Is Morality Subjective? - Correctly Asked.

[Zerubbabel]

I think the other thread of the same title has stumbled because of unclear definition of terms and how the question itself is framed. First I think there is a confusion between objective and real. This error is to take elements from two different dichotomies: Subjective/objective and real/abstract. 

 

Real (from res = thing) is the physical world around us which includes the actions of human, animal and other natural agents (e.g. a storm is real). Abstract (to pull away) is taken away from the real and exists in the uniquely human realm of the mind. The ability to think abstractly, along with language is an inseparable part of humanness. (Language consists of both vocabulary, which my dog has, and syntax, which my dog doesn't have.) In fact proto-man appeared in an evolutionary blink of the eye about 50,000 years ago with the concomitant rise of language and the first evidence of abstract art. Surely language is abstract but the corollary to this is intriguing. I cannot conceive of an abstract idea without language. I’ve tried many times. In the still of the night lying in bed I can envision the image of complex mechanical designs with nary a word. But I can NOT think at all about an abstract idea without using my inner voice. Try it yourself. Think about the concept of objective or subjective without language.

 

When I look up a certain word in the dictionary I find many listings of varying usages and connotations and this variation is sometimes more than mere nuance. Then at the bottom I find the etymology which gives an essential meaning which in some way underpins all the various usages of the word - the underlying thread of meaning. These etymons are almost always real things or real actions. They are the connection of abstract language/ideas to reality. Maintaining this connection is what keeps us from spiraling out so far into our abstract constructs that we become alienated from the real … but that I think is a different topic.

 

Subjective stems from the real action "to throw under." Objective stems from the real action "to throw in the open." When we examine something subjectively then the thing it is under obscures our vision. When we examine something objectively we are free to see it from all angles and thus see it clearly. As social animals it is difficult for us to make our own objective judgments without being under the influence of the group’s judgment. The Relativist says it is impossible, that everything is subjective. But this judgment (of everything being relative) itself is the result of objective observation. Objectivity is difficult but it is doable, or at least what is doable is the process of becoming more objective, of removing the obscurant things of subjectivism (“unpacking” is the popular metaphor). Logic should dispel any myth that if an exceptional individual (yet still an imperfect human) can achieve a fully objective judgment of a thing that that rare objective judgment will be correct, true, universal or absolute. 

 

~

 

Morality (from the root meaning customs) is not real. It is abstract. Morals are abstract constructs of the human mind. Can morality be subjective? Absolutely it can. But the question “Is morality subjective?” includes the premise that all morals are the same, either subjective or objective.  The correct question is: Can morals be judged objectively?  

 

"My goal in this book is to define a methodology for validating moral theories that is objective, consistent,

clear, rational, empirical – and true."  UPB

 

. 

 

[Pepin]

For the most part I'd agree.

 

As far as concepts go, they are not real, but we are capable of measuring the relation of a concept to reality. For instance a design for a bridge is not a bridge, but we can say that a bridge which is designed according to those plans is related to the bridge in the design.

 

Ethics is much the same way, ethics does not exist as something in reality, but we are capable of measuring the relation between ethical theories and reality through the actions people take in regard to the circumstance. An ethical theory such as "one ought to be in two places at once" will never result in a positive measurement, meaning that the theory has zero relation to reality. It is like designing a bridge with non-existent materials.

 

What you said about language reminds me a lot of Ayn Rand. I disagree with it as I often think in more visual terms when it comes to concepts. It is very difficult to describe, but I am sure it isn't too unusual. Where I think language is really essential is in conveying concepts.

[Kevin Beal]

I like your breakdown, although I was slightly confused about your definitions of objective/subjective. I wonder what you think about the question being phrased this way: is the truth of moral propositions observer relative or observer independent?

[Zerubbabel]

For the most part I'd agree.

 

As far as concepts go, they are not real, but we are capable of measuring the relation of a concept to reality. For instance a design for a bridge is not a bridge, but we can say that a bridge which is designed according to those plans is related to the bridge in the design.

 

Ethics is much the same way, ethics does not exist as something in reality, but we are capable of measuring the relation between ethical theories and reality through the actions people take in regard to the circumstance. An ethical theory such as "one ought to be in two places at once" will never result in a positive measurement, meaning that the theory has zero relation to reality. It is like designing a bridge with non-existent materials.

 

What you said about language reminds me a lot of Ayn Rand. I disagree with it as I often think in more visual terms when it comes to concepts. It is very difficult to describe, but I am sure it isn't too unusual. Where I think language is really essential is in conveying concepts.

 

>>> concepts ... are not real <<<

 

"Conceive" stems from the root to seize, it is an act of cognition which seizes upon a certain topic. Thinking is real. It is an act that you are doing right now as you read this.  Cogito ergo sum.  The concepts, the topics that we cogitate upon can be real or abstract. My dog cogitates upon the real idea that there might be a squirrel at the bottom of that tree. She is cogitating upon a very real concept.

 

I can, and I often do, think about new, non-existent mechanical designs (a certain type of bridge construction being one of them) - without using the language of my inner voice. As you say, the thought process is visual.  Choose a concept that is unquestionably abstract, e.g. the subjectivity of morality. I can create the wordless image in my mind of <<< a nondescript thing which is placed under a table. I try to see it but can't quite figure it out. In frustration I grab the thing and throw it up on top of the table, spin it around and finally I see it clearly>>> without using a word, only my mind's eye. There I can understand the most basic, etymological, and real idea of objective/subjective. But if I want to go further, say how this relates to morality, then I must abstract it from the real ... and language is my tool for that.  

 

Do try my challenge for yourself. In the dead quiet of the night grab hold of this idea with your mind. Cogitate upon it. Cogitate upon it subjectively, e.g. bring into your mind what some professor had once taught you about the concept. Cogitate upon it objectively, in your mind rotate it around and examine it closely from all angles.  Then listen for your inner voice, because unless you're the exceptional thinker, it's going to be jabbering full speed.

 

.

[Zerubbabel]

I like your breakdown, although I was slightly confused about your definitions of objective/subjective. I wonder what you think about the question being phrased this way: is the truth of moral propositions observer relative or observer independent?

 

What I gave is the etymologically based understanding of sub- and ob- as a jumping off point from which we pull away abstract concepts yet remain tethered to reality.

 

To stay consistent- truth (and veracity) etymologically stems from a PIE root word meaning a faithfulness (to one's word.) Truth refers to a speech act - which requires actors. The importance of this understanding of "Truth" cannot be overstated. It is the very foundation of language. Imagine a language of truthlessness where there was no connection between abstract signs and reality.  

 

“The remedy for unpredictability, for the chaotic uncertainty of the future, is contained in the faculty to make and keep promises … binding oneself through promises, serves to set up in the ocean of uncertainty, which the future is by definition, islands of security without which not even continuity, let alone durability of any kind, would be possible in the relationships between men.”     Hannah Arendt

 

I could go on,  but I'll spare you except to say that I believe that language is "sacred."  Tucker (language researcher) connects the etymon of sacred to PIE base *saq- "bind, restrict, enclose, protect," explaining that "words for both 'oath' & 'curse' are regularly words of 'binding.'  There is nothing that so universally pisses people off as lying and hypocrisy - more so than aggression, IMO.

 

The idea embodied in the word truth was further abstracted in the middle ages which speak about eternal truths or absolute truths, these being the divine speech act of God. Early science, e.g. Newton, sought these absolute truths. But given that the eternal truths of newtonian physics was overturned by relativity which truth was proven non-absolute by quantum mechanics ... so that science no longer speaks of "truth" but merely of best theory consistent with known empirical data and is ever-ready to abandon truths with the emergence of new data. 

 

I think your question needs to be more precise. The best understanding I can achieve is that you are asking if morality can exist apart from human beings ... does morality exist on the planet Neptune? Morality is an abstract construct of the human mind which mediates the affairs of human beings. Without human beings it's existence (which is doubtful) is meaningless.   

 

.

[Pepin]

>>> concepts ... are not real <<<

 

"Conceive" stems from the root to seize, it is an act of cognition which seizes upon a certain topic. Thinking is real. It is an act that you are doing right now as you read this.  Cogito ergo sum.  The concepts, the topics that we cogitate upon can be real or abstract. My dog cogitates upon the real idea that there might be a squirrel at the bottom of that tree. She is cogitating upon a very real concept.

 

I would agree. I use the term to mean having no physical basis, in other words, if you were to describe a system in purely physical terms, it would not describe concepts. Data is a good example of this, where you can describe the differing magnetic directions on a hard drive which make up a particular program, but be unable to derive the existence of the program from the magnetic directions. Perception and conceptualization are the methods which allow for abstract properties to be applied to any real object.