Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Reece101
I have not changed my definition of objective. Objective has meant irrespective of human opinion since the beginning. If it does not mean that to you then kindly supply a word for that concept.

You seem to be conflating the objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion that people should avoid killing one another with the subjective opinion itself. 
#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
...the objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion...
I'm not entirely certain that's an "objective fact".
#93
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure it is either. However reece101 certainly seems to think that if enough people hold the same opinion it becomes objective somehow. 
#94
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Objectivity for me doesn’t inherently entail fact. It just means there’s a common idea. An idea independent of any one individual. Does it make sense? 
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
Objectivity for me doesn’t inherently entail fact. It just means there’s a common idea. An idea independent of any one individual. Does it make sense? 
Yes, that makes perfect sense.

I believe the word you're looking for is "intersubjective".
#96
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
No that’s not it. Intersubjective is interpersonal. When I say a “common-idea”, I’m not saying one that has been necessarily shared. It’s larger than that. 
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
intersubjective [ in-ter-suh b-jek-tiv ] adjective Philosophy - comprehensible to, relating to, or used by a number of persons, such as a concept or language. [*]

And,

For example, social psychologists Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish list at least six definitions of intersubjectivity (and other disciplines have additional definitions). [*]

For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects. [*]
#98
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Reece101
I think we are again talking past each other. Opinions are subjective agreed?

Topic's author
#99
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
The truth of moral propositions are contained in rationality and the standards of rationality are at least partially objective.

#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The truth of moral propositions are contained in rationality and the standards of rationality are at least partially objective.
Please explain how anything objective can be less than 100% objective.

Please explain how anything subjective can be less than 100% subjective.

Please make your preferred definition of objectivity explicit.
#101
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Firstly subjective and objective are dichotomous.  If one then not the other.
The argument, "humans are subjective" isn't objective?


Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.

Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).

Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.

Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.

Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment. 
Provide the explanations.
#102
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The argument, "humans are subjective" isn't objective?
It's TAUTOLOGICAL.
#103
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It's TAUTOLOGICAL.
That much I know. Hence, I'm challenging secularmerlin's response to individualism's capture of the "objective subjectivity" as erroneous.

#104
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
The argument, "humans are subjective" isn't objective?
Well of it is objective then it cannot be subjective. The two are mutually exclusive.
Provide the explanations.
Each of these kinds of behaviors promotes survival of the special which is literally the only thin that natural selection rewards.

#105
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Well of it is objective then it cannot be subjective. The two are mutually exclusive.
If I were to say that you are subjective, is that not objective? (There's a mistake you're making, and 3RU7AL's mention of tautology can help you correct it.)

Each of these kinds of behaviors promotes survival of the special which is literally the only thin that natural selection rewards.
Elaborate.


#106
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Objectivity may be beyond humans. The only truths we can be sure of are tautological truths. Tautologies are prescriptively true. It is based on language and the meaning of words which, while we must agree on them in order to communicate, are subjective by their very nature.
Each of these kinds of behaviors promotes survival of the special which is literally the only thin that natural selection rewards.
Elaborate.
It is a very simple concept. Behaviors that are detrimental to species survival (even if they superficially benefit the individual) tend to be weeded out. That leaves only behaviors that aid in species survival and those which do not hinder a species survival.

Amongst such behaviors are

Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).

Those that promote self interest (so long as they are not detrimental to the species) as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.

Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.

Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment. 


#107
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Objectivity may be beyond humans.
No, it's not. Metaphysical objectivity is a consequence of logic, and has no form outside human rationalization. The objectivity to which I refer is epistemological, and requires no preponderance beyond reason. Your being subjective isn't a concern of lexical semantics, but a calculus of propositional logic. It's true by its mere statement, language notwithstanding.


It is a very simple concept. Behaviors that are detrimental to species survival (even if they superficially benefit the individual) tend to be weeded out. That leaves only behaviors that aid in species survival and those which do not hinder a species survival.

Amongst such behaviors are

Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).

Those that promote self interest (so long as they are not detrimental to the species) as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.

Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.

Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment. 
You said natural selection can help explain. What you've listed is merely superficial arguments of natural selection. Please elaborate further.
#108
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
If natural selection is the primary drive behind the diversity of species we would expect those kinds of behaviors. Natural selection has explanatory power
 Natural selection is a sufficient explanation. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.

As for objectivity please give an example of a proven non tautological objective truth. We can go from there.

#109
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
No, it's not. Metaphysical objectivity is a consequence of logic, and has no form outside human rationalization.
Please present your definition of "objectivity".

The objectivity to which I refer is epistemological, and requires no preponderance beyond reason.
No human can avoid SAMPLE-BIAS.

Not even computers are capable of OBJECTIVITY.  For example, [LINK]

Your being subjective isn't a concern of lexical semantics, but a calculus of propositional logic. It's true by its mere statement, language notwithstanding.
TRUTH is merely TAUTOLOGICAL (conditional upon acceptance of any particular definition).

TAUTOLOGICAL =/= OBJECTIVE
#110
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Please present your definition of "objectivity".
Validity established independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.

No human can avoid SAMPLE-BIAS.
Your premise?

TRUTH is merely TAUTOLOGICAL (conditional upon acceptance of any particular definition).

TAUTOLOGICAL =/= OBJECTIVE
Truth is a value statement; self-interest isn't. It falls within qualia only if one presumes to qualify said self-interest. Now you can argue that the logical framework which maximizes self-interest is subjective especially with language such as "maximize" and I don't deny that. But it doesn't change the argument that self-interest "is" is ontologically objective, and any logical framework rationalizing it while being ontologically subjective, would still be epistemologically objective so long as it satisfies the rationalization.
#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Please present your definition of "objectivity".
Validity established independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.
It is impossible to establish validity independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.

For example, if you want to validate something, you (an individual) are reacting (a reaction) to something (either an idea or a particular phenomena) you desire to validate and your reaction is based on your previous experiences (prejudice).
#112
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to establish validity independently from individual reaction and/or prejudice.

For example, if you want to validate something, you (an individual) are reacting (a reaction) to something (either an idea or a particular phenomena) you desire to validate and your reaction is based on your previous experiences (prejudice).
Yes, but you're not connecting the validation to my reaction--only my desire to validate.
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes, but you're not connecting the validation to my reaction--only my desire to validate.
Your desire is BOTH a REACTION and a PREJUDICE.
#114
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
You are 100% paralyzed without REACTION and PREJUDICE.
#115
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If natural selection is the primary drive behind the diversity of species we would expect those kinds of behaviors. Natural selection has explanatory power
 Natural selection is a sufficient explanation. Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.

You're supposing the truth of your premise and attempting to make an inductive argument using the reasoning from natural selection. But you're not providing much explanation. You state:

Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.

Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).

Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.

Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.

Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment. 
But you don't elaborate. You merely repeat and then harken back to your initial claim that Natural Selection can explain. Please elaborate on the points you made.

As for objectivity please give an example of a proven non tautological objective truth. We can go from there.
As I told 3RU7AL, truth is a value. When I state "you are subjective," it requires no values of true or false; it simply is. You can argue that the rationalization is ontologically subjective. That does not exclude it from being epistemologically objective so long as it meets the demands of its rationalization.
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
As I told 3RU7AL, truth is a value. When I state "you are subjective," it requires no values of true or false; it simply is.
That is incorrect.

Definitions are required.

YOU = HUMAN

HUMAN = A MAMMAL WITH A LIMITED PERCEPTION AND BRAIN CAPACITY

SUBJECTIVE = SAMPLE-BIASED

TRUE = QUANTIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Morality Can't Be Objective, Even If God Exists,

#118
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Your desire is BOTH a REACTION and a PREJUDICE.

Once again, what does my desire to validate have to do with validation?

You are 100% paralyzed without REACTION and PREJUDICE.
Paralyzed? How do you mean?

That is incorrect.

Definitions are required.

YOU = HUMAN

HUMAN = A MAMMAL WITH A LIMITED PERCEPTION AND BRAIN CAPACITY

SUBJECTIVE = SAMPLE-BIASED

TRUE = QUANTIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY


subjective does not equal sample-biased. This presumes the existence of metaphysical reality (noumenon,) one which you'd have to substantiate before incorporating it as fundamental to the description of subjective. Subjective can be easily described by thinking of it as a contraction of "subject" and "perspective." "Subject's perspective."  While the tautology of supposing the subject's subjectivity is ontologically subjective (a priori) it does not exclude the epistemological foundation on which it is contingent. (Logically, to state that nothing can be objective is tantamount to stating that even word "objective" is a self-contained description, which describes nothing. And if you argue that objective is merely a logical necessity of supposing subjectivity, then you're only making my point about epistemological objectivity.)

Second, true does not equal logically necessary. Logic connects truths. It does not create them. It therefore cannot serve as the premise of truth. Logic is a function of truth (L=f(T)) where truth(s) is the independent variable.


#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Once again, what does my desire to validate have to do with validation?
Your desire dictates what you validate.

Your desire is a logical prerequisite to you validating anything.

If your desire to validate is not OBJECTIVE then it contaminates your validation with SUBJECTIVITY.
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
You are 100% paralyzed without REACTION and PREJUDICE.
Paralyzed? How do you mean?
Imagine you build a robot.

This robot has no sensors and therefore cannot REACT to anything.

This robot also has no PROGRAMMING (prejudice) and therefore knows nothing.

Would you say "paralyzed" would be a reasonable description of such a robot?

I guess it could go speeding around randomly until its power ran out, and then it would be paralyzed.