Morality: Objective or subjective?

[Skyler]

Questions for debate:

Is morality objective or subjective? Can we know either way?

Definition of terms:

morality: Differentiation between right and wrong

objective: An entity is objective when it exists independent of whether or not someone believes it.

subjective: An entity is subjective when it only exists if someone believes in it.

[Beto]

I understand the "universe" as the three-and-a-half dimensional entity we commonly refer to as the universe, and the matter and energy found inside that universe. When I speak of the universe I am not referring to immaterial thoughts, concepts, minds, spirits, etc.

Alright, I will attempt to indulge that understanding.

And secondly, when I speak of the universe or morality being "objective" or "subjective" I do not refer to our perceptions of those entities, because as we all approach life from a different angle, our perceptions will of course be different.

But "perceptions" is the difference between "objective" and "subjective".

The question is, is there an underlying reality to those entities which exists independent of observation by a mind?

What do you understand by "underlying reality"? I suppose it's not a part of the universe as you understand it. Notice "space-time" is a concept that can't be disassociated from a universe of matter and energy. Can you really imagine a "reality" that isn't bound by "space-time"?

This is the confusion I'm trying to avoid. I'm not referring to a perception of either morality or the universe. When another member argues as though I am, he or she commits the fallacy of equivocation.

When you refer to "objective morality" you're referring to a "perception-free morality". Unless you can argue how "objective" can mean something else, I don't see how I can indulge alternatives when the word is used.

For the moment I am only considering human "morality". If we consider the "morality" of other species, we may be able to see some similar patterns. It could be an interesting exercise.

There is no doubt similar patterns are readily observable. The issue is what that means to claims of "divinely mandated morality".

[Goat]

I understand the "universe" as the three-and-a-half dimensional entity we commonly refer to as the universe, and the matter and energy found inside that universe. When I speak of the universe I am not referring to immaterial thoughts, concepts, minds, spirits, etc.

Again, depends on what you consider "reality" is. For me, "reality" is what exists regardless of my perceptions. So "reality" is objective, and my perception of it is subjective. Why do you limit "reality" to what you can perceive? Do people you care for stop existing because you cannot perceive them?[/quote]

This is the confusion I'm trying to avoid. I'm not referring to a perception of either morality or the universe. When another member argues as though I am, he or she commits the fallacy of equivocation.

No, it does not follow. How many mammals do you see observing the same basic "code"? Are they moral? How do you distinguish human basic "moral" and animal instinct?

For the moment I am only considering human "morality". If we consider the "morality" of other species, we may be able to see some similar patterns. It could be an interesting exercise.[/quote]

That depends on what theory you are looking at. How about M theory? Can you say '11 dimensions' anyone?

Oh.. and there is no singularity with M theory.

[Skyler]

I understand the "universe" as the three-and-a-half dimensional entity we commonly refer to as the universe, and the matter and energy found inside that universe. When I speak of the universe I am not referring to immaterial thoughts, concepts, minds, spirits, etc.

Alright, I will attempt to indulge that understanding.

And secondly, when I speak of the universe or morality being "objective" or "subjective" I do not refer to our perceptions of those entities, because as we all approach life from a different angle, our perceptions will of course be different.

But "perceptions" is the difference between "objective" and "subjective".

I explained what I meant by the difference between objective and subjective in the first post. Objective means that an entity exists regardless of whether or not it is being observed. Subjective means the opposite--that it doesn't exist if someone isn't observing it/thinking about it.

The question is, is there an underlying reality to those entities which exists independent of observation by a mind?

What do you understand by "underlying reality"? I suppose it's not a part of the universe as you understand it. Notice "space-time" is a concept that can't be disassociated from a universe of matter and energy. Can you really imagine a "reality" that isn't bound by "space-time"?

What I'm asking is, does it exist independently of whether or not anyone thinks it does?

This is the confusion I'm trying to avoid. I'm not referring to a perception of either morality or the universe. When another member argues as though I am, he or she commits the fallacy of equivocation.

When you refer to "objective morality" you're referring to a "perception-free morality". Unless you can argue how "objective" can mean something else, I don't see how I can indulge alternatives when the word is used.

I think that's what I'm saying, yes. Objective is, in this thread, an adjective which modifies the noun to which it is attached to indicate that it exists independently of anyone's perceptions.

Oh.. and there is no singularity with M theory.

Though this isn't the place for it, the Arvind-Borde-Vilenkin theorem doesn't need a singularity to require a definite beginning.

[Beto]

I explained what I meant by the difference between objective and subjective in the first post. Objective means that an entity exists regardless of whether or not it is being observed. Subjective means the opposite--that it doesn't exist if someone isn't observing it/thinking about it.

You can mean whatever you want it to mean, but you can't expect everyone else to indulge in arbitrary definitions.

Objective is, in this thread, an adjective which modifies the noun to which it is attached to indicate that it exists independently of anyone's perceptions.

Not so much "exists" but rather that has qualities or characteristics that are independent of perception, which makes the difference where "subjective" is concerned. "Subjective" doesn't mean something doesn't exist, but that its characteristics are revealed by a perception.

[Skyler]

I explained what I meant by the difference between objective and subjective in the first post. Objective means that an entity exists regardless of whether or not it is being observed. Subjective means the opposite--that it doesn't exist if someone isn't observing it/thinking about it.

You can mean whatever you want it to mean, but you can't expect everyone else to indulge in arbitrary definitions.

Feel free to not indulge in my arbitrary definition. If you choose not to, though, then please stay out of this thread, because in this thread "objective" is the shorthand I'm using to describe existence independent of perception, so you'll undoubtedly be confused if you try to read my posts without understanding the shorthand. I could use a different word instead, if you prefer?

Objective is, in this thread, an adjective which modifies the noun to which it is attached to indicate that it exists independently of anyone's perceptions.

Not so much "exists" but rather that has qualities or characteristics that are independent of perception, which makes the difference where "subjective" is concerned. "Subjective" doesn't mean something doesn't exist, but that its characteristics are revealed by a perception.

You're redefining my terms again. That will of course render my point moot. If you can expose my arguments as fallacious without engaging in such linguistic rhetoric, please do so; otherwise, have a good day, and I'm sorry but I can't debate you further.

[Beto]

I explained what I meant by the difference between objective and subjective in the first post. Objective means that an entity exists regardless of whether or not it is being observed. Subjective means the opposite--that it doesn't exist if someone isn't observing it/thinking about it.

You can mean whatever you want it to mean, but you can't expect everyone else to indulge in arbitrary definitions.

Feel free to not indulge in my arbitrary definition. If you choose not to, though, then please stay out of this thread, because in this thread "objective" is the shorthand I'm using to describe existence independent of perception, so you'll undoubtedly be confused if you try to read my posts without understanding the shorthand. I could use a different word instead, if you prefer?

Objective is, in this thread, an adjective which modifies the noun to which it is attached to indicate that it exists independently of anyone's perceptions.

Not so much "exists" but rather that has qualities or characteristics that are independent of perception, which makes the difference where "subjective" is concerned. "Subjective" doesn't mean something doesn't exist, but that its characteristics are revealed by a perception.

You're redefining my terms again. That will of course render my point moot. If you can expose my arguments as fallacious without engaging in such linguistic rhetoric, please do so; otherwise, have a good day, and I'm sorry but I can't debate you further.

Joke's on me Skyler, I didn't even read the definitions you posted, I just assumed they were standard, or at least what I think is standard. Sorry mate, don't take offence. I'll leave the thread alone, since I obviously can't agree with your definitions or the premise of your reasoning. I enjoyed the exchange anyway.

[Righteous Indignation]

The concepts of objective and subjective are confusing. If I had lived two thousand years ago the flatness of the earth would have been an objective truth. I could have walked to the highest nearby mountain and looked around and saw nothing but a flat world. Others could have confirmed my observations. But the world is not flat and what was an objectively observable truth yesterday is recognized as a subjective observation today. It seems to me that what we consider objective truth is just the best model of reality our senses, instruments, science, and reason can give us at this time.

To demonstrate an objective moral exists, one must demonstrate it has a creator that purposely categorized it as either good or bad. Nothing else will do.

Does the creator necessarily need to be a supernatural entity? Couldnt that creator be evolution?

We can say something is good or bad without consulting a higher power. If it is good it is in our best interest; if it is bad it is not. The same can be said for a society. If it is good it benefits the society and if it is bad it is detrimental to the society. We normally call what is good for the society moral and what is bad immoral. This puts right and wrong in the realm of game theory. Universal concepts of morality like not killing other members of the tribe, fairness, cooperation, and respect for property are just what game theory would predict as good values for a societies survival.

Game theory also explains differences in morality in different societies. Since the demands on one society might be different than the demands on another what is moral from society to society may differ. Societies with a shortage of men may sanction multiple wives. Societies with a shortage of resources might allow infanticide to control the population.

There is an underlying objective force creating morality. Its called survival of the fittest. That means there is an objective moral right and wrong if you want your society to survive.

[Beto]

The concepts of objective and subjective are confusing. If I had lived two thousand years ago the flatness of the earth would have been an objective truth. I could have walked to the highest nearby mountain and looked around and saw nothing but a flat world. Others could have confirmed my observations. But the world is not flat and what was an objectively observable truth yesterday is recognized as a subjective observation today. It seems to me that what we consider objective truth is just the best model of reality our senses, instruments, science, and reason can give us at this time.

For myself, I still can't "see" that the world isn't flat. I'm very aware of what is subjective or objective, simply because objective means independent of perspective. Whether or not I lived two thousand years ago, and failed to understand this notion, isn't entirely relevant. I could be saying it was "objective" if my life depended on it, but we both know it wouldn't be.

Does the creator necessarily need to be a supernatural entity? Couldnt that creator be evolution?

Are we redefining "create" or "creator"? Doesn't "create" presuppose "imaginative skill"?

We can say something is good or bad without consulting a higher power. If it is good it is in our best interest; if it is bad it is not. The same can be said for a society. If it is good it benefits the society and if it is bad it is detrimental to the society.

We normally call what is good for the society moral and what is bad immoral. This puts right and wrong in the realm of game theory. Universal concepts of morality like not killing other members of the tribe, fairness, cooperation, and respect for property are just what game theory would predict as good values for a societies survival.

Game theory also explains differences in morality in different societies. Since the demands on one society might be different than the demands on another what is moral from society to society may differ. Societies with a shortage of men may sanction multiple wives. Societies with a shortage of resources might allow infanticide to control the population.

There is an underlying objective force creating morality. Its called survival of the fittest. That means there is an objective moral right and wrong if you want your society to survive.

You can narrow the context enough to make "morality" objective, sure. That, however, is not the usual theist presumption. And "morality" is subjective precisely because there are many contexts and perspectives.

[Righteous Indignation]

The concepts of objective and subjective are confusing. If I had lived two thousand years ago the flatness of the earth would have been an objective truth. I could have walked to the highest nearby mountain and looked around and saw nothing but a flat world. Others could have confirmed my observations. But the world is not flat and what was an objectively observable truth yesterday is recognized as a subjective observation today. It seems to me that what we consider objective truth is just the best model of reality our senses, instruments, science, and reason can give us at this time.

For myself, I still can't "see" that the world isn't flat. I'm very aware of what is subjective or objective, simply because objective means independent of perspective. Whether or not I lived two thousand years ago, and failed to understand this notion, isn't entirely relevant. I could be saying it was "objective" if my life depended on it, but we both know it wouldn't be.

With the possible exception of mathematics can true objectivity be achieved? Doesnt almost everything contain a certain amount of subjectivity? We have no direct connection with reality. Everything we know about the world outside of our heads comes to use through our senses and they are subjective. Even our minds are prone to errors and subjective.

We might say that our Science is objective. But its model of reality keeps changing with each new improvement in our understanding. For example, suppose I wanted to measure a rod. Ten thousand year ago the best I could do was say its about the length of my arm. A few hundred years ago I might have measured it by the kings foot at 2.56 feet. Now days I might use a laser to get a measurement like 2.5599456445555 feet. In the future Im sure an even more accurate measurement will be possible. Each measurement would be considered object in its time. So the question is: Are you saying to be objective I must match reality to the best of our present understanding or to be objective I must match reality exactly as it is. I dont think the later is possible.

Does the creator necessarily need to be a supernatural entity? Couldnt that creator be evolution?

Are we redefining "create" or "creator"? Doesn't "create" presuppose "imaginative skill"?.

I have a evolution program running on my computer called GenePool. The creatures in the program live in an imaginary pool where they compete for food and sex. Its amazing to watch them evolve through the process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no designer for these artificial life forms other than the evolutionary process yet the results are very imaginative. Strange artificial life forms which swim in every way imaginable and some I would have never imagined. The program can be downloaded for free at http://www.swimbots.com.

We can say something is good or bad without consulting a higher power. If it is good it is in our best interest; if it is bad it is not. The same can be said for a society. If it is good it benefits the society and if it is bad it is detrimental to the society.

We normally call what is good for the society moral and what is bad immoral. This puts right and wrong in the realm of game theory. Universal concepts of morality like not killing other members of the tribe, fairness, cooperation, and respect for property are just what game theory would predict as good values for a societies survival.

Game theory also explains differences in morality in different societies. Since the demands on one society might be different than the demands on another what is moral from society to society may differ. Societies with a shortage of men may sanction multiple wives. Societies with a shortage of resources might allow infanticide to control the population.

There is an underlying objective force creating morality. Its called survival of the fittest. That means there is an objective moral right and wrong if you want your society to survive.

You can narrow the context enough to make "morality" objective, sure. That, however, is not the usual theist presumption. And "morality" is subjective precisely because there are many contexts and perspectives.

I could collect my road kill frame it and call it art but is it really? In the same sense a lot of what is being called subjective morality isnt moral at all. In the world today we have crimes like: the stoning of gays, female circumcision (Cutting off a womens clitoris), burning of witches, and honor killings. All could be called subjective morality but they are not moral they are just ignorant. I believe there is an underlying principle to morality which is difficult to see through the moral fog of bad religions and superstition. That principle is survival.

Ask yourself: Morality what is it good for? The answer is either nothing or else morality has objective value.

[Beto]

With the possible exception of mathematics can true objectivity be achieved? Doesnt almost everything contain a certain amount of subjectivity? We have no direct connection with reality. Everything we know about the world outside of our heads comes to use through our senses and they are subjective. Even our minds are prone to errors and subjective.

And our "sense of morality" is no exception. "Sense" is the operative word. That expression is used precisely because there is no such thing as objective "morality", unless you redefine it solely in an evolutionary context like you have. I also subscribe to it, but others think "God's will" is the objective context that is then perceived individually. But ultimately, and from an evolutionary perspective, "sense of morality" can be demonstrated to some extent, as opposed to the "faith" needed to believe "God" is the origin of the "feeling".

I have a evolution program running on my computer called GenePool. The creatures in the program live in an imaginary pool where they compete for food and sex. Its amazing to watch them evolve through the process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no designer for these artificial life forms other than the evolutionary process yet the results are very imaginative. Strange artificial life forms which swim in every way imaginable and some I would have never imagined. The program can be downloaded for free at http://www.swimbots.com.

But we know there is imaginative skill behind the "randomness" of that program. The same hasn't been demonstrated for the universe. Just because a computer program, that can provide random results, has imaginative skill behind it, it does not logically follow that the same has to be true for the universe, no matter how fervently some wish to believe it.

I could collect my road kill frame it and call it art but is it really?

I don't presume to dictate what is or isn't "art". It is in the eye of the beholder, and inherently subjective. I suppose it can also be broken down to a more objective level, but when someone says "art" they're referring to their perception, whether they realize it or not. Just like with "moral".

In the same sense a lot of what is being called subjective morality isnt moral at all. In the world today we have crimes like: the stoning of gays, female circumcision (Cutting off a womens clitoris), burning of witches, and honor killings. All could be called subjective morality but they are not moral they are just ignorant.

They are moral to someone, even if you don't relate to it. Whether it's derived of ignorance or not is beside the point. Someone's "sense of aesthetics", for example, can also be "bred" to some extent, in order to be able to fully appreciate the intent behind the "art", but that doesn't mean "art" becomes objective in the process.

If I may ask, how do you think your view of "morality" relates to an agnostic position?