Your view makes sense only if you reject God. You are free to reject what is right and good of course, but then you must accept the consequences. Good luck.

https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2015/11/authority-and-moral-life-an-orthodox-christian-perspective/

Your view makes sense only if you reject God. — Photios

Your view only makes sense if you posit a particular god. Good luck with your subjectively derived understanding of right and wrong. :wink:

However, it's completely laughable to talk about morality being in any sense independent from humans. — Judaka

I don't think it is laughable. I don't happen to believe it either, but that does not make it a source of mirth. :cool: Morality is obvious a human construction given it relates to how we treat each other and we can see from history that it changes and morphs with changes in society. Theists and idealists may believe in an objective morality (in theory), but they are still left with their subjective interpretations or preferences regarding what they think gods/s or cosmic consciousness may prefer or command. No one gets out of subjectivism.

Theists and idealists may believe in an objective morality (in theory) ... — Tom Storm

I'm neither a theist nor idealist and yet I subscribe to "objective morality" (i.e. a form of ethical naturalism), so is that – am I – irrational or confused by your lights?

No one gets out of subjectivism.

True. Subjects, however, strive to, and often do, correct their subjective biases, interpretations, beliefs ... with objective methods, maps, models. I think, even though objectivity is always constrained to some degree by subjectivity, subjectivity without some degree of objectivity is always either naive or delusional (or both).

I'm neither a theist nor idealist and yet I subscribe to "objective morality" (i.e. a form of ethical naturalism), so is that – am I – irrational or confused by your lights? — 180 Proof

Cool. Tell me more. How do you get objective morality? Or do you mean an objective process or an objective source of morality? I suppose I could say morality is objective if I set as a foundational principle human flourishing (or similar) and then identify objective steps that lead to this goal. But this foundational goal itself would be subjective, wouldn't it?

How do you get objective morality? — Tom Storm

From my post the "ethical naturalism" link ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/695307 (Of course the devil's in the details, etc ... but that's the gist.)^^

But this foundational goal itself would be subjective, wouldn't it?

Are optimal (e.g.) health ... sustainability ... justice ... only "subjective"?

I conceive of flourishing (wellbeing) as consisting of cultivated habits (capabilities, praxes) for reducing suffering.^^ Do you believe suffering is – the implicit demand, or imperative, that it ceases – only "subjective"?

Nice. Well that does make sense. Never thought I could call this objective but I guess it fits. I hear you on details and devil.

Christ, any moment now you'll be telling me that god is superfluous to human experince....:wink:

You mean She's not?! :yikes:

:cool: :halo:

Morality falls under the same category as sexuality in its dependence on our biology to exist. But, since it does exist and human society is dominated by our ways of thinking, morality and sexuality are not that subjective. I can't choose whether to be straight or gay, I can't choose who I find attractive, I can't choose to be good-looking, and these things act and exist as more-or-less objective facts.

Suppose you exist in this world as attractive or ugly. In that case, there are real implications, and they can't all be subverted by an intellectual recognition that there's no objective standard of attractiveness.

People such as @Photios are deluded to think that morality hinges upon something like religion. Can you imagine someone arguing our sexuality requires transcendent properties? That if people thought we only found other humans attractive only because we're humans, that sex and romance would become things of the past?

Morality is so overwhelmingly present in society and all we do, but some think it's so fragile and needs to be protected by making it into something it isn't.

Our morality is just as logical as it is that we care about millimetres of change in bone structure, separating the beautiful from the rest. It has its own internal logic at best, which only we find compelling.
When someone is born without some of the traits that make it compelling (ie ASPD), then it isn't. Simple as that.

@180 Proof

I agree there is objectivity in morality but it's created by our humanness, and not whatever logic you think sounds compelling. All these moral theories just call the morality of others wrong, and theirs right, and then in so doing limit morality to only the concepts that they agree with. Morality has justified wars, genocides, slavery, and a whole plethora of harm-causing behaviour and continues to do so to this day. It cares for humans at the expense of other species, and moral systems always portray their harm as righteous, that's what morality is after all.

Since all that isn't commensurate with what you want, what do you do with it? Discredit it, obviously. Of course, if all morality but your own is excluded as something else, then morality can follow whatever rules you want. Aren't you playing a linguistic game utilising technicalities?

I'm not entirely sure I understand your reasoning. I don't think I have ever spent much time thinking about sexuality or the role of attractiveness, I have been too busy in the 'doing' (of relationships).

Maybe it would help me if you gave me an example of a moral position that tracks to your idea. If you took an act like lying or stealing and then demonstrated how this sits in the type of web you seem to be referring to.

I do agree with you that in culture our positions on most things we do and manufacture provide opportunities for an ethical understanding. But it isn't consistent and is understood differently by people and cultures.

No, I don't think so. Read the post I linked re "ethical naturalisn" and tell me what "linguistic game utilising technicalities" I'm playing.

Your post has the punchline of deriving an ought from a promise that suffering people were forced into making because of a dependence on each other that we clearly don't have. People are capable of fucking each other over without destroying our society and you're well aware of it. That wasn't even the technicality I was referring to in my post but I'm hardly surprised, moral arguments purporting to be objective always play the same games.

How is your view of morality commensurate with our human history of morally justifying the unspeakable horrors we've inflicted on each other? Even today, it continues. You obviously can't, and so you need every moral system to be judged by yours and put away into categories that create the conclusions you want.

It's just a way to make concepts synonymous with your preferences and to remove what conflicts with your argument from the picture. The meat of morality and all its history stripped away because whatever you disagree with doesn't qualify to be part of it. It's inherent in the claim of epistemological objectivity. "True art", "real poetry", "real philosophy", "real" religion, "true morality". What is your argument when you take that away? An opinion that reads for what it is; an ideal.


What makes someone attractive isn't always consistent either, for example, many African tribes do things like lengthening their neck or ears. But a westerner is unlikely to have any idea why that's considered attractive at all. Fashion trends and interests differ over time and across cultures. None of that changes what's underneath it, which is the reality that humans are attracted to other humans because it's part of their biology.

Moral concepts come back to the same themes, such as fairness, and operate using the same tools such as empathy. Why is lying or stealing immoral? They're not. Stealing is wrong when it's unfair or unjustified, and lying is wrong when negative connotations are attached. Morality is really complicated but it's also really basic.

When we recognise something as unfair, our bodies & brains react to it, chemicals are released and emotions flare. It's hardwired into us to care about things being fair, now what exactly is or isn't fair can be debated, but things must be fair or they're immoral. Can something be unjust but fair? Or just but unfair?

The differences between cultures that you're describing are not fundamentally changing morality, usually, they're just changing what's fair, or justified. We're changing what's fair or just, to whom we must be fair, and whose feelings matter or don't matter.

Though I'm not saying morality = fairness, it's just an example. Empathy plays a large role, as do ideas like duty or responsibility and a few other concepts as well. We can also dehumanize or discredit victims to disregard any poor treatment. My point is that morality has an origin in biology, and is reinforced by our biology.

One can make up whatever reasons they'd like for why fairness matters, but that fairness matters to us is an unavoidable fact of our biology. Morality is not a human construction, it's literally just part of being human to have moral views. I compare morality to sexuality because it's the same in having a foundation in biology but being subject to reason.

Your post has the punchline of deriving an ought from a promise that suffering people were forced into making because of a dependence on each other that we clearly don't have. — Judaka

You've torched that strawman pretty good! :sweat:

How is your view of morality commensurate with our human history of morally justifying the unspeakable horrors we've inflicted on each other?

That's like asking how jurisprudence is "morally commensurate with our human history of" crimes. Anyway, cite a single "morally justified unspeakable horror".

An opinion that reads for what it is; an ideal.

Ah yeah, finally, "the punchline" of your rant, Judaka: projection via argument from incredulity / ignorance. :roll:

Ok. I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.

This kind of grouping is eusocial: basically a truce or implicit promise each suffering person is committed to, by her mere presence and having once had been a suffering child dependent on suffering adults — 180 Proof

The promise is consented to but is committed to implicitly by mere presence, that's an interesting take. You can create an ought by having people be obliged to a promise made unknowingly and by simply being?

Morality is objective because all suffering persons depend on one another to keep the implicit (eusocial) promise both to not harm one another and to help reduce each other's suffering whenever possible — 180 Proof

They don't. You know they don't.

What's the real argument? What did I get wrong?

That's like asking how jurisprudence is "morally commensurate with our human history of" crimes. — 180 Proof

I didn't say morally commensurate and if it's something you added, not sure what you mean.

Does jurisprudence claim only laws that are objectively correct are laws? If not, don't see how it's relevant.

The notion that there are objective moral truths confuses me, everyone seems to have their own rules on how it works, so I shouldn't assume. Can you explain what it means for there to be this objective moral truth? Are other moral frameworks wrong? Is any other form of moral justification wrong? How's it work?

Anyway, cite a single "morally justified unspeakable horror". — 180 Proof

The Holocaust.

You can create an ought by having people be obliged to a promise made unknowingly and by simply being? — Judaka

e.g. Social contract theory ...

What did I get wrong?

Well, it surely ain't right to reject a non-trivial argument without countering it with a non-trivial argument. Unless, of course, you simply do not comprehend the argument ...

I didn't say morally commensurate

Yeah, maybe not, but here's the quote again from your post, Judaka:

How is your view of morality commensurate with our human history of [ ... ] — Judaka

:shade:

The notion that there are objective moral truths confuses me ... — Judaka

No doubt. And so my claim of your projection is well-founded: you reflexively reject what you say "confuses" – challenges – you and so refuse to patiently think things through.

The Holocaust.

It was not "morally justified" by any soundly reasoned ethical (or legal) principles of the day. If, however, you really do not believe "The Final Solution" was nothing but an 'explosion' of nihilism (however 'rationalized' by the perpetrators et al e.g. Arendt's banality of evil), then explain, Judaka, which 'moral system' – not which ideology/theology – you believe "justified" this industrial mass murder: e.g. virtue ethics, utilitarianism, deontologism, emotivism, pragmatic ethics ... :chin:

Well, it surely ain't right to reject a non-trivial argument without countering it with a non-trivial argument. Unless, of course, you simply do not comprehend the argument ... — 180 Proof

I expressed my problems with your argument, if you agree that I wasn't misrepresenting you then what's the problem? Yours is an absurd scheme that sets up an ought from a forced promise, and really only adds to the list of problems with Searle's ought being objective. Objective morality is such absolute nonsense...

Your argument.. is a promise you forced on people creating an ought which makes it objective? I could take the same argument and create 10000 promises from it and 10000 moral truths. Presumably for starts, literally anything related to the social contract, I could make into a moral truth. Raising your fucking hand to ask the teacher a question can be a moral truth. Stopping at a red light. Anything I want. It's so mind-numbingly absurd. What other promises are we forced to make? Who decides what promises people are forced to make? How can any of that lead to objective moral truth?

No doubt. And so my claim of your projection is well-founded: you reflexively reject what you say "confuses" – challenges – you and so refuse to patiently think through it. — 180 Proof

I took you at your word, that objective means epistemological fact. Only, you then compare morality to something like jurisprudence, so I thought I better check.

"The Final Solution" was nothing but an 'explosion' of nihilism (however 'rationalized' by the perpetrators et al e.g. Arendt's banality of evil), — 180 Proof

An explosion of nihilism?! Wow, yeah, I thought it was justified as some kind of righteous revenge against the Jews based on some things they didn't do. It's amazing how simple things become when we place things into categories in ways that support our worldviews. Which "moral framework"? Most moral frameworks don't have names or authors. We didn't need anyone to invent vengeance or how to morally justify it.

Of course, fascist Germany did have its own brand of morality, did it have a name? Who cares?

What do you even think morality is... every act you call evil had a moral justification behind it... You're going to call it by some other name until morality only justifies acts you agree with? Why can't you just settle for explaining the flaws in their logic, the heartlessness of their acts, the cruelty, to demand better?

Well you've set a field of strawmen ablaze ... so I leave you to it, firebug. There's nothing to be gained from us flat and round earthers, respectively, talking past each other. (However, if you do manage to raise a nontrivial objection or question, then I'll respond.)

It's remarkable you cry strawman again while failing to make a single correction throughout this exchange despite being asked to do so. I have quoted you saying everything I've argued you to be saying. I expect whatever trivial corrections you could make wouldn't change much, so feel free to keep these tightly guarded secrets to yourself.