Moral Values: Objective or Subjective

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

If you believe in objective moral values then give your definition and reasons for there objectivity.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying a bird will kill its mate to collect on the insurance policy?

Okay.

Objectively...

Mircea

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

For example: I would have to describe an objective moral that doesn't need me to be performed? Like a number that doesn't need me to count it? It counts itself or is counted by a mongoose? When I ask you to think about the number 1, is the number you think about the same as the #1 I think about? Or is the number in itself a subjective representation of a quality which is judged based on real comparisons?

I agree.

The sense of moral objectivity is likely biological, when we think "subjective" we think "under our power as we decide"

What else could it be? Once again I agree.

You give philosophers too much credit. The objective-moral-atheists say reason itself is good for moral justification in the objective sense: just ask Sam Harris. Justifying sentiments instead of seeking truth is rather what Psychopaths do, for as Sam Harris points out, a mutually agreed-on social contract is the best of all possible worlds. If there is a stubborn dissenter that simply wishes to have everything his/her way then that is where BULLY POWER comes in, which protects the social contract for the rest of us.

Like I said before objectivity in this sense is different from what moral phiosophers ususally think of when discussing this issues. You are talking about factual objectivity - one that rests on reason to discern the most efficient and pragmatic way in which to act given certain biological and social facts about us as humans. It is a Conditional objectivity based in multiple subjective attitudes towards certain actions - If you want X then you ought to do Y. That is different than an Imperitive ought. The probelm is that there is plenty of evidence that suggest that when people reason about their moral sentiments it is a pot-hoc justification of those sentiments and many times cannot say why something is wrong - it just is what they feel to be wrong. People do not reason to arrive at their sentiments - that is they do not reason to find the truth of an action but to justify an already present moral sentiment. Everybody does it no just psychopaths. Before any child begins to reason about morality they already have experiences instantiated upon their nervous system giving rise to these sentiments. Once reason kicks in then it is for justifying those sentiments. Reason then can become a feedback loop blurring the line between what we think is a reasoned conclusion about truth and objectivity and what is just an emotional response to a pattern of casue effects that we have already judged to be good or bad. That is subjective wholly and completely to the individual.

If you get others to agree with you on certain moral issues great. But that does not establish the kinda objectivity that is required for a standard of judging if these group feelings are right or wrong - if the standard becomes the self or the group of selves then that is subjective. Certain moral sentiments are ubiqutous among humans precisely becasue their foundation is below reason and grounded in biology - as such you can have the biological objectivity by establishing what is the standard biology of human actions that are most benificial for survival and efficiency in a given circumstance. But as noted this is quite a different objectivity than that which is usually talked about. All you really have is a collective subjectivty. Some people have 'reasons' but they may not be the best or most optimal. Take a large group of people who decide it is reasonable to exterminate another large group of people - would this be an acceptable social contract? What standard are you gonna use to tell them otherwise? The best chance you have is either forcing your group sentiments upon them or convincing them that they would be better off otherwise. You just expand the sphere of individual subjective sentiments of the sense of objectivty - that's all - a collective subjective moral value - in a sense that is an objective fact but in another sense it is not objective with regard to that which is outside of our individual subjective moral sense.

The above difference in objectivity is what is the probelm with the discussion throughout history. People want to justify these sentiments but inorder to do it they need to establish an objective basis. The only option for a long time was some sort of God or Platonic realm. But instead of looking up people should have been looking below - to the biology. Bottom-up morality. Reason situated at the top for social justification of those sentiments. I wanted people who hold to the former objective morality to give their evidence. I do not think given the latter sense of the term negates subjectivity - it is just an objective fact of nature with regards to a collective group of subjective sentiments. I see no problem with this type of objectivity. People should not fear saying that it is subjective - after all has not nature given these individual subjective moral senses? If so then how optimal was nature is getting us to agree upon these sentiments? That is the question - most everyone will agree on things like murder, rape, theft, etc. becuase these are well grounded in the organisms 'purpose' to survive and thrive - no organisms wants to be forced or violated like that. That is an objective fact of nature yet still a subjective moral sentiment.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by stargazzer

You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill and are going to wind up dangling about the universe arguing over how the heck galaxies can contain events which contradict, force's of gravity which exist outside of the specific galaxy. IOW order and asymmetrical features in creation which cannot be explained....by going backwards in an exploration.

God of the moral gaps? I'm afraid you're making a mole hill out of a mountain by pretending you understand that the "Giant Mole", is the cause of the mountain.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Take a large group of people who decide it is reasonable to exterminate another large group of people - would this be an acceptable social contract? What standard are you gonna use to tell them otherwise?

What standard? Why would one need a standard? I would tell them they would deplete the human genome, they might eradicate others who might have become friends who could be able to help them survive later on, they would make enemies which always is detrimental to ones survival, they would risk retaliation on themselves and/or their loved ones and on and on and on. Therefore it is not logical or reasonable to exterminate another large group of people.

People should not fear saying that it is subjective - after all has not nature given these individual subjective moral senses? If so then how optimal was nature is getting us to agree upon these sentiments? That is the question - most everyone will agree on things like murder, rape, theft, etc. becuase these are well grounded in the organisms 'purpose' to survive and thrive - no organisms wants to be forced or violated like that. That is an objective fact of nature yet still a subjective moral sentiment.

How can an objective fact of nature be a subjective moral sentiment at the same time? It is an objective fact of nature that people who kill are at a disadvantage because other people might not trust them, they might get killed in return, they would have to be very careful about what they do or say so they don't give themselves away and get arrested and so on why would one need any other justification not to kill than logic and reason? What you call subjective moral senses are simply us subconsciously obeying the morals of evolution.

Originally Posted by ArtieE

How can an objective fact of nature be a subjective moral sentiment at the same time? It is an objective fact of nature that people who kill are at a disadvantage because other people might not trust them, they might get killed in return, they would have to be very careful about what they do or say so they don't give themselves away and get arrested and so on why would one need any other justification not to kill than logic and reason? What you call subjective moral senses are simply us subconsciously obeying the morals of evolution.

Let me see if I can clear this up. I think we agree on alot of things.

First, the OP was about a certain type of objectivity that has been debated for centuries - either some form of Platonism or Divine Authority as the basis for that objectivity. These seek to find the basis of moral values outside of the individual who holds to those moral values precisely because without such a basis they would be subjective and lack the justification to make moral judgments like ‘that is wrong and evil’. Now both of us do agree that this type of objectivity is not the answer - correct? The thread was started to give people, who believe in this type of objectivity, a chance to support it with evidence.

Second, If nature is going to be the basis for the objectivity of moral values then you have to conclude that it has morality itself not that it just gives rise to morality. We both agree that the basis for morality is biological evolution - correct?

Ok! if so then there is a diffrence between this objective fact and the value that each individual has - people have values, 'nature' does not.

Now when you first responded you mentioned certain aspects of ‘nature’ – like the mongoose as supporting this contention of objective moral values and said that reason was not the basis for that objectivity but that these natural facts about how animals treat each other. But the very fact that all animals do not act in such a way shows that nothing in nature per-se requires such actions let alone the mental evaluation of such actions (which is why most if not all scientists think that animals are not moral – even Frans de Waal). People make these evaluations based upon their own biology and experiences and each person’s biology and experiences are somewhat different than the others. As such their evaluations are different as well.

The principle of the Golden Rule is not a principle that nature requires for its organisms – if it did all organisms would abide by it. Each individual person can evaluate by reason whether such a principle is effective for social cohesion and survival. Those that find it to be so value this principle. Because the principle works it has been adopted by a majority of people as a means to those ends. Its logic is a result of the cognitive conscious aspect of those people - reason. This is an individual evaluation and as such is a subjective value when we say that ‘the Golden Rule is good.’ Its objectivity does not reside outside of the biology of those people and does not necessitate the evaluation – nature finds ways that work given certain environments. That is an objective fact, the value is subjective.

The objective biological fact is not the same thing as the subjective evaluation. The phrase ‘I feel disgusted by that action’ is not the same as ‘that action is evil.’ The neurological responses are not the same as the mental evaluation of those feelings, emotions, etc. The way I see it is that we have instantiated experiences that give rise to emotions in response to actions which in turn frame our subjective beliefs about those actions and from which arise our moral evaluation of them when we give values to these actions that takes place in the cognitive consciousness - reason. As such it's a subjective evaluation based on an objective biological fact regarding an individual nervous system’s response to a certain action.

A person may be physically repelled by hunting animals and may then call such activities immoral and even evil. Is this then an objective moral value – absolutely not – even though it has an objective biological basis? Likewise the complete opposite can exist in another individual – are they both objective moral values? Where is the logic in this biological expression that gives rise to two opposite values regarding the same action?

A subjective value maybe based upon an objective biological fact but that does not make the value itself objective.

So this is my take on it and I think ultimately we can say that morality is a biological objective fact of science but that our evaluations of our biology are subjective. The problem with the historical musing about morality was always based upon trying to justify morality and our values either upon reason or divine authority. Biology was completely overlooked and not well understood until recently. Biology is the objective fact of morality but the evaluations are not - they are subjective. But this does not mean that we cannot discover through reason and other methodologies what principles work more effectively and efficiently for individuals and society as a whole. Since nature usually finds a medium optimization there are always going to be a majority of people who agree upon what to value in a similar manner and these values will correspond to what is the right actions for the best outcomes given certian circumstances. Other actions may work but not as well – but that is different than saying they are wrong or evil.

The problem with reason is that is not outside the influence of those underlying biological inputs which were based on experiences within a certain environment - both physically and culturally - this is why they seem to be objective in the sense of 'outside' of the 'self' or the 'I' because they arise from outside of the conscious realm where the self takes place. But that does not mean that they arise outide of the organism itself. Reason is far from a free space where we discover the truth of moral conduct or values - most reason is a post-hoc justification for our already instantiated moral sentiments - we seek to justify not establish. Reason cannot be the basis for the objectivity - it is below that level in the undelying biological facts - but those facts are interpreted differently and acted upon differently by each individual.

Anyway, hope this helps, I was primarily trying to see what evidence those people who believe that morality and moral values have their basis outside of the human organism - something that compels us to value things in a certain way. But instead we got off arguing about this minutia - maybe I am being to picky.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Let me see if I can clear this up. I think we agree on alot of things.

Sure. I'm not arguing just trying to understand.

First, the OP was about a certain type of objectivity that has been debated for centuries - either some form of Platonism or Divine Authority as the basis for that objectivity. These seek to find the basis of moral values outside of the individual who holds to those moral values precisely because without such a basis they would be subjective and lack the justification to make moral judgments like ‘that is wrong and evil’. Now both of us do agree that this type of objectivity is not the answer - correct?

Correct.

The thread was started to give people, who believe in this type of objectivity, a chance to support it with evidence.

Got it.

Second, If nature is going to be the basis for the objectivity of moral values then you have to conclude that it has morality itself not that it just gives rise to morality. We both agree that the basis for morality is biological evolution - correct?

Correct. But I wouldn't say that nature is the "basis" for the objectivity of moral values. I would say that morals developed automatically as a result of evolution. Just like two arms and five fingers and an opposing thumb. Those who developed those traits got an evolutionary advantage, those who followed the moral codes evolution developed also got an evolutionary advantage. As I see it there are no "moral values" or "moral judgments" as such. Just take one extreme example to illustrate my point. Why shouldn't we murder someone? Christians say "because God says not to". Other people might come up with other reasons not to murder someone. But all these reasons are based on the simple objective fact that murdering someone is at your disadvantage on every level. You create enemies, you cause sorrow, you create instability in the community you yourself is living in, you have to be careful not to get caught, people would be hesitant cooperating with you etc etc. These facts are objective because they would be true for every organism living in a social context and it doesn't matter whether there were any humans on the planet with the mental capacity to make moral judgments or claiming that murder is wrong.

Ok! if so then there is a diffrence between this objective fact and the value that each individual has - people have values, 'nature' does not.

No there's no difference between the objective fact and the value each individual has. The objective fact is that murder is to your disadvantage. If an individual doesn't understand that it is to his disadvantage. Which is why evolution developed judicial systems and religions in the first place. To reinforce these objective moral facts. You might say that people don't have different values. They just don't understand that there are objective moral codes which are beneficial for them and everyone else to follow.

Now when you first responded you mentioned certain aspects of ‘nature’ – like the mongoose as supporting this contention of objective moral values and said that reason was not the basis for that objectivity but that these natural facts about how animals treat each other. But the very fact that all animals do not act in such a way shows that nothing in nature per-se requires such actions let alone the mental evaluation of such actions (which is why most if not all scientists think that animals are not moral – even Frans de Waal).

True of course. There are social animals and there are animals who are not social and not living in groups. Those animals who don't live in groups have survived without those codes. Organisms who live in groups gained an advantage and cooperation required those objective codes. People are social animals living in groups therefore these moral codes apply to them. A simple fact which has nothing to do with man-made concepts or individual morality values.

People make these evaluations based upon their own biology and experiences and each person’s biology and experiences are somewhat different than the others. As such their evaluations are different as well.

People's evaluation of something doesn't change the objective truth of something. What people do when they evaluate is to gather all the objective information and knowledge they have about the situation and objectively try to estimate what is the best course of action, the action with the most objective advantage.

The principle of the Golden Rule is not a principle that nature requires for its organisms – if it did all organisms would abide by it.

True. The Golden Rule is for organisms living in a social context, not others.

Each individual person can evaluate by reason whether such a principle is effective for social cohesion and survival.

Whether this principle is effective is not a matter of individual evaluation. Just feed a computer with all the variables and see what it comes up with.

Those that find it to be so value this principle. Because the principle works it has been adopted by a majority of people as a means to those ends. Its logic is a result of the cognitive conscious aspect of those people - reason.

No. You got it the wrong way around. The Golden Rule existed in social animals in nature long before people came along with their logic and reason and moral values.

This is an individual evaluation and as such is a subjective value when we say that ‘the Golden Rule is good.’

No, we say that the Golden Rule is objectively "good" because it simply is regardless of what people might think.

Its objectivity does not reside outside of the biology of those people and does not necessitate the evaluation – nature finds ways that work given certain environments. That is an objective fact, the value is subjective.

The Golden Rule allows as many organisms as possible to survive. That is why it is of value to every organism who lives in a social context.

The objective biological fact is not the same thing as the subjective evaluation. The phrase ‘I feel disgusted by that action’ is not the same as ‘that action is evil.’

To feel disgusted by that action is to understand that that action goes against the objective morals developed by evolution for organisms living in a social context. To say that that action is evil is the same as to understand that that action goes against the objective morals developed by evolution for organisms living in a social context which makes it evil. What's the difference? The action is the same and you feel disgusted because it's evil. I see no need for any difference.

A person may be physically repelled by hunting animals and may then call such activities immoral and even evil. Is this then an objective moral value – absolutely not – even though it has an objective biological basis? Likewise the complete opposite can exist in another individual – are they both objective moral values? Where is the logic in this biological expression that gives rise to two opposite values regarding the same action?

We are animals. Some animals hunt other animals for food and therefore survive. There's nothing objectively wrong for some animals to hunt other animals for food. It's objectively neither immoral or evil. If a person calls such activity immoral or evil he is simply objectively wrong. Some animals eat only vegetation and survive perfectly well. If a person says that eating vegetables is immoral or evil and that you should only eat meat the person is objectively wrong. That is logical. People are illogical if they think that their personal values have anything to do with objective truth.

A subjective value maybe based upon an objective biological fact but that does not make the value itself objective.

True. You might subjectively assign value to something that has no objective value as such.

Since nature usually finds a medium optimization there are always going to be a majority of people who agree upon what to value in a similar manner and these values will correspond to what is the right actions for the best outcomes given certian circumstances. Other actions may work but not as well – but that is different than saying they are wrong or evil.

I don't see the difference. We say they are wrong or evil because they are not the objectively best actions given the circumstance. That's why we call them wrong or evil in the first place.

Anyway, hope this helps, I was primarily trying to see what evidence those people who believe that morality and moral values have their basis outside of the human organism - something that compels us to value things in a certain way. But instead we got off arguing about this minutia - maybe I am being to picky.

Nice post. I learned a lot and I don't see us as arguing. Just trying to explain each others point of view.