Why We Cannot Know That Our Morals are Objective

[ArtieE]

You might want to consider that it's how we define murder that is the differentiator. You don't consider laws objective, do you?

Laws and the justice system are just tools we use to enhance the survivability of the society and the people in it.

What is IMMORAL?
Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency.
Law Dictionary: What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Laws and the justice system are just tools we use to enhance the survivability of the society and the people in it.

What is IMMORAL?
Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency.
Law Dictionary: What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

So then, how does using a legal definition (murder) prove that murder is an objectively moral delineation?

 

[ArtieE]

So then, how does using a legal definition (murder) prove that murder is an objectively moral delineation?

What?

 

[Curious George]

You might want to consider that it's how we define murder that is the differentiator. You don't consider laws objective, do you?

Chicken and the egg. Every act is distinguishable from another. Each one could be defined with a new name. We have a penchant for categorization. If we accept the premise of morality we can categorize based on this. Whether we agree with subjective morality or objective morality, whether an act falls on the moral or immoral side is subject to argument. Though I do not believe we define murder clearly in terms of morality. Hence it is possible for us to find murder that is morally defensible but not legally so.

 

[ArtieE]

Chicken and the egg. Every act is distinguishable from another. Each one could be defined with a new name. We have a penchant for categorization. If we accept the premise of morality we can categorize based on this. Whether we agree with subjective morality or objective morality, whether an act falls on the moral or immoral side is subject to argument. Though I do not believe we define murder clearly in terms of morality. Hence it is possible for us to find murder that is morally defensible but not legally so.

Example?

 

[Curious George]

Example?

Sure. A man is preparing to disseminate knowledge that would empower someone to kill millions of people. Once this knowledge is out it cannot be contained. The only purpose for this knowledge is genocide. The only possible Avenue to prevent the spread of this knowledge is to murder the man.

That should fit within your definition of morality. However, that would still be considered murder by the law because there is no imminent danger so self defense is off the table.

 

[ArtieE]

Sure. A man is preparing to disseminate knowledge that would empower someone to kill millions of people. Once this knowledge is out it cannot be contained. The only purpose for this knowledge is genocide. The only possible Avenue to prevent the spread of this knowledge is to murder the man.

That should fit within your definition of morality. However, that would still be considered murder by the law because there is no imminent danger so self defense is off the table.

What do others think? Is it morally correct to kill weapons dealers and manufacturers to prevent their weapons getting into the hands of people who use them for no other purpose than to kill other people?

 

[Curious George]

What do others think? Is it morally correct to kill weapons dealers and manufacturers to prevent their weapons getting into the hands of people who use them for no other purpose than to kill other people?

that wasn't exactly the hypothetical. The idea is that a situation wherein the advantage to the majority of people is served and the impact is minimal. This was your standard on which you have said morals are founded. To ask others whether it is moral is not in step with this as not everyone would agree with your evaluation of what is moral. Many would think that morality is subjective, not objective. Others might feel objective morality is rooted in a deity. These would evaluate morality based on that deity not the benefit of humanity at large. There is a great movie, it is called "unthinkable" I think you might like it. Anyhow, give it a watch and tell me if you still agree.

 

[ArtieE]

that wasn't exactly the hypothetical. The idea is that a situation wherein the advantage to the majority of people is served and the impact is minimal. This was your standard on which you have said morals are founded.

What I said was that what is right and wrong, good or bad, is based on what is beneficial or detrimental to the society and the people in it. Moral or immoral are just synonyms for right or wrong, good or bad.

To ask others whether it is moral

I didn't ask others whether it IS moral, I asked whether they THINK it's moral.

is not in step with this as not everyone would agree with your evaluation of what is moral.

If we had a quantum computer capable of calculating all the possible outcomes of different acts it could come up with the moral act in each situation regardless of what people THINK the moral act would be. It would be the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental.

Many would think that morality is subjective, not objective. Others might feel objective morality is rooted in a deity.

Yes, how do you make simple people with a survival instinct who don't want to die behave morally? Just tell them there's a god with the power of giving them eternal life, give them simple moral rules to follow and tell them they come from this god and they better follow these rules if they want to survive forever.

These would evaluate morality based on that deity not the benefit of humanity at large. There is a great movie, it is called "unthinkable" I think you might like it. Anyhow, give it a watch and tell me if you still agree.

OK.

 

[Curious George]

What I said was that what is right and wrong, good or bad, is based on what is beneficial or detrimental to the society and the people in it. Moral or immoral are just synonyms for right or wrong, good or bad.I didn't ask others whether it IS moral, I asked whether they THINK it's moral.If we had a quantum computer capable of calculating all the possible outcomes of different acts it could come up with the moral act in each situation regardless of what people THINK the moral act would be. It would be the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental.Yes, how do you make simple people with a survival instinct who don't want to die behave morally? Just tell them there's a god with the power of giving them eternal life, give them simple moral rules to follow and tell them they come from this god and they better follow these rules if they want to survive forever.OK.

While we might find more agreement than disagreement on the morality of other worldviews, I am not trying to slight anyone by calling them simple or agreeing to that assessment. My point was that whichever morality we accept, we can define "murder" as categorically immoral-as you suggested. But, we do not do this. Hence it is possible to contrive such a scenario that one is legally guilty of murder, but it is morally justified. If, however, we did categorically define murder as an immoral killing that the legal definition was made by man does not entail that the morality is subjective.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What?

My argument is that morals are subjective, not that there aren't morals.
I don't see how laws;
1) suggest that morality is objective, given the variance in legal codes over time/culture.
2) directly correlate with arguments about morality anyway, given that laws are not purely based on moral consideration.

So, basically, I don't know exactly what your last post was trying to suggest, and have probably confused things by responding to what I thought it was suggesting, instead of just asking for clarification.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Chicken and the egg. Every act is distinguishable from another. Each one could be defined with a new name. We have a penchant for categorization. If we accept the premise of morality we can categorize based on this. Whether we agree with subjective morality or objective morality, whether an act falls on the moral or immoral side is subject to argument. Though I do not believe we define murder clearly in terms of morality. Hence it is possible for us to find murder that is morally defensible but not legally so.

Makes sense. My only argument is that morals are subjective.
I have come across people who use a different definition of objective to me at times, though, which would change my argument somewhat.
(Basically, I have heard it argued that a commonly accepted moral is an objective moral, which is not really how I think of it).

Still, 'objective' being a subjective term seems to help, rather than hinder, my argument.

 

[ArtieE]

While we might find more agreement than disagreement on the morality of other worldviews, I am not trying to slight anyone by calling them simple or agreeing to that assessment. My point was that whichever morality we accept, we can define "murder" as categorically immoral-as you suggested. But, we do not do this. Hence it is possible to contrive such a scenario that one is legally guilty of murder, but it is morally justified. If, however, we did categorically define murder as an immoral killing that the legal definition was made by man does not entail that the morality is subjective.

There is no such thing as a murder that is morally justified since if we all were murdering each other it would be detrimental to the society and the people in it. If a killing was more beneficial than detrimental it would be a justified homicide.

 

[ArtieE]

My argument is that morals are subjective, not that there aren't morals.

My argument is that if you are in a situation where you must act but don't know which act would be the moral one, theoretically if you could consult a quantum computer and it could calculate the consequences of every act it could tell you which act would be most beneficial and/or least detrimental to your society and the individuals in it and that would be the objectively moral act. It would have nothing to do with what you subjectively think would be the moral act.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My argument is that if you are in a situation where you must act but don't know which act would be the moral one, theoretically if you could consult a quantum computer and it could calculate the consequences of every act it could tell you which act would be most beneficial and/or least detrimental to your society and the individuals in it and that would be the objectively moral act. It would have nothing to do with what you subjectively think would be the moral act.

Okay, I think I understand your point of view. It's somewhat in line with Sam Harris' position, I guess.
I don't agree at all, but fair enough.

 

[Curious George]

There is no such thing as a murder that is morally justified since if we all were murdering each other it would be detrimental to the society and the people in it. If a killing was more beneficial than detrimental it would be a justified homicide.

Sight, I thought we went over this already. Watch unthinkable and we can revisit it.

 

[David T]

We simply do not have the ability to stand outside of our own subjectivity and confirm that there exists anything independent of us.

This is where post modern philosophy is.. The problem is we can stand inside a that and inside that, we can determine it is objective and we are subjective to it. Culturally We tend to stand out side that and pretend as we are standinding outside it, that it is subjective and we are objective to it. It has a variety of names the logos the Tao the cosmos nature God etc. All the same. In comstruction it's called dependencies, we tend to be paint pretending the excavation is subject to the paint. Or leaves pretending there is no tree!!! So yes on your moraL points obviously subjective but literally no. Nature is the big invisible elephant to the arguements not our ideas about it.

 

[ArtieE]

We simply do not have the ability to stand outside of our own subjectivity and confirm that there exists anything independent of us.

You mean that if suddenly all humans vanished into thin air that for example Manhattan would also vanish? I happen to think that it would still be here but just decay.

 

[David T]

You mean that if suddenly all humans vanished into thin air that for example Manhattan would also vanish? I happen to think that it would still be here but just decay.

Ha that was quoting sunstones original post. I actually tried (feebly I suppose) to say that is bunk. Nature is objective we are subjective to it. ArtieE, If you pay close attention virtually no one here has much of a grasp of Nature and their relationship to it. It's mostly hyper mechanical reductionism in religious drag. What's odd it's not even really related to the bible it has nothing to do with the topic "god" or the bible actually and is more confused than clear. It's all More theoretical, speculative, hypothesis, philosophical garbage than anything else which Interesting to me since I am attempting to write a book. Which will probably be horrible!!!!