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.

[McCulloch]

Gravity is objective. The gravitational attraction between two massive particles is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distances¹. If someone does not understand gravity, it still has the same effect. Rocks are pretty stupid, yet gravity affects them. Humans can be quite delusional, yet gravity still unfailingly affects them.

Many theists argue that morals are objective and that they have been given by an unchanging God to humans. This argument falls down in a number of different ways, but for the purposes of this debate thread, we are interested only in whether morality is objective.

On the face of it, the obvious answer is no. Different human societies at various different times have implemented different moral codes. So it would appear that the onus is on those who claim that morality is objective to prove their case.

I would expect that their argument would proceed something like this. There is an ideal objective set of moral principles that each human society strives to emulate. The closer to this imagined set a society gets, the more moral that society is. I might be wrong, so I'll stop there and see what the other side comes up with.

__________________________
¹Newtonian, objective adjustments have been made for relativity, but are not important for this argument.

[Skyler]

Gravity is objective. The gravitational attraction between two massive particles is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distances¹. If someone does not understand gravity, it still has the same effect. Rocks are pretty stupid, yet gravity affects them. Humans can be quite delusional, yet gravity still unfailingly affects them.

I would agree with that.

Many theists argue that morals are objective and that they have been given by an unchanging God to humans. This argument falls down in a number of different ways, but for the purposes of this debate thread, we are interested only in whether morality is objective.

Thank you.

On the face of it, the obvious answer is no. Different human societies at various different times have implemented different moral codes. So it would appear that the onus is on those who claim that morality is objective to prove their case.

I think you misunderstand the nature of "objectivity". Different human societies have also had vastly different views of the universe, but that doesn't make it any less objective.

I would expect that their argument would proceed something like this. There is an ideal objective set of moral principles that each human society strives to emulate. The closer to this imagined set a society gets, the more moral that society is. I might be wrong, so I'll stop there and see what the other side comes up with.

I wouldn't even say that each human society strives to emulate it. To some degree, most human societies accept some or most of those objective moral values, but which ones they accept largely depend on what they feel is most conducive to their happiness.

This doesn't mean, of course, that morals are subjective, simply because people choose which ones to follow. People also choose which interpretation of cosmology most closely approximates reality. Does that mean reality is subjective? Of course not.

[McCulloch]

On the face of it, the obvious answer is no. Different human societies at various different times have implemented different moral codes. So it would appear that the onus is on those who claim that morality is objective to prove their case.

I think you misunderstand the nature of "objectivity". Different human societies have also had vastly different views of the universe, but that doesn't make it any less objective.

No, I understand objectivity as well as the next guy. My point was to make a prima facie case not to prove the point. Since various human societies cannot agree among themselves about morality, it appears as if there is no objective moral standard. This appearance may be shown to be false, but the burden lies with the one claiming that there is an objective morality to show this.

I wouldn't even say that each human society strives to emulate it. To some degree, most human societies accept some or most of those objective moral values, but which ones they accept largely depend on what they feel is most conducive to their happiness.

You are jumping ahead. This paragraph assumes what is to be proven, that there are objective moral values.

This doesn't mean, of course, that morals are subjective, simply because people choose which ones to follow. People also choose which interpretation of cosmology most closely approximates reality. Does that mean reality is subjective? Of course not.

But in the case of cosmology there are objective methods that can be used to determine the correct one. One way that you could end this debate would be to outline objective methods that could be used to determine some objective moral values.

[Skyler]

On the face of it, the obvious answer is no. Different human societies at various different times have implemented different moral codes. So it would appear that the onus is on those who claim that morality is objective to prove their case.

I think you misunderstand the nature of "objectivity". Different human societies have also had vastly different views of the universe, but that doesn't make it any less objective.

No, I understand objectivity as well as the next guy. My point was to make a prima facie case not to prove the point. Since various human societies cannot agree among themselves about morality, it appears as if there is no objective moral standard. This appearance may be shown to be false, but the burden lies with the one claiming that there is an objective morality to show this.

I think that if you're going to take the position "subjective until proven otherwise", you should apply that position also to the material universe. We should assume it's subjective unless someone can prove it's objective.

I wouldn't even say that each human society strives to emulate it. To some degree, most human societies accept some or most of those objective moral values, but which ones they accept largely depend on what they feel is most conducive to their happiness.

You are jumping ahead. This paragraph assumes what is to be proven, that there are objective moral values.

I was responding to your anticipation of my argument.

This doesn't mean, of course, that morals are subjective, simply because people choose which ones to follow. People also choose which interpretation of cosmology most closely approximates reality. Does that mean reality is subjective? Of course not.

But in the case of cosmology there are objective methods that can be used to determine the correct one. One way that you could end this debate would be to outline objective methods that could be used to determine some objective moral values.

Can you perhaps suggest one of these objective methods that can be used to arrive at, say, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? Or the correct explanation for the expansion of the universe?

If not, then by your criterion, shouldn't we reject the objectivity of the universe?

[McCulloch]

I think that if you're going to take the position "subjective until proven otherwise", you should apply that position also to the material universe. We should assume it's subjective unless someone can prove it's objective.

No, I provided a reason why it appears as if morality is subjective. My reason is not conclusive, but until something is presented for the contrary, we should provisionally hold that morality is subjective.

On the other hand, I experience some aspects of the universe. Others that I know experience aspects of the universe. As far as our objective measures of the attributes of the universe are concerned, the universe is an objective reality. I will provisionally hold that the universe is objective until evidence is brought to bear to the contrary.

Can you perhaps suggest one of these objective methods that can be used to arrive at, say, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? Or the correct explanation for the expansion of the universe?

I only suggested one way to end the debate in your favor. Feel free to attempt to make your point some other way. Until we find what you are asking for in cosmology, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics will remain a subjective matter. The measurable results of quantum mechanics are objective.

[Skyler]

I think that if you're going to take the position "subjective until proven otherwise", you should apply that position also to the material universe. We should assume it's subjective unless someone can prove it's objective.

No, I provided a reason why it appears as if morality is subjective. My reason is not conclusive, but until something is presented for the contrary, we should provisionally hold that morality is subjective.

All right. Here's a reason why reality appears subjective: I look at a piece of paper and see that it's blue. Someone else, who's colorblind, looks at it and sees that it's grey. Cannot we therefore conclude that reality is subjective, by your reasoning?

On the other hand, I experience some aspects of the universe. Others that I know experience aspects of the universe. As far as our objective measures of the attributes of the universe are concerned, the universe is an objective reality. I will provisionally hold that the universe is objective until evidence is brought to bear to the contrary.

I can say something similar about morality.

I have reached some conclusions about morality; others I know have reached similar conclusions about morality. As far as our objective measures of morality are concerned, morality is an objective reality. So, we can provisionally hold that morality is objective until evidence is brought to bear to the contrary.

Can you perhaps suggest one of these objective methods that can be used to arrive at, say, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? Or the correct explanation for the expansion of the universe?

I only suggested one way to end the debate in your favor. Feel free to attempt to make your point some other way. Until we find what you are asking for in cosmology, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics will remain a subjective matter. The measurable results of quantum mechanics are objective.

Are you then saying that reality is subjective, until we learn what the objective basis for it is?

[McCulloch]

All right. Here's a reason why reality appears subjective: I look at a piece of paper and see that it's blue. Someone else, who's colorblind, looks at it and sees that it's grey. Cannot we therefore conclude that reality is subjective, by your reasoning?

We can therefore conclude that the perception of colour (and it correct spelling) is subjective.

I can say something similar about morality.

Please do. But back it up with evidence and examples. For example, we can measure the speed of light in a vacuum and the gravitational constant. It does not matter who is doing the measurement, the numbers remain constant. Please provide an example of some objective moral standard.

Are you then saying that reality is subjective, until we learn what the objective basis for it is?

No, I'm saying that the correct interpretation of the known quantum effects is subjective. The reality of quantum mechanics is objective.

[Skyler]

All right. Here's a reason why reality appears subjective: I look at a piece of paper and see that it's blue. Someone else, who's colorblind, looks at it and sees that it's grey. Cannot we therefore conclude that reality is subjective, by your reasoning?

We can therefore conclude that the perception of colour (and it correct spelling) is subjective.

Can we not then also conclude that the perception of morality is subjective?

I can say something similar about morality.

Please do. But back it up with evidence and examples. For example, we can measure the speed of light in a vacuum and the gravitational constant. It does not matter who is doing the measurement, the numbers remain constant. Please provide an example of some objective moral standard.

But it does matter who--or in this case what--is doing the measuring. We still use the same kind of apparatus to measure the speed of light. Likewise, we use "thought examples" to analyze morality. But just like it's possible to misread the display on a speed-of-light-odometer(because of being partially or completely blind, for example), it's also possible to "misread" those thought examples.

Are you then saying that reality is subjective, until we learn what the objective basis for it is?

No, I'm saying that the correct interpretation of the known quantum effects is subjective. The reality of quantum mechanics is objective.

That's what I'm saying about morality too.

[Goat]

On the face of it, the obvious answer is no. Different human societies at various different times have implemented different moral codes. So it would appear that the onus is on those who claim that morality is objective to prove their case.

I think you misunderstand the nature of "objectivity". Different human societies have also had vastly different views of the universe, but that doesn't make it any less objective.

No, I understand objectivity as well as the next guy. My point was to make a prima facie case not to prove the point. Since various human societies cannot agree among themselves about morality, it appears as if there is no objective moral standard. This appearance may be shown to be false, but the burden lies with the one claiming that there is an objective morality to show this.

I think that if you're going to take the position "subjective until proven otherwise", you should apply that position also to the material universe. We should assume it's subjective unless someone can prove it's objective.

I wouldn't even say that each human society strives to emulate it. To some degree, most human societies accept some or most of those objective moral values, but which ones they accept largely depend on what they feel is most conducive to their happiness.

You are jumping ahead. This paragraph assumes what is to be proven, that there are objective moral values.

I was responding to your anticipation of my argument.

This doesn't mean, of course, that morals are subjective, simply because people choose which ones to follow. People also choose which interpretation of cosmology most closely approximates reality. Does that mean reality is subjective? Of course not.

But in the case of cosmology there are objective methods that can be used to determine the correct one. One way that you could end this debate would be to outline objective methods that could be used to determine some objective moral values.

Can you perhaps suggest one of these objective methods that can be used to arrive at, say, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics? Or the correct explanation for the expansion of the universe?

If not, then by your criterion, shouldn't we reject the objectivity of the universe?

When it comes to moral values, can we apply a testable and repeatable experiment that consistently gives the same answer? In the real world,
if we drop a cement block without anything else on it, it falls, over and over again. When it comes to biology, if we change the environment of a species for generations at a time, the species either adapt to it, or die out.

What test can you provide that makes predictions, and can be tested as a test for the 'objective morals hypothesis'?