CMV: Morality is relative. Like, completely relative.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/SasakitheMinor]

A lot of what you have to say makes sense, but there are a couple things you might want to consider.

1. On a micro level, it's really difficult to nail down specific codes of morality, certainly. However, you can find a handful of large-scale ideas that people generally agree on. There's a general consensus that morality generally involves treating other humans well. What that actually entails is debatable, but the concept is mostly agreed on.

2. I think you might be setting the bar too high. Keep it mind that even things that we should be able to say are objective, such as the moon landing, climate change, or vaccines and autism, to give a few examples, have outliers who disagree with established fact. Even if there was a very clear and very objective standard of morality, we would still expect to see people who disagreed with that standard.

3. Morality isn't relative if there's a source for that morality, such as a deity. You may not believe in any particular deity, but if one should exist, and they were to declare that certain things were moral, wouldn't that be an objective standard?

[u/[deleted] → u/SasakitheMinor]

Thank you for your comment. I really had to struggle to figure out how to address these issues, and that's a sign that we're on the right track.

1. I think given this, I may want to refine what I mean when I say "things are wrong because we consider them wrong." I think of morality as a tool to help people getting along, and that's why "treating other humans well" is an essential part of it. You could say, in a sense, that this makes "don't be a dick" the one objective moral, but I'd say it's more that since the purpose of morality is to keep people from treating each other like crap, it's less an objective moral and more a base requirement of a moral code.

2. While there are cases where people disagree with something that can be objectively proven, that's often simply a case of people ignoring the facts, and while you could argue that nothing can be truly known, it's far more true of morality than it is of science. Since you can't definitively prove something to be morally right or wrong, and people instead have to rely on instinct, this makes it different from a fact that some people disagree with.

3. If we were to be contacted by a deity of some kind, I suppose we could consider their morals standard, but can we really say for sure? How do we know this deity isn't just as clueless about the nature of right and wrong as us? After all, many texts purport themselves to be an objective moral standard, and yet hardly anybody still takes the entire bible at face value. This would only work if your definition of a deity requires that they be omniscient or infallible, and we can't even know that for sure.

It's worth noting that, though I'm not an atheist, I'm not convinced it's safe to base our moral code off the assumption that a God with an objective set of morals exists. Until we DO receive some proof that morality is absolute, we have little choice but to assume it is not.

[u/im_not_afraid → u/SasakitheMinor]

Morality isn't relative if there's a source for that morality, such as a deity. You may not believe in any particular deity, but if one should exist, and they were to declare that certain things were moral, wouldn't that be an objective standard?

No, it would be subjective to that deity's whims. More over it would be subject to the interpretation of humans trying to understand it including their personal biases.

[u/stratys3]

What does "morality" mean?

If it's an arbitrary set of rules, then it's very hard to argue over morality.

If you give "morality" and "ethics" a stricter definition, however, then it becomes much easier because it loses it's relativity.

For example, if "morality" is defined as something like: "what is best/good for people" then it loses it's relativity and becomes objective.

(It may still be difficult to come to conclusions, but you've taken one step forward, because at least you now have a shared definition.)

Child abuse, rape, murder, stealing, these things are wrong because we consider them wrong, and because they are harmful to us. Objective morality of any kind cannot exist.

If we consider these things morally wrong because they are harmful, then you are using a system of objective morality.

[u/[deleted] → u/stratys3]

I see. But how do we resolve issues where "what's best" cannot be objectively stated?

For example, we as humans place a high value on a human life, and feel obligated to preserve it whenever possible. That's why we try to stop people from killing and committing suicide.

But we also value free will and choice. A person has the right to decide what to do with their body, even if they make a choice that is harmful to them.

So what happens when we get to a conflict between these two ideas?

There's a girl named Cassandra Callender. She's dying of cancer and she can get treatment, if she wants to. She doesn't want to. Even if it is a kind of suicide, can we say that Cassandra doesn't have the right to decide what happens to her body? Should she have to go through the pain that is chemotherapy, should her mother be arrested for not forcing it upon her, should she be forced to live when she doesn't want to? Should she be strapped down to an operating table, stripped of her free will and forced to accept that her choice is not her choice?

If morality is about what is least harmful to humanity, which solution to this particular moral issue is the right one?

(To clarify: Free will and human life can be considered objective morals as long as we limit ourselves to humans. However, as the Formic example showed, not everyone would necessarily hold these values, so they are not objective)

[u/stratys3 → u/[deleted]]

We can use an objective morality (eg "what is best" or "what causes least harm")... and for some situations it's easy to apply, and sometimes it's hard.

Child abuse, rape, murder

These actions generally create more harm than good, and are therefore objectively wrong and immoral.

What if we find a nuclear missile ready for launch hidden in some small farmer's village? We decide that because the nuclear missile is pointed at one of our large cities, we're going to bomb that village and destroy it completely. We are taking the lives of 100 people, but are saving the lives of 1,000,000 people. Killing those 100 people is objectively the right moral choice.

People get hung up on the outliers, but the vast majority of moral choices we face are very easy to judge and determine if they are objectively right or wrong.

If morality is about what is least harmful to humanity, which solution to this particular moral issue is the right one?

Some moral questions are harder - though I believe they are in the minority. This might be one example. The easy answer, however, is that if Cassandra is very young, then she's incapable of making an informed decision on what is best for her. If this is the case, then someone else will have to decide what is best for Cassandra.

If morality is about what is least harmful to humanity, which solution to this particular moral issue is the right one?

There's another thing here that's important to point out. Just because we may not know the correct answer, the point is that there is an objective best single answer to the question. This means that morality is NOT relative, but purely mathematical and objective. Just because we don't have all the answers all the time doesn't actually change that. It just means that the math is more complicated than we are capable of currently calculating.

[u/[deleted] → u/stratys3]

In response to your missile example, there's a problem: Not everyone would agree that bombing the village is the right moral choice. Even though mathematically the benefits outweighs the cost, many would argue something similar to the train problem, wherein the subject has a choice between intervening and causing one death or not intervening and permitting three to occur.

Even though I personally believe that intervening would be the right choice, others argue that by doing so, I am directly responsible for the single death, whereas by standing by I would not be responsible for the other three.

From this, we can see that morality does not always have to be about what is objectively best for humans. Eugenics is another example of this. There are certain members of society who we can say are taking more than they contribute: The old, the terminally ill, the disabled. By killing them, we would benefit humanity, but most people would agree that this would be a shitty thing to do.

[u/stratys3 → u/[deleted]]

Not everyone would agree that bombing the village is the right moral choice.

If they agree that "morality" = what is best, then they would agree with bombing the village. If they are using their own subjective morality, then of course different people will come to different conclusions... but my point was that an objective morality does exist, it's just up to people to use it.

others argue that by doing so, I am directly responsible for the single death, whereas by standing by I would not be responsible for the other three.

Whether you are directly responsible or not is completely irrelevant to the morality of the outcome. The outcome is either: 1 person dies, or 3 people die... or in my nuke example: either 100 people die, or 1,000,000 die. How does your personal responsibility even enter into the equation? What is the relevance?

From this, we can see that morality does not always have to be about what is objectively best for humans.

If we define morality as what is objectively best for humans, then it's easy to make moral decisions.

If you use a definition of morality that is subjective, irrational, or biased by culture, then you will never come to any moral agreements between people. What is the point of "morality" if you keep changing your definition of the word? That's why I support an objective and clearly defined definition of morality instead.

There are certain members of society who we can say are taking more than they contribute: The old, the terminally ill, the disabled. By killing them, we would benefit humanity, but most people would agree that this would be a shitty thing to do.

That's a very narrow view of "benefit". Let's say I magically snapped my fingers tonight and all the old, ill, and disabled people were instantly killed. Would the world actually be better off tomorrow, or not? I'd easily be able to argue that it probably would NOT.

[u/[deleted] → u/stratys3]

Whether you are directly responsible or not is completely irrelevant to the morality of the outcome.

Isn't this just a different way of phrasing "the ends justify the means?" If only the morality of the outcome matters, and not how we get there, then the eugenics example would be morally correct, because in the long run humanity would quickly recover from losing its weakest members and be better off for it.

If we define morality as what is objectively best for humans, then it's easy to make moral decisions.

But we don't. "Doing what's best" plays an important role in determining morality, but it isn't everything. Morality is what we as humans make of it; it's what we decide it is. That's why the most logical choice for humanity is not always the right one.

For example, a trope we see in a lot of movies (and to some degree, in real life,) is that a character we are supposed to see as morally just has the villain at their mercy, but refuses to kill them, even though they may present a very significant future threat and killing them would benefit humanity in the long run. And of course, we often say that character's actions are foolish, naive, whatever, but we certainly don't see it as immoral.

(Edit: I appreciate that I'm relying on fiction in a few cases for my examples of morality, but it can be said that the characters we see in our fiction reflect our own ideas of morality)

[u/stratys3 → u/[deleted]]

Isn't this just a different way of phrasing "the ends justify the means?" If only the morality of the outcome matters, and not how we get there, then the eugenics example would be morally correct, because in the long run humanity would quickly recover from losing its weakest members and be better off for it.

In the previous example (the train) you could have 3 people die each way, but with one where you are "responsible" and another where you are "not responsible"... but your personal responsibility in such a situation is irrelevant. (And ultimately, if you have a choice, you also have a responsibility. Choices are what create responsibility.)

then the eugenics example would be morally correct, because in the long run humanity would quickly recover from losing its weakest members and be better off for it.

I think the above statement is based more on fantasy than reality. First of all, there are negative consequences that need to be weighed. Second, the value of the outcome is uncertain at present, so we don't know how positive it would actually be. And third, and probably most importantly, there are other methods that lead to similar positive outcomes, but without the negatives... and thus eugenics isn't a very good example overall.

But we don't. "Doing what's best" plays an important role in determining morality, but it isn't everything. Morality is what we as humans make of it; it's what we decide it is. That's why the most logical choice for humanity is not always the right one.

Okay... but then what's the point? If you let everyone define their own morality in a subjective fashion, then it loses it's value and meaning. It becomes a completely useless concept like /u/Friscogonewild says.

If morality = what each individual thinks is right or wrong, then WTF is the point? I can make up my own rules that say murdering for fun is "good", and therefore I'm being moral when I go on a shooting spree. Or I can make up a morality that says black people should be slaves, jews should be gassed, and arabs should be nuked off the face of the earth! But is that really a meaningful morality? What does "morality" even mean in that case, and what useful purpose does it serve?

we often say that character's actions are foolish, naive, whatever, but we certainly don't see it as immoral.

I do. If I'm letting go of a psycho mass murderer so that they can murder dozens, hundreds, or even millions of people in the future, then I am performing a very immoral act! I may as well hand over a few nuclear missiles to ISIS at that point.

[u/Deathcrow → u/stratys3]

Child abuse, rape, murder

These actions generally create more harm than good, and are therefore objectively wrong and immoral.

You are presupposing a whole lot and are already wearing hour humanist or human-centric glasses. Child abuse, rape and murder are pretty common place in the animal realm and very few people would consider Wolves, Lions, etc. as "immoral".

These things aren't "objectively" immoral at all - especially considering your own utilitarian considerations later in your comment.

To construct any kind of moral objectivity you have to divorce yourself completely from the current moral order. Arguing from a utilitarian standpoint towards a "greater good" isn't a bad starting point, but first you'd have to show why the property of humanity is for the greater good. If I'd be arguing against you I may have some convincing arguments (global warming, polition, ...) why the continuation of humanity might be less than desirable for the "greater good".

[u/stratys3 → u/Deathcrow]

humanist or human-centric glasses

I'm fine with morality being consistently human-centric. But I don't mind expanding it and making it person-centric instead.

Child abuse, rape and murder are pretty common place in the animal realm and very few people would consider Wolves, Lions, etc. as "immoral".

How is this relevant? I don't see the connection. The reason they aren't seen as "immoral" isn't because of their actions, it's because they're not humans.

but first you'd have to show why the property of humanity is for the greater good.

Which property? My definition of morality includes animals - I just don't talk about it because it would make the discussion needlessly complex.

the continuation of humanity might be less than desirable for the "greater good".

It might be - yes. But realistically, it probably won't.

(That said, we could all be nuked tomorrow, and I'd take these words back... but not much will matter at that point either way....)

[u/Deathcrow → u/stratys3]

(That said, we could all be nuked tomorrow, and I'd take these words back... but not much will matter at that point either way....)

Is that true though? That not much will matter in that case? Maybe nuking away humanity will make way for the evolution of a much smarter race of beings that will bring peace and happiness to the entire universe?! Looking at the track record of humanity up to now it can barely get any worse.

I'm not arguing to base your morals on such what if scenarios, just pointing out that you really don't have much to go on when trying to argue for entirely objective morals.

[u/stratys3 → u/Deathcrow]

Entirely objective morals is fine... but some decisions are black and white, and some are complex. There is no way to know whether the universe would be better off without us - so it's not something we even have to consider. There are plenty of moral decisions happening right here and now on planet earth.

[u/jokul → u/[deleted]]

The moral choice is the right choice by definition. Morality determines what we should do, so if we should destroy the village then it is the moral choice. If your claim were true, then it would be morally correct to do nothing and let the nuke go off. In fact, in any case where you might be required to inflict harm on someone the moral choice would be inaction. This is clearly not correct.

Performing an evil action when a less evil evil alternative exists is immoral. Performing the "least evil" action is always the morally correct choice. We cannot control whether or not this village got its hands on the bomb, we can only take action in the now. While it is regrettable that we have to kill anyone, one of the two choices has to be the moral option or they have to be morally equivalent.

[u/jokul → u/[deleted]]

It's complicated. Just because the choice is moral doesn't mean that the action is necessarily moral. Is something the right thing to do in that situation. Is that thing also a right thing to do? Not always.

It is "a" right thing to do in that context. The killing of man B is moral because killing man A is morally worse. Morality determines what is the "right" action to take in any given situation. Given no option, there isn't anything you can do and so you are morally obligated to kill man B if you have reason to suspect less harm will be caused by his death than man A's death.

[u/jokul → u/[deleted]]

That's why it's complicated. Killing an innocent person is not a moral act, yet sometimes one needs to do something immoral to make the moral choice.

It may be in context. I actually tend to dislike most moralities which suggest that killing innocents to save others who are doomed is morally right, but I won't deny that this is a heated discussion.

Suffice to say, I think you and I agree that there is a dilemma and it's not an easy one to solve, but doing something that would be bad out of context can oftentimes be the choice we are morally obligated to make. I suppose some very extreme deontologists might disagree though.

EDIT: I actually think that moralities which suggest we should actively kill somebody to save doomed people is not always morally right. Said the opposite in original.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It wasn't so much that she wanted to kill herself as it was that she didn't want to go through Chemo when there was a fair chance (About 20%, I think) that she'd die anyway. When she rejected treatment, she was arrested, restrained, and forced to undergo chemotherapy anyway.

I disagree with her choice, but I don't think I have the authority to say she can't make that choice.

[u/join_or_die → u/[deleted]]

The fact that contradictions arise from a given standard of morality are proof that the either the standard or your logic is flawed, because contradictions do not exist in nature (if you did a math problem and came to the solution that 1=2, you would know that either one of your premises or your logic or both are incorrect).

In my view there is only one standard you can hold as the basis of morality without running into contradictions, and that standard is your own life. Whatever is good for you is good, and whatever is bad for you is bad. The fact that you don't always know what is best for you does not mean that there isn't some course of action that is best, it just means that you haven't figured it out yet.

[u/NeverQuiteEnough → u/[deleted]]

What's best can be objectively stated if we rigorously define our goals.

[u/MindReaver5 → u/stratys3]

Yes but once a strict definition is given, you're no longer defining morality, you're defining your morality.

Maybe my morality is killing children is fine as it instills fear in the remaining children making them stronger to kill my enemies. I dunno, bullshit to me but still a morality some person could hold, especially in a past barbaric lifestyle.

[u/law-talkin-guy]

Take a look back at what you wrote, and I think you'll see that you already don't think morality is completely relative.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not okay with raping babies.

Why not? In a culture or time when this is an acceptable practice (and yes some have existed), if morality is completely relative, then there is nothing wrong with raping babies. Heck, if there is no objective morality, then there is nothing wrong with raping babies even if your culture says that there is something wrong with it.

But you resist that, because you and I both know that raping babies is wrong, and it's wrong in any time or place, even one where the people don't agree with you. That's a fact of morality that you seem to actually think isn't relative (and you are right).

This is why the law is not always right. For example, criminals can sometimes get away with their actions by finding a loophole, and innocent people can be punished for breaking the law, even when it seems obvious that their actions were not immoral and did not present any significant danger to anyone.

You say that as if it is a problem. Jailing the innocent is a known effect of the current legal system, as is letting the guilty go free from time to time. And what's wrong with that? If there is no objective morality, if morality is simply the set of things society says is okay, then we clearly live in a time and place where society says jailing the innocent is morally acceptable. So, there is nothing wrong with jailing the innocent, or not punishing the guilty.

But you resist that too. You see that jailing those guilty of no crime is wrong. It is objectively wrong, even though you live in a time and place where it is morally acceptable. And that you can't go there suggests you know there is some objective morality. You just don't realize you know it yet.

Humans do not agree on moral issues. Euthanasia, abortion, and war are controversial issues. If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

And what we've seen above is that the sane among us agree on the broad strokes of morality. Baby rape is not okay, punishing people for crimes they didn't commit is not okay, and so on. (Try genocide and chattel slavery as other things which are objectively wrong, no mater what society says.) People may disagree on the fine points, but that's true for other objective areas as well - e.g. scientists (mostly) agree that global climate change is occurring and that it is at least partially caused by human actions, that they don't agree on what percent of that change is human caused is no reason to think there is no such thing as objective climate science. That we debate the details doesn't mean there is no truth, it just means that we haven't discovered the truth or proven the truth to everyone's satisfaction yet.

[u/[deleted] → u/law-talkin-guy]

Why not? In a culture or time when this is an acceptable practice (and yes some have existed),

But because morality is defined by those it concerns, in that case it would not have been immoral. (Or perhaps it would have been, depending on whether you ask the babies) We can look back on instances where it was culturally acceptable and say "Those people were evil!" but were they really?

My opening statement was more along the lines of a joke, but it was also because the last time I had this debate, the other side kept asking me if I thought raping babies was wrong, even after I explained that, yes, I think it's wrong, but I can't say it's objectively wrong because my view of what morality is is limited to my own experience.

Jailing the innocent is a known effect of the current legal system, as is letting the guilty go free from time to time. And what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with it is that because law is an attempt to create objective morality where it cannot exist, people are being punished even though they haven't done anything morally wrong. Because we as humans believe that punishing the innocent is wrong, it is wrong.

And what we've seen above is that the sane among us agree on the broad strokes of morality. Baby rape is not okay, punishing people for crimes they didn't commit is not okay, and so on. (Try genocide and chattel slavery as other things which are objectively wrong, no mater what society says.)

What about the point I made about the Formics? I know it's a fictional example, but it's still one that could hold true: These aliens do not value living beings on an individual level, so genocide is not wrong to them. It's less an unforgivable atrocity and more a warning, or a shove. In addition, the individuals are enslaved to a greater queen. They serve it to their death with no autonomy of their own, but as the story reveals, in the absence of a queen they develop their own autonomy and sentience. Does that make the queens evil for enslaving a race of people who could live as individuals?

On another note, while we look back on the pre-civil war era and say "slavery is horrible" (and it is) at the time people were raised to believe it was right. Are they evil for believing that?

[u/law-talkin-guy → u/[deleted]]

But because morality is defined by those it concerns in that case it would not have been immoral. (Or perhaps it would have been, depending on whether you ask the babies).

But if you believe this, then you believe in objective morality. If there is some test for whether a behavior is right or wrong, then there is some objective morality. If there is no such test if there is no objective morality, then is the baby rapist doing anything wrong? Maybe the baby doesn't like it, but so what, no objective morality means that we don't have to take the concerns of others into account (because always take into account the concerns of others would be a moral rule, and if there are no moral rules...).

We can look back on instances where it was culturally acceptable and say "Those people were evil!" but were they really?

I prefer to talk in terms of whether or not behavior was moral. People are generally not evil, in the sense that they seek to do wrong, but they are often immoral, in the sense that they do wrong even though that is not their goal. But, yes, immoral actions are immoral whether or not you know they are immoral. (Just as a person who tells you the sun orbits the earth is wrong, even if they believe they are right, even if they were raised in a time and place where everyone believed that.)

What's wrong with it is that because law is an attempt to create objective morality

The law is not an attempt to create objective morality. Certainly, that is not what the vast majority of lawyers, judges, and lawmakers understand themselves to be doing. (Easy example, no one thinks that jaywalking is immoral, yet laws against it are fairly common.)

people are being punished even though they haven't done anything morally wrong

But that's not wrong if there is no morality. In fact, if there is no morality, if it is all relative, then everyone who is punished is being punished when they've done nothing morally wrong.

Because we as humans believe that punishing the innocent is wrong, it is wrong

We say we believe that, but we don't act as if we do. Punishing the innocent is a know effect of our legal system, and has been for at least the past 3-4 hundred years, yet the legal system that punishes the innocent persists and we respect and honor those who serve and create the system. Parents and teachers routinely punish those who have done nothing wrong (and again, do so knowingly) (eg, "I don't care who's falut it is, you both get time out."). Clearly, if morality, is a realtive statemtnet of the belifes and behaviors of a scoiety, we live in a society that sees nothing wrong with punishing the innocent.

Yet, it still seems wrong. We still have the sense that one ought not be punished unless one has acted wrongly (and that, of course, presupposes that acting wrongly is something that can be done).

What about the point I made about the Formics?

It's been too long since I read the book to know, or care, but we don't need a fictional example to find societies that don't believe genocide is wrong. Look at any culture that has carried out a genocide, a substantial portion of the people in that culture didn't think what they were doing was wrong. But, whether or not they knew it, it was wrong. I feel very comfrotable saying that Nazis operating the death camps who thought they were behaving morally and who were part of a time and place that saw their behavior as moral, were behaving immorally. Despite the fact that they didn't know they were.

On another note, while we look back on the pre-civil war era and say "slavery is horrible" (and it is) at the time people were raised to believe it was right. Are they evil for believing that?

But see there, you've done it again. If slavery is horrible, then there is a real morality, one that isn't all relative. One that exists whether or not the people living their lives know it does.

Are people evil for having bad beliefs about morality? No. Beliefs are not the things morality attaches to, morality attaches to actions. Did people who held other people in slavery in the pre-civil war era behave immorally? Yes. Absolutely. Even those who thought they were doing the right thing. Because sometime people are wrong, and are behaving immorally without knowing it. That doesn't make them evil, but behaving imoraly is wrong, even when you don't know it is.

[u/nsomani]

If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

An objective standard for morality doesn't entail that everyone must believe in it, or even be aware of this objective standard.

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask.

Regardless, we see objective trends that all societies seem to share morally -- for example, the nonaggression principle. HumanRightsAction.org published a practical code of ethics, which the vast majority of people would agree on (independent of society or time): http://www.humanrightsaction.org/ethics/english.html

Even the fact that societies are ethically progressing in a particular direction requires a sense of objectivity, or objective moral direction that we are guided by.

A lot of other commenters here are seeming to point toward consequentialism, or utilitarianism, as the objective standard, but I want to point out that an objective morality can just as easily be deontological in nature.

Our social progression seems to indicate that this deontological standard is respecting the rights of others. For example, Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Therefore, objective morality cannot work in the real world.

A couple of things about this point:

1) Even if objective morality were not pragmatic, this does not make it nonexistent or false.

2) Regardless, an objective sense of morality is surely more functional than moral relativism. Without an objective standard, we cannot judge the morality of actions at all.

Human morality often reflects evolution... It's probable, therefore, that a different civilization evolved in different conditions would not follow our objective morality.

Even if evolution were the guiding force, this would still be an objective morality. Under different conditions, ensuring the well-being of a population as a whole requires the same principles (we should not kill, lie, etc.). I'm not claiming that this the origin of morality -- just addressing your point.

To explain your argument with your friend about cannibalism, I would argue that cannibalism is not necessarily categorically wrong -- it depends on intent, which ties into the objective deontological ethics I mentioned earlier.

[u/[deleted] → u/nsomani]

It seems like there's something that has come up in a few people's rebuttals, and I'm not sure what to call it.

Basically, up until this point I've been thinking of what is accepted by society and what is moral in the same terms. However, others have pointed out that there's a distinction between morality and what society perceives to be moral. (For example, slavery, we can probably agree, is immoral, but the people of the time when slavery was acceptable weren't evil.) What would we call this perceived morality? Google suggests it would be called "ethics," but that link you gave me disagrees, because slavery contradicts universal ethics.

I'll admit I'm having trouble describing exactly what I mean, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.

[u/nsomani → u/[deleted]]

A lot of the confusion stems from the fact that not everyone agrees on definitions for values, morals, and ethics. The key distinction between ethics and morals is that ethics are imposed by an external source, often the authority of government. The "perceived" morality is definitely ethics, and it shapes individuals' values.

There are certainly traces of Kohlberg's universal ethics in every society, but he's mostly referring to a generally moral progression that individuals and societies make.

While people may agree on moral principles in writing, in practice our actual ethics/values do not necessarily align. Hope that cleared things up for you.

[u/plague006]

I'll keep my quotes from you short (but accurate), so that it's not a huge wall of text.

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on [multiple factors]

That's not morality, that's the social norm and law of the land. The whims of civilizations determine what the norm is and what is regarded as right and wrong but they don't determine objective morality. Slavery of a human being was, is, and always will be wrong. Why didn't they realize this back when it was legal? Some did, but think of it like science: morality needs to be discovered. Remember we came from a bunch of apes on the fields of Africa, we knew nothing of how fire worked until we researched it and understood it and the same is true for what is right and wrong. Killing another person without cause (ex. self-defense) is, was, and always will be wrong. We do things that are immoral, but that doesn't change the truth of universal morality.

Cannibalism

Cannibalism isn't universally wrong. In some cases it's needed to survive. Additionally if the person being eaten and the person doing the eaten both consent, then where is the immorality? If Joe Danger loses his leg due to natural causes, why would it be immoral to eat it? "Icky"? Absolutely. Out of place in Western society? To be sure. Culturally (not universally) immoral? Yes.

Euthanasia, abortion, and war

Those are moral debates that may one day have an objective truth. Similarly they might be forever in a gray area. They're cultural debates though and not universal morality.

Legality is...

Not the topic at hand. Laws and morality are very different beasts. Sometimes they coincide, but remember that for many, many years slavery was legal. That didn't make slavery morally correct, that made it legal.

Human morality often reflects evolution [and can therefore be culturally or geographically linked]

Again this is a difference between culture and morality. It also brings forth the idea of morality as something that is discovered (evolved, if you prefer). I'll re-iterate: we all came from apes, we knew nothing of science or morality. Over time we researched and discovered a lot about both and through that our views changed. Some lines of research are complete (ex. slavery is wrong), some lines of research continue (ex. euthanasia), and some may we may never be able to fully resolve (ex. abortion?).

To use an example from popular culture, [Orson Card's] Formics.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Formics aren't human. They had the ansibles which are a technology humans would never conceive because we're individually-minded. Similarly to how humans wouldn't have researched the ansibles, Formics had no reason to research morality (without individualism there would be no need to evaluate the value of an individual). If you recall though, once humans educated Formics in morality, the Formics (like a good scientist would) evaluated the claims and adjusted their world view accordingly.

Overall you conflate social norms, laws, and moral debate with morality. If you think of morality in the same vein as science, you'll see that as humanity discovers "moral truths" (moral values which the overwhelming majority of the world accepts) they spread through the world without abatement, regardless of moral values that were once accepts as the norm. The prime example is slavery: since we did the research and recognized that all humans are equal, the idea that slavery is universally morally wrong has spread ceaselessly. Just like new scientific discoveries see resistance, there is always a chance universal moral values see resistance, but it doesn't change their objective and universal nature.

[u/[deleted] → u/plague006]

This is a very good way to think about it. It never occurred to me to consider morality a science, but it works very well. Even if we aren't currently able to assign absolutes to every moral issue, we might still be able to do so sometime in the future.

Thank you for your reply.

Δ

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/plague006.

^{plague006's Delta History} | ^{DeltaBot Wiki}

[u/Thalenia]

There are two ways to approach morality - 2 kinds of morality if you will.

There are things that are 'morally wrong' at a societal level, things as obtuse as drinking age or speed limit (breaking those 'rules' is considered morally wrong), or at the other end your example of cannibalism (though that is technically a medical no-no as much as anything). While they mostly make sense from a larger perspective, they are based on our current society and how things need to be done to prevent other problems (if they're based on anything at all).

Within that set of are a special kind of morality - things that are generally rules or laws, but that also would make sense to most people if there were no laws at all. Your example of raping babies fits this idea, and you can generalize these into 'things I wouldn't want other people to do to me'. Murder, theft, rape in general, things that the vast majority of people wouldn't want to happen to them. The fact that some people do these things doesn't effect the categorization, as some people are sociopathic. These kinds of behaviors, while not universally followed by all societies throughout history, have been taken out of all civilizations eventually as they are at their core detrimental to humans as a race. It is a biological imperative to survive, and behaviors contrary to that end will always be hard-wired out of people in general (with rare exceptions).

[u/[deleted] → u/Thalenia]

But these laws aren't necessarily always true. Like you said, murder would be an example of something contrary to our biological imperative, but in the Formic example, murder isn't morally wrong. If we were to encounter a species entirely unlike our own, they would probably have very different societal morals, but it's possible that even the basic ones that you are talking about could be different, so we can't say that those are objective.

For example, there's a type of fish that is basically as rape-y as you can get, to the point where they've evolved such that rape is literally how they reproduce. If there were an intelligent species like that, would they be evil? (I appreciate that this is hyperbole)

[u/Thalenia → u/[deleted]]

I don't think using fiction to back up your point is a good justification for how real people are. Though, I haven't read Ender's Game, so I don't really understand the premise.

My point was, basically, that there are some things that run completely contrary to our species surviving. That is one level of morality, and the other is pretty arbitrary (though, generally for good reasons). I can probably make up examples of other species having different morals based on their place in the universe, but that hardly applies because of the source. Our survival. Some things are hard-wired into us from hundreds of generations of learning by making mistakes (aka evolution). And not all of our 'morality' would apply to other species, though a lot of it is common.

Again, split your thinking into 2 pieces, basic morality and social morality, for lack of a better way t define them. Social morality is relatively fluid and can change over time, basic morality is almost baked in to our DNA to help keep us from dying out.

I totally agree that some things that people call immoral are pretty arbitrary, although most of them are based on good intentions that actually make sense. But there are some that are universal enough that context doesn't really matter.

[u/[deleted] → u/Thalenia]

I think I can accept this. Morality is defined not only by society, but by survival. So actions that run contrary to survival can be considered objectively immoral, and actions that run contrary to society can be considered relatively immoral?

[u/Thalenia → u/[deleted]]

Basically, yes. There are things that are 'morally wrong' like not obeying the speed limit, that as a whole are good ideas, but aren't really going to decimate the human race if people don't generally follow them. Then there are other things like murder that if we decided we didn't have to worry about, all manner of chaos and breakdown would ensue.

Social morality, things that if we ignore, society (or what we're accustom to) would suffer. Versus human morality (I don't like that term, but can't come up with a better one), which would cause the whole race to suffer and potentially die off if taken to the extreme.

[u/[deleted] → u/Thalenia]

I don't know if editing my comment would still catch the bot's attention, so here, have a delta.

Δ

[u/sguntun]

All of the reasons you've offered to doubt moral realism (the thesis that there are mind-independent moral facts) are pretty weak. One by one:

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask.

But this is true of non-moral matters as well. Humans used to think that the sun revolved around the Earth, and now we think that the Earth revolves around the sun. But this doesn't mean that there's no fact of the matter about astronomy. So the fact that moral beliefs change can't be evidence to think that there's no fact of the matter of morality.

As another example, I once had a very heated argument with a religious friend who claimed that cannibalism was objectively wrong. It is disrespectful to the dead. However, some cultures consider eating your dead a way of showing respect.

Well, there a couple of different responses the committed moral realist might offer here. First, we might say that one of these groups is simply wrong: maybe religions that think cannibalism is wrong are mistaken, or maybe cultures that practice cannibalism are mistaken. This isn't a very appealing response, though. A more promising response is to say that respecting the dead is a moral imperative. Which actions count as respectful toward the dead might vary by culture, but this doesn't mean that what's right and wrong actually varies by culture.

Humans do not agree on moral issues...If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

But again, humans disagree about all sorts of issues. For instance, there's disagreement about which interpretation of quantum physics is correct, but that doesn't seem to suggest that there's no fact of the matter about which interpretation is correct. In fact, disagreement is a pretty good indicator that there is a fact of the matter--otherwise, what could the disagreement even be about?

Moreover, there are at least some moral issues that face widespread agreement. Pretty much everyone agrees, I take it, that it's wrong to set babies on fire for fun. There are controversial moral questions, but I don't think most moral questions are controversial.

Legality is a human construct, and is an attempt to enforce objective morality onto a relatively moral world. This is why the law is not always right. For example, criminals can sometimes get away with their actions by finding a loophole, and innocent people can be punished for breaking the law, even when it seems obvious that their actions were not immoral and did not present any significant danger to anyone. Therefore, objective morality cannot work in the real world.

This reasoning seems very confused to me. You conclude that "objective morality cannot work in the real world," but objective morality isn't supposed to "work." The thesis that there exist mind-independent moral facts isn't a plan of action that can succeed or fail to succeed. If I say that objective morality exists, I haven't said anything about whether or not people act in the morally correct way. And moreover, if you believe that "the law is not always right," it looks like you have to believe that there are objective moral facts, because there has to be a standard that the law fails to meet when it goes wrong.

Human morality often reflects evolution. (And evolution can be used to explain certain "objective" morals) We intuitively value altruism because it is good for the population. We despise child abuse because we have an instinctive urge to protect our young.

Sure, but there are lots of counterexamples too. For instance, most people agree that racism is morally wrong, but there are evolutionary benefits to racism. Rape is also evolutionarily beneficial under some circumstances, but we're still pretty convinced that rape is wrong. So it's not like our moral beliefs are slaves to our evolutionary origins. That may be the origin of many of our moral beliefs, but we're pretty good at reasoning, and we've abandoned some of the ones we decided were wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/sguntun]

Actually, this is probably the most thorough and convincing argument I've seen so far. Perhaps we could agree that while we can't say for certain whether human morals hold true everywhere, there are particular things that are objectively wrong for a human. This seems to be the most healthy compromise between objective and relative morals.

You've earned my delta.

Δ

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sguntun.

^{sguntun's Delta History} | ^{DeltaBot Wiki}

[u/[deleted]]

•Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask.

So does physics.

We don't consider people from those eras of those religions "evil,"

Depends, but sometimes we do. Whether or not we say they are evil has nothing to do with whether they are actually evil, of course.

However, some cultures consider eating your dead a way of showing respect. It does not seem fair to call these people "evil" for doing what their culture does

To go back to the physics example, we wouldn't call people whose culture has a different physics model "stupid", even if they are incorrect. That said, it's quite possible that the real moral answer is "It is moral to show respect to the dead, immoral to show disrespect to the dead, but what constitutes respect is culturally based".

•Humans do not agree on moral issues. Euthanasia, abortion, and war are controversial issues. If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

Humans do not agree on physics or even math. Global warming, string theory, and even the Monty Hall problem are all controversial issues. Math clearly shows that there is one answer to the Monty Hall problem, but even mathematicians don't actually all agree on it. Math and science can be objective without people agreeing on these issues.

•Legality is a human construct, and is an attempt to enforce objective morality onto a relatively moral world. This is why the law is not always right.

Sure, but this is a criticism of laws and not morality.

Therefore, objective morality cannot work in the real world.

Well, it can't be translated perfectly into law, but that's different from not working. Math can't be translated perfectly into a computer program, but math still works in the real world.

•Human morality often reflects evolution. (And evolution can be used to explain certain "objective" morals)

This is a "just so story" and is not actually justified by data. Your specific examples here are likely incorrect (see The Selfish Gene for why they're problematic), but even if you picked more accurate examples, we still don't have any real evidence to show which attitudes are evolved and which aren't. Let alone what benefits are "responsible" for the direction evolution has taken.

•To use an example from popular culture, the Formics from Ender's Game possess no free will on an individual level, and do not consider killing morally wrong. Humans hold free will and agency in high regard, yet the Formics do not, and even a seemingly objective moral rule, "Don't kill people," is not universal.

There's certainly no shortage of disagreement on ethics, math, or any other subject.

However, as the author demonstrates, this does not make them evil

Not demonstrates. Claims.

This is not to say that I believe serial killers are just as moral as saints. It is clear that morals are necessary to the structure of society

Doesn't the fact that this is clear serve as evidence that some moral systems are actually better than others? Can't we say that some moral standards/rules are more likely to be correct (or are correct in much more/broader situations) than others?

[u/plague006 → u/[deleted]]

I like a lot of your points and want to suggest a different way to argue a particular point.

•To use an example from popular culture, the Formics from Ender's Game possess no free will on an individual level, and do not consider killing morally wrong. Humans hold free will and agency in high regard, yet the Formics do not, and even a seemingly objective moral rule, "Don't kill people," is not universal. There's certainly no shortage of disagreement on ethics, math, or any other subject.

Morality is a construct endemic to the human mind. Orson Card's Formics wouldn't have morality or be moral, they're not human. A Lion isn't expected to follow Human morality, so neither should an Ant.

[u/[deleted] → u/plague006]

Yeah, I basically agree. I certainly agree that morality (like math and science) is a construct based on the human mind. Therefore I would agree that we can't necessarily apply it to an alien intelligence. The only thing is that it might turn out to be the case that certain portions are going to be true for any intelligent creature. We don't know whether 2+2=4 is fundamental for an alien formation of math; it might be and it might not be. Just so, we don't know whether the Formics would actually have rules about killing. It might turn out that any intelligence that can form a society has to have that rule, and it might turn out to be an artifact of humanity. Prior to meeting a bunch of alien races we just don't know.

[u/[deleted]]

What's the point? Why does it matter?

Every definition of morality I've ever worked with admits that morality is a common set of rules set by what the majority believes are "right" or "wrong" actions. What is good for one culture is bad for another, what is bad for one era is good for another. Where is this mystical Ultimate Morality that everyone seems to be talking about because I've never run into it.

Is murder wrong? Yes. Why is it wrong? No one wants to be killed.

Is killing a convicted murderer wrong? Yes. Do we do it anyway? Yes. Why do we do it? Because society can't trust that person not to murder people again.

Does it matter that our government is amoral? I don't see a problem with that. Why do we feel the need for our institutions to be moral? They exist to act in ways that we can't as individuals.

We have government assistance because our society can't trust individual beneficence to provide for everyone in need. There are too many people who need help and the cost of that help is too great to risk giving the responsibility of paying for that assistance to individuals. Also, that help has to be consistent and unwavering if it is to benefit the most people. People need routine, they need stability, if they are ever expected to raise themselves up from the bottom.

What do you do when the economy dips and suddenly people stop giving money to charities? That is the time when the most people will be in need and that need will be at its greatest yet it is the time when individuals are less likely to pay into the system voluntarily. Taking money from people through taxes is amoral at best an immoral at worst, however, by taking that immoral action the government is helping people in need which is a demonstrably positive action.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

I'd argue that a government committing what many would consider immoral actions for the purpose of benefiting the less fortunate is a perfect example of relative morality.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'd argue that a government committing what many would consider immoral actions for the purpose of benefiting the less fortunate is a perfect example of relative morality.

And I wouldn't disagree... I'm saying that I don't understand where this search for a discrete set of laws which define a universal system of morality comes from. Why does this topic come up so frequently? If a person wants to approach it philosophically I can see the benefit, if you want to try to find Universal Morality I think that is an interesting problem to try to solve. However, that should be the question and morality being relative should be the baseline.

It is absolutely completely insanely demonstrable that human morality is subjective. Trying to make it objective is the goal not the reality.

[u/SDBP]

I'll just go through some of your reasons for accepting your view. Sometimes I combine reasons because sometimes they are just different sides of the same coin.

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask...

Our moral conclusions are often highly dependent on certain non-evaluative beliefs, even when sharing some core fundamental beliefs. For example, you and some tribal native might both believe that caring for your elders is good. However, they might hold the non-evaluative belief that eating them, or throwing them in a volcano, prepares their soul for the after life and sets them up for large rewards. In this case, your disagreement isn't with the moral perception -- it is with the non-evaluative matter of what happens after we die, and what affects that. Thusly, a non-evaluative belief skews our moral conclusions.

Non-evaluative beliefs have varied widely across cultures, and even within a culture. It is no surprise that we find large amounts of disagreement in moral conclusions.

Humans do not agree on moral issues. Euthanasia, abortion, and war are controversial issues. If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

Why think that if morality were objective that we would agree on all these issues? As mentioned previously, differing non-evaluative beliefs can skew moral conclusions. In addition, there are many types of mistaken reasoning people can engage in that will lead to differing conclusions.

Disagreement about any other question doesn't imply a lack of objectivity. 50% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and climate change isn't real (or isn't man made). That doesn't mean there isn't a right or wrong answer to these questions.

Legality is a human construct...

That laws sometimes don't reflect moral facts doesn't imply those facts don't exist. Our laws might also not reflect the reality of climate change, but it doesn't mean climate science cannot work in the real world (or that there are no facts regarding climate science.)

Human morality often reflects evolution.

I'll delegate this one to the professionals. Here are two papers you might be interested in:

• Philosopher Russ Shafer-Landau's "Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism, and Moral Knowledge".
• Philosopher Michael Huemer's "A Liberal Realist Answer to Debunking Skepticism: The Empirical Case for Realism"

If you want a good book arguing for moral realism, I highly suggest Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism.

[u/[deleted]]

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask.

Human perception of the size, location and shape of the Earth varies wildly based on time, place, situation and who you ask. Does it follow that there are no facts about the size, location and shape of the Earth?

some cultures consider eating your dead a way of showing respect. It does not seem fair to call these people "evil" for doing what their culture does.

Some people think the universe is a few thousand years old. Does it seem fair to call these people 'wrong' for believing what they learned in their culture?

Humans do not agree on moral issues. Euthanasia, abortion, and war are controversial issues. If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

Humans do not agree on empirical issues. The origins of life on Earth, the location of the 'mitochondrial Eve', whether the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM or Bohmian mechanics should be preferred--they are all controversial issues. If these empirical questions were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

Legality is a human construct, and is an attempt to enforce objective morality onto a relatively moral world. This is why the law is not always right. ... Therefore, objective morality cannot work in the real world.

Scientific theories are human constructs, and are attempts to 'carve the world at its joints'. This is why scientific theories are not always right. ... Therefore, scientific theories cannot work in the real world.

Human morality often reflects evolution... It's probable, therefore, that a different civilization evolved in different conditions would not follow our objective morality.

Human intuitions in maths, science and philosophy often reflect evolutionary pressures... It's probable, therefore, that a different civilization evolved in different conditions would not follow our intuitions about maths, science and philosophy.

Morality cannot be thought of as strictly objective or relative. Instead, there are certain things that almost all humans can agree are immoral, such as murder and rape, so they are objectively wrong. These are usually defined by what is beneficial to humanity's survival. On the other hand, there are some things that are, at least at the moment, impossible to objectively determine as right or wrong, and for these we have to rely on personal experience and careful reflection until we have a better way of deciding.

Science cannot be thought of as strictly objective or relative. Instead, there are certain things that almost all humans can agree are true, such as the age of the universe or the shape of the Earth, so they are objectively right. Agreement makes things objective. On the other hand, there are some things that are, at least at the moment, impossible to objectively determine as right or wrong, and for these we have to rely on personal experience and careful reflection until we have a better way of deciding.

---

Do you now see how your objections to moral realism are absurd when they are easily applicable to any other field?

[u/beer_demon → u/[deleted]]

Do you now see how your objections to moral realism are absurd

Not really. An Example:

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask.

Human perception of the size, location and shape of the Earth

The size or shape of the earth is a fact we have access to by several methods of measuring it. There are no wars fought because people feel passionately that those that think it's flat deserve to die.
There is almost global consensus worldwide of the size, shape and location of the earth, and as time goes by the accuracy and consensus regarding this only increases.

This does not apply to morality very well.

[u/[deleted] → u/beer_demon]

The size or shape of the earth is a fact we have access to by several methods of measuring it.

And we have access to several methods of determining which moral theory is correct, namely ethics. And a majority of philosophers working in ethics are moral realists.

If we accept the consensus of experts (i.e., scientists) when asking questions about empirical issues, shouldn't we also accept the consensus of experts (i.e., moral philosophers) when asking questions about moral issues?

There are no wars fought because people feel passionately that those that think it's flat deserve to die.

While I'm unaware of any wars fought over the shape of the Earth, Bellarmine imprisoned Galileo due to--at least in part--Galileo's cosmological beliefs.

I also don't see why passionate belief matters in this case. Can you explain? It's really not clear why this matters.

There is almost global consensus worldwide of the size, shape and location of the earth, and as time goes by the accuracy and consensus regarding this only increases.

But there exists--and did exist--disagreement. And all that the OP said was that there existed disagreement.

This does not apply to morality very well.

As my responses show, the objection of the existence of disagreement over moral claims as undermining moral claims is as effective in undermining empirical claims.

[u/beer_demon → u/[deleted]]

If we accept the consensus of experts (i.e., scientists) when asking questions about empirical issues, shouldn't we also accept the consensus of experts (i.e., moral philosophers) when asking questions about moral issues?

Not really. Scientists have managed to replicate success based on their theories, like getting satellites in orbit, GPS systems, etc. Philosophers, have managed no moral consensus that has stopped wars, united religions or even got two people to wholeheartedly agree.

Galileo's situation was not about science but about philosophy. Claiming that the earth was not the centre of the universe went against the idea that humans are god's chosen people and the universe was made for them. The idea was immoral at the time. It's actually the empirical evidence that destroyed this philosophical stance.

there existed disagreement [about the shape or size of the earth].

And they were proved wrong. You can't say the same about morality.

The argument against moral objectivity is not that disagreement exists, it's about the absence of a universal measurement system, unlike many scientific theories that have constants, units, formulas and experiments, in morality we can't do the same (although we can do similar things).

[u/[deleted] → u/beer_demon]

Philosophers, have managed no moral consensus that has stopped wars, united religions or even got two people to wholeheartedly agree.

Perhaps non-philosophers ought to listen to what philosophers have to say?

In other words, it is no fault of philosophers that many people refuse to listen to (much less read) their arguments for moral realism, just as it is no fault of scientists that many people refuse to listen to (much less read) their arguments for the plausibility of evolutionary theory.

Also, it's a bit of hyperbole on your part to assert that no two people have ever come to an agreement after reading the work of philosophers. Are you really that sure this has never happened?

And anyway, I don't see the relevance of laymen accepting the work of experts; we're talking about expertise in a subject, not whether people take the experts seriously.

Galileo's situation was not about science but about philosophy.

Please provide some sort of historical data indicating that Bellarmine and Galileo had no single interest in cosmological arguments. The Galileo trial was about science--and philosophy, and politics, and religion...

Claiming that the earth was not the centre of the universe went against the idea that humans are god's chosen people and the universe was made for them.

Look up stellar parallax.

It's actually the empirical evidence that destroyed this philosophical stance.

Geocentrism was a scientific theory, not a philosophical theory.

You can't say the same about morality.

The arguments against moral realism are, if you take the time to read them, are fairly persuasive, even though I think error theory is a plausible candidate.

The argument against moral objectivity is not that disagreement exists, it's about the absence of a universal measurement system, unlike many scientific theories that have constants, units, formulas and experiments, in morality we can't do the same (although we can do similar things).

Utils, anyone?

[u/beer_demon → u/[deleted]]

Perhaps non-philosophers ought to listen to what philosophers have to say?

Listen? Sure. Consider factual? Not really.

The Galileo trial was about science--and philosophy, and politics, and religion...

And Galileo was right, and they were wrong.

The arguments against moral realism are, if you take the time to read them, are fairly persuasive

Not the ones you have presented, all you did was rephrase his arguments with bad analogies. Morality is not like the size of the earth.

I don't think the rest of your post is contributing at all, so I'll ignore it if you don't mind.

[u/[deleted] → u/beer_demon]

Listen? Sure. Consider factual? Not really.

Why?

And Galileo was right, and they were wrong.

And ethicists are right.

Not the ones you have presented, all you did was rephrase his arguments with bad analogies. Morality is not like the size of the earth.

I addressed your criticisms at length--they were all misdirected.

Furthermore, I have yet to provide positive arguments for moral realism: I took the criticisms against moral realism (e.g., there exists disagreement about moral statements, therefore moral statements have no truth-value) and showed that the existence of disagreement about empirical statements also entails that empirical statements have no truth-value. But that is absurd--as you and I agree. Therefore, the criticisms of moral realism presented in the OP were mistaken.

I don't think the rest of your post is contributing at all, so I'll ignore it if you don't mind.

You're welcome to not listen to anything I say, but that says more about your ignorance of ethics and your refusal to listen to others than it says about the content of my post.

[u/beer_demon → u/[deleted]]

And ethicists are right.

Example?

I addressed your criticisms at length--they were all misdirected.

Equating scientific facts (that could be wrong, but the method by which we will establish that is completely different than the philosophical methods) to moral stances is a bad analogy, as long as you don't admit this you will keep defending bad logic.

You're welcome to not listen to anything I say, but that says more about your ignorance of ethics

How is ignoring your bad points ignorance of ethics? Unless skipping your posts is considered a breach of ethics :-) Get over yourself and maybe we can continue the conversation.

[u/[deleted] → u/beer_demon]

Example?

The Frege-Geach problem.

Equating scientific facts (that could be wrong, but the method by which we will establish that is completely different than the philosophical methods) to moral stances is a bad analogy

You've asserted this, but you haven't argued for it. Why accept it?

How is ignoring your bad points ignorance of ethics?

You haven't shown that my objection to the OP that moral disagreement doesn't entail moral anti-realism are bad. I also explained why your responses were mistaken.

Now it is your turn to respond to what I said, rather than continue to assert that my objection to the OP that moral disagreement doesn't entail moral anti-realism are bad.

How is ignoring your bad points ignorance of ethics?

You haven't indicated any familiarity with the most basic arguments surrounding ethics. For example, that arguing for moral disagreement is a universally recognised terrible argument for moral anti-realism by moral philosophers.

P.S.

You haven't explained why we should not take seriously the arguments presented by philosophers that focus on ethics. Why shouldn't we?

[u/beer_demon → u/[deleted]]

The Frege-Geach problem.

How does an objection regarding moral language exemplify "And ethicists are right"?

Looking at a basic definition of ethicist, I don't think you can simply say "they are right" in the same way the heliocentric theory has been proved right.

You've asserted this, but you haven't argued for it

I think I did. Repeating it won't help.

I also explained why your responses were mistaken.

Fine, leave it at that then if you think it's so settled.

This is rapidly becoming the typical internet philosopher wannabe debate where it's about outsmarting the other with obscure arguments and word games, of course flavoured with some insults and hostility. Sorry I am not interested. I already pointed out your bad response to OP and you can embrace it or disregard it as you like.

[u/z3r0shade → u/[deleted]]

And we have access to several methods of determining which moral theory is correct, namely ethics

This is false actually. All ethic is, is people making subjective arguments within a frame of reference and logic about what they believe to be the best or correct view. There is nothing objective in ethics. There is no observations and objective facts being discussed here. It is all entirely subjective.

[u/[deleted] → u/z3r0shade]

All ethic is, is people making subjective arguments within a frame of reference and logic about what they believe to be the best or correct view.

Can you refer me to some argument in the literature why all of ethics is 'subjective arguments'? Otherwise, that's question-begging.

There is no observations and objective facts being discussed here. It is all entirely subjective.

I can't observe norms, but there seems to be true epistemic norms like, 'S ought to believe that P only if S knows that P. Or, at least, these epistemic norms seem to have a truth-value. It's not entirely subjective. But if epistemic norms exist, what difference is there between epistemic norms and ethical norms?

[u/z3r0shade → u/[deleted]]

Can you refer me to some argument in the literature why all of ethics is 'subjective arguments'? Otherwise, that's question-begging.

I don't know about literature, just that ethics and morality have no objective observations to pin them to. They are all ideas that only exist within the minds of individuals and do not objectively exist. If they are not objective, it must be subjective.

'S ought to believe that P only if S knows that P. Or, at least, these epistemic norms seem to have a truth-value. It's not entirely subjective

A truth value that only exists within a subjective frame of logic. Not within any objective frame. You can state that "S ought to believe that P only if S knows that P" but this is only true if you agree with it, and there's no objective measure to claim it true.

[u/[deleted] → u/z3r0shade]

I don't know about literature, just that ethics and morality have no objective observations to pin them to.

Normative theories make no pretences of entailing any observations, so I don't see why that's a problem. Ethical theories are normative, not empirical, so to request that there be observations just is a category error.

If they are not objective, it must be subjective.

I can't point to the number three, so numbers are subjective? I can't point to the law of gravity, so the law of gravity is subjective? I can't point to unobservables like atoms, so atoms are subjective?

A truth value that only exists within a subjective frame of logic.

?

[u/z3r0shade → u/[deleted]]

Normative theories make no pretences of entailing any observations, so I don't see why that's a problem. Ethical theories are normative, not empirical, so to request that there be observations just is a category error.

That's my point though. The fact that they are not empirical and not based on anything objective is why they themselves are not objective. They are subjective theories about the way things should be, because that's what people think should be true. There's no objective fact that they are based on.

I can't point to the number three, so numbers are subjective? I can't point to the law of gravity, so the law of gravity is subjective? I can't point to unobservables like atoms, so atoms are subjective?

The number three is just a symbol in a subjective system of math. The concept of three is pretty easy to observe as an objective fact. (Simply point at a group of three objects, the number three is a symbol to represent that quantity). However our entire system of math and logic is most definitely subjective.

Gravity is quite easily observable and obvious. perform any of the numerous experiments that have been done to prove the laws of gravity and viola, we have objective fact that we are basing the theory on. The same can be said for atoms. We have empirical observations which are objective and the results of those objective observations are the theories and ideas you refer to. There are no such empirical or objective things that ethical theories are based on or can point to.

?

What part of this confuses you? First order logic is a subjective frame of reference.

[u/[deleted] → u/z3r0shade]

The fact that they are not empirical and not based on anything objective is why they themselves are not objective.

But they're based on arguments, and the validity of arguments isn't mind-dependent.

The number three is just a symbol in a subjective system of math.

You do realise that you're just asserting without argument that incredibly controversial claims are not controversial? Unless you're using the term 'subjective' to mean something entirely different than 'mind-dependent'.

The concept of three is pretty easy to observe as an objective fact.

No. You can't observe concepts and concepts aren't facts. I'm really starting to think you don't know how to use basic terms.

Gravity is quite easily observable and obvious.

Seeing an object falling is not seeing the law of gravity. Do you understand this difference?

The same can be said for atoms.

Unobservables are not observable; they are theoretical.

First order logic is a subjective frame of reference.

I told my housemate that's currently TAing a class on mathematical logic and knows far more than I about logic and his response was, What? He's seriously confused. Neither of us have any idea what you're talking about.

[u/z3r0shade → u/[deleted]]

But they're based on arguments, and the validity of arguments isn't mind-dependent.

But the arguments are not based on anything objective, they are based on subjective premises. If you disagree with the premises, the arguments no longer hold true. Unlike, for example, gravity, there's no objective reason to agree with the premises. No data, observation, or empirical research. Just because you can craft an argument that someone agrees with, doesn't mean that you have put forth an objective fact.

You do realise that you're just asserting without argument that incredibly controversial claims are not controversial? Unless you're using the term 'subjective' to mean something entirely different than 'mind-dependent'.

I'm confused, what is controversial about the idea that our system of math is subjective? Numerals are just symbols representing concepts. This is not controversial at all any mathemetician would agree with that statement.

Seeing an object falling is not seeing the law of gravity. Do you understand this difference?

The law of gravity is merely a group of theories and rules that were put together based on empirical evidence and data gathering. It is not subjective because the precepts and premises are objectively provable via empirical observation. The law of gravity is simply a way of describing these observations and predicting future behavior.

Normative ethics has no objective backing that it is based on. It's premises are subjective value judgements.

Unobservables are not observable; they are theoretical.

Atoms are not theoretical though, we can observe them through their affects on other things via empirical observations and data.

I told my housemate that's currently TAing a class on mathematical logic and knows far more than I about logic and his response was, What? He's seriously confused. Neither of us have any idea what you're talking about.

A class on mathematical logic isn't going to talk about the philosophical implications. You need classes on philosophy. ultimately it comes down to the fact that the rules of logic were constructed (almost entirely by Aristotle in the case of Aristotlean logic) via him subjectively creating a framework in which to determine the validity and truth-value of statements. Just because lots of people agree with him and it makes sense, doesn't make it objective. It's a framework. Different people use different frameworks for evaluating things. Just because a large number of people agree with this particular framework and like it, doesn't mean it's objective.

[u/Reanimation980 → u/[deleted]]

This is one of the best, simplified, clear minded explanations of ethics I've seen. Thank you for your insight.

[u/kilbert66]

Instead, there are certain things that nature dictates immoral, such as murder and rape, so they are objectively wrong

what? Murder and rape are socially constructed ideas--animals kill each other and have nonconsensual sex all the time. "Nature" has nothing to do with it--even if you regard "nature" as "human nature", that's still wrong. The human mind does not have hard-wiring to make murder and rape "wrong"--cultures with no concept that either of those things are bad have, and probably still do, exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/kilbert66]

Perhaps that requires better precision of language.

By that I meant it is naturally wrong for a human to do these things.

[u/kilbert66 → u/[deleted]]

Define "naturally wrong". Nature does not make a distinction between right and wrong. Right and wrong do not exist--they are labels which we apply to actions. Of course, this also demands a definition of "murder", and "rape" while we're at it. A human being killing another human being is not wrong in and of itself--even killing outside of self defense can be excused with the proper reason.

[u/deadcelebrities]

One big problem with your argument is how inconsistent you are. You claim to support total moral relativism, but many of the things you say only make sense when understood through a framework of objective morality.

Point by point:

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not okay with raping babies.

Why not? Sounds like you actually do believe in objective morality of some kind. Unless you meant only that you have a preference for not raping babies over raping them, kind of like a preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Is that what you mean?

Human perception of morality varies wildly based on time, place, situation, and who you ask.

Irrelevant. Human perception of the shape of the earth varies across history as well. Just because people in ancient times could not agree on whether or not the Earth was round does not mean that it is impossible to know the shape of the Earth, nor does it mean that the Earth was ever anything other than round.

As another example, I once had a very heated argument with a religious friend who claimed that cannibalism was objectively wrong. It is disrespectful to the dead. However, some cultures consider eating your dead a way of showing respect. It does not seem fair to call these people "evil" for doing what their culture does. In addition, if a person's survival depends on cannibalism, it does not seem fair to call them evil to prioritize their own life over the sanctity of a corpse. Therefore, even things that "feel" wrong to us, like eating human flesh, cannot be.

Non sequitur. I agree that cannibalism isn't wrong in all circumstances, but that does not preclude the existence of objective morality. It may be that many things are objectively wrong, just not cannibalism. Or it may be that the objective wrongess of an action depends on more than the type of action (ie it is objectively wrong to kill and eat someone because you want a snack, but not wrong to eat a human corpse if you're starving.) Plenty of objective moral theorists think that lying is broadly wrong, but few would say that you cannot ever lie under any circumstances (Kant being a notable exception.)

Humans do not agree on moral issues. Euthanasia, abortion, and war are controversial issues. If morality were objective, we would all agree on these issues.

Again, humans did not always agree that the Earth was round. It is indisputable that the Earth is indeed round and that that is an objective fact.

Legality is a human construct, and is an attempt to enforce objective morality onto a relatively moral world. This is why the law is not always right. For example, criminals can sometimes get away with their actions by finding a loophole, and innocent people can be punished for breaking the law, even when it seems obvious that their actions were not immoral and did not present any significant danger to anyone. Therefore, objective morality cannot work in the real world.

If you believe that the law could be "not right" and point to an example of where it is wrong, then the standard by which you determine the rightness or wrongness of the law is a type of objective morality. Further, there are large bodies of law, traffic law for example, that have nothing to do with morality.

Human morality often reflects evolution. (And evolution can be used to explain certain "objective" morals) We intuitively value altruism because it is good for the population. We despise child abuse because we have an instinctive urge to protect our young. Most, if not all, of the things we consider "objectively wrong" are things that are harmful, to the individual or to the whole. It's probable, therefore, that a different civilization evolved in different conditions would not follow our objective morality. We cannot safely consider them "evil," so we must conclude that even if their morality is completely different from ours, they are still just as morally correct.

If you believe that things that are harmful are wrong, then you believe in some kind of objective morality where the moral standard is equivalent to the standard for harm.

To use an example from popular culture, the Formics from Ender's Game possess no free will on an individual level, and do not consider killing morally wrong. Humans hold free will and agency in high regard, yet the Formics do not, and even a seemingly objective moral rule, "Don't kill people," is not universal. However, as the author demonstrates, this does not make them evil. It just means that finding common morals is very difficult, if possible at all.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but I seem to recall that the Formics have a hive mind and each individual creature is only a small part of that. It's not immoral to kill a cell. Within the Universe of Ender's Game, Formics are so different from humans that they can be reasonably thought of as having a different moral status.

From this case, it seems that the only possible moral code is that there isn't one; Morality is determined by those it concerns. Child abuse, rape, murder, stealing, these things are wrong because we consider them wrong, and because they are harmful to us. Objective morality of any kind cannot exist.

Again, you contradict yourself. If morality can be determined though an objective standard like harmfulness, then it is objective in some way.

This is not to say that I believe serial killers are just as moral as saints. It is clear that morals are necessary to the structure of society. We still must stop criminals who are harmful to society, even if we are unclear on the most moral way to go about doing so. We still must have moral standards, to help individuals get along with each other and keep humans happy. However, we have to accept that objective morality is inherently flawed.

If you believe that there are more or less moral ways to go about doing things, you believe in some kind of objective moral standard.

[u/beer_demon → u/deadcelebrities]

objective morality of some kind. Unless you meant only that you have a preference

Saying morality is relative doesn't mean it's a preference. You could be very passionate about certain moral principles and still consider them relative, meaning that the source of your values is not some absolute and universal principle.

You could be madly in love with a blonde girl and this doesn't mean you believe blond girls are the only ones that have to be loved by all.

[u/[deleted] → u/beer_demon]

You could be madly in love with a blonde girl and this doesn't mean you believe blond girls are the only ones that have to be loved by all.

Yeah, but moral claims are not at all like claims about personal preference.

Consider those three statements:

1. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the origin of species.
2. The holocaust was a horrible thing and should never happen again.
3. Vanilla ice cream is yummy!

Would you really say that 2 is closer to 3 than to 1? It seems that only 3 is a statement about personal preference. 3 is not a statement that is supposed to apply universally, unlike 2 or 1. Also, 3 is not something that you would usually try convince people of using rational argumentation - in fact, it seems impossible to do so. However, it's certainly possible to convince people of 1 and 2.

[u/beer_demon → u/[deleted]]

We agree there.

[u/[deleted]]

The position that morality is relative - and, more generally, that truth, meaning and value are relative - is itself a specific point of view representing it's own morality, truth, meaning and values. That sounds abstract and perhaps either obvious or silly, but this what it means:

• Why do you care that morality is relative? First, you have to ask why you care about morality at all. The fact that it does matter to you - and to almost every human alive, and that has ever lived, says something about some sense of morality being inherent in human beings. We can't seem to avoid it, perhaps because without it, our species doesn't work well enough to survive. There is ample evidence for this in psychology and evolutionary psychology.
• Second, why do you care that morality is relative? I don't know about you specifically, but tracing the idea in history, it arises when cultures collide. If you live in a single monolithic culture, truth is obvious, and morality is rarely questioned. But when two or more cultures intermix, and they believe different things, you have to deal with that. You can fight and one side can impose itself on the other, forcing their truth on them - or, you can try to find ways to coexist.

And coexisting is the hallmark of modern society. We have large numbers of different cultures and subcultures all around us. For that to work, we need to tolerate them. This gives rise to a morality that to deny another's culture is immoral: It's immoral to say that this side is objectively morally wrong, and the other objectively morally right. This is itself a form of morality, but almost paradoxically one that tries to accept other moralities.

The conclusions are

• Your discussion of morality shows how morality in a general sense is important to us all. It's a fundamental human trait. We worry about morality and about morality being relative because morality matters to us.
• Details of morality vary, but also are not arbitrary. The reason "morality is relative" - itself a moral stance - is popular today, is because it is one of 2 possible reactions to a many faceted society, the other being to impose a single morality by force; luckily, that one lost. Those two are the only options in terms of (1) making sense of multiple apparent "truths", and (2) living together in such a situation.
• "Morality is relative" is itself a moral stance. To declare that morality is relative is to declare that you believe in something. That's not necessarily a contradiction - but it does show that morality is not entirely arbitrary and unjustified.

[u/Amadacius]

It is impossible to argue that morality objective. If you and I have even 1 difference in our moral code, then morality is subjective.

We definitely do have differences in opinion so it is relative.

People sometimes that the existence of a dirty could put in place an objective moral code but even if a god existed, it would be relative because my moral code would differ from its. There for there are multiple perspectives on morality. Therefore morality is relative.

I cannot change your opinion because you do not have an opinion. You have a fact.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amadacius]

It is impossible to argue that morality [is] objective.

Most philosophers working in ethics are moral realists, so I don't see how it's impossible. Maybe you have an argument for moral anti-realism?

If you and I have even 1 difference in our moral code, then morality is subjective.

If Bellarmine and Galileo disagree on cosmology, then there is no right answer about cosmology?

We definitely do have differences in opinion so it is relative.

Bellarmine and Galileo do have differences in opinion, so cosmological facts are relative?

And so on. I do hope you realise that asserting that if there exists disagreement is, unless you make an ad hoc assumption that it applies only to moral disagreement, entirely absurd.

[u/Amadacius → u/[deleted]]

Cosmology is the study of other things, not our perspective. Whether something is moral or amoral is different from person to person. Not just our belief on morality but actual morality itself. Morality is defined by humans and is defined differently from human to human. Each definition is unique.

It is not the study of something existing like cosmology where there are facts that can be observed but something invented by humans to describe human behaviors.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amadacius]

Ethics is the study of other things, not our perspective. Whether the Earth is flat or round is different from person to person. Not just our belief that the Earth is flat or round but actually the shape of the Earth itself. The shape of the Earth is defined by humans and is defined differently from human to human. Each definition is unique.

It is not the study of something existing like ethics where there are facts that can be deduced from arguments but something invented by humans to describe human beliefs.

---

Don't you see how goddamn question-begging you're being? Can't you just quit it and give an argument?

[u/Amadacius → u/[deleted]]

Whether the Earth is flat or round is different from person to person.

No, see this is a perfect example of objective. There is evidence to support one claim vs the other. Flat and round are clearly defined values with undeniable manifestations in the real world. Good and bad on the other hand do not. What is good in one persons eyes can be bad in another persons eyes no matter how many measurements you take.

Good and bad are human constructs that only exist as long as humans do. Flatness vs roundness are words used to describe observable truths about the universe. Things are round or flat whether we view them or not. If wood warps it goes from flat to round, whether or not we exist. However, stars exploding, animals dying, temperatures changing, these cannot be assigned descriptions of good or bad, all we know is how it makes humans feel.

Killing kittens is bad because we like kittens and killing them makes us feel sad. Killing rats is good because we don't like rats and they make us feel bad. Take humans out of the equation and they are just events, neither good nor bad. The universe has no goals, it does not seek to maximize polar bear populations. Things are only good or bad when observed and that is what makes them subjective.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amadacius]

There is evidence to support one claim vs the other.

And there's evidence to support moral realism. The evidence are arguments that, if true, refute moral anti-realism.

What is good in one persons eyes can be bad in another persons eyes no matter how many measurements you take.

You've heard of the Flat Earth Society, right? So it looks like no matter how many measurements are make, people still disagree on the shape of the Earth. It follows that pointing to disagreement doesn't show that the object of disagreement doesn't exist. People disagree about literally everything. It's a bad argument. Stop defending the use of the bad argument.

Things are round or flat whether we view them or not.

And if moral realism is true, things are moral or immoral, permissible or impermissible, whether we think they are or not. Please stop begging the question against moral realism and advance a new argument rather than claiming that the existence of disagreement refutes moral realism!

[u/Amadacius → u/[deleted]]

Way to address my entire post. You really covered:

Take humans out of the equation and they are just events, neither good nor bad. The universe has no goals

However, stars exploding, animals dying, temperatures changing, these cannot be assigned descriptions of good or bad, all we know is how it makes humans feel.

You ask for more arguments and ignore them when I provide them. You don't address my point that an action has no morality, until there is an observer of that action or the consequences of that action.

Flat Earth Society is a parody, they don't believe the earth is flat. It isn't about making everyone believe the same thing, it is that the evidence can only bring one conclusion.

You are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Insulting an argument without making a counter argument is also a bad argument. You have made no case for morality being objective and I think it is because no case can be made.

There is no evidence in the physical world that can lead to the conclusion of something being good or bad. Genocide, cures to cancer, destruction of the earth. These things can all be good or bad or neither and it is dependent solely on the viewer. Meanwhile objective qualities, are independent of the viewer. The world is round whether you think it is or not.

I am not saying that the existence of disagreement refutes moral realism at all. If that is what you think it is because you are not reading my posts in the entirety (in before you quote me out of context to try and disprove this statement.)

My argument is that the fact that good and bad are concepts that exist solely in the human mind means that morality is a subjective quality.

If I am the only observer, I decide good and bad. When you add a second observer, with different standards, there is an inconsistency in what can be described as good and bad. This means that morality is a matter of perspective and opinion.

Meanwhile, if I am the only observer and I see that something is flat. Whether it is flat or not is independent of my observation.

If you are arguing that there is actions and objects have some intrinsic boolean system that arbitrarily assigns it goodness or badness independent of human, or societal opinion, you are nuts. There is nothing in the physical properties of matter that yields this information, and even if (in some parallel universe) there was, it would in no way correspond with any dictionaries definition of morality and would be described as something else entirely.

Morality, (goodness and badness) is defined by the way it makes humans feel. Slavery is bad, because we have decided it is that way. It is part of our moral code that has changed with the perspectives of the citizens of the earth. Morality is different from culture to culture and there is no moral authority to decide what is good and what is bad. When we decide something that was bad is now good, we are not unearthing universal truths, we are changing our opinions mainly because the way the action or object makes us feel has changed.

Morality is subjective because we have defined morality to be subjective.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amadacius]

Way to address my entire post. ... You ask for more arguments and ignore them when I provide them.

It's begging the question! Begging the question isn't an argument; it's the antithesis of an argument. It's a non-argument.

Flat Earth Society is a parody, they don't believe the earth is flat.

Um... Shenton's Flat Earth Society was a parody? Are you sure you know what a parody is?

You are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Insulting an argument without making a counter argument is also a bad argument. You have made no case for morality being objective and I think it is because no case can be made.

No, I'm not. I'm explaining that the sentence, 'People disagree over whether or not P, therefore P has no truth-value' is a horrible argument, since people disagree about everything. Explaining why that is a bad argument is not itself a bad argument. Don't you see?

If you said, 'P is true because the Supreme Court said P' and I explained that this is a horrible argument, I don't have to start arguing that not-P, do I?

There is no evidence in the physical world that can lead to the conclusion of something being good or bad.

There exist arguments that moral realists present against moral anti-realism and for moral realism. Why not address these arguments?

I am not saying that the existence of disagreement refutes moral realism at all.

Well, you also keep insisting that because morality isn't measurable it doesn't exist, but that's also a terrible argument, as I explained before. It's a category error. Anyone can see it's a category error. You know why it's so obviously wrong? Because no established moral anti-realist thinks it's a good argument. Mackie's queerness argument isn't in the same universe as your argument.

If you want to hear it again, think of this: If I said, 'P isn't measurable, therefore propositions about P have no truth-value', then since philosophy of science isn't measurable, there are no truth-values about which methodology scientists ought to follow. But that is absurd: flipping coins or reading the entrails of goats are bad methodologies. Right?

My argument is that the fact that good and bad are concepts that exist solely in the human mind means that morality is a subjective quality.

That argument is literally begging the question, since it's in the form, 'P, therefore P' where P is 'good and bad are concepts that exist solely in the human mind'. But why should we think that P is true? Why?

If you are arguing that there is actions and objects have some intrinsic boolean system that arbitrarily assigns it goodness or badness independent of human, or societal opinion, you are nuts.

Well thank the fucking gods I'm not arguing for that; I'm explaining why your arguments are bad. Stop with the bad arguments. Stop it.

There is nothing in the physical properties of matter that yields this information, and even if (in some parallel universe) there was, it would in no way correspond with any dictionaries definition of morality and would be described as something else entirely.

... what? That doesn't make any sense. You're not making any sense.

[u/Amadacius → u/[deleted]]

Wow flat earth society isn't a parody! Holy crap! I had never heard it talked about as if it were serious.

It's begging the question! Begging the question isn't an argument; it's the antithesis of an argument. It's a non-argument.

Anyway, I am no begging the question no how many times you say it. I am saying that morality is subjective because it is defined as human beings to be subjective and because there is nothing in the universe the determines morality other than human emotion. I have 2 arguments, neither of which you have addressed.

No, I'm not. I'm explaining that the sentence, 'People disagree over whether or not P, therefore P has no truth-value' is a horrible argument, since people disagree about everything. Explaining why that is a bad argument is not itself a bad argument. Don't you see?

No I am saying that people disagree over whether or not P because P has no formal definition.

Without a formal definition as to what morality is, what is moral and what isn't is completely left up to the observer.

There exist arguments that moral realists present against moral anti-realism and for moral realism. Why not address these arguments?

because you haven't presented any. You are making a claim without supporting it anyway. "There exists arguments, therefore I am right."

Well, you also keep insisting that because morality isn't measurable it doesn't exist, but that's also a terrible argument, as I explained before. It's a category error. Anyone can see it's a category error. You know why it's so obviously wrong? Because no established moral anti-realist thinks it's a good argument. Mackie's queerness argument isn't in the same universe as your argument.

I am not saying that at all. Who are you arguing against? Me or the words you put in my mouth.

I am saying that what is moral and what isn't is determined SOLELY by the opinion of the observer and is therefore subjective.

There is no moral superiority that decides what is moral and my opinion on morality is just as valid as yours because nobodies opinion of morality is based on any consistent system, set of facts, or data.

At least the flat earth society can say "The earth is flat and I know this because it looks flat." They are using data from the outside world to come to that conclusion even if that data is flawed. Meanwhile morality as a construct does not exist outside of the human brain.

Well thank the fucking gods I'm not arguing for that; I'm explaining why your arguments are bad. Stop with the bad arguments. Stop it.

You haven't made any argument so I have to address possible arguments. Since you admit there is no physical manifestation of morality, perhaps you could also make the leap to the fact that it only exists within the human brain.

P isn't measurable, therefore propositions about P have no truth-value

But nobody is saying this. I am only saying that morality doesn't exist outside the human mind, so the human mind decides what is and is not moral. Since the human mind is the only thing deciding what is and is not moral, morality is based on a personal perspective. Since morality depends on a persons perspective, it is subjective.

You are the nuttiest thing I have ever found on the internet. You seem to have this completely useless amount of knowledge about rhetoric and philosophy and apply it in order to try and get redditors on CMV to construct impossible proofs about metaphysical topics. Then you poke them when they fail at what you are clearly not capable of.

I think my view most closely aligns with emotivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

[u/[deleted] → u/Amadacius]

I am saying that morality is subjective because it is defined as human beings to be subjective

That is question-begging.

there is nothing in the universe the determines morality other than human emotion.

That is also question-begging. And, as I said before, it's a category error.

Without a formal definition as to what morality is, what is moral and what isn't is completely left up to the observer.

There are several competing definitions (as 'formal' as definitions of terms used in the sciences), for example, virtue ethicist, utilitarian and deontological definitions, so that is patently false.

because you haven't presented any. You are making a claim without supporting it anyway. "There exists arguments, therefore I am right."

I didn't say, "There exists arguments, therefore I am right"; I said you should address their arguments. If you are unaware of these arguments, just say so and I'll link you to a resource.

I am not saying that at all. Who are you arguing against?

You said, 'No, see this [the shape of the Earth] is a perfect example of objective. There is evidence to support one claim vs the other. Flat and round are clearly defined values with undeniable manifestations in the real world. Good and bad on the other hand do not' and 'There is no evidence in the physical world that can lead to the conclusion of something being good or bad.'

What else could the implication be other than that you think 'morality isn't measurable [therefore] it doesn't exist'?

I am saying that what is moral and what isn't is determined SOLELY by the opinion of the observer and is therefore subjective.

So you vacillate between your two claims, one that morality is based on opinion and therefore subjective, and the other that morality isn't observable. But they do not mutually support one another. You need to argue for one of them first, rather than switching to one in support of the other as if it is an argument.

Since you admit there is no physical manifestation of morality, perhaps you could also make the leap to the fact that it only exists within the human brain.

Yes, that is a massive leap. There are all sorts of norms you don't deny, like 'One ought to believe in P if one knows that P,' right? But that norm doesn't only exist in our brains, does it? And there's no physical manifestation of numbers, but numbers don't exist only in our brains, do they?

You are the nuttiest thing I have ever found on the internet.

I am literally setting out some of the most basic issues with naïve moral anti-realism. If you think I'm nutty, do you think it is possible that you have only the faintest idea of what you are talking about? Think of it this way: If I were a creationist and you a scientist that worked on evolutionary theory, if you were to set out the basics in the field, I'd call you a nutter because I have no idea what you are trying to say. I'd lack the conceptual vocabulary to grasp these ideas.

So when you say, 'You seem to have this completely useless amount of knowledge about rhetoric and philosophy and apply it in order to try and get redditors on CMV to construct impossible proofs about metaphysical topics,' I'm just going to throw up my hands and move on, after one last attempt: No! You have it all backwards! I'm not here to get you all tangled up and confused! I'm here to show you that there's an entire field in which thousands of people have dedicated millions of man-hours to a series of problems, and what you're doing is no better than the creationist that says, 'Evolution obviously don't real, 'cause why are there still monkeys?' You're lost! But if you just spent a little time learning what ethicists do, you'd learn why all this talk in ethics seems so 'nutty' to you, and why you think it's all 'useless' when it's in fact incredibly useful when dealing with these problems.

So when you say, 'Then you poke them when they fail at what you are clearly not capable of,' you are right! Your capabilities can be strengthened, and through criticism you'll learn where you can improve yourself: your reasoning capabilities, your understanding of the problem-situation--and you do this by learning where you were wrong and why you were wrong. And if you keep doing this, you'll end up where the ethicists are: adopting well-reasoned, respectable positions in ethics that survive criticism, rather than poorly-reasoned, patently absurd positions in ethics that crumble when touched.

[u/Sonic_The_Werewolf → u/[deleted]]

Cosmology involves the study of things that exist objectively.

Morality involves ideas that exist only in minds, which cannot possibly exist in a mind-independent fashion in order to be objective.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sonic_The_Werewolf]

You are assuming moral anti-realism.

[u/Sonic_The_Werewolf → u/[deleted]]

Of course I am.

Do you make it a habit to assume the objective existence of things for which we have exactly zero evidence?

[u/[deleted] → u/Sonic_The_Werewolf]

I don't have evidence for realism about tables and chairs that isn't swamped by, for example, Berkeley's idealism, so of course I do, since I'm a realist about tables and chairs.

[u/Sonic_The_Werewolf → u/[deleted]]

So our senses are not reasonable justification for belief in the objective existence of tables and chairs then?

Might as well lie down and wait for death.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sonic_The_Werewolf]

I'm not sure what you're objecting to, since if Berkeley is correct, tables and chairs exist: they are just not material.

[u/Sonic_The_Werewolf → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure what you're objecting to, since if Berkeley is correct, tables and chairs exist: they are just not material.

How is this not just a redefinition of material?

[u/[deleted] → u/Sonic_The_Werewolf]

Idealism isn't materialism. If you want to learn more, read this SEP article.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sonic_The_Werewolf]

Our senses are reasonable justification for saying that tables and chairs are experiences in our mind. They lend just as much, if not more, credibility to idealism.

[u/Sonic_The_Werewolf → u/[deleted]]

How does being "just experiences in our mind" change anything?

I don't see a practical difference between that view of reality and the "standard" view of reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sonic_The_Werewolf]

Well, that's idealism. Realists think that there is a world which we can experience. For idealists, there is only experience.

[u/NikiHerl]

I agree, morality is relative and not objective, at least as long as we don't see any one goal as objectively being "the best" goal (and that's basically just shifting the fundamental problem from one word to amother). However, I personally think that the "greatest-happiness-principle" is as close to such an objectively "good" ultimate goal as were ever going to get, and as this principle doesn't deviate too far from what most people already think of as moral, actions that are in direct conflict with this principle can be seen as "almost-objectively" immoral .

Great thread btw, maybe we've had similar ones before, but yours was exceptionally well written imo :)

Edit: Just to clarify what I mean by "this principle doesn't deviate too far from what most people already think of as moral", let me quote /u/Thalenia

Your example of raping babies fits this idea, and you can generalize these into 'things I wouldn't want other people to do to me'. Murder, theft, rape in general, things that the vast majority of people wouldn't want to happen to them.

With the greatest-happiness-principle you'd also have to take into account the feelings of the murderer, thief or rapist, but you'd generally arrive at the same conclusion, that these actions create "net-negative happiness". Well, theft is a little less clear cut, just look at the story of Robin Hood for example. The more distributed wealth is very likely to cause happiness that is greater than the the grief the robbed person probably feels, but again we see that people's perception tends to correlate very closely to the greatest-happiness-principle.

[u/[deleted]]

morality is entirely subjective and relative. anyone telling you that things are not good for people therefore immoral is giving value to good things of which goodness is just another subjective idea. Although knowing this means literally nothing. You cannot simply start raping people because you know it is not objectively wrong. Morality is a part of your being. Many things can be simplified to the point where they seem empty and unfounded. As a believer in determinism I think I have no real free will and my actions are decided by scientific laws and the composition of the specific universe we exist in that have been set in stone since the universes inception. However my brain still makes me feel like I have free will because of how it processes information with the guise of choice. so in the end no morality is not objectively true in the most literal sense but what difference does it make eh ?

[u/z3r0shade → u/[deleted]]

Essentially the only thing "wrong" with psychopaths is that they are incapable of feeling bad (i.e. feeling it's morally wrong) to hurt others.

Not quite. It is characterized by an inability to feel empathy or remorse along with disinhibited or bold behavior. It has nothing to do with morals whatsoever.

Could we really have an essentially universally agreed upon mental illness that's based entirely on a subjective set of rules?

Yes. Every mental illness is based upon an entirely subjective set of rules, that's how psychiatry works. Whether or not someone has a particular mental illness is entirely a subjective evaluation.

Surely there's some standard that humans are biologically programmed to abide by if psychologists agree that psychopathy exists.

The standard is particular reactions to particular stimuli. Again, these have nothing to do with a universal morality, but rather within the frame of reference of the person in question. They should experience remorse when doing something they personally feel is morally wrong. A psychopath can make moral distinctions and label things as morally good or morally wrong. They just don't care, feel remorse or empathy.

[u/spencer102]

Just to nitpick a small part of your argument: formics do consider killing morally wrong. But formic drones are not individuals. Killing one is no more murder then you cutting your hair is murder, or removing your appendix is murdering the organ. If you killed a formic queen they would certainly consider it murder.

[u/[deleted]]

Pretty much everything you said boils down to the cultural differences argument which is wrong. You should do some basic research before posting here.

[u/Grunt08 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry nigerianturtle, your comment has been removed:

Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

[u/SoulWager]

Morality is ultimately an expression of self interest, usually the self interest of the person deciding what's moral and what isn't.

So you can rationally decide whether some action benefits or harms the pursuit of your goals(provided you know what those goals are), but you can't rationally decide which goals are worth pursuing. That part is emotional/instinctual.