The Impossibility of Objective Morality

[hensatri]

Does anyone actually believe in Objective Morality? Aren’t the Religious just the Ultimate moral relativists?

Before going on the phrase "objective morality" must be addressed. What does it mean to be objective? If something is objective then it is a property of the object being studied. If something is subjective then it is derived from the mind of the subject observing the object.

I will use an example to illustrate the distinction. If I say that light being refracted through moisture in the air creates a spectrum of visible light that we call a rainbow, then I am making an objective observation of a property of the object being studied. If I say that rainbows are beautiful then I am making a subjective statement as the distinction "beautiful" is not a property manifest of the object, but rather a definition that emerges from the mind of the subject observing the rainbow. In other words, whether we existed or not a rainbow would still be refracted light caught in the atmosphere, but without a mind to observe it the rainbow could not possibly be "beautiful".

In this way there cannot be objective morality. "Right" and "Wrong" are not properties of objects or events; they are manifest only in minds capable of observing those objects or events, and therefore must be subjective.

Now what about the scope of Morality? When a Theist says Objective morality, they tend to mean that said morality is universal, that a given act is right or wrong here, in China, on the Moon, or on Orion’s belt. Locality is not particularly relevant. We use "Objective Morality" as a shorthand, but what most Theists really mean would be better represented by saying "Universal Objective Morality".

Even if I grant for a moment that there is a God, no Theist would ever dare suggest that there is truly universal objective morality in the Cosmos. Truly objective morality would be an in inherent property of the Universe. For it to be objective this morality must, by definition, be a property of the universe, not a judgment subject to a mind, even the ultimate mind, observing the system. The most ardent apologist must admit that the morality they believe in is still subject to at least God himself if nothing else. A Theist believes in subjective morality, simply disagreeing with the Atheist about whom that judgment should be subject too.

I can only assume that the use of "objective" to describe the morality of God started as a somewhat metaphorical or abstract theologians phrasing, which was adopted by the common public, who never stopped to consider what they actually mean by "objective" and just kept reciting the phrase as a mantra.

In any event, unless you are prepared to present God as an Object, Morality as a property that can exist independent of a mind to determine it, or offer a new definition of Objective, the idea that there is such a thing as objective morality, or that God is the source of it, is rendered as nonsense.

[Angry Citizen]

Does anyone actually believe in Objective Morality? Aren’t the Religious just the Ultimate moral relativists?

You don't have to be religious to believe in objective morality - case in point myself. With that in mind, would you be interested in retailoring your post so I can respond to your criticisms from a secular standpoint, or is your main counter to objective morality in the form of an attack on theism?

[Jack]

I think he counters both theistic and secular beliefs in objective morality when he says, "In this way there cannot be objective morality. "Right" and "Wrong" are not properties of objects or events; they are manifest only in minds capable of observing those objects or events, and therefore must be subjective."

[hensatri]

You don't have to be religious to believe in objective morality - case in point myself. With that in mind, would you be interested in retailoring your post so I can respond to your criticisms from a secular standpoint, or is your main counter to objective morality in the form of an attack on theism?

If you are referring to Sam Harris style objective morality, I agree that objective morality exists. But, as Sam Harris points out, that form of objective morality is only objective given that morality is the pursuit of a subjectively determined goal.

So if your goal is, as Harris contends, promoting human well being, and morality is the tool you use to do that/ label you use for that pursuit, then there are objectively right and wrong ways to go about it, but you have to have the subjective goal agreed upon first.

Similar to Chess: There are objectively right and wrong moves, but the game consists of completely subjective and relative goals the participants agree to pursue.

If that is not the kind of objective morality you espouse, then I think you might be coming dangerously close to making a religious, if not theistic, claim, but I would love to hear your case.

[Angry Citizen]

Put simply, if we restrict objectivism to all things non-subjective, and subsequently define subjective experience as anything that must be interpreted by the mind, then naturally all things are non-objective. But that's just defining away the problem.

Objective morality exists for the same reason that gravity or electromagnetism exist: we can sense it. The commonality of laws across culture betrays the fact that some portions of morality are decidedly objective. Some things are always wrong, and some things are always right. I don't think anyone here would claim that eating people alive is just as "valid" as not eating people alive, even if the culture that eats people alive has been doing it for thousands of years without complaint. We sense this through our intuition, which is as valid a sense as the one that determines gravity. It is just as objective and solidified as any other force, and I posit that it can be discovered just like the rest of reality. Of course, the science of objective morality is still in its infancy; therefore, we must realize that people are going to disagree as thoroughly as people did over the nature of the physical universe. Morality is a property of nature. Treat it as such.

[hensatri]

Put simply, if we restrict objectivism to all things non-subjective, and subsequently define subjective experience as anything that must be interpreted by the mind, then naturally all things are non-objective.

Incorrect. Objective statements are statements about a thing that would be true even in a universe absent minds. Now granted without minds the phrase “5 pounds” couldn’t exist, but if I say a stone weighs 5 pounds, the physical property being described by our language would still be a property of that stone whether we were there to label that property “5 pounds” or not. Meanwhile something like say…”beautiful” is to state a property of the rock that is utterly relative and subject to our perceptions. In a universe absent minds, that property would evaporate and be meaningless. I don’t understand why this clear distinction should give anyone any trouble.

Objective morality exists for the same reason that gravity or electromagnetism exist: we can sense it.

Gravity most certainly does not exist because we can sense it. Gravity existed long before we arose, and will continue to exist long after we die. Meanwhile before sentient life, morality did not exist, and when the last mind perishes, morality will be no more. Again, I don’t see why this distinction is unclear.

The commonality of laws across culture betrays the fact that some portions of morality are decidedly objective.

There is no commonality of laws across cultures. There are no acts that are universally taboo across all cultures and very few acts that are largely taboo across most cultures. Even a brief survey and history and anthropology shows this to be true. There are some loose patterns, but all that indicates is a tendency of human behavior and preference.

You can certainly say that there are certain traits that are objectively human. If you study us as objects we generally like and dislike certain things, but those human tendencies don’t map in any way to what we generally consider to be moral. We objectively tend to not like theft, being hurt, starving, or seeing children in pain. We also objectively tend to be obsessively tribal, rape-prone, and easily provoked into violent outbursts. The things are objectively true and somewhat universal about us, but map only to human behavior patterns, not to morality.

We sense this through our intuition, which is as valid a sense as the one that determines gravity. It is just as objective and solidified as any other force, and I posit that it can be discovered just like the rest of reality.

This is where I suspected you might make a claim that was border line religious if not theistic. This is close to a supernatural claim.

You seem to be saying that our personal tastes map in some mechanical way to objective features of our world? You couch this claim in vague language like “sense” and “intuition”. You are going to need to be much more specific. An example of a way in which “Pedophilia is wrong” maps to a feature of our world that would still be true even in a universe absent minds, would be most useful.

Also, be very cautious citing things like human sense and intuition. The abilities of ours are remarkably easy to fool, prone to arrive at conclusions that are practically useful but factually untrue, and notoriously bad at comprehending and interfacing with anything very small, very large, very fast, or very old. This is why we need mathematics to understand how things really work. The structure of the universe is not accessible to our intuition.

[Charlatan]

Does anyone actually believe in Objective Morality? Aren’t the Religious just the Ultimate moral relativists?

Before going on the phrase "objective morality" must be addressed. What does it mean to be objective? If something is objective then it is a property of the object being studied. If something is subjective then it is derived from the mind of the subject observing the object.

I will use an example to illustrate the distinction. If I say that light being refracted through moisture in the air creates a spectrum of visible light that we call a rainbow, then I am making an objective observation of a property of the object being studied. If I say that rainbows are beautiful then I am making a subjective statement as the distinction "beautiful" is not a property manifest of the object, but rather a definition that emerges from the mind of the subject observing the rainbow. In other words, whether we existed or not a rainbow would still be refracted light caught in the atmosphere, but without a mind to observe it the rainbow could not possibly be "beautiful".

In this way there cannot be objective morality. "Right" and "Wrong" are not properties of objects or events; they are manifest only in minds capable of observing those objects or events, and therefore must be subjective.

Now what about the scope of Morality? When a Theist says Objective morality, they tend to mean that said morality is universal, that a given act is right or wrong here, in China, on the Moon, or on Orion’s belt. Locality is not particularly relevant. We use "Objective Morality" as a shorthand, but what most Theists really mean would be better represented by saying "Universal Objective Morality".

Even if I grant for a moment that there is a God, no Theist would ever dare suggest that there is truly universal objective morality in the Cosmos. Truly objective morality would be an in inherent property of the Universe. For it to be objective this morality must, by definition, be a property of the universe, not a judgment subject to a mind, even the ultimate mind, observing the system. The most ardent apologist must admit that the morality they believe in is still subject to at least God himself if nothing else. A Theist believes in subjective morality, simply disagreeing with the Atheist about whom that judgment should be subject too.

I can only assume that the use of "objective" to describe the morality of God started as a somewhat metaphorical or abstract theologians phrasing, which was adopted by the common public, who never stopped to consider what they actually mean by "objective" and just kept reciting the phrase as a mantra.

In any event, unless you are prepared to present God as an Object, Morality as a property that can exist independent of a mind to determine it, or offer a new definition of Objective, the idea that there is such a thing as objective morality, or that God is the source of it, is rendered as nonsense.

The rainbow could be mathematically beautiful. I am not sure of the term for this.

right and wrong can be categorised based on society - what is good for society is good, and vice versa.

[Angry Citizen]

Incorrect. Objective statements are statements about a thing that would be true even in a universe absent minds. Now granted without minds the phrase “5 pounds” couldn’t exist, but if I say a stone weighs 5 pounds, the physical property being described by our language would still be a property of that stone whether we were there to label that property “5 pounds” or not.

What if there was no such thing as mass? Would it exist then? Would "gravity" - the force, mind you - be any different if nothing used it? Whatever law it is that makes gravity an attractive and cumulative force would still exist even in the absence of mass. So too with morality. Whatever law makes killing immoral would still exist in the absence of humanity.

There is no commonality of laws across cultures.

The golden rule is but one example. Just because a culture chooses to disregard it doesn't mean it isn't a law of morality.

This is where I suspected you might make a claim that was border line religious if not theistic. This is close to a supernatural claim.

And this is where I figured you would make a blanket dismissal of my claim in the hope of winning debate points. Not happening.

You seem to be saying that our personal tastes map in some mechanical way to objective features of our world?

This is what irks me about debate sites so often. The denizens feel the need to completely misrepresent an opponent's argument for no earthly purpose whatsoever. "Personal tastes" - heh.

An example of a way in which “Pedophilia is wrong” maps to a feature of our world that would still be true even in a universe absent minds, would be most useful.

In the universe governed by quantum mechanics, I find this particular argument one of the most laughable and truly inept I've ever seen. Just because a law is situated around life forms instead of natural phenomena does not mean it isn't a law. You have carefully defined your way into forcing a subjective interpretation of morality by identifying the objects on which the law is applied as the very things that must be optional! You might as well ask me to "map" out how the laws of chemistry and physics which create fire would exist.. in the absence of fire.

Also, be very cautious citing things like human sense and intuition. The abilities of ours are remarkably easy to fool, prone to arrive at conclusions that are practically useful but factually untrue, and notoriously bad at comprehending and interfacing with anything very small, very large, very fast, or very old.

Some one hundred years ago, we were still grappling with the question of the Great Aether. Science too can be fooled, but like intuition, it cannot be fooled for long. Note how far we have progressed:

-In science, we progressed from believing in the four elements, from believing in spirits and demons, from believing in flat earth and geocentrism, from believing in many things, to our modern interpretation of science.

-In morality, we progressed from stoning each other as witches, from mass rape, from slavery, from many things, to our modern civilized society that treats charity as an obligation to be done sans reward, among many other triumphs of human morality.

It is important to remember that we are indeed groping for objective morality with our blind sense of intuition. It is harder to discover what is objective morality and what is not. But to claim that our stumbles are indicative of the absence of an objective moral standard is to ignore the history of the advancement of human knowledge.

Again, I don’t see why this distinction is unclear.

Probably because I disagree with you.

[Jack]

Whatever law makes killing immoral would still exist in the absence of humanity.

In that scenario, to what would the law apply and who would apply it?

[Angry Citizen]

Did the laws that govern nature exist during and prior to the big bang?

Your anthropocentric argument about "who" would apply it is interesting, coming from an avowed atheist.

[Jack]

Your anthropocentric argument about "who" would apply it is interesting, coming from an avowed atheist.

It should be obvious that the entire debate over objective vs. subjective morality hinges on anthropomorphism. We're talking about human perceptions, not gods. Your comment is irrelevant.

[hensatri]

What if there was no such thing as mass? Would it exist then? Would "gravity" - the force, mind you - be any different if nothing used it? Whatever law it is that makes gravity an attractive and cumulative force would still exist even in the absence of mass.

If there were no mass, no objects to attract each other, there would be no gravity. If there were no objects then there would be no objective properties. Just as if there are no minds there are no subjective properties.

The golden rule is but one example. Just because a culture chooses to disregard it doesn't mean it isn't a law of morality.

You are the one who said that that commonality of laws across cultures is an indication of Objective Morality. When I point out that there is no commonality of laws you do not get to say, “Well those that don’t agree don’t count.” That called creaming the data. What are you proposing here? That there are cultural universals and the plethora of cultures that don’t follow those universals are just being deceptive, or don’t really mean it, or are hiding their true feelings? What are you trying to imply?

And again, I say that there are human near-universals that are both good and bad. Human cultural and behavioral universals map to human habits, not to morality. You seem to be saying that observably tendencies in human behavior are good goal posts for determining objective morality, but our tendencies also include war, rape, tribalism, and violence. How you determine which tendencies go in the good pile and while in the bad seems to be, dare I say, a fairly subjective process.

And this is where I figured you would make a blanket dismissal of my claim in the hope of winning debate points. Not happening.

It was hardly a blanket dismissal. I believe I asked several probing questions and left plenty of room for you to correct my misunderstandings.

“You seem to be saying” (open to your correction)

“You are going to need to be much more specific” (probing for more information)

“An example would be most useful” (asking for clarifying examples)

This is what irks me about debate sites so often. The denizens feel the need to completely misrepresent an opponent's argument for no earthly purpose whatsoever. "Personal tastes" - heh.

I am interfacing with your statements as best I can. You are the one who used vague language such as “intuition” and “sense”, appealed to the obviously vastly varying “universality” of human moral assumptions, proposed that the immorality of murder is in some way comparable to a physical law, and did all of this without giving a single example or mechanism by which this objectifying of morality would work. I am doing the best I can with what you’ve given me, but you are big on general premise and WAY short on details, so I am forced to fill in some gaps. If my perception doesn’t match the position you are trying to endorse, then any incorrect assumptions on my part of out of necessity to fill in the gaps, not deliberate misrepresentation.

In the universe governed by quantum mechanics, I find this particular argument one of the most laughable and truly inept I've ever seen.

I question your understanding of Quantum Physics. I’m not a physicist, but I suspect that I am just as well read on the subject as yourself, and I don’t get it at all. In fact nobody gets it. The leading researchers don’t get it. Laurence Kraus once said, “The person who tells you he understands Quantum Physics obviously doesn’t understand Quantum Physic”. I find injecting the Quantum into most arguments is just a red herring. In this case I am sure of it, because my request that you explain the mechanics of what makes Pedophillia objectively wrong is in no way shape or form able to be addressed by the quantum.

Oh, and I may not be the smartest guy on the planet, but I am relatively well read and am certain that my arguments here do not equal “One of the most Laughable and Truly inept [you’ve] ever seen.” C’mon, where does that get us?

You have carefully defined your way into forcing a subjective interpretation of morality by identifying the objects on which the law is applied as the very things that must be optional!

No No, I was very careful not to do this, because I foresaw this exact objection. Since humans are the only source of minds, it’s hard to generate a hypothetical in which we can divorce our subjective judgments from our objective existence, but I think I can make a try at it.

Let’s say that rape is one of the things that you would say is objectively wrong. Imagine a hypothetical human history which was largely identical to our own, except there were no mated couples, and it was generally accepted that procreation was preformed by assault and forcible copulation in an alley somewhere. It was a nasty miserable time, kinda like child birth itself, or like getting chicken pox, or passing a kidney stone, but something that everyone had to go through, just part of life. Nobody enjoys it, but certainly nobody considers it a moral transgression.

Would it still be objectively wrong? If you say yes, then you need to explain how and why.

How about this: Is forcible copulation against the will of the recipient objectively wrong amongst dogs? Do we even call it rape when a male dog mounts an unwilling bitch and does nature’s work? We might kick at the male, but more out of sympathy for the female’s discomfort, certainly not because we thing the male has committed a morally reprehensible act. There is nothing inherently wrong about a male animal forcing himself on a female regardless of her acceptance. Plenty of animal mating is done in this fashion. There is nothing objectively wrong about the physical act, all of the “wrongness” is derived from the mind observing the event. “I feel degraded and ashamed” is not an objective property of the act of forcible copulation.

I can explain how gravity works as an objective function of mass. Can you explain how wrong works as an objective function of rape? I dare say any appeal you make to demonstrate rape as wrong would be invalid if applied to a hypothetical rape-embracing culture. In fact the reasons you would give for the wrongness of rape wouldn’t even be particularly universal in our real and present world.

It is important to remember that we are indeed groping for objective morality with our blind sense of intuition.

Will you deny that intuition is a terrible tool for determining reality? Hasn’t the entire enterprise of science and mathematics been a giant climb higher and higher away from the limitation of our intuition and into realms only accessible if we set that intuition aside?

Intuition is great at what it evolved to do, get along in a tribe and recognize useful patterns for survival on a Pleistocene savanna. Intuition rebels against objective truth. Intuition doesn’t care is the shadow by the watering hole is really a lion or just a shadow. Intuition doesn’t care if the other male is actually a threat to your family. Intuition finds patterns and makes a (hopefully) useful assumption. That is a terrible route to objective anything.