Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think objective, universal, morality exists and is basically a refined statement of the Golden Rule--which, BTW, is expressed in some form by every major religion, even though it's swamped by extraneous, non-applicable add-ons which inevitably draw most of the attention.

Morality should deal ONLY with our interactions with each other. All else is subjective, individually determined virtue. Not working or going to church on the sabbath are not moral issues, but if you think they're virtuous behavior, that's entirely up to you. Virtue should never be legislated, although it will always be subject to social pressure, though some will pay a price if they buck the pressure.

As for the fine tuned Golden Rule, it is: "Honoring the equal rights of all adult humans of sound mind, to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud".

That's it. Subjective morality doesn't exist, but there are some gray areas lurking in the qualifiers (adult, human, of sound mind) that have to be dealt with.

Specifically, I'm referring to cases such as the differing degrees of humane treatment given to animals, when does an embryo acquire the right to life, and when do children/adolescents, the mentally handicapped or criminals, come to possess (or loose) their rights. These gray areas deal with the degree of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness possessed by a given individual; and they're gray because there is rarely a specific time, or stage of evolution between point A when they don't have a particular right, to point B when they do. For example, children acquire the right to liberty gradually, yet we use a specific age when they're suddenly no longer considered a minor and have full legal rights as adults. The point is to recognize that picking a specific, arbitrary point for legal purposes can obviously have negative consequences. How can we allow for extenuating circumstances yet maintain equal protection under the law? Should, say, an arbitrary first trimester limit on abortion be lengthened if, for instance, the fetus has developmental problems? When does the right to life of a fetus override the right to life and liberty of the mother? For animals, is humane treatment for a dog the sames as for a chicken, or a lizard or cockroach? It isn't immoral to put (lock up) a child in playpen, restrict an adolescent from selling his TV, drinking alcohol, or making them do chores, and you don't give a child a gun to handle bullies, etc., but when do they acquire those liberties?

When we look at the extremes, 1 day old vs. 9 mo. old fetus, dog vs. cockroach, healthy adult vs. one with Alzheimers, we have little trouble making judgements. This isn't an argument against arbitrary limits, but the transition can be very problematic for deciding what's moral, and how we should deal with these issues legally. Sometimes we just don't have the information we need to make an informed judgement, and the first step is to recognize that. Some fundamentalists believe that the right to life begins at conception, but that's strictly a matter of arbitrary faith. Should a 13 year-old girl who is one day pregnant as the result of being raped by her father be forced to carry the baby to term? Others believe we can abort a healthy baby even when it's in the process of being born, but that's just as much a matter of blind faith, and should actually be considered murder.

These gray areas are gray because we don't have definitive answers for them, and the point is we need to recognize them for what they are and deal with them calmly as much as we can in our laws. All we know for sure is if a crime can have no victims, it isn't a crime. All absolute immorality stems from an adult establishing a moral double standard for himself or his family, clique, group, race, religion or country.

(I know there are questions such as under what assumptions do we adopt the Golden Rule, what would motivate society to adhere to it, and how do we enforce justice with objective morality but subjective punishment. But this is a long post already so I'll deal with those as they arise.)

[higgy1911]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

Are you saying morality is not based on values?

If its not what is the standard? Or rather why are the precepts you have listed considered the standard.

Incidentally I don't know that not condemning is the same as condoning in the practical sense. I don't condemn my dog for trying to murder the birds in my yard. But I prevent it anyway.

"Evil" doesn’t have to be condemned to be prevented. I do condemn nazism, but am not so arrogant to assert that my disgust with it is universal. Morals are judgements, judgements are subjective. Objective truths about nazism don't exist outside of the facts of what they did, who they did it to, when they did it, how they did it etc.


I whole heartedly embrace the four standards you propose, I justccan't figure what indicates they are objective?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

Are you saying morality is not based on values?

Before we go there, we need to define values. We're having a hard enough time with "morality" as it is, what with all the extra baggage that's been piled onto the definition of it.

If its not what is the standard? Or rather why are the precepts you have listed considered the standard.

I'll be glad to answer your question, but it's a little involved, so if you would please show me that you're not a bot and tell me if you believe that a standard is possible at all, and if so, what that standard might be. Otherwise...let's not waste each other's time.

Incidentally I don't know that not condemning is the same as condoning in the practical sense. I don't condemn my dog for trying to murder the birds in my yard. But I prevent it anyway.

Morality only involves fully self-aware sentient creatures. Dogs, birds etc. are innocent, that is, incapable of understanding good and evil--and are shamelessly used as red herrings and straw-men by those fighting good order.

"Evil" doesn’t have to be condemned to be prevented. I do condemn nazism, but am not so arrogant to assert that my disgust with it is universal.

Really. Where or when should it be accepted as moral? If no one condemns evil, Holocaust or otherwise, who will prevent it and why? You say you condemn Nazism, but not universally. Where or when is it not worthy of universal condemnation?

judgements are subjective.

So judging murder, slavery, rape, genocide, theft, torture, bearing false witness, and on and on to be wrong, is wrong? If not always wrong, what is the standard. When is it OK, or not, to sacrifice your baby to Baal on a whim?...or torture your grandmother?...or initiate WWIII? If all is subjective, what can't be rationalized?

I whole heartedly embrace the four standards you propose, I just can't figure what indicates they are objective?

Don't think of them as objective, but rather as universal standards among sentient, free-will creatures seeking equal rights in order to establish a maximum amount of good order for all. Those who want to undermine that, must first prevent the establishment of any objective/universal standards. If there are no standards, then that includes those four standards as well. Objective morality means there are no standards--standards being objective by definition.

Subjective morality is the Big Lie projected by the likes of Goebbels and his modern day National Socialist apostles.

BTW, there is subjective Truth, but it only deals with subjective subjects like beauty, and the subjective aspects of love and justice.

[Bust Nak]

What is subjective about harm?

Being dependent of the mind, is what is subjective about harm.

Somebody wants to bury himself, I say hand him a shovel. You having the last word is working out pretty well.

Let just say I am as confident about the outcome of this debate as you appears to be. I am not the one who left points unanswered.

[ThePainefulTruth]

What is subjective about harm?

Being dependent of the mind, is what is subjective about harm.

Somebody wants to bury himself, I say hand him a shovel. You having the last word is working out pretty well.

Let just say I am as confident about the outcome of this debate as you appears to be. I am not the one who left points unanswered.

Points answered repeated again ad nauseum aren't unanswered.

[Bust Nak]

What is subjective about harm?

Being dependent of the mind, is what is subjective about harm.

Somebody wants to bury himself, I say hand him a shovel. You having the last word is working out pretty well.

Let just say I am as confident about the outcome of this debate as you appears to be. I am not the one who left points unanswered.

Points answered repeated again ad nauseum aren't unanswered.

Sure, and points unanswer remains points unanswered. Most notably, the ones here.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

I don't know if there is a standard. I haven't seen one evidenced or proposed that holds water. But I try to keep an open mind.

Universal standard for sentient beings who desire equality for all in an effort to maximize whats good for all. Its the very definition of a subjective morality. It describes the value that is desired and then derives moral precepts from it.

I'm not interested in changing your opinion, in some ways I admire it and remember fondly my own ideas as an Objectivist. So I am very interested in hearing whether or not you think morality is derived from values and what your definition of values is.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]

I don't know if there is a standard. I haven't seen one evidenced or proposed that holds water. But I try to keep an open mind.

Universal standard for sentient beings who desire equality for all in an effort to maximize whats good for all. Its the very definition of a subjective morality. It describes the value that is desired and then derives moral precepts from it.

A "universal standard" "for all", is objective by definition, which is:
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>"

I'm not interested in changing your opinion, in some ways I admire it and remember fondly my own ideas as an Objectivist. So I am very interested in hearing whether or not you think morality is derived from values and what your definition of values is.

You were an objectivist, as in Ayn Rand? It's been a while since I've been there but I remember thinking she had some holes in her theories. As for values, they comes up in the two assumptions on which morality is based, values being what we hold dear.

There are only two assumptions used here as a basis for this moral code: That life is of value with human/sentient (fully self-aware) life being of ultimate value; and that the desire for (value of) good order mandates morality. As I've said, the only ones who wouldn't agree with those assumptions are those wishing to establish a double standard with themselves being in the elite/pinnacle, and anarchists who only want to watch the world burn. Some will say that restricting the elite or using values is subjective; but to allow for a morally elite class or individual would automatically invite chaos, and devalue those of the second class based on the subjective (self-determined) superiority of the elites.

IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos.

The more universally honored the moral code is, the more universal good order is. In order to work toward that universal acceptance, we must keep the moral code as simple as possible with no mandatory virtues—the disagreements over which are the cause of most human strife. Understanding the need to separate subjective virtues from objective morality is our greatest obstacle to good order.


What human interaction should be defined as immoral other than the violation of the equal rights of all to their life, liberty and property through force or fraud? Wouldn't other issues of "good" conduct fall under the category of subjective individual virtue? Also the issue of gray areas in the gradual transition of morality from subjective to objective for adults, is a separate issue involving those who are unable to think objectively (children, the mentally infirm).

Question: Is there such a thing as a subjective dictionary?

[higgy1911]

[quote

IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos

I agree with this and see how your conclusions follow from it. When I say that morality is subjective I simply mean the goal is nearly universal and not in fact universal.

What you are proposingsounds entirely Randian to me . Foundationaly speaking. I don't think many of her conclusions necessarily followed the groundwork she laid out.

I can cope with objective morality as you describe it. Its a chain that sets lightly enough upon us.

[Goat]

[quote

IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos

I agree with this and see how your conclusions follow from it. When I say that morality is subjective I simply mean the goal is nearly universal and not in fact universal.

What you are proposingsounds entirely Randian to me . Foundationaly speaking. I don't think many of her conclusions necessarily followed the groundwork she laid out.

I can cope with objective morality as you describe it. Its a chain that sets lightly enough upon us.

Except, of course, it is not objective. Something is objective no matter what one thinks about it, or feels about it, and morality has no meaning except for what one thinks or feels about it.

I consider the term 'objective morality' an oxymoron

[ThePainefulTruth]

[quote

IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos

I agree with this and see how your conclusions follow from it. When I say that morality is subjective I simply mean the goal is nearly universal and not in fact universal.

Yes, an objective pursuit of something subjective does seem to be paradoxical. But "there is no hope of advance without a pardox". Planck

What you are proposingsounds entirely Randian to me . Foundationaly speaking. I don't think many of her conclusions necessarily followed the groundwork she laid out. [/quote]

Well, for one thing, I think she believed that atheism logically followed from Objectivism. And I further think she believed that all Truth is objective. That isn't true, but all (I assume) knowledge is.

Thanks for your thoughtful, and reasoned, post.

[quote

IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos

I agree with this and see how your conclusions follow from it. When I say that morality is subjective I simply mean the goal is nearly universal and not in fact universal.

What you are proposingsounds entirely Randian to me . Foundationaly speaking. I don't think many of her conclusions necessarily followed the groundwork she laid out.

I can cope with objective morality as you describe it. Its a chain that sets lightly enough upon us.

Except, of course, it is not objective. Something is objective no matter what one thinks about it, or feels about it, and morality has no meaning except for what one thinks or feels about it.

I consider the term 'objective morality' an oxymoron

For the purposes of governance, think of it as a universal, enforceable, code of behavior for adult able-minded humans. The only alternative is to shift the law as the winds of power shift. That's the equivalent of advocating for absolute monarchies and dictatorships. If there's another alternative I'm not seeing, then please....