Discussion Objective Morality Vs Subjective Morality

[Death Diviner]

Where Objective Morality is defined as moral facts that are independent of human opinions, experiences, beliefs and cultural contexts, and Subjective Morality is defined as moral values that are determined by individuals or societies rather than them being universal truths, which view do you take?

 

[Forever Sleep]

There clearly aren't morals in nature. Some animal parents will kill and eat their offspring. Animals will gang rape and murder one another. It seems clear to me- that morals are a human creation. Also- that our own moral codes are very individualistic. Some humans will happily break laws and violate other people's rights- seemingly with little guilt.

The universe- as I see it- is governed by forces- like gravity, natural selection, chemical reactions etc. Those forces don't have feelings. Weather fronts don't care if they will kill things. They just happen- surely? A tornado doesn't think- Hmm- I better try and miss that school...

But then- I tend to doubt there is a God. Or at least- a God with the morals humans have been taught to have- by religion for one- ironically.

 

[Hvergelmir]

It seems clear to me- that morals are a human creation.

While definitely subjective, I refute the idea that is would be strictly humans.
Morals are just what 'feels right' - a way to regulate behavior, and many animals has that. For evolutionary reasons animals tend to not eat members of its own species. I'd argue that the emotional mechanism enforcing that is what we describe as moral.

Animals will gang rape and murder one another.

Just like humans... but usually they don't. It's not pleasant, and it's not a good survival strategy.

 

[Forever Sleep]

While definitely subjective, I refute the idea that is would be strictly humans.
Morals are just what 'feels right' - a way to regulate behavior, and many animals has that. For evolutionary reasons animals tend to not eat members of its own species. I'd argue that the emotional mechanism enforcing that is what we describe as moral.


Just like humans... but usually they don't. It's not pleasant, and it's not a good survival strategy.

I'm not so sure survival strategy has all that much to do with morals though. It's simply whatever means by which that animal will most likely survive. Most animals will avoid fights where they may well be injured. So- they likely only provoke other animals when their need is most great.

Cannibalism is recorded in over 1,500 animal species (apparently.) It's simply that animals like fish and insects have likely evolved to have hundreds of offspring to compensate for so many of them being eaten. Sometimes by their own parents. I doubt they feel all that bad about it either. They likely just see them as food rather than their children. But- they've evolved to still be able to survive that way.

I suppose certain things are instrinsic. Richard Dawkins argued that we inherit altruistic genes because- we are a social species. We've done so well because we thrive in groups. So- perhaps empathy comes in handy then.

It's difficult- of course to judge whether other animals have equal, less or more empathy to us but- observing behaviour would seem to suggest that ants and wasps say- see the world differently to the way we do.

I suppose a higher or lower capacity for a natural empathy or callousness can be inherited. But then- I also believe we are taught or develop our own moral codes. I'm sure a lot of how we end up is down to nurture as well as nature.

Do you believe people or creatures that perform 'immoral' acts are born bad? Is there even an 'immoral' act in nature? Do wild animals feel guilty when they behave in 'immoral' ways?

Certainly, animal parents will berate their young when they do something stupid. But, I imagine it's mostly when they do something that risks their own safety.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Do you believe people or creatures that perform 'immoral' acts are born bad?

I think some are. All kinds of mutations and birth defects can occur. Some of those create bad individuals.
I think that holds true, regardless of how one choose to define "bad".

Is there even an 'immoral' act in nature?

If we agree on morality as a subjective term, we must ask; immoral according to who, or what?
I think that there's usually very little value in judging nature according to morality. There are plenty of exceptions though, where I think we're morally obligated to step in to reduce suffering, prevent extinctions, etc.

Do wild animals feel guilty when they behave in 'immoral' ways?

Yes, I think social mammalian species feel guilt in a similar way to humans. This based on behavioral similarities, and how similar the underlying mechanics and biology is.

The more distant the species is the harder it is to put their drives in human terms, though.
I don't think fish feel bad about eating their own. But I also think that humans could learn to do the same. History is riddled with bizarre cultural and societal practices.

 

[Forever Sleep]

But I also think that humans could learn to do the same. History is riddled with bizarre cultural and societal practices.

I guess that's what I mean though. Morality can't really be intrinsic or universal if it varies according to culture and society. There again- if certain practices turn out to be beneficial enough to allow a species to survive and thrive- it's no wonder they become hard wired into our genetics.

Again though- I suspect it's an individual species that defines its own morality. Think about the Cuckoo. That's a pretty weird behaviour- to con another bird into raising your own child. For that child to then murder that new surrogates own children- and to do all of that via instinct. It's bizarre- the ways these patterns of behaviour must repeat themselves until they become the way the majority of that species acts.

Humans are very weird though. When you consider the types of bodily mutilations that happen- either because of religion or fashion or- whatever else. What have they got to do with morality? Yet- to challenge them can also be seen as immoral.

I suppose I would agree though- that empathy is a strong human trait. And, I think it's empathy that informs our natural morality.

 

[Death Diviner]

Animals will gang rape and murder one another

Assuming we acknowledge that animals do not have morals—atleast not to our capacity —then would the terms "rape" and murder be applicable? Murder and rape are often defined as unlawful or a crime, are animals capable of being in such categories?

The universe- as I see it- is governed by forces- like gravity, natural selection, chemical reactions etc

Speaking of natural forces, I once saw a clip whereby an adherent of objective morality proposed that morality is as objective as gravity. When countered with the fact that without sapient sentient beings, there wouldn't be morality, while gravity required no dependence. The adherent objected the counter, claiming that gravity, like morality, requires 'agents' to express it. In the case of morality, these agents are the sentient beings (i.e. humans). In the case of gravity, these agents are matter. No sentients, no morality. No matter, no gravity(but a universe would still be possible, albeit matterless, it'll be there nonetheless).

Or at least- a God with the morals humans have been taught to have- by religion for one- ironically.

Can it not be argued that even with a god entity in the picture, morality is still subjective given it is subject to that god's will, who happens to have a will and clear preferences?

If we agree on morality as a subjective term, we must ask; immoral according to who, or what?

I think this is the part where we become "intersubjective" in our morales.

Simply, immoral according to us, the overwhelming majority. Take, for example, basing our morality on the collective understanding that suffering is to be—by all means necessary —avoided since we, as biological humanoids with functional neurons and a tendency of mental lows feel awful/pain/agony when suffering is inflicted upon us. If you're a masochist, you present a problem to this framework though.
Maybe on top of this moral principle, we add that human flourishing is always recommended for a similar line of reasoning.
But this could me problematic with populations with minority groups. But a rigid framework, maybe with exceptions, could still be made.

 

[jw_sisyphus97]

Comparing morality to gravity there is doing a lot of heavy lifting (pun intended). Gravity works whether or not anyone's around to notice. Morality doesn't show up until someone walks into the room. Saying morality is objective because it needs agents the way gravity needs matter is a sleight of hand. Matter doesn't choose to gravitate. We're stuck making choices the universe has zero opinion about. Thats not the same kind of necessity at all. And the intersubjectivity angle doesn't really save this. Most beings with functional neurons don't want to suffer sure. But most isn't all, and i agree, the masochist problem isn't some edge case you can wave away. The moment your moral framework depends on consensus among sentient beings, its only as stable as that consensus.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Speaking of natural forces, I once saw a clip whereby an adherent of objective morality proposed that morality is as objective as gravity. When countered with the fact that without sapient sentient beings, there wouldn't be morality, while gravity required no dependence. The adherent objected the counter, claiming that gravity, like morality, requires 'agents' to express it. In the case of morality, these agents are the sentient beings (i.e. humans). In the case of gravity, these agents are matter. No sentients, no morality. No matter, no gravity(but a universe would still be possible, albeit matterless, it'll be there nonetheless).

Gravity doesn't exactly pick and choose how it reacts though. If you took a few hundred objects of the same mass/ shape and ran an experiment whereby you dropped them from height and measured their speed- in the same environmental conditions- you would expect them all to hit the ground at pretty much the same time.

If you set up a few hundred people or animals in circumstances- whereby there moral choices were tested- I imagine the results would be all different.

I have just read that not all forces can be absolutely predicted, although- I think there usually are predictable patterns to them. I would argue that someone's morality has so many factors defining/ influencing it- it must be so much harder to predict or, write an equation for.

The closest we might get is: This percentage of people tend to act in this way. But then- that would also likely vary- depending on the country you were in, which generation you tested etc.

I think it also covers too many different actions also. Plus- it can- debatably be wrong- according to another person's perspective. Can a 'force' be incorrect?

So- for example- someone is invited to a posh dinner and they are served foie gras. (The fattened liver of a goose or duck.) What should they do? If they don't eat it- they could insult their host. If they do eat it- they have just consumed something that likely caused cruelty to the animal that provided it. But then- the animal is already dead. Not eating it won't bring it back. But- should they not at least say something?

I just don't think other 'forces' are as complicated to measure. They also- presumably- only have one answer. Judging morality would seem like it could have multiple answers- depending on which viewpoint you take.

This reminds me of a YouTube clip I saw though. Where the amusing answers children had given to exam questions were shown. The exam question was: 'What is the strongest force in the universe?' And, the child had written: 'Love'. Which is kind of sweet but again- love doesn't always work in predictable ways. Love can turn to hate. Gravity doesn't change into propulsion because it doesn't like an object.

Maybe it shares properties with 'forces' because it tends to require agents to express it but, it performs in a far less predictable way- surely?

 

[Death Diviner]

Saying morality is objective because it needs agents the way gravity needs matter is a sleight of hand. Matter doesn't choose to gravitate.

I also think it's disingenuous to draw the comparison given what "subjective" is in this context. This conflates the term subjective in the context of "subject to (a/an) [insert noun]" and subjective in terms mind dependency. Hell, come to think of it, the former doesn't even describe the term subjective. By this logic, what then isn't subjective? Entropy isn't objective because it's subject to change. Well nothing is objective because all things experience change?

And the intersubjectivity angle doesn't really save this.

I don't think anything truly does once the conclusion of subjective is made.

And I don't think the conclusion objective does either. I imagine this one to often be masked subjectivity as we see in history that morals—even amongst the same religion —could vary throughout time and there claim of objectivity remains. This is why I cling to the intersubjectivity as we base it on our shared experience, it leaves no room for dehumanising groups (the masochists, murderers, psychopaths and all those who did not subscribe to our no pain and flourishing would like to differ), or rather dehumanising innocents and creating victims. A society—if possible —that minimises pain because of a shared understanding and distaste of it and maximize flourishing for the same reasons should outperform one that follows rigid ancient guides which are justified with "It just is."

The moment your moral framework depends on consensus among sentient beings, its only as stable as that consensus.

Yes. Is a changing moral framework that changes with the consensus (not, necessarily ,the consensus of social conditioning, as outlined in the biological makeup contributing to a shared experience example) a better aspect?
@Forever Sleep ,Over 15000 comments made?! Woah! I can't even count that high with my fingers and toes (and I'm very good at counting with my fingers and toes).

Gravity doesn't exactly pick and choose how it reacts though

To be subjective is to be based or influenced by opinions, beliefs, tastes; to be dependent on a mind. Matter itself is not really a mind. I don't think the argument that tries to draw parallels between morality and natural forces is a good one, it sounds like apologetics even.

'What is the strongest force in the universe?' And, the child had written: 'Love'.

Ah, Mark, you're never gonna graduate at this rate. You think "Love" can consume a star? You think love releases more energy than a supernova? Think, Mark, think!

 

[Hvergelmir]

Murder and rape are often defined as unlawful or a crime, are animals capable of being in such categories?

I agree that legal terms and definitions are completely irrelevant, when talking about other species.
I still think the underlying concepts are relevant. Animals will react in ways similar to humans; stress, fear, aggression, etc.

suffering is to be [...] avoided [...] If you're a masochist, you present a problem to this framework though.

I don't see the moral dilema. Suffering is a mental state.
Feeling pain, etc, is not equivalent to suffering.

 

[Death Diviner]

I don't see the moral dilema. Suffering is a mental state.
Feeling pain, etc, is not equivalent to suffering.

Suffering is often a result of feeling pain. The masochist could feel pain, and not suffer. Yes, there's a distinction.I think in my model of a masochist, he was unjustly given the attributes of deriving pleasure from suffering (which I equated to feeling pain), which would imply that he is—in fact— not suffering.