You quoted half of my sentence and left off "and we aren't ultimately free to choose our brain states". In the context of my comment, I thought I made it pretty clear that the brain holds no privileged position. In fact I said that our brain states are part of determinism and our decisions are based off our brain states, that is why we don't have free will.

Also, this was all assuming determinism as I stated in the beginning. However even if quantum mechanics somehow were to go against determinism because they actually were random (which we haven't proven yet, we just don't understand them at all), that still wouldn't leave room for free will. There is no combination of determinism and randomness that will give you free will in that sense.

So, somehow in some totally unexplainable manner, all particles are coordinating in such a way as though it appears (to the particles) that they are making decisions. — Rich

I gave this perspective in another thread

All living things react. Even nonliving things react, like mercury to temperature in a thermometer. Living things are more sophisticated though obviously. Bacteria will react to things such as resources needed to survive. A lizard has the ability to move around and react to danger and food, things needed to survive. Mammals can take a step further when they form actual societies in which they have systems of operating. They can react to other members of their group and cooperate, play.

What makes humans so special? Maybe it's just that we have the ability to react to our own reactions. A dog might be happy when getting attention. A human might be happy when getting attention, but also has to ability to react to his/her own reaction. If you're happy, you can reflect on it and think about why you're happy. A higher awareness that you are happy.

Humans have evolved to have the ability to think about our own thoughts. Think about a dog. Now think about the fact that that you are thinking about the dog. Now think about the fact that you are thinking about the fact that you are thinking about the dog.

I wonder if any other animals have this ability at all. Maybe other apes can to a much smaller degree than humans. Imagine you are being chased by a bear. The only thoughts in your head are about survival and you might get so into that that you might not be able to think about your thoughts in the moment. Your brain is too preoccupied with survival. Or like if you get into a movie so much you forget about reality. Maybe many animals have that style of thinking all the time about reality that they can't think about the fact that they are reacting to things. While humans on the other hand have the ability to react to our own reactions in the sense that we can think about our thoughts.

This is just interesting thought, and I wonder if our increasing understanding of neuroscience and the brain will one day look at consciousness this way.

Psychology is a more complex version of biology, which is a more complex version of chemistry, which is a more complex version of physics. — SonJnana

Assuming determinism...

We don't have free will in the sense that in a deterministic world, what we choose is based off our brain state at that moment and we aren't ultimately free to choose our brain states. Even if you decide that you will decide to train your brain so that no longer like pizza and it works, the decision to train your brain was due to your brain states at the moment when you made your decision. And if you want to keep going through a chain of causality and say that your brain states at any moment in time were due to past decisions you made (saying "he ended up like his friends but he still originally could have chose other friends"), you would eventually end up theoretically going back to a "first decision" which lead to everything else. And that "first decision" was caused by your brain state at the point in time which you couldn't have had control over.

Compatibilism isn't impossible because compatiblists change the definition of free will to acting on your motives without being "coerced" in some sense. There is obviously a difference between choosing pizza over carrots because you like pizza and choosing pizza over carrots because there is a gun pointing at your head. But when compatilists redefine free will in this way, I think it misses the point. Sure you may be free to express the decisions of your brain state at the moment without your brain state being altered by someone holding a gun to you, but you still don't ultimately control your brain state at that moment. We are a product of the complex interplay of nature and nurture. Genes, brain structure, other people, diets, etc. are constantly interacting and changing one's brain states.

All living things react. Even nonliving things react, like mercury to temperature in a thermometer. Living things are more sophisticated though obviously. Bacteria will react to things such as resources needed to survive. A lizard has the ability to move around and react to danger and food, things needed to survive. Mammals can take a step further when they form actual societies in which they have systems of operating. They can react to other members of their group and cooperate, play.

What makes humans so special? Maybe it's just that we have the ability to react to our own reactions. A dog might be happy when getting attention. A human might be happy when getting attention, but also has to ability to react to his/her own reaction. If you're happy, you can reflect on it and think about why you're happy. A higher awareness that you are happy.

Humans have evolved to have the ability to think about our own thoughts. Think about a dog. Now think about the fact that that you are thinking about the dog. Now think about the fact that you are thinking about the fact that you are thinking about the dog.

I wonder if any other animals have this ability at all. Maybe other apes can to a much smaller degree than humans. Imagine you are being chased by a bear. The only thoughts in your head are about survival and you might get so into that that you might not be able to think about your thoughts in the moment. Your brain is too preoccupied with survival. Or like if you get into a movie so much you forget about reality. Maybe many animals have that style of thinking all the time about reality that they can't think about the fact that they are reacting to things. While humans on the other hand have the ability to react to our own reactions in the sense that we can think about our thoughts.

This is just interesting thought, and I wonder if our increasing understanding of neuroscience and the brain will one day look at consciousness this way.

Psychology is a more complex version of biology, which is a more complex version of chemistry, which is a more complex version of physics.

I have very little faith in collective intelligence of the masses but I think they're right on morality. — TheMadFool

You still have to demonstrate why the morality people believe in is objective. Just because a lot of people believe it is objectively wrong to murder doesn't mean that it is objectively wrong to murder. Similarly to how just because a lot of people a lot of people believe that there is a personal god helping them in their life doesn't mean that there actually is.

I do agree with you in some sense. I don't look at actions as morally right or wrong, I look at actions as useful or not useful. And also as things I want to do or not.

If I am pretty sure I can steal from someone, there a few things preventing me from doing it. One is the obvious if I get caught somehow I deal with the consequences. But even if I knew for a 100% I wouldn't get caught I still wouldn't do it.

I don't like to harm others because I just don't like to. I acknowledge that is a product of the interaction between my genetics and upbringing/conditioning. In some sense, I value not harming others for the sake of harming. On top of that, I also wouldn't want to go down a slippery slope where I do it, enjoy it, and start developing impulses for harming others in worse ways. That could cause problems in being able to genuinely connect with others, which is also something I value, and could get me in jail.

However, how does the timeline of morality look like? To me, the various moral systems seem to be converging i.e. we're beginning to find a common position on moral issues. Now, murder is bad everywhere not because its a fashion that has appealed to the tastes of the world's people but because it's objectively wrong to deprive someone of a fulfilling and productive life. — TheMadFool

Or it could just be that as societies have become more sophisticated they started to value cooperation more, and so murder made less sense to them. Values also can converge with the world becoming so connected with more globalization of culture and especially the internet.

It would make sense that humans evolved to be able to conceive of ideas that were necessary for survival, such as basic laws of physics. But we still have a long way to go to even understand our universe. Quantum mechanics, dark energy, and much more still doesn't make sense to us. Understanding these things weren't ever necessary for survival, so it may be possible that our brains are biologically too limited to be able to understand certain very complicated concepts. Or maybe as we progress, we will understand it all, who knows?

But right now all we know is how to model our universe abstractly in a very basic way. Just because everything in our universe has a cause, I don't think that necessarily means that the universe itself needs a cause. Just to explain "cause" you'd need a concept of time. Time is connected to space. So to say the universe itself needed a cause would maybe imply that time (and therefore space) exists outside of the universe's space which gets really confusing. Maybe our universe is eternal. Or maybe there is another dimension of space that is eternal and that is what our universe came from. This is interesting speculation.

I think we should be careful and not assume the laws of our universe apply outside of our universe. We can speculate, but acknowledging our ignorance seems wise to me. It's obvious that there are forces that are outside our knowledge, and they may not be conceivable to humans for a long time, if ever. I prefer to not label it as god because the word carries a lot of baggage. I'd rather just say that I have no idea what's going on.

Most people around me say that is wrong to kill because it's just wrong, not because we decided that it is wrong. I don't see it the same way so it got me thinking about it, and I wanted to see what people's arguments for objective morality would be.

I think it does matter though. Of course there still are consequences of going against what the majority want. But it feels liberating to not look at morality as some moral obligation outside of other people's subjective values. And it's especially important when you go to another culture and realize that they have different subjective values, but don't think that yours are any closer to some "truth". Though some might be more useful than others for stability.

I mean it's a philosophy forum, what do you expect lol

nice

If you agree that it would be objectively true that the earth is not flat even if everyone believed it was flat, then we agree on definitions for objectivity. If not, then this argument would just be a misunderstanding.

When humans say it is objectively wrong to kill is it because

1. they discovered/have knowledge about an objective morality where it is objectively wrong to kill

or a possible alternative

2. They constructed this idea that it is morally wrong to kill because they realized it was useful even though it’s actually not objectively wrong to kill. Similar to believing the Earth is flat even though it's not objectively true that the earth is flat. Then humans evolved to be predisposed to believe it is objectively wrong to kill and/or people growing up in society are socially conditioned from a young age to believe that it is objectively morally wrong to kill.

Can you demonstrate why it would be the first case and not an alternative in which it is not objectively wrong to kill?

How would you define objectivity? — bloodninja

It would be objectively true that the earth was not flat even if there was consensus that it was flat because the fact that it's not flat affected their life in ways that they have not known. That how I thought the conventional way to apply objective was and have never heard it used in the way you used it.

Sounds like you just redefined it to mean relevant consensus.

I'm glad you explained what objective means, otherwise, I may have not understood. Of course objective means mind-independent, and of course anyone can state that X is an essential property of Y without it being the case. If someone does make such a statement, all it takes is one counter-example to refute it. So give me an example of an immoral act that doesn't cause harm? — Sam26

I don't think you understand my position. I don't claim that any acts are objectively immoral. I lack the belief that there is an objective morality. So you asking me to give an example of an immoral act that doesn't cause harm... Well I can't because I can't even give an example of an act that is objectively immoral in the first place, if I lack the belief that there is an objective morality.

Therefore if you claim there is objective morality it's up to you to demonstrate why there is, and why harm is an essential property. And I will tell you if I think it makes sense.

Furthermore, if harm isn't the one property that makes something immoral, what would make it immoral? Don't say "justice," because what makes something an injustice is in fact the harm done. — Sam26

I don't know that there is anything that makes anything objectively moral. I lack the belief in objectively morality, that's the whole point. When I said justice I was just giving a generic example of what someone might say. I don't believe justice makes something moral. But I think you misunderstood the whole point I was making so forget that example.

You've responded by merely asserting mathematics is objective while morality is not. This discussion keeps going in circles. — darthbarracuda

Humans may have evolved to be predisposed to understanding math. Yet I can distinguish that there actually is an objective math law it can be demonstrated. 5 + 5 = 10 objects independent of human thought. Therefore I know that my knowledge of math is of an objective math law that exists.

Humans may have evolved to be predisposed to believing that there is an objective morality. Yet I can't distinguish that there actually is an objective morality independent of human thought or if humans evolved to be predisposed to believe that there is an objective morality because it was useful. Since I can't demonstrate objective morality, I can't say that this "knowledge" is knowledge of an actual objective morality. Objective morality has to be demonstrated before making that claim.

Intuition doesn't make something objectively true. If humans didn't have an intuition of math, that wouldn't make it any less objectively true that 5+5=10 apples falling from a tree. And if I intuitively believe that a magician is cutting someone's head off, that doesn't mean that he's really cutting the person's head off.

I am asserting math is objective and you'd probably have to be a solipcist to disagree. I am not asserting that morality is not objective, I just lack the belief that it is objective. We've gone over this a hundred times that there is a difference. So you at this point you are being dishonest when you keep saying that I am asserting that morality is not objective.

^I've said all of this to you at least 10 times and I won't do it anymore. Unless you can come up with a new argument, it's pointless to repeat the same thing over and over again.

I made the last post to show you that anyone can say that anything is an essential property. You stated that harm is an essential property. You have to demonstrate that there is an objective morality that true regardless of whether people believe it to be true or not, and then you have to explain why that objective morality's essential property is harm.

Objective means that it doesn't depend what people think. If everyone thinks the earth is flat, that doesn't mean that the earth is flat. If you or even everyone agrees that it is objectively wrong to harm, that doesn't make it objectively wrong to harm.

I am not a solipsist by any means. How is 5+5=10 different from saying murder is wrong? — darthbarracuda

You've asked this same question so many times and I've responded the same thing so many times. You should just go back and re-read our discussion about this first.

How do we demonstrate mathematical law, and how is this different to moral law? — darthbarracuda

We can demonstrate math law by showing that 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects. It is rational to believe this is knowledge about an objective math law, in terms of practical knowledge, because math law is applied in our daily lives constantly empirically. The same can not be said about morality.

If you don't think it's rational to believe that 5 objects + 5 objects will equal ten this time, it's probably because your a solipcist and care only about absolute knowledge.

Why not?

1. It is moral to make people happy
2. It is immoral to make people suffer — TheMadFool

Just because everyone want to be, even if that were true, that wouldn't make it objectively morally right to make people happy. Using that same reasoning we could say that it is moral to make people slaves if everyone hypothetically wanted societies with slaves.

What is your definition of objectivity? How can one know that he/she is being objective? — TheMadFool

Objective reality is what is real independent of what one thinks. An example would be a crime scene. If there is no evidence, it might be irrational to believe this person committed the crime. If there is a lot of evidence, it might be more rational to believe this person did it, yet they could also have been framed. If there is overwhelming evidence and it seems unlikely, practically impossible that the person was framed, and on top of that the person also admits to it, then you could probably say that you now, in terms of practical knowledge. But this can go on and on.

The point is that objective reality is independent of what people think. And how can one know that he/she is being objective? One can't absolutely know, but in terms of practical knowledge, one can say they know if something is overwhelmingly rational.

If you aren't using practical knowledge and only value absolute knowledge then you'd be a solipsist and that'd be an argument for another thread. This is all assuming practical knowledge. Everyone is always assuming that, besides solipcists. And that can have it's own thread.

Can you explain to me what you see to be the difference between mathematics and morality in terms of objectivity, and why the former is objectively real but the latter perhaps not? — darthbarracuda

This is all assuming practical knowledge.
Mathematics knowledge is about a math law. We can demonstrate that the math law objectively exists. But I haven't seen objective morality demonstrated to be true.

I've realized something. Something is objective if and only if there's observer consistency (across space, time and different observers). — TheMadFool

I don't agree with those definitions. Objective reality is independent of whether or not there is observer consistency. If there is consistency, you have reason to think that it probably is true. But of course sometimes we can be tricked and wrong. The question then would be how can we claim to know something in terms of practical knowledge of what is likely or not.

1. Everyone wants happiness
2. No one wants to suffer — TheMadFool

Even if this were true, all you could say is that it is objectively true that everyone wants happiness and no one wants to suffer. You can't get an objective morality from this just like you can't say it is objectively true everyone should eat ice cream even it is objectively true that everyone wants ice cream.

Yet Descartes specifically argued that an evil demon could be tricking us into believing 2+2=4. — darthbarracuda

Yeah that's true, but there's a difference between absolute knowledge and practical knowledge. I can't claim that I absolutely know there's an apple in my hand so why should I believe it? Because it's practical. If I don't eat anything I might actually die. That can go down a messy road towards solipcism, but this is all assuming practical knowledge. At that point I'd prefer a solipcist to make their own thread because I'm not gonna argue about that here lol.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "intuitive"? I'm not meaning it like some warm fuzzy feeling or whatever, I'm meaning in the same way we "intuit" mathematical truths. When you're in math class and learning math, you are doing so through the operation of reason. Math isn't science. — darthbarracuda

Yeah I understand and I believe the example I gave with the magician and illusion was sufficient for that. I don't think the person's head has been cut off because of a fuzzy emotion, I actually see it with my own eyes. But I can reason that it doesn't make sense. Although when I was younger, I actually did believe magicians were actually doing what I saw.

As I said, it is difficult to show that moral realism is true, given how morality must be if it is real. It is not as if I would be able to show something to be incoherent in moral anti-realism and thus affirm realism — darthbarracuda

Yeah. That's why when originally I was asserting that morality is non-objective, I realized I can't prove that when people responded. And so I changed my position to be one of not claiming that it is objective or non-objective.

What I am aiming to show is that there aren't any good reasons to deny objective morality. Now that doesn't show objective morality exists but it does show that it is not incoherent and is at least something we can plausibly believe in. And, I think perhaps both of us will agree, there being objective morality is superior than there being none. We ought to hope there is objective morality and be disappointed if there isn't. — darthbarracuda

I still don't think it's rational to believe in it just like it wouldn't be rational to believe that there are an even number of gumballs in the jar. But of course it could be true.
And yeah I do hope that there is an objective morality. Who knows how the masses of the world would act if they didn't believe in that there was. Good thing most people believe in God right now at least.

I may be wrong but how does one test for objectivity of observations?

For me being objective has two parts:
1. We must be logical in our thinking
2. Our observations of the world must be accurate

1 is taught to us and we learn to avoid logical missteps.
2 can only be achieved through consistency over space, time and observers. For instance a lump of sugar tastes good in China and America, in January and in June, to me and you and Mr. X. So objectivity is achieved through consensus in my opinion. I think I'm wrong on this. Can you point out my error. Thanks. — TheMadFool

I think it depends on how you make the statement. For example, if I say that ice cream tastes good, that's an opinion. I could say that it's objectively true that ice cream taste good to me which would be another way of saying that it's objectively true that I like ice cream. Usually that's implied when I say ice cream tastes good. But the statement itself "ice cream taste good", using the word good here is implying that one subjectively likes it.

Haven't really thought about this much, but I guess that's what I can come up with right now.

Mindfulness really is an amazing thing. But I'll tell you what, it's just like exercise. Even when you get going, you might just stop and then it's hard to get back into it and put the effort. So we have to keep reminding ourselves.

It really is a simple attitude. Watching Goku from dragon ball z got me thinking about it.

Good to hear and I hope that there is improvement.

Now you're begging the question, though. In what way is demonstrating a mathematical proof different than demonstrating a moral proof? — darthbarracuda

Anyone can make a logical proof about anything. The question is whether it is sound. The reason for objective law of mathematics being sound is the fact that we can demonstrate it. If you say 5+5=11, I can prove to you that you are wrong by showing you that your knowledge of math is not consistent with the objective math law that is independent of whether or not people think it is true. I know that math law is objective because it can be demonstrated.

Yes, I am making claims and trying to convince you of them. If you disagree you will need to give reasons why you disagree, which is just simply going on the offensive. It's just you saying that there is something wrong with my argument which is preventing you from agreeing with it. — darthbarracuda

Saying what is wrong with your argument which is preventing me from agreeing with it is the same thing as giving reasons why I am disagreeing though. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. I just really want to see if anyone can give an argument for objective morality that makes sense. And if it doesn't make sense I will be honest about why I think that it doesn't.

The fact that I think morality is intuitive makes it difficult to show that it is objective to anyone who does not recognize or is not willing to recognize these intuitions. I've tried to make it easier by drawing the similarity between morality and mathematics in that both are synthetic a priori and both are grasped through reason and not empirical observation. — darthbarracuda

But just because something is intuitive or not doesn't make it true. If a kid doesn't intuitively understand math, that doesn't mean that there is no objective math law. If I intuitively think what I see in a magical illusion is real, that doesn't mean that what I intuitively may think the magician is doing is actually happening.

a person who is unconvinced of the truth of a certain moral claim (such as that murder is wrong) does not show that this claim is false or could not possibly be true. — darthbarracuda

I am not saying it is false or could not be possibly true just like I am not saying that it is false or could not be possibly true that the jar has an even number of gumballs. It may very well be true. It's a lack of belief. If I am ignorant, I won't say that there is an even number of pieces of grass in the world. I really just don't know. I lack the belief that it is even but I'm not saying that it is impossible. I'm saying I don't know. If someone claims to know then I'll ask them how they know. And I'll see if their reasoning makes sense.

I don't think I could deductively prove that moral realism is true. I think I can only show it to be coherent and plausible. — darthbarracuda

It is a very hard think to do. I do not believe that you've shown it to be coherent or plausible to be honest, but I do respect that attempt that you've made thus far. It's made us both think more and that's the best part about this thread.

Look, I've already demonstrated to you that morality can come in the form of valid logical syllogisms, and that the premises are what are being doubted here. But I've also shown that mathematics also relies on certain premises. Both mathematics and morality are synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda

"When we say we have mathematical knowledge, what is it knowledge of? It is knowledge of the objective math law. Whether it's because you discovered it by noticing that when you had 5 objects and you added 5 you ended up with 10, or whether it's because the human brain evolved because it was useful understand the objective math law, or even maybe because you were socially conditioned to think that way. The point is that it is knowledge about an actual objective law that can be demonstrated."

Like I've said, it doesn't matter how you can get to the knowledge. The point is that mathematical knowledge is knowledge about a math law that actually objectively exists and can be demonstrated. But no, you haven't demonstrated that there is an objective morality rather than human construct.

"Even if it was intuitive, you still have to explain that there is an objective morality that exists outside of human thinking and that it's not a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society. "

Furthermore, belief in God is intuitively true for many people as they say themselves. Does that make it true? If I see a magician, my brain is programmed to intuitively think that what they do is really happening, but I can use reasoning to realize that it doesn't make much sense.

If you do not recognize the concepts right or wrong, good or bad, then there's nothing I can do to convince you. — darthbarracuda

I do recognize them. I just lack the belief that there is an objective moral standard of right or wrong.

Surely you would not think that a child who does not understand mathematics shows that mathematics is entirely subjective? — darthbarracuda

No I wouldn't because I could demonstrate it with objects and it'd be true independent of whether they think it is an objective law or not. But I can't demonstrate that killing is objectively morally bad independent of whether people think it is true. That's the distinction.

So I have provided what I see to be a plausible theory of what morality is. As a response you have merely asserted that morality could be something else entirely. I cannot cover all my bases, I cannot knock down every alternative you present. You need to go on the offensive and explain to me what about my theory is false. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I've stated that I can't distinguish whether there is an objective morality or a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society.
All I'm saying is that I can't distinguish which one therefore I lack the belief that there is an objectively morality similarly to how I lack the belief that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. But like I've said many times, that doesn't mean that I believe that there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar.

How even could I go on the offensive and back up my claims when I'm not making any? It's you making the claim and me seeing if it makes sense or not.

My own view is that there is an essential property to an immoral act, and that property is harm. All immoral acts cause harm to the one committing the act, or to the one who is the object of the act, or to both. If there is no harm, there is no immorality. When I say this I'm not saying that every harmful act is an evil, only that all evil or immoral acts cause harm.

The second component is that immorality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I cut someone's arm off without good reason, there are several factors that make this an immoral act, and moreover, make it an objective immoral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the screams of the victim. Third, we can also witness the screams and tears of family and friends. These three reactions show the objective nature of the harm done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations. — Sam26

"My own view is that there is an essential property to a moral act, and that property is the conventional view of justice. All moral acts are those that act for justice. If there is no justice, there is no morality. When I say this I'm not saying that every justice act is an morally good one, only that all good or moral acts are for justice.

The second component is that morality is objective, that is, it's not subjective, or a matter of opinion, or a matter of consensus. For example, if I kill someone's wife because he killed mine, there are several factors that make this a moral act, and moreover, make it an objective moral act. First, it's objectively true that the arm has been cut off, we can see it on the ground. Second, we can objectively observe the fact that my wife was dead originally and now I have killed his. These two reactions show the objective nature of the justice done. No opinion or consensus will or can change the objective nature of these observations."

See the problem?

The same could be said about mathematics. You keep going in circles, assuming mathematics is objective and empirical. — darthbarracuda

The same can't be said about mathematics because the mathematical knowledge we have is about the actual objective math law which can be demonstrated, while the objective morality hasn't been demonstrated to me.

Because clearly you do see some things that are good and bad, right and wrong, or you wouldn't even know what morality is (apart from some empty commands with no content - is this how you really take morality to be?) — darthbarracuda

I do believe I understand what people mean when they say that something is objectively right or wrong, but that doesn't mean I myself believe that acts are objectively morally right or wrong.

You need to explain why morality cannot be objective, not just state you don't "see" it intuitively. — darthbarracuda

I don't have to explain why it can't be objective because I'm not even asserting that it's non-objective. I thought we cleared my position up a long time ago. You are the one asserting why it is objective and if you can't demonstrate that, then you haven't backed up your claim.

"a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society. "
^When I said this, I never said that I believe this is true. I'm not the one making claims. But if you assert that there is objective morality, it is up to you to demonstrate that it's not this case.

When we say we have mathematical knowledge, what is it knowledge of? It is knowledge of the objective math law. Whether it's because you discovered it by noticing that when you had 5 objects and you added 5 you ended up with 10, or whether it's because the human brain evolved because it was useful understand the objective math law, or even maybe because you were socially conditioned to think that way. The point is that it is knowledge about an actual objective law that can be demonstrated.

Morality is not that same. You have to demonstrate that it is knowledge of an actual objective morality.

Why do you not doubt that numbers are real but doubt that suffering is bad? Is it not intuitive that suffering is bad in the same way it is intuitive that 2+3=5? — darthbarracuda

No it is not intuitive to me. I don't like suffering and I would like to see less suffering in both me and others because I don't like the way it makes me feel, but it's not intuitive that it's objectively morally wrong. Just because it is uncomfortable to me doesn't make it objectively morally wrong.

Even if it was intuitive, you still have to explain that there is an objective morality that exists outside of human thinking and that it's not a case of there being no objective morality but rather that humans evolved to be predisposed to want to believe that there is an objective morality and made it a human construct because the ones that didn't committed crimes and were killed by society.

My own view is that there is an essential property to an immoral act, and that property is harm. All immoral acts cause harm to the one committing the act, or to the one who is the object of the act, or to both. If there is no harm, there is no immorality. When I say this I'm not saying that every harmful act is an evil, only that all evil or immoral acts cause harm. — Sam26

You only said that it is an essential property, not why it is. With that reasoning I could say that the conventional view of justice is an essential property, and therefore if someone kills your wife you should kill his wife. They both seem subjective. You have to explain why harm is the essential property.

Proof for the objectivity of mathematics is this. If someone says 5+5=11, you can show them that they are wrong by demonstrating the objective math law that when you have 5 objects and you add 5 more, you get 10 not 11.

Proof for the objectivity of morality comes from where? Conscience isn't good enough. 5 objects + 5 objects = 10 objects even before humans were around. That's because the math law is objective. However I can't distinguish whether it is objectively morally wrong to murder independently of human thought, or if humans evolved to believe that it is wrong to murder because it's useful. You have to demonstrate that.

No, I don't think beliefs change reality. But I don't think you quite understand that it's not obvious to me, based on what you've said, that mathematics is objectively part of the world. And it certainly is not obvious to me that we somehow "see" mathematics in the sense datum. — darthbarracuda

If you agree that people changing their beliefs to 5+5=11 in the example I gave doesn't change the fact that it is objectively true that right now if I have 5 objects and I add 5 I would get 10, then you agree that there is some objective math law that doesn't depend whether a person thinks that math law is true or not.

If you agree that a person who believes 5+5=11 saw 5 objects added to 5 more and ended up with 10 should re-evaluate their reasoning based off of that empirical evidence, you agree that the math knowledge we talk about is based off of an actual objective math law. And we know math laws are objective because we see them in reality.

The distinction with that and morality is that it has to first be demonstrated that our concepts of morality are actually based off of an actual objective morality. Or else we can't distinguish whether we are just constructing this idea of an objective morality, or if there actually is an objective morality (independent of one what thinks) and we can prove that.

No, I don't think so - at least not in the sense of there being a transcendent and all powerful being. Again, my position is that if we agree mathematics is indeed objective, then we also have reason to believe morality is objective, since both are synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda

Thanks for clearing that up. I think I fully understand your position now.

In the absence of any bigger picture, if you feel nihilistic, the bright side would be that nothing matters. Of course your actions would still have consequences so your choices are limited in a practical sense if you want to be content and satisfied, but there's a lot of things you could do.

So assuming you have empathy, maybe you'd feel better if you went out of your way to volunteer. Or maybe you could get lost in a new found hobby you enjoy.

I find that when I meditate and focus on mindfulness, like being aware in the present constantly, I feel much more content. You can meditate all throughout the day. Even when doing little things like walking to your car think about your breathing in and out. Counting to 5 back and forth helps. And the more you do it, the easier it becomes to be mindful throughout the day - at least it was for me. Sort of like training your brain. So rather than thinking about how pointless things are in the grand scheme of things or about something shitty that happened, you're in the moment and get lost in it. Don't let the monkey brain control you.

I value human connections and I have found that taking the time re-evaluate the way I form bonds and talk to others throughout my life has helped me a lot. It makes me happy to form strong connections with others.

The way I see it, you didn't ask to be born and you gonna die. If I have a choice between watching a shitty movie next to me or the best movie ever, but I have to go to the store to get, I'm gonna get my ass up go buy and enjoy the movie and be satisfied at the effort I put into enjoying that movie. Figure out how to improve your life if you can, and enjoy that if you can.

From the post I saw, I'm wondering why harm is an essential property of an objective morality. I could see why it would be an essential property of your subjective moral code. But I'd like to hear your reasoning on why it's an essential property of an objective morality.

Math statements however are grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if hypothetically everyone thinks that 5+5=11. Regardless of what people think, when you have 5 objects and add 5 more, you objectively have 10 not 11. The people that think it is 11 are wrong. — SonJnana


How do you know this? Again, you're just asserting the objectivity of mathematics. — darthbarracuda

Do you think that beliefs change objective reality? Do you think that just because people believed that 5+5=11 (and not just redefined 11 to mean 10, but they actually believed 11), having 5 objects and then adding 5 would become 11?

To argue for an objective ought, you'd have to assume that there is objective purpose behind the universe, and these balls of atoms that we label as humans have objective obligations. Do you believe in God? — SonJnana


See, now you're offering snippets of the metaphysical picture of reality you think is true. That objective morality requires teleology to the universe, perhaps a God, is part of your conception of what objective morality is. You need to actually explain this though because I'm not sure I follow. — darthbarracuda

I actually take back what I said. But I do want to know since your asserting objective morality. Just so I can understand your position even more clear... does your claim of objective morality rely on the assumption that there is teleology, perhaps a god?

But we check statements like 5+5=11 by thinking. You're just assuming mathematics is objective, but it is the person themselves that has to think about mathematical principles to derive conclusions. "Checking" mathematical proofs is not empirically verifiable or anything like that, because mathematics is synthetic a priori. — darthbarracuda

Math statements however are grounded in reality. It doesn't matter if hypothetically everyone thinks that 5+5=11. Regardless of what people think, when you have 5 objects and add 5 more, you objectively have 10 not 11. The people that think it is 11 are wrong.

Why not say, I can check to see if this law is morally acceptable, or if my actions are in line with moral principles? — darthbarracuda

Where are you going to check these moral principles? Where are you getting this objective morality from?

People can be socially conditioned to believe in an objective reality apart from consciousness, or God, or in the objectivity of mathematics, or the realism of scientific theories, or whatever. This is a possibility of error, yes. But it's still what you keep saying - a maybe, a perhaps. That's not very convincing. — darthbarracuda

Unless you are solipsistic (in which case I'd end the discussion right here and now), you'd probably agree that the universe is. And mathematics can be derived from is. To argue for an objective ought, you'd have to assume that there is objective purpose behind the universe, and these balls of atoms that we label as humans have objective obligations. Do you believe in God?

So if I understand you correctly, there are no objective inherent reasons why murder is always immoral, other than what a society dictates? — Sam26

I am not making any claims (see the edit in the original post). I am saying I haven't seen proof that there is an objective morality for why murder is immoral, other than what people think.

↪SonJnana
I don't see what you have a problem with? I never said the earth changed shape. I was making a claim about the conditions for objectivity. — bloodninja

I should've said this earlier, but yeah our definitions for objective differ if you define objective as just consensus of what people think or believe so we're just beating a dead horse lol.

It only means that everyone's wants, needs, desires are the same or similar so that everyone's preferences are consistent with each other. — SonJnana


Isn't this an objective observation you've made? — TheMadFool

If everyone's favorite ice cream was vanilla, it would objectively be true that everyone's opinion of ice cream being the best flavor was consistent. But that wouldn't mean the opinion itself was an objective fact. It would just mean that the subjective opinions are consistent. Consensus on an opinion or belief doesn't mean that the opinion or belief itself is objectively true.

The point I'm making is that I don't see morality as too much different to mathematics, and I think you don't recognize that mathematics is a priori in this sense. Empirical senses provide content for mathematical forms, and empirical senses also provide content for the application of moral principles. — darthbarracuda

There a clear distinction between mathematics and morality. When we make a math statement like 5+5=11, we can check that. If we have 5 apples and add 5, we get 10. We realize that the original statement 5+5=11 is wrong because statements like those are grounded in reality. That is a math law that is true regardless of what people think.

To say that morality is the same, you would have to prove that there is a natural law of ought. Conscience does not get us there because it relies on what people think is true. You have to prove that there is that objective morality outside of what people think. People can be socially conditioned to think many things, but just because they think that there is an objective morality and make statements about it, doesn't mean that there actually is one.

I just see moral principles as on basically the same level as mathematical principles. — darthbarracuda

Mathematical principle can be proven in reality. You still have to prove the objective morality.

But is conscience just the feeling of good or bad, or does it have cognitive content (as I've said many time already)? — darthbarracuda

Let me rephrase a little bit. If the human brain were to evolve to encompass a type of thinking where it believes that it is objectively morally wrong and/or activate hormones that make a person feel bad when they murder because that kind of thought process was useful for ancestors to survive, that doesn't make it objectively true that it is morally wrong to murder. Conscience is not proof that it is objectively wrong to murder.