On Objectivity

[R.F.]

It is simple. What I think is appropriate is not the same as you. What Western society thinks in appropriate is not the same as Eastern society. Therefor morality is not universal. It is subjective.

Something being uniform or universal doesn't mean it's objective. There is no universal length of a big toe, but a big toe exists objectively- regardless of it being dependent on genetic coding.

By value system do you mean a rational framework to chose what is appropriate ad what is not? I agree that there is not always a rational framework. We can see this when asked why X is wrong and people say "It just is" or "If you don't see this is wrong there is something wrong with you" or "If you don't understand then I am sure I can't explain it to you."

By value system I mean: postive and negative positions on a spectrum of things that have constant values. The imapct of a behavior can be said to have a negative value, when the one acting on the behavior thinks it is a postive one. An example would be genocide. I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing a great service to humanity, but it doesn't change the fact that his behavior created an immediate and gratuitous suffering among other humans. No one can say with intellectual integrity that his actions were good, or even neutral for that matter. If you do, then your condition is just as real and broken as his.

Inconsistencies in behavior do not make morality subjective, no more than inconsistencies in what makes a person happy determines its subjectivity.

[BlackSheep]

But even if it existed in various degrees from person to person, it does not mean that morality is subjective. Emotion varies from person to person, but I don't think anyone doubts it's existence as an objective phenomena. If genetic variance determined a things objectivity, then we could just as easily conclude any species can only exist subjectively- because genetic coding determines the nature of our existence. In the same way arms, legs, tears and smiles exist, morality exists; existing in various degrees from animal to animal, but nonetheless existing free from individual opinion. This is what it means to be objective.

I was describing to you what I think he meant.
Emotions do exist, but they operate subjectively. Again he is not denying morals exist, just that how they operate is subjective.

[BlackSheep]

Something being uniform or universal doesn't mean it's objective. There is no universal length of a big toe, but a big toe exists objectively- regardless of it being dependent on genetic coding.

You said "I've heard alot of people assert moral behavior is subjective."

sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.
1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
subjective - definition of subjective by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Definition one matches moral behavior to me. It is based on what is in mind ad s particular to an individual.

By value system I mean: postive and negative positions on a spectrum of things that have constant values. The imapct of a behavior can be said to have a negative value, when the one acting on the behavior thinks it is a postive one. An example would be genocide. I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing a great service to humanity, but it doesn't change the fact that his behavior created an immediate and gratuitous suffering among other humans. No one can say with intellectual integrity that his actions were good, or even neutral for that matter. If you do, then your condition is just as real and broken as his.

I don't think I am aware of anything that applies constant values to things that way. It also suggests you think that this value system is absolute? Using Hitler as an example is not very illuminating as pretty much everyone agrees his actions were bad.

Inconsistencies in behavior do not make morality subjective, no more than inconsistencies in what makes a person happy determines its subjectivity.

What makes us happy is subjective. What makes us happy depends on what is inside us not the action. I like rock music, but it may irritate you. THat is subjective.

[R.F.]

That argument is medieval. It presuppposes biological processes happening in the mind are not objective. By your definition reason itself is subjective. I provided a link to a defintion of objectivity. It most certainly addresses the issue less ambiguously.

"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers "

Joy is a subjective experience whos foundation is vested in objectivity. It varies from person to person and exists exclusively in the mind. However, it exists with or without your opinion though. This is what it means to be objective.

People used to think mental conditions were merely demons possesing the body. The issue was not their stupidity, but rather their certainty.

I'm not claiming morality must be objective, I'm just saying its biological process is happening free from our choosing; this is the epitome of objectivity. If it were true, I would expect to see various degrees of moral behavior. If it weren't.... one could just as easily assert that bad behavior is the result of demons possesing your mind. Which sounds more likely to you?

[BlackSheep]

That argument is medieval. It presuppposes biological processes happening in the mind are not objective. By your definition reason itself is subjective.

First it is not my definition. Second logic or reason while applied to feelings etc that are within us the logic itself is not.

I provided a link to a defintion of objectivity. It most certainly addresses the issue less ambiguously.

"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers "

And what part of morality is independent of individual thought ad perceptible to all? The actions people undertake fit this definition, but those are not morality, simply actions guided by them.

Joy is a subjective experience whos foundation is vested in objectivity. It varies from person to person and exists exclusively in the mind. However, it exists with or without your opinion though. This is what it means to be objective.

People used to think mental conditions were merely demons possesing the body. The issue was not their stupidity, but rather their certainty.

I'm not claiming morality must be objective, I'm just saying its biological process is happening free from our choosing; this is the epitome of objectivity. If it were true, I would expect to see various degrees of moral behavior. If it weren't.... one could just as easily assert that bad behavior is the result of demons possesing your mind. Which sounds more likely to you?

And I am suggesting that is not what he was saying. They are not arguing whether morality's existence is objective or subjective. They are arguing whether or not the actual morals are objective or subjective. For example say the idea that the homosexual act is bad or not is subjective or objective. Christians ofte argue that Yahweh is the basis of morality ad his morals are the objective morals. If you disagree with his morals then you are wrong.

[R.F.]

I think this is a way of not addressing the issue. If the question is are morals objective if they are genetically inherited behaviors, then the answer is simply yes. Homosexuality isn't a moral delima. The behaviors I'm talking about are ones that we have evolved to have to help the survival of species. If there wasn't naturally inappropriate behavior I doubt life would have come this far. Why would any animal be compelled to care for their young if it wasn't an objectively appropriate behavior.

These kinds of actions serve as a foundation for what we think is good or bad. There are behaviors that are left open to interpretation because they are new to our species, but I'm concerned with the origin of morality, and what it consists of.

[BlackSheep]

I think this is a way of not addressing the issue. If the question is are morals objective if they are genetically inherited behaviors, then the answer is simply yes. Homosexuality isn't a moral delima. The behaviors I'm talking about are ones that we have evolved to have to help the survival of species. If there wasn't naturally inappropriate behavior I doubt life would have come this far. Why would any animal be compelled to care for their young if it wasn't an objectively appropriate behavior.

If they were directly genetically based we would have an objective cause, but the actual morals themselves would vary per species if not individual. That would make them subjective.

I don't think most if any morals are genetically based though. I think we have inclinations towards morality and some very basic drives / emotions that incline us that way. Sort of like language.

These kinds of actions serve as a foundation for what we think is good or bad. There are behaviors that are left open to interpretation because they are new to our species, but I'm concerned with the origin of morality, and what it consists of.

Let me give you a example of how these things work in my point of view. We have a genetic fondness for cute things. Cute in this case corresponds to babies and to a lessor degree children. It also teds to apply to babies of numerous other species. We find kittens adorable often. This fondness of cuteness is what drives us to care for our infants along with love. Are these motivators morals? I don't think they are.

[R.F.]

If they were directly genetically based we would have an objective cause, but the actual morals themselves would vary per species if not individual. That would make them subjective.

I don't think most if any morals are genetically based though. I think we have inclinations towards morality and some very basic drives / emotions that incline us that way. Sort of like language.



Let me give you a example of how these things work in my point of view. We have a genetic fondness for cute things. Cute in this case corresponds to babies and to a lessor degree children. It also teds to apply to babies of numerous other species. We find kittens adorable often. This fondness of cuteness is what drives us to care for our infants along with love. Are these motivators morals? I don't think they are.

That intrinsic fondness or liking of infants is a behavior. It is an appropriate behavior because if we let our offspring die, our species would die. This is a useful tool for species for the use of perpetuation. Morals as we understand them in linguistic thought are right and wrong behaviors. To other animals it would be known as innate or instinctual behaviors. We confuse the philosophical dilemma [of not being able to distinguish right and wrong objectively] with the actual way morality exists... as behaviors.

I’m not arguing our every behavior is genetically determined. But the foundation of our behaviors is intrinsic- just the way emotion is. Whether or not we can know the rightness or wrongness with abortion, statutory rape, or other trivial ethical dilemmas I can’t know. But I don’t think it can be said we have no objective foundation of morality without Yahweh.

[BlackSheep]

That intrinsic fondness or liking of infants is a behavior. It is an appropriate behavior because if we let our offspring die, our species would die. This is a useful tool for species for the use of perpetuation. Morals as we understand them in linguistic thought are right and wrong behaviors. To other animals it would be known as innate or instinctual behaviors. We confuse the philosophical dilemma [of not being able to distinguish right and wrong objectively] with the actual way morality exists... as behaviors.

I think most morals are not genetic and even the genetic ones are specific at best to our species still making them subjective in that sense.

I’m not arguing our every behavior is genetically determined. But the foundation of our behaviors is intrinsic- just the way emotion is. Whether or not we can know the rightness or wrongness with abortion, statutory rape, or other trivial ethical dilemmas I can’t know. But I don’t think it can be said we have no objective foundation of morality without Yahweh.

I think you still miss his point. He is saying Yahweh states what is moral. That morality is absolute. If all of humanity were to wiped from the face of the earth Yahweh's morality would still exist. I agree with you there is a basic framework for some of our morality at least in our genes, but it is relative to our species. It is not subjective how he means it, as universal.

[R.F.]

I think most morals are not genetic and even the genetic ones are specific at best to our species still making them subjective in that sense.



I think you still miss his point. He is saying Yahweh states what is moral. That morality is absolute. If all of humanity were to wiped from the face of the earth Yahweh's morality would still exist. I agree with you there is a basic framework for some of our morality at least in our genes, but it is relative to our species. It is not subjective how he means it, as universal.

I understand what he means by it, but that doesn't alter the definition of objectivity. He asked what the objective basis, or foundation, of morality is without God. Objectivity has nothing to do with being universal and definitely nothing to do with being constant.

[BlackSheep]

I understand what he means by it, but that doesn't alter the definition of objectivity. He asked what the objective basis, or foundation, of morality is without God. Objectivity has nothing to do with being universal and definitely nothing to do with being constant.

Of course it does. Blue is a certain wavelength of light. It will always be that wavelength of light even if humans are not around to claim it or define it. It has nothing to do with being human. That is objective. How we feel about blue, how we perceive blue etc is subjective.

He is talking about morality this way. He is talking about it having a objectivity that is not limited to being human. Morality is not the genetic basis, but even if we go with that is it limited to humans (assuming it is consistent across all humans) is is subjective to our species. Morality is filtered through cultural , environmental and personalities and is even more variable than that.

[R.F.]

Your argument requires we remove a natural condition of reality to reach a conclusion. The entire claim teeters on a premise that declares: "If humans didn't exist than human morality would not exist". This is clearly not the way we reach truths about our circumstances. If we use your color blue objectivity example and said: “if that wavelength didn't exist than blue wouldn't exist...” than what intellectually honest conclusion could be made about that statement? Humans do exist, as a natural condition of the universe; we shouldn't be concerned with what the universe would be like if it were different.

Once again objectivity does not require universal constants. Is every planet or star the same shape or size? Things exist in various degrees. It is true the nature of morality would be relative to the species in question, but its natural appearance as a phenomena exist free if we think it does or not. This is why it is objective.