally handicapped are not human? 

This is an interesting point, as in many ways species of ape, bird, cetecean and elephants are able to demonstrate intelligence - in both the emotional and problem solving context - at least as well as young humans. It seems to me as if the definition of self-ownership to relate only to homo sapiens is basically speciesist (to borrow from Peter Singer).

 

I think the main point is that we are defining when a creature reaches 'personhood'.

[James Dean]

"human = self-ownership" was not the definition. the definition is that the capacity to reason = self-ownership. you are completely diverging from what is being discussed.

 

I was never saying those things were synonymous. the capacity to reason is not "equal to" or "the same as" self ownership. Our capacity to reason is a biological reality, self ownership, among many other things, just follow logically, the concepts are not identical. 

 

But I don't consider it a divergence. If you think that mentally handicapped are a subsection of all humans, then they have self ownership just by the law of excluded middle. If you assert that mentally handicapped don't have self ownership because of an impaired capacity for reason, then you are excluding them from the category 'human' because one of the properties of that category is the biologically reality of self ownership.

 

Now this seems pretty silly to me, again, as it seems to rest on the assumption that our capacity to reason is the only cause of self ownership. I can think the exclusive use of our nerves, limbs, muscles and organs also plays a huge roll as we are the only ones for whom use of our body is even possible.

[june]

Now this seems pretty silly to me, again, as it seems to rest on the assumption that our capacity to reason is the only cause of self ownership. 

dsayers stated that the capacity for reason is the basis of self-ownership. that was the sole qualifier he provided for self-ownership. if he has more clauses and caveats to add to his definition then i'm all ears. but i can only argue against what has been stated.  what are the "other" causes of self-ownership, that you are hinting at, can you be specific? in fact. it would make more sense to explain from the correct starting place: what is your definition of self-ownership? 

I can think the exclusive use of our nerves, limbs, muscles and organs also plays a huge roll as we are the only ones for whom use of our body is even possible.

this also applies to animals. generally, animals are not said to have self-ownership.

[LanceD]

I've been having this debate with a very intelligent and very rational friend of mine. He's convinced morality is entirely subjective and I can't say I entirely disagree with him. His latest argument was this

I understand nobody wants to have fraud, theft, assault, rape, or murder committed against them. I also understand most, if not all sane people can understand that, but I don't believe this creates a universal morality.Even if you quantify fraud, theft, assault, rape, and murder in that order. Meaning you can't steal to counteract fraud, you can't assault to counteract theft, you can't rape to counteract assault, and you can't murder to counteract murder. These rules would been seen ridiculous by most.Is it wrong to murder an apple thief?By your definition, I would say no. However, by my personal subject view I think it's wrong to murder murderers.Furthermore if I saw someone murder a proven murderer I wouldn't care.The problem with universal morals, as I see it, is that if no body has a problem there is no problem. This is the exception to the rule called objective morals.Is it wrong to commit property assault?Property is owned and paid for via blood, sweat, and tears of the owner.So by your definition: yes, it is wrong.Now a bomb expert moves into a crowded city and setups up shop selling bombs. He has products that could level the entire city if someone broke in and detonated one. He takes every precaution possible to prevent danger of the surrounding individuals. There is a 99.99% safety rating. He is fully insured. He signed all voluntary agreements with his DRO. However, the local individuals don't want him there. They all act together and assign a DRO to break in and disarm, steal, and throw away his private property.Is this objectively wrong?By your definition, I would say yes.However, since nobody but him is worried about their morality breach, wrong magically becomes right. What stays universal?No one wants to have fraud, theft, assault, rape, or murder committed against them.But in this instance they are able to make a subjective moral decision.Everything is object up to the act, once the act occurs the results become subjective. To me this means it's impossible to determine objective universals called right & wrong.

I could pick apart issues with his bomb maker example but then I'm just debating the validity of his example but not actually responding to the argument itself which wouldn't get us anywhere. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Culain]

When I introduce UPB to people and explain how it can be used as an objective measure of testing moral propositions I also get people really trying to fight against it, so it leads me to start asking about what do they have to gain or lose if they accept the argument. How does defending moral relativism help them?

[labmath2]

When I introduce UPB to people and explain how it can be used as an objective measure of testing moral propositions I also get people really trying to fight against it, so it leads me to start asking about what do they have to gain or lose if they accept the argument. How does defending moral relativism help them?

I cannot speak for anyone else, but i can tell you how it helps me. By seeing the world as amoral, i am less concerned with if people act morally, but with why people act. This makes it easier to act in ones self interest without unnecessary restraint, as many successful people do. 

[cynicist]

Anyone have any thoughts?

 

Your friend may be very rational in most areas but as far as morality goes he doesn't have a clue. (which is fine, except what he is arguing for would be an unmitigated disaster in society and even worse it's a product of his history)

 

I understand nobody wants to have fraud, theft, assault, rape, or murder committed against them. I also understand most, if not all sane people can understand that, but I don't believe this creates a universal morality.

 

Of course it doesn't. Morality (which is defined as universal) is not up to an individual's opinion.

 

Even if you quantify fraud, theft, assault, rape, and murder in that order. 

Meaning you can't steal to counteract fraud, you can't assault to counteract theft, you can't rape to counteract assault, and you can't murder to counteract murder. 

 

These rules would been seen ridiculous by most.

 

Yeah of course that would look ridiculous, because what does that have to do with ethics? I mean really, rape to counteract assault? That's the kind of stuff you come up with when you try to 'quantify' ethics as if it's some kind of universal scale that is balanced through math. Sorry but it's never going to be that way.

 

Is it wrong to murder an apple thief?

 

By your definition, I would say no. However, by my personal subject view I think it's wrong to murder murderers.

 

Furthermore if I saw someone murder a proven murderer I wouldn't care.

 

Wait so he thinks in his subjective view that it's wrong to murder murderers (which is contradictory of course since ethics is universal, not subjective) but he doesn't care if it happens? Then what does he mean when he says he thinks it's wrong? Most people would interpret that as a condemnation of the action, his explicit disapproval, and yet here it's not? 

 

The problem with universal morals, as I see it, is that if no body has a problem there is no problem. 

 

This is the exception to the rule called objective morals.

 

Why is that a problem? Say that some poor, starving kid steals an apple from me and I'm pretty well off. Well if I don't want him punished, and in fact if I want to make sure he doesn't have to steal in the future by being charitable and giving him even more, what's wrong with that? Your friend is looking at morality like it's some kind of math problem, as if once we establish that theft is wrong then we must respond to all thieves in exactly the same way regardless of the context, while in reality the context is the most important part.

 

Now a bomb expert moves into a crowded city and setups up shop selling bombs. He has products that could level the entire city if someone broke in and detonated one. He takes every precaution possible to prevent danger of the surrounding individuals. There is a 99.99% safety rating. He is fully insured. He signed all voluntary agreements with his DRO. 

 

However, the local individuals don't want him there. They all act together and assign a DRO to break in and disarm, steal, and throw away his private property.

 

Is this objectively wrong?

 

By your definition, I would say yes.

 

However, since nobody but him is worried about their morality breach, wrong magically becomes right. 

 

What stays universal?

 

No one wants to have fraud, theft, assault, rape, or murder committed against them.

 

But in this instance they are able to make a subjective moral decision.

 

Everything is object up to the act, once the act occurs the results become subjective. To me this means it's impossible to determine objective universals called right & wrong.

 

 

This is the most ridiculously contrived example... Stefan did a good job dismantling it in a recent video which I'll link below so I'm not going through it all again, but the idea that people would trust a guy who builds bombs that can level city blocks in order to sell them to people is just so insane that it has to be some kind of defense. How could it be objectively wrong to disarm someone who is building explosive devices that could kill everyone in the neighborhood at any time? Why would that not be considered self-defense?

 

The fact is that morality is defined as objective, so either it exists or it's all just opinion. If he truly believes that morality is just an opinion than he has all kinds of problems, like killers and rapists justifying their actions according to their perspective. He wouldn't be able to rationally say that anyone should go to jail or should be prohibited from doing anything. I think rather than going through the logical arguments you are going to have to talk about his family if you want to get anywhere, since his points are not motivated by logic and you can't reason someone out of an emotional defense.

 

[Pepin]

A direction to take the conversion might be "do ethics exist?", or "should ethics exist?". If not, that is fine as creating and enforcing your ethical system cannot be considered immoral by this person's belief, as to say it its immoral to do so is to make an ethical claim. If ethics ought to exist, then the question is "how?". If ethics are ought claims that apply to all of humanity, then how can an ethical claim exist if it cannot be practices by all humanity? What criteria ensures that claims are capable of being translated into reality?

 

If ethical systems are to be designed, they must be objective to be implemented. Ethical systems can be designed with contradictions or a lack of clarity, but such systems cannot work when put into practice. It is like if we design a bridge without reference to physics, certainly the design may be of a bridge, but a bridge that cannot be constructed.

 

To provide an example, if ethics applies to all humans capable of free choice, ought claims which cannot be achieved by all humans with free choice have no capability of achieving their end. Ought claims such as "you ought to rape" cannot be achieved by all humans as it requires some humans to not rape in order to be raped, meaning the claim can never achieve what it intends. On the other hand, the ought claim "humans ought not to rape" can be achieved by all humans at the same time, meaning that it can actually fulfil the end of applying to all individuals.

[Culain]

Thanks pepin, that's a helpful way of looking at the "you can not get an ought from an is" argument and why it's wrong

1- Rape is morally wrong, thus one ought not to rape.

2- Rape is morally wrong because it can not be universally wanted by both parties in the act.