is morality subjective?

[weenie]

Is morality in fact subjective? If two people feel differently about the morality of an action, can either of them even be "wrong"? In my opinion no, they can't. Morality is based on our feelings and our feelings are of course subjective, therefore morality is also subjective. What are your thoughts?

[shirgall]

I disagree. You can have an objective morality. Many philosopher's have posited the same, going back thousands of years. Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is a recent example. Nicomachean Ethics was written by Aristotle in 334BC (well, I might not be right on that, but that's when he established his school). There is a rich and deep history of thought in this area.

[dsayers]

Is morality in fact subjective? If two people feel differently about the morality of an action, can either of them even be "wrong"? In my opinion no, they can't. Morality is based on our feelings and our feelings are of course subjective, therefore morality is also subjective. What are your thoughts?

 

Where is this coming from? With no mention of methodology, this would be a conclusion that's been inflicted upon you. It's not a surprise; There are many purveyors of the idea of subjective morality. Sadly, those that do this are often trying to subjugate your mind so that you will be unable to identify their immorality.

 

Morality is merely a way to identify the validity of a behavior that is binding upon another person. You have consciousness and the capacity for reason, so you own yourself and the effects of your actions. This is true of other humans, so they all own themselves and the effects of their actions. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors that are binding upon others because they're the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. They are immoral behaviors because they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. It is axiomatic that X cannot equal NOT X.

 

As you can see, this is a standard that is unescapable and is true independent of individual consciousness. It is a principled, objective conclusion backed by sound methodology. What you were referring to are known as values, which are by definition subjective and therefore not binding upon others.

[NotDarkYet]

2 + 2 = 5

 

That's how I feel.   You can't call me 'wrong'.

 

 

 

 

How would you reply to that assertion?

[NotDarkYet]

You used the phrase "in fact".

 

What is a fact?

[Kevin Beal]

Great question!

 

The argument you are making actually suffers from a very tricky error worth exploring

 

Fallacy of ambiguity

 

You are confusing two different senses of the word "subjective". The first is in an ontological sense (claims about reality) and the second is in an epistemic sense (claims about knowledge).

 

Feelings, dreams, pains, thoughts, etc are all subjective in an ontological sense because they only exist as experienced by conscious agents. They exist subjectively. I have sympathy for my friends poor situation, but I do not literally feel his pain.

 

This is very different from "subjective" in an epistemic sense. I know that I prefer Van Gogh over Monet, chocolate over vanilla, etc. Van Gogh is not objectively better than Monet. The way in which this claim is true is subjective. It is not independently verifiable the way that claims of knowledge in math are. You can know that the square root of 64 is 8 and demonstrate this knowledge claim.

 

When you say that morality is subjective the way that our feelings are subjective, that is to say that morality exists subjectively. And this is true. Morality is subjective in that sense. But when you say that it's "based on our feelings" this is to say that the way we establish the truth of moral claims is subjective. This is false.

 

As Mises proved a long time ago, the value of goods is subjective (as experienced by conscious agents), and yet we have an epistemically objective science of this ontologically subjective phenomena of the value we as human place on objects.

 

We subjectively experience pains in our body, and doctors often can't find a physiological basis for the pain and yet they still have methodologies in place to treat the pain. People with phantom limb syndrome feel pain in limbs that don't even exist anymore.

 

The epistemically objective basis for morality is the dual standards of logical consistency and universality as described in Universally Preferable Behavior by Stef-dawg.

 

 

Here are some resources on UPB

 

UPB the online version: HTML, PDF and audio

 

FDR260 Moral Objectivity

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_260_Moral_Objectivity.mp3

 

FDR886 Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (introduction)

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_886_UPB_Book_The_Introduction.mp3

[dsayers]

When you say that morality is subjective the way that our feelings are subjective, that is to say that morality exists subjectively. And this is true.

 

I don't know if I follow this. Are you basically saying that a chair is an object, but our experience of that chair is subjective?

[Kevin Beal]

I don't know if I follow this. Are you basically saying that a chair is an object, but our experience of that chair is subjective?

Nope. I'm saying feelings exist subjectively. They do not exist the way that rocks and trees do. Feelings are observer relative phenomena. Trees and rocks are not.

 

The key word here is "exist"

[weenie]

I disagree. You can have an objective morality. Many philosopher's have posited the same, going back thousands of years. Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is a recent example. Nicomachean Ethics was written by Aristotle in 334BC (well, I might not be right on that, but that's when he established his school). There is a rich and deep history of thought in this area.

Maybe I need to make myself clearer. I don't consider ethics and morality to be the same thing. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, that tries to construct frameworks, by which you can determine wether an action is ethical or not. This could be just a semantic difference, because I call morality the inner compas that makes you feel bad when somebody is stolen from or gets punched in the face for no reason. And because it's based on feelings it is by necessity subjective, because feelings are subjective. Now if you adhere to the ethics of private property, like I do, then actions can be objectively separated into ethical and unethical ones.

 

Where is this coming from? With no mention of methodology, this would be a conclusion that's been inflicted upon you. It's not a surprise; There are many purveyors of the idea of subjective morality. Sadly, those that do this are often trying to subjugate your mind so that you will be unable to identify their immorality.

 

Morality is merely a way to identify the validity of a behavior that is binding upon another person. You have consciousness and the capacity for reason, so you own yourself and the effects of your actions. This is true of other humans, so they all own themselves and the effects of their actions. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors that are binding upon others because they're the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. They are immoral behaviors because they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. It is axiomatic that X cannot equal NOT X.

 

As you can see, this is a standard that is unescapable and is true independent of individual consciousness. It is a principled, objective conclusion backed by sound methodology. What you were referring to are known as values, which are by definition subjective and therefore not binding upon others.

I would use the term ethics instead of morality for what you're describing, but still I think you made some logical flaws in your argument:

 

"You have consciousness and the capacity for reason, so you own yourself and the effects of your actions." That is a non sequitour. Me having consciousness and reason in no way proves that I should be able to exclude others from using myself and things I make. I do think that's the most sensible ethical framework ever laid out, but I don't think its validity follows from my consciousness.

 

"Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors that are binding upon others because they're the exercising of ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. They are immoral behaviors because they are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights." Not really. If somebody doesn't accept private property and eats an apple you grew, he's not imposing ownership over anything. He's just eating stuff. Ownership means excluding others from using something, not merely using something yourself.

 

Great question!

 

The argument you are making actually suffers from a very tricky error worth exploring

 

Fallacy of ambiguity

 

You are confusing two different senses of the word "subjective". The first is in an ontological sense (claims about reality) and the second is in an epistemic sense (claims about knowledge).

 

Feelings, dreams, pains, thoughts, etc are all subjective in an ontological sense because they only exist as experienced by conscious agents. They exist subjectively. I have sympathy for my friends poor situation, but I do not literally feel his pain.

 

This is very different from "subjective" in an epistemic sense. I know that I prefer Van Gogh over Monet, chocolate over vanilla, etc. Van Gogh is not objectively better than Monet. The way in which this claim is true is subjective. It is not independently verifiable the way that claims of knowledge in math are. You can know that the square root of 64 is 8 and demonstrate this knowledge claim.

 

When you say that morality is subjective the way that our feelings are subjective, that is to say that morality exists subjectively. And this is true. Morality is subjective in that sense. But when you say that it's "based on our feelings" this is to say that the way we establish the truth of moral claims is subjective. This is false.

 

As Mises proved a long time ago, the value of goods is subjective (as experienced by conscious agents), and yet we have an epistemically objective science of this ontologically subjective phenomena of the value we as human place on objects.

 

We subjectively experience pains in our body, and doctors often can't find a physiological basis for the pain and yet they still have methodologies in place to treat the pain. People with phantom limb syndrome feel pain in limbs that don't even exist anymore.

 

The epistemically objective basis for morality is the dual standards of logical consistency and universality as described in Universally Preferable Behavior by Stef-dawg.

 

 

Here are some resources on UPB

 

UPB the online version: HTML, PDF and audio

 

FDR260 Moral Objectivity

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_260_Moral_Objectivity.mp3

 

FDR886 Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (introduction)

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_886_UPB_Book_The_Introduction.mp3

"When you say that morality is subjective the way that our feelings are subjective, that is to say that morality exists subjectively. And this is true. Morality is subjective in that sense. But when you say that it's "based on our feelings" this is to say that the way we establish the truth of moral claims is subjective. This is false." As said before, I think there may be a semantic discrepancy, and what you call morality is in fact what I call ethics. If that is the case, I agree with your statement.

 

But I think UPB is actually what we should be talking about. I tried to read Stef's book, but I couldn't bear to plow through it. Could somebody here give me the fundamental thesis of his theory on morality(what I call ethics)? From what I gathered so far, it's that for a behaviour to be ethical, it must be preferrable by all people at the same time. If that is trully the case, I have concluded, that the theory is... problematic to say the least.

[weenie]

Nope. I'm saying feelings exist subjectively. They do not exist the way that rocks and trees do. Feelings are observer relative phenomena. Trees and rocks are not.

I'm not sure I follow. If I feel sad I think that's an objective fact. What's subjective about feelings in my opinion is that everibody has their own. A neuro-doctor(it's late) could plug me into a machine and find out that I'm happy, but that doesn't neccessarily make him happy as well.

[Kevin Beal]

I'm not sure I follow. If I feel sad I think that's an objective fact. What's subjective about feelings in my opinion is that everibody has their own. A neuro-doctor(it's late) could plug me into a machine and find out that I'm happy, but that doesn't neccessarily make him happy as well.

I'm sure I understand what it is that you don't understand.

 

Are you asking what ontological subjectivity is?

 

The error your argument makes is asking two different questions as if they were the same question:

1) In what manner does it exist? (ontology)

2) In what ways can we have knowledge about it? (epistemology)

 

Subjective knowledge is arbitrary. The knowledge that I have about my own preferences does not reveal anything that would be binding on other people. An epistemically subjective morality is an oxymoron, since the entire purpose of morality is that it's binding on other people. I cannot logically saying that my subjective preferences are binding on you precisely because there is no objective, independent verification, measured against some standard to establish the truth of the claims. i.e. the moral nihilist position.

 

When you say that morality exists as an observer relative feature of consciousness the way that feelings do, this is as compared to rocks and trees which we can both see and touch. You can't touch feelings. Feelings in the manner in which they exist are subjective. But feelings, pains, thoughts, etc are not arbitrary. We can come to objective and independently verifiable conclusions about these conscious states.

 

What this means is that subjective existence is not the same thing as subjective knowledge.

 

When you make an argument which assumes that they are, you run into erroneous conclusions.

 

The argument is:

 

morality exists subjectively, and therefore the basis on which we know the truth of moral claims must also be subjective.

 

No, this is false. If this were true, we could not have cognitive science, austrian economics or psychology.

 

It's also known as "equivocation" or a "pun" to mix up both meanings of "subjective".

 

Does this clarify what I'm saying?

But I think UPB is actually what we should be talking about. I tried to read Stef's book, but I couldn't bear to plow through it. Could somebody here give me the fundamental thesis of his theory on morality(what I call ethics)? From what I gathered so far, it's that for a behaviour to be ethical, it must be preferrable by all people at the same time. If that is trully the case, I have concluded, that the theory is... problematic to say the least.

Yes, morality and ethics are synonymous, and yes, that is the way we establish universality using UPB.

 

I would recommend reading the actual book. Your exasperation may well turn into curiosity and clarity.

[J. D. Stembal]

Ownership means excluding others from using something, not merely using something yourself.

 

Weenie,

 

Thank you for posting the thread!

 

Since you had trouble reading through Universally Preferable Behavior, let's start with something simple.

 

Do you believe that it is ethical for a person to use or consume a resource that is owned by another without expressed permission? This is a yes/no question, by the way.

[dsayers]

Mr. Beal, I'm still struggling with your position. My understanding of the word exist is comprised of matter and energy. For morality to exist subjectively, are you saying that it's comprised of matter and energy within the biochemistry of our brains and since it's OUR brains, that makes it subjective? You say the keyword is exist, but this blurs the conversation for me altogether. Namely in that I don't see morality as existing at all, which has no bearing on its logical validity as an objective observation/summary of the real world.

 

Me having consciousness and reason in no way proves that I should be able to exclude others from using myself and things I make.

 

Ownership is inherently exclusionary. You own yourself and therefore you cannot be owned by somebody else. In order for me to use you (exercise ownership over your body), I'd have to override your use of you. For me to use myself to deny you use of yourself would be contradictory. This contradiction I feel is adequate proof that ownership is exclusionary.

 

If somebody doesn't accept private property and eats an apple you grew, he's not imposing ownership over anything.

 

The behavior of eating an apple IS the acceptance of private property. The person doing the eating is exercising ownership over their body and in turn, the food they are consuming. This is important to understand because like you've done here, I frequently see people talking about property rights/morality as if they're optional or can be avoided.

 

Eating an apple isn't the best example. Since apples occur naturally, the existence of an apple isn't necessarily proof that it belongs to somebody. Your attempt at counterpoint would've been better served using an item that doesn't occur naturally.

 

This could be just a semantic difference, because I call morality the inner compas that makes you feel bad when somebody is stolen from or gets punched in the face for no reason.

 

For all intents and purposes, ethics and morality are the same thing. My understanding as to the difference is that that which is unethical in theory is immoral in practice. To draft a bill for example would be unethical since it would recommend the initiation of the use of force. To vote on and/or enact that bill would be immoral as it would be the initiation of the use of force. What you explain as your understanding of morality, I would describe as empathy. Morality is how you are able to interpret that what happened to the person was a violation, which is why you empathize with the person.

 

For what it's worth, I really appreciate this conversation. It's a topic that I'm enthusiastic about and I really enjoy being able to disagree with and being disagreed with without anybody making it personal. Seems like a rare commodity these days.

[Kevin Beal]

Mr. Beal, I'm still struggling with your position. My understanding of the word exist is comprised of matter and energy. For morality to exist subjectively, are you saying that it's comprised of matter and energy within the biochemistry of our brains and since it's OUR brains, that makes it subjective? You say the keyword is exist, but this blurs the conversation for me altogether. Namely in that I don't see morality as existing at all, which has no bearing on its logical validity as an objective observation/summary of the real world.

Call me Kevin. Mr Beal is my father's name.

 

Exists as thoughts, beliefs, perceptions. It's probably not accurate to say that morality exists subjectively. It would be more accurate to say that they exist as thoughts within the mind.

 

Exist subjectively within the mind vs exist objectively in the real world. Ontologically speaking, that's the distinction between subjective and objective.

 

"Exist" describes a causal relationship with the world. The beliefs I have about doors cause me to try the knob when I want to open it. The causal relationship is either observer relative or observer independent. It's causal because I'm conscious and experience it, or it's causal through objective causal relations in the world, like what happens at the temperature paper catches fire.

 

The reason the distinction is important is to avoid the equivocation between different senses of subjective which lead to things like moral nihilism, idealism, functionalism and epiphenomenalism. Things which do not make clear enough distinctions between conscious states and the world outside the mind. Opting to get rid of things like consciousness, objective reality and ethics altogether for the sake of consistency with false premises.

[weenie]

I'm sure I understand what it is that you don't understand.

 

Are you asking what ontological subjectivity is?

 

The error your argument makes is asking two different questions as if they were the same question:

1) In what manner does it exist? (ontology)

2) In what ways can we have knowledge about it? (epistemology)

 

Subjective knowledge is arbitrary. The knowledge that I have about my own preferences does not reveal anything that would be binding on other people. An epistemically subjective morality is an oxymoron, since the entire purpose of morality is that it's binding on other people. I cannot logically saying that my subjective preferences are binding on you precisely because there is no objective, independent verification, measured against some standard to establish the truth of the claims. i.e. the moral nihilist position.

 

When you say that morality exists as an observer relative feature of consciousness the way that feelings do, this is as compared to rocks and trees which we can both see and touch. You can't touch feelings. Feelings in the manner in which they exist are subjective. But feelings, pains, thoughts, etc are not arbitrary. We can come to objective and independently verifiable conclusions about these conscious states.

 

What this means is that subjective existence is not the same thing as subjective knowledge.

 

When you make an argument which assumes that they are, you run into erroneous conclusions.

 

The argument is:

 

morality exists subjectively, and therefore the basis on which we know the truth of moral claims must also be subjective.

 

No, this is false. If this were true, we could not have cognitive science, austrian economics or psychology.

 

It's also known as "equivocation" or a "pun" to mix up both meanings of "subjective".

 

Does this clarify what I'm saying?

Yes, morality and ethics are synonymous, and yes, that is the way we establish universality using UPB.

 

I would recommend reading the actual book. Your exasperation may well turn into curiosity and clarity.

I would really like to avoid reading the whole book, because the frist 30 pages really put me off of it. Is it really that hard to condense Stef's proposition for morality(I understand it as ethics but I'll be using the term morality to make it simpler) that I really have to read the book to get it? Otherwise it's really a semantic disagreement imo. What you call morality I call ethics, and I agree that ethical standards make you able to judge an action as either ethical or unethical objectively, but how do you know that standard is objectively correct? It's much like math, every conclusion objectively follows from the axioms or it doesn't, but how do you know the axioms are correct?

 

Weenie,

 

Thank you for posting the thread!

 

Since you had trouble reading through Universally Preferable Behavior, let's start with something simple.

 

Do you believe that it is ethical for a person to use or consume a resource that is owned by another without expressed permission? This is a yes/no question, by the way.

 

Ethical by what standard? By my standards, those of private property, it isn't, but I don't think I can prove that my standrards are the correct ones.

 

Mr. Beal, I'm still struggling with your position. My understanding of the word exist is comprised of matter and energy. For morality to exist subjectively, are you saying that it's comprised of matter and energy within the biochemistry of our brains and since it's OUR brains, that makes it subjective? You say the keyword is exist, but this blurs the conversation for me altogether. Namely in that I don't see morality as existing at all, which has no bearing on its logical validity as an objective observation/summary of the real world.

 

 

Ownership is inherently exclusionary. You own yourself and therefore you cannot be owned by somebody else. In order for me to use you (exercise ownership over your body), I'd have to override your use of you. For me to use myself to deny you use of yourself would be contradictory. This contradiction I feel is adequate proof that ownership is exclusionary.

 

 

The behavior of eating an apple IS the acceptance of private property. The person doing the eating is exercising ownership over their body and in turn, the food they are consuming. This is important to understand because like you've done here, I frequently see people talking about property rights/morality as if they're optional or can be avoided.

 

Eating an apple isn't the best example. Since apples occur naturally, the existence of an apple isn't necessarily proof that it belongs to somebody. Your attempt at counterpoint would've been better served using an item that doesn't occur naturally.

 

 

For all intents and purposes, ethics and morality are the same thing. My understanding as to the difference is that that which is unethical in theory is immoral in practice. To draft a bill for example would be unethical since it would recommend the initiation of the use of force. To vote on and/or enact that bill would be immoral as it would be the initiation of the use of force. What you explain as your understanding of morality, I would describe as empathy. Morality is how you are able to interpret that what happened to the person was a violation, which is why you empathize with the person.

 

For what it's worth, I really appreciate this conversation. It's a topic that I'm enthusiastic about and I really enjoy being able to disagree with and being disagreed with without anybody making it personal. Seems like a rare commodity these days.

"Ownership is inherently exclusionary." It is, but use isn't. If you leave your house, you're not using it, so I can use it while you're gone.

 

"For me to use myself to deny you use of yourself would be contradictory." Not really. Usage of your own body doesn't mean that oter people can't use your body, that's ownership. So If I don't own my body anyone can use it over me. Having the right to use implies ownership, but what if people don't agree that you have the right to use you body? Kepp in mind that this is not a position I hold.

 

"The behavior of eating an apple IS the acceptance of private property." I disagree, because as stated previpusly usage doens't equal ownership. I think this is very similar to the is/ought dichotomy. Just because I use my body doesn't necessarily mean I sould use my body. Just like because the government takes my mone, doersn't mean that it should.

 

"Eating an apple isn't the best example. Since apples occur naturally, the existence of an apple isn't necessarily proof that it belongs to somebody. Your attempt at counterpoint would've been better served using an item that doesn't occur naturally." True.

 

"For all intents and purposes, ethics and morality are the same thing." As i've seen it used in practice, morality describes something personal, that you feel. One person may feel that an orphan stealing a loaf of bread is wrong another one may not. Ethics on the other hand is a sistematization of that, by which other people can also judge what is right and wrong. This is what I think is being discussed in this thread.

 

"For what it's worth, I really appreciate this conversation. It's a topic that I'm enthusiastic about and I really enjoy being able to disagree with and being disagreed with without anybody making it personal. Seems like a rare commodity these days." True that brother

[dsayers]

I think I might be as lost as I feel because I fail to see the relevance. Is "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" not an objective claim? Is it not an accurate overview of morality?

 

Look, I trust you know your stuff and I trust that the amount of effort you're putting into it suggests that it's NOT irrelevant. But I really do fail to see how the mental process of opening a door addresses even indirectly the question of whether or not morality is subjective. If I am mistaken, and you'd be willing to elaborate based on this mental block I'm experiencing, I would appreciate that. I'm sorry if this is at all frustrating as I'm not trying to be obtuse.

[Kevin Beal]

I would really like to avoid reading the whole book, because the frist 30 pages really put me off of it. Is it really that hard to condense Stef's proposition for morality(I understand it as ethics but I'll be using the term morality to make it simpler) that I really have to read the book to get it? Otherwise it's really a semantic disagreement imo. What you call morality I call ethics, and I agree that ethical standards make you able to judge an action as either ethical or unethical objectively, but how do you know that standard is objectively correct? It's much like math, every conclusion objectively follows from the axioms or it doesn't, but how do you know the axioms are correct?

Well, I gave you other references. Did you even check them out?

 

I think I might be as lost as I feel because I fail to see the relevance. Is "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" not an objective claim? Is it not an accurate overview of morality?

 

Look, I trust you know your stuff and I trust that the amount of effort you're putting into it suggests that it's NOT irrelevant. But I really do fail to see how the mental process of opening a door addresses even indirectly the question of whether or not morality is subjective. If I am mistaken, and you'd be willing to elaborate based on this mental block I'm experiencing, I would appreciate that. I'm sorry if this is at all frustrating as I'm not trying to be obtuse.

Wait. I don't understand now. You say you don't understand what I'm saying, but then say that you don't see the relevance. Which one is it?

 

You could ask me questions about how the theory works instead of asking me questions I've already answered. Yes, "murder is immoral" is an objective claim, and UPB is an accurate overview of morality.

 

If you don't ask good questions, you aren't going to get good answers. I'm sorry you don't understand it, I wish that you did. Help me help you. You gotta try just a little harder.

[yagami]

Stephan made a good point in one of his recent podcast about this. He said if you believe morality is subjective then start teaching children that you can murder steal rape ect and it shouldn't matter to you because morality is subjective. You wont find anyone that is willing to say they will teach children morality is subjective in that way. People give objective moral standards to children all the time. Hitting is wrong stealing is wrong lying is wrong. For me that pretty much seals the argument up right there. Fortunately I dont have children of my own to have to really understand exactly why morality is objective so I'll save the studying for when I do. XD

[Bulbasaur]

Let me give it a shot...

 

 

Physical entities, matter and energy in their various forms, objectively exist.

 

Feelings, thoughts, preferences, ideas, and concepts subjectively exist; we can say they exist in the sense that they are experienced, but only on a personal level, scoped to each individual (although they are emergent aspects of an underlying physical system, the brain, that does objectively exist). 

 

Concepts are generally an attempt to map to objective reality, both one-to-one (tree-concept maps to individual physical trees) and as collections of and/or relationships between objects (forest-concept maps to a proximity relationship between many trees). And one-to-one concepts are usually themselves "chunked" abstractions of collection/relationship concepts (a tree is really a collection of cells, which are themselves assemblies of molecules, etc.). 

 

Reality is objective, concepts are subjective, but subjective is not arbitrary. The map is not the terrain, but it attempts to say something true about it. It's easy to see that the one-to-one concepts map to objectively real things, because such things physically exist and can be directly observed. It's less obvious that more abstract higher-order relational concepts could, and this is the challenge with ethics. We do have subjective feelings about morality, which probably have roots in our evolutionary heritage, our early childhood experiences, ideas we're exposed to throughout our lives, etc. In that sense I suppose you could say that "morality exists subjectively," in the same way you could say that tree-concepts exist subjectively. But this is likely to be misunderstood as equivalent to "morality is (only) subjective." The crux of the debate is whether or not there is an objective moral reality to which one's moral concepts are attempting to map. 

 

I think the word "exists" has become a red herring. Philosophy is about what is true, and extant entities are only a subset of this. Truth includes higher-order relational abstractions about that which does exist and that which could exist, i.e. logic. Humans have subjective concepts of logical principles (which may or may not be flawed), and logical principles don't themselves exist as entities, but it would be absurd to argue that "logic is only subjective," because the result would so clearly contradict our real experience. 

 

 

 

Morality is based on our feelings and our feelings are of course subjective, therefore morality is also subjective.

 

Your subjective concept of morality is based on your feelings. The problem is, your concept of morality might be wrong. Progress of human knowledge has always been a matter of replacing people's feelings-based worldviews with empirical ones, because feelings-based worldviews are usually highly inconsistent with reality and logic. The fact that people base their worldviews on their feelings doesn't change the fact that there is a standard of objective truth with which their worldviews may or may not agree. The whole point of this show and this forum is that morality is not based on feelings, but on rational scrutiny of moral claims by subjecting them to the tests of logical consistency and universality. At the very least we can say that any moral claims which fail this test must be false, and as such, that there are objective moral truths.

[weenie]

Well, I gave you other references. Did you even check them out?

 

I listened to the first podcast now, I think I already listened to the second one before, but it wasn't helpful. It's really hard to discern the central point of the first podcast, but as I understand it, people generally prefer to do some things, like eating and sleeping, which proves that universally preferable behavior exists. I really don't see the connection here, because we could figure out logically that some behaviors are universally preferable and some aren't, what does people preferring to eat have to do with that? There are different possible ethical frameworks, like negative rights, utilitarianism and UPB, how can you prove that one is correct and that others aren't? I've been listening to Stef for a long time now and I haven't yet come across a valid argument that proves UPB to be objectively correct.

 

Let me give it a shot...

 

 

Physical entities, matter and energy in their various forms, objectively exist.

 

Feelings, thoughts, preferences, ideas, and concepts subjectively exist; we can say they exist in the sense that they are experienced, but only on a personal level, scoped to each individual (although they are emergent aspects of an underlying physical system, the brain, that does objectively exist). 

 

Concepts are generally an attempt to map to objective reality, both one-to-one (tree-concept maps to individual physical trees) and as collections of and/or relationships between objects (forest-concept maps to a proximity relationship between many trees). And one-to-one concepts are usually themselves "chunked" abstractions of collection/relationship concepts (a tree is really a collection of cells, which are themselves assemblies of molecules, etc.). 

 

Reality is objective, concepts are subjective, but subjective is not arbitrary. The map is not the terrain, but it attempts to say something true about it. It's easy to see that the one-to-one concepts map to objectively real things, because such things physically exist and can be directly observed. It's less obvious that more abstract higher-order relational concepts could, and this is the challenge with ethics. We do have subjective feelings about morality, which probably have roots in our evolutionary heritage, our early childhood experiences, ideas we're exposed to throughout our lives, etc. In that sense I suppose you could say that "morality exists subjectively," in the same way you could say that tree-concepts exist subjectively. But this is likely to be misunderstood as equivalent to "morality is (only) subjective." The crux of the debate is whether or not there is an objective moral reality to which one's moral concepts are attempting to map. 

 

I think the word "exists" has become a red herring. Philosophy is about what is true, and extant entities are only a subset of this. Truth includes higher-order relational abstractions about that which does exist and that which could exist, i.e. logic. Humans have subjective concepts of logical principles (which may or may not be flawed), and logical principles don't themselves exist as entities, but it would be absurd to argue that "logic is only subjective," because the result would so clearly contradict our real experience. 

 

 

Your subjective concept of morality is based on your feelings. The problem is, your concept of morality might be wrong. Progress of human knowledge has always been a matter of replacing people's feelings-based worldviews with empirical ones, because feelings-based worldviews are usually highly inconsistent with reality and logic. The fact that people base their worldviews on their feelings doesn't change the fact that there is a standard of objective truth with which their worldviews may or may not agree. The whole point of this show and this forum is that morality is not based on feelings, but on rational scrutiny of moral claims by subjecting them to the tests of logical consistency and universality. At the very least we can say that any moral claims which fail this test must be false, and as such, that there are objective moral truths.

If you define moral truths as necessarily universal, then some moral claims will be false, because they won't be universal, sure. You can judge that objectively. But what makes you think that your definition of morality is the right one? If somebody like me comes around and says that morality is what you feel is right and wrong, how can you possibly say that your definition is in fact correct and my isn't? I could also say that morality is the greater good for the greater number of people, and you couldn't possibly say that's wrong, you could only say it differs from your definition.

 

Maybe this will make things more clear: Take math as an example. You can objectively show that an assertion is either true or false based on the axioms of mathematics, but there is no way to show that the axioms are true or false. They are merely the ones that we find best suit our understanding of reality. If someone else came along with different but internally consistent axioms, we couldn't say that they are wrong, we could only say that they differ from what we're using.

[dsayers]

lying is wrong. For me that pretty much seals the argument up right there.

 

That is like saying that a church is proof that God exists. Parents teach children that God exists, but that doesn't mean it's true. Parents might teach don't hit, but that doesn't mean it's objective or that it's principled. Also, lying is not absolutely wrong either. Our honesty is like anything else we own in that it is given voluntarily and is not owed to anybody else except those whom we've pledged it to.

 

Thank you, Bulbasaur, for articulating my thoughts on Kevin's position.

[yagami]

That is like saying that a church is proof that God exists. Parents teach children that God exists, but that doesn't mean it's true. Parents might teach don't hit, but that doesn't mean it's objective or that it's principled. Also, lying is not absolutely wrong either. Our honesty is like anything else we own in that it is given voluntarily and is not owed to anybody else except those whom we've pledged it to.

 

Thank you, Bulbasaur, for articulating my thoughts on Kevin's position.

I dont want you to think im saying that I clinched the argument. Im just saying that people say morality is relative but they act like morality is objective. For me if people want to argue morality is relative then they need to first stop being a hypocrite before we can continue the conversation. But im not trying to say that that is some kind of proof. As I stated when I have children I will really have to study up on why morality is actually objective. But until then I am not going to argue either way really because I haven't taken the time to understand why morality is objective.

[powder]

 

If you define moral truths as necessarily universal, then some moral claims will be false, because they won't be universal, sure. You can judge that objectively. But what makes you think that your definition of morality is the right one? 

Huh?  moral truths are universal, so you can objectively judge some moral claims as not being valid because they are not universal,...

 

 

 

 

If somebody like me comes around and says that morality is what you feel is right and wrong, how can you possibly say that your definition is in fact correct and my isn't? I could also say that morality is the greater good for the greater number of people, and you couldn't possibly say that's wrong, you could only say it differs from your definition.

 

like you said, cuz it's not universal.  

 

 

Maybe this will make things more clear: Take math as an example. You can objectively show that an assertion is either true or false based on the axioms of mathematics, but there is no way to show that the axioms are true or false. They are merely the ones that we find best suit our understanding of reality. If someone else came along with different but internally consistent axioms, we couldn't say that they are wrong, we could only say that they differ from what we're using.

sure, if you arrive at 2+2=4, it doesn't matter what formula you use.  If you don't then we can certainly say that the methodology is flawed.  

 

If you have a moral/system system that says it is OK to use someone else property without their consent, your 'axiom' is wrong, not sustainable, not universal.  

[dsayers]

@yagami: I think I know what you mean. I think part of the reason why priests, politicians, and other immoral people use the word morality is because they understand it is objective, so anything they claim to be moral cannot be questioned. Kind of like when they call commands laws. They're trying to preempt dissent by using terminology that's inescapable.

 

To understand why morality is objective I think is as simple as accepting that X can not be equal to NOT X (the opposite of itself), which is true independent of individual consciousness. That which is immoral is self-contradictory in that it is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Which means that even if it were subjective, it would still be declared wrong by the people behaving as if its right, removing doubt as to whether it's immoral. Does that help at all?

[cynicist]

This could be just a semantic difference, because I call morality the inner compas that makes you feel bad when somebody is stolen from or gets punched in the face for no reason. And because it's based on feelings it is by necessity subjective, because feelings are subjective. Now if you adhere to the ethics of private property, like I do, then actions can be objectively separated into ethical and unethical ones.

 

You've already defined morality as something based on feelings, how could it be anything other than subjective?

 

Could somebody here give me the fundamental thesis of his theory on morality(what I call ethics)? From what I gathered so far, it's that for a behaviour to be ethical, it must be preferrable by all people at the same time. If that is trully the case, I have concluded, that the theory is... problematic to say the least.

 

So you are trying to tell everyone that understanding this theory is really important to you, but you can't be bothered to read 30 pages? Give me a break.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

If we define morality as taking the interests of others into account when we act, then an immoral action is one that intentionally or neglectfully harms others.

(even defensive actions can be measured with restraint)

 

We can then, to a fairly objective degree, identify harmful behaviors both physical, with medical science and emotional, with psychology and personal experience. Given this ability to identify harmful behaviors to a fairly objective standard, we can have an objective (but imprecise) sense of morality. I think this is basically the argument Sam Harris uses.

[weenie]

You've already defined morality as something based on feelings, how could it be anything other than subjective?

And others have defined morality as UPB, so it is necessarily objective. My question is how can you objectively know any of this definitions are correct? Because I don't think you can. If you instead say that UPB is an ethical framework, you are left with showing that it's the correct ethical framework, which I don't think you can do either. I think you can only accept it as in line with your feelings or not.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

And others have defined morality as UPB, so it is necessarily objective. My question is how can you objectively know any of this definitions are correct? Because I don't think you can. If you instead say that UPB is an ethical framework, you are left with showing that it's the correct ethical framework, which I don't think you can do either. I think you can only accept it as in line with your feelings or not.

Morality as I have defined it above is simply a label for a certain kind of human activity, as such it is a material phenomena and can therefore be objectively observed.

 

For example, when I drove my car down a street busy with pedestrians, did I drive slowly because I wanted to avoid harm to others, or did I drive heedlessly and imperil others? One kind of action is moral, the other immoral.

 

I really don't see a need to get into complex theories, morality is something we intuitively understand - courtesy and consideration to others is common to all cultures, and likely has a biological basis. What confuses issues is the lack of consistency in application, and deliberate attempts to avoid moral censure that predatory people engage in - this is where philosophy can help.

[powder]

And others have defined morality as UPB, so it is necessarily objective. My question is how can you objectively know any of this definitions are correct? Because I don't think you can. If you instead say that UPB is an ethical framework, you are left with showing that it's the correct ethical framework, which I don't think you can do either. I think you can only accept it as in line with your feelings or not.

property rights are objective, moral behavior is based on property rights (violations thereof).  can you refute that axiom?  you keep asking how can we know that the moral tenet is the right one and it is because of the validity of property rights, this has been stated.   

[Kevin Beal]

property rights are objective, moral behavior is based on property rights (violations thereof).  can you refute that axiom? 

UPB also describes aesthetics which do not necessarily have anything to do with property rights. Property rights is the conclusion of UPB, not the basis for UPB. You could argue that being late to a meeting violates somebody's property to their time, and you could argue that property rights and the NAP are really two sides of the same coin. The lines blur somewhat categorically here, but you can't deny that all of them have universality and logical consistency as the basis of evaluating moral claims and theories.

 

And others have defined morality as UPB, so it is necessarily objective. My question is how can you objectively know any of this definitions are correct? Because I don't think you can. If you instead say that UPB is an ethical framework, you are left with showing that it's the correct ethical framework, which I don't think you can do either. I think you can only accept it as in line with your feelings or not.

What do you mean by "correct"?

 

Give me the standard by which you would accept correctness and we'll see if it fits.

 

My standard for accepting the veracity of UPB is that it confirms what we already know instinctively to be true about murder, rape, theft etc, that it's application is necessarily logically consistent and universal (by definition) which are standards I apply to any rule in logic, and that arguing against UPB is an implicit acceptance of UPB.

 

If you have no standard by which you accept UPB as the valid theory of meta ethics, then I don't really understand what you are asking. If it turns out that your standard for correctness is just synonym for moral relativism, then please let me know now so that I don't waste my time.

[dsayers]

 

Wait. I don't understand now. You say you don't understand what I'm saying, but then say that you don't see the relevance. Which one is it?

 

You could ask me questions about how the theory works instead of asking me questions I've already answered. Yes, "murder is immoral" is an objective claim, and UPB is an accurate overview of morality.

 

If you don't ask good questions, you aren't going to get good answers. I'm sorry you don't understand it, I wish that you did. Help me help you. You gotta try just a little harder.

 

I'm glad you posted again in this thread. Thanks to the moderation bug, this post hadn't appeared to me before when that portion of the thread was fresh.

 

I reject your supposition that it has to be one or the other. I don't know where the communications breakdown is. I suspect that part of the reason I don't understand is BECAUSE I don't see the relevance. Which I feel I was clear about. From my perspective, the discussion of whether a chair is objective is being obfuscated by somebody bringing up that our perception of it is subjective. I feel I was clear about that also.

 

If I thought that input was clarifying rather than obfuscating, I would be more incentivized to understand it. I was willing to override this interpretation because I know you are more researched and practiced in these areas and trusted that if I didn't see the relevance, it might be some component or consideration I wasn't privy to. If you want me to try harder, explain how it is relevant instead of deflecting by saying that YOUR communication is MY responsibility.

 

If "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" (I never mentioned UPB; see above obfuscation) is an objective claim and an accurate overview of morality, then how does saying things like epistemic vs ontological, morality EXISTS, and morality is subjective at all helpful? And how do you classify that as a bad question?

[weenie]

UPB also describes aesthetics which do not necessarily have anything to do with property rights. Property rights is the conclusion of UPB, not the basis for UPB. You could argue that being late to a meeting violates somebody's property to their time, and you could argue that property rights and the NAP are really two sides of the same coin. The lines blur somewhat categorically here, but you can't deny that all of them have universality and logical consistency as the basis of evaluating moral claims and theories.

 

What do you mean by "correct"?

 

Give me the standard by which you would accept correctness and we'll see if it fits.

 

My standard for accepting the veracity of UPB is that it confirms what we already know instinctively to be true about murder, rape, theft etc, that it's application is necessarily logically consistent and universal (by definition) which are standards I apply to any rule in logic, and that arguing against UPB is an implicit acceptance of UPB.

 

If you have no standard by which you accept UPB as the valid theory of meta ethics, then I don't really understand what you are asking. If it turns out that your standard for correctness is just synonym for moral relativism, then please let me know now so that I don't waste my time.

I use the same standards actually, I accept private property, because it confirms what i already know to be true and it systematizes that knowledge, so I can use it to judge new situations, and I can have a tool for external validation with other people.

 

However some people claim that by refuting UPB, you accept UPB, and that claim intrigued me, since it is similar to argumentation ethics. I wanted to know more about that.

[Kevin Beal]

If you want me to try harder, explain how it is relevant instead of deflecting by saying that YOUR communication is MY responsibility.

All I did was ask you to help me out with what exactly you don't understand. I don't know how to communicate X better when I don't know what X is. (X is the specific part of my argument that requires clarification).

 

All I could glean from your response was that you don't understand the relevance. I don't know how to respond to that without repeating myself since the point of my argument is the equivocation in the OP's argument. The relevance is the equivocation. I don't know how to help you if you don't ask me for clarifications regarding this since it's the whole point of my argument.

 

And frankly, I'm bothered by the flattery since the last exchange we had was of you telling me how terrible James, Mike and I are and that you are never posting on the boards again. So, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped telling me how smart I am and how I must be right and it's just a failing of your own understanding. Perhaps you can forgive me for not feeling terribly motivated to go out of my way to anticipate your disagreements with my argument and counter them.

 

I don't know why I should care that you don't see the relevance.

[cynicist]

If "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" (I never mentioned UPB; see above obfuscation) is an objective claim and an accurate overview of morality, then how does saying things like epistemic vs ontological, morality EXISTS, and morality is subjective at all helpful? And how do you classify that as a bad question?

 

If morality exists both as an objective discipline and a subjective emotional experience, then it's prudent to explain the difference. The OP is making the mistake of thinking that because moral outrage is felt and feelings are subjective, morality must therefore logically be subjective. If you want to criticize Kevin for being overly technical/using jargon I would agree, but clearly you didn't even take the time to understand what he is saying so stop with the posturing. If you really cared it would take a simple google search to get the relevance of the terms he is using so stop being a dick.

[dsayers]

I think I hit the "mark forum as read" link while some posts were not yet live. These posts never crossed my radar. Luckily another thread gave me reason to search this one out.

 

I'm bothered by the flattery since the last exchange we had was of you telling me how terrible James, Mike and I are

 

Assertion. For those interested in the (in)accuracy of it, Mr. Beal is referring to this thread. Note the bump for no reason other than to say, "This guy is back." Given the gross misrepresentation of this quote, I'm guessing you thought it made me look bad, as you did then. I've shared that thread with others when they wonder why on the boards I don't often allow myself to be vulnerable even though I used to and when I am, I'm honest and direct. They too were blown away, both by how such prominent members could use such unphilosophical approaches to avoid their bias and that I managed to not stoop to that level of personal attacks.

 

Saying "X is not an argument" is not saying "the person who provided X is a terrible person." I'm not telling you something you don't already know. You word it that way not because it's honest or even because you believe it to be honest. It's a form of doubling down and throwing your weight around, neither of which are healthy ways of interacting with other people. These are things that previously I would've thought to be uncharacteristic of you, which is why I continued to hold you in high regard despite one misstep one time. I'm sorry to hear that even if your representation of that one time were accurate, you wouldn't do the same.

 

You didn't answer my questions here: "If "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" (I never mentioned UPB; see above obfuscation) is an objective claim and an accurate overview of morality, then how does saying things like epistemic vs ontological, morality EXISTS, and morality is subjective at all helpful? And how do you classify that as a bad question?" No, you don't have to care that I don't see the relevance. I'm guessing by this lash out that you do care to not be corrected. I'm guessing this is why in a recent thread, when I challenged your position that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you just sort of gave up, but not as a form of accepting your own capacity for error.

 

clearly you didn't even take the time to understand what he is saying so stop with the posturing. If you really cared it would take a simple google search to get the relevance of the terms he is using so stop being a dick.

 

I didn't realize that holding somebody accountable for their own attempts at being understood was being a dick. I didn't realize that asking questions in order to understand was not taking the time to understand. I do realize that this lack of rationality is an attempt to erase another person in order to manage your own anxiety as the result of irrationally regarding somebody as if infallible. The good news is that my pointing this out gives you another opportunity to use downvoting as an ideological WEAPON against me