Morality: Objective, Subjective, or...?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

How do you know what you know?

Often as not, life experience teaches you what you need to know.

When I was younger I thought nothing of being faithful to a girl. It was my life, I could do what I want if I wanted to. So eventually I did. I saw first hand the damage and destruction I caused by my act. So it became part of my moral compass to not cheat. It damaged her ability to grow and experience life.

I believe there is basically one universal moral. Do not mess with others ability to grow and experience. From that you can build sub morals, but they are totally subjective indeed. But as far as I can tell all morals stem from that one simple law.

I do agree there is a universal moral code, one that God originally put in each of us. And yes life experience's do teach us what we need to know, but only because we had some kind of training that brings that out.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

How do you know what you know?

Often as not, life experience teaches you what you need to know.

When I was younger I thought nothing of being faithful to a girl. It was my life, I could do what I want if I wanted to. So eventually I did. I saw first hand the damage and destruction I caused by my act. So it became part of my moral compass to not cheat. It damaged her ability to grow and experience life.

I believe there is basically one universal moral. Do not mess with others ability to grow and experience. From that you can build sub morals, but they are totally subjective indeed. But as far as I can tell all morals stem from that one simple law.

This universal moral you have stated has a problem.

It denies absolute authority by implying that everyone is self deterministic...

If everyone is self deterministic, why would they not mess with others?

The law makes no sense. :-)

It is not a standard for absolute morality.

Therefore it does not make sense to use this as a basis for your worldview which you insist runs on absolute moral principles.

[Twilight II]

I do agree there is a universal moral code, one that God originally put in each of us. And yes life experience's do teach us what we need to know, but only because we had some kind of training that brings that out.

And this is the point pk.

Everyone knows there is an absolute standard of morality.

Some even go so far as to deny it, but then expect life to obey those standards they deny.

But not everyone can account for it.

Only the Christian Worldview can account for an absolute standard of morality and the questions of sin and redemption that it raises...

[Gerr]

If moral law is human-derived, then it has to be subjective. If it is of divine origin, then it must be objective.

[doug yowell]

Often as not, life experience teaches you what you need to know.

When I was younger I thought nothing of being faithful to a girl. It was my life, I could do what I want if I wanted to. So eventually I did. I saw first hand the damage and destruction I caused by my act. So it became part of my moral compass to not cheat. It damaged her ability to grow and experience life.

[doug yowell]

'Supply your source' seems to me to be part of the problem - the appeal to authority. The source of my (limited, partial, developing) understanding of morality is my own thinking about the issues, informed by the Bible, a huge range of authors and ideas, experience, others' experiences understood through conversations, movies, music, over a decade of forum discussions, blog posts... there is no single source, but a multitude of sources.

Better, then, to evaluate the ideas on their own merits, rather than to debate their source(s).

But if one argues one interpretation of the information and another argues an oppsite interpretation who's to objectively determine what is, or if there is, a moral or immoral?

[debbym]

however objective absolute morality is, however high above us God is, and outside of us and beyond us, and perfect and superior....

he wants us to subjectively experience and know Him. so might we find ourselves describing the subjectivity of Morality? ya.

so then morality becomes a subjective experience as we grow in our knowledge and experience. This doesn't exclude the objective condition of God and His Character. Apart from Him the law has no virtue.

[doug yowell]

. Apart from Him the law has no virtue.

I believe that that is the point which Bravus is disputing.I just wrote an point by point response to his previous long blog and deleted it somehow. Saying basically the same thing. If morality is subjective then it cannot be true morality because, like objective virtue, it has no objective definition.

[Bravus]

But, again, that is simply an assertion of a position, not an argument or evidence to support that position. It's a starting point, but then you (and Twilight) need to start bringing something more to the table than assertions.

Quote:

But if one argues one interpretation of the information and another argues an oppsite interpretation who's to objectively determine what is, or if there is, a moral or immoral?

Which brings us back around to my 'Possibility 3' above, which is where I wanted to start this morning anyway. If there *is* an objective morality, there are still different interpretations of it.

Your question is an excellent one - what is your answer to it?

[Bravus]

Although I do not believe it to be the case that there is an absolute, objective morality (so please do not ascribe that belief to me) (and I am happy to make the argument to support that lack of belief in a different post or series of posts, but it's not the point I'm making here), but let us posit its existence for the purposes of the discussion.

If an absolute, external, objective morality exists, then it seems to me the only really defensible position would be my 'Possibility 3':

Quote:

3. There exists an absolute, objective morality - but we do not have direct access to it, since our perception is fallible, so we can develop only subjective understandings of objective morality

Why do I say so? For two reasons:

1. This is true of everything, including science and physical reality. If there exists an absolute, external, objective truth about the physical state of the universe, we still do not have direct, unmediated access to it. We interpret what we see and measure through our own assumptions, biases, experience, language, interests and so on. Humans simply do not have direct, unmediated access to reality - 'every observation is already theory-laden'.

2. We see many, many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute, objective, external morality, but all with differences in their moral frameworks. If we had direct, unmediated access, then every person who made such a claim would have an identical moral framework, and this is *not* what we observe.

So how about it? Let's get beyond ringing assertions to the contrary and make some arguments. What are the fundamental flaws in these two premises that mean Possibility 4 is true and Possibility 3 is not?

[Twilight II]

Although I do not believe it to be the case that there is an absolute, objective morality (so please do not ascribe that belief to me) (and I am happy to make the argument to support that lack of belief in a different post or series of posts, but it's not the point I'm making here), but let us posit its existence for the purposes of the discussion.

If an absolute, external, objective morality exists, then it seems to me the only really defensible position would be my 'Possibility 3':

Quote:

3. There exists an absolute, objective morality - but we do not have direct access to it, since our perception is fallible, so we can develop only subjective understandings of objective morality

Why do I say so? For two reasons:

1. This is true of everything, including science and physical reality. If there exists an absolute, external, objective truth about the physical state of the universe, we still do not have direct, unmediated access to it. We interpret what we see and measure through our own assumptions, biases, experience, language, interests and so on. Humans simply do not have direct, unmediated access to reality - 'every observation is already theory-laden'.

2. We see many, many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute, objective, external morality, but all with differences in their moral frameworks. If we had direct, unmediated access, then every person who made such a claim would have an identical moral framework, and this is *not* what we observe.

So how about it? Let's get beyond ringing assertions to the contrary and make some arguments. What are the fundamental flaws in these two premises that mean Possibility 4 is true and Possibility 3 is not?

I have already responded to all of your points Bravus...

But to re-iterate.

Only an absolutely moral authority can be the source of an absolute morality.

I think you are confusing the subject of an individuals perception of absolute morality with the existence of that morality.

You state that you do not accept there is an absolute moral position, is that correct?

[Twilight II]

You also obviously refuse to accept another option outside of the four you have presented Bravus...

Isn't that just a touch arbitrary?

[joeb]

Quote:

3. There exists an absolute, objective morality - but we do not have direct access to it, since our perception is fallible, so we can develop only subjective understandings of objective morality

This is a cop out. If this is true, there is no objective anything because we are fallible human beings. Math is now subjective because we do not know everything that is possible to be known about it as human beings are not infallible nor all-knowing. There will always be mathematics beyond the reach of human understanding.

Objectivity exists without knowing everything, otherwise it could not exist.

[Twilight II]

One useful thing to think about - the range of possibilities:

1. There exists no absolute, objective morality - all is purely personal and subjective

2. There exists no absolute, objective morality - but we can together develop intersubjective moral reasoning frameworks that we use to live moral lives

3. There exists an absolute, objective morality - but we do not have direct access to it, since our perception is fallible, so we can develop only subjective understandings of objective morality

4. There exists an absolute, objective morality - and we have direct, unmediated access to it

Those who support the idea of objective morality tend to speak only of 1 and 4, and to neglect the possibility of 2 and the (in my view) inevitability of 3.

1. Self refuting - logically, you cannot make a knowledge claim that there is no basis for knowledge.

2. Self refuting - logically, you have to have an absolute standard to appeal to, a pre-supposition.

3. Self refuting - an absolute moral source which by nature would be intelligent, would have to reveal that absolute moral standard for us, if we are to operate with it. As that source would have to be eternal, all knowing, all present and all powerful, it would behove the source to reveal that morality to us, out of the simple principle that good by its nature has to offer itself and communicate itself.

4. Assumptive - that we need un-mediated assistance.

Alternative:

5. There is an absolute moral standard, which the absolute source of the universe has revealed to us, for our absolute good, through His revelation, and because of His nature and will that absolute moral standard has been revealed to us.

Just in case it was missed the first time. :-)

[Bravus]

You also obviously refuse to accept another option outside of the four you have presented Bravus...

Isn't that just a touch arbitrary?

No, no, not at all! A *very* arbitrary set of possibilities, drawn from my own very limited understanding. Very happy to have challenges, additions and so on.

To me, your '5' is the same as my '4', but given my brevity, it's possible that 4 is simply not clear and transparent enough. Believe it or not, it was my attempt to honor and describe your perspective.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

You also obviously refuse to accept another option outside of the four you have presented Bravus...

Isn't that just a touch arbitrary?

No, no, not at all! A *very* arbitrary set of possibilities, drawn from my own very limited understanding. Very happy to have challenges, additions and so on.

To me, your '5' is the same as my '4', but given my brevity, it's possible that 4 is simply not clear and transparent enough. Believe it or not, it was my attempt to honor and describe your perspective.

Fair enough. :-)

However my 5. is my own position. :-)

[Twilight II]

So Bravus, if you do not hold to an absolute moral position, how do you use the concepts of right or wrong when examining the world?

I am curious how you can justify using the concepts of right or wrong, when your worldview does not allow for them?

[Bravus]

I don't. I use 'beneficial' and 'harmful'.

[Bravus]

Quote:

1. This {i.e. that our access to truth is filtered rather than direct} is true of everything, including science and physical reality. If there exists an absolute, external, objective truth about the physical state of the universe, we still do not have direct, unmediated access to it. We interpret what we see and measure through our own assumptions, biases, experience, language, interests and so on. Humans simply do not have direct, unmediated access to reality - 'every observation is already theory-laden'.

2. We see many, many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute, objective, external morality, but all with differences in their moral frameworks. If we had direct, unmediated access, then every person who made such a claim would have an identical moral framework, and this is *not* what we observe.

Responses?

[Twilight II]

I don't. I use 'beneficial' and 'harmful'.

Fine.

Is that an absolute benefit?

Or a subjective benefit?

[Twilight II]

Quote:

1. This {i.e. that our access to truth is filtered rather than direct} is true of everything, including science and physical reality. If there exists an absolute, external, objective truth about the physical state of the universe, we still do not have direct, unmediated access to it. We interpret what we see and measure through our own assumptions, biases, experience, language, interests and so on. Humans simply do not have direct, unmediated access to reality - 'every observation is already theory-laden'.

2. We see many, many people, all claiming to have direct access to absolute, objective, external morality, but all with differences in their moral frameworks. If we had direct, unmediated access, then every person who made such a claim would have an identical moral framework, and this is *not* what we observe.

Responses?

How people respond to absolute morality, does not change absolute morality...

Absolute morality exists whether we accept it or not.

Whether we obey it or not.

A lamp post is a lamp post whether you pay attention to it or ignore it.

Those that ignore it however, are usually the ones that walk into it...

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Often as not, life experience teaches you what you need to know.

When I was younger I thought nothing of being faithful to a girl. It was my life, I could do what I want if I wanted to. So eventually I did. I saw first hand the damage and destruction I caused by my act. So it became part of my moral compass to not cheat. It damaged her ability to grow and experience life.

I believe there is basically one universal moral. Do not mess with others ability to grow and experience. From that you can build sub morals, but they are totally subjective indeed. But as far as I can tell all morals stem from that one simple law.

I do agree there is a universal moral code, one that God originally put in each of us. And yes life experience's do teach us what we need to know, but only because we had some kind of training that brings that out.

I would agree fully except for the part about God putting it in each of us.

[Bravus]

But if everyone responds differently to absolute morality, in philosophy it becomes in principle indistinguishable from subjective. That is, unless you wish to claim that you, Twilight (and, I guess, people with *identical* moral frameworks to yours), are the one person in the world who is choosing not to ignore the completely obvious absolute morality, then clearly everyone has a slightly different perspective on the absolute morality. I agree, this would not change the thing in itself, but it would make it virtually useless as a guideline for actually acting in the world.

[Bravus]

Benefit is not absolute and it's often complicated - the benefit I gain might come at a cost to someone else, for example. Something like 'the greatest good for the greatest number', coupled with a level of altruism, would be the most beneficial - not because it's 'right', but because it *works*.

[Twilight II]

Benefit is not absolute and it's often complicated - the benefit I gain might come at a cost to someone else, for example. Something like 'the greatest good for the greatest number', coupled with a level of altruism, would be the most beneficial - not because it's 'right', but because it *works*.

Which is just another way of saying subjective morality.

Who gets to decide who wins and who loses?