Objective morality: Does it exist?

[Mythbuster]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?

[¿Que?]

No. I generally believe that meaning is constructed from social interactions with people and things. Meaning, then, is what determines morality.

In this sense, the ruling ideas of the era, that is, the meaning attributed to different things, will be those of the ruling class, and as such, morality reflects the interests of the ruling class.

(towards a marxist symbolic interactionism?)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Not that I know of.Everything is defined by culture,religion,ideology so it would be difficult to say something like morality is objective in itself.

[Mythbuster]

You two have good points. It seems like god ISA bit confused as to morality!

[cb9's_unity]

Objective morality could only exist if God exists. And even if God exists, he has hidden objective morality from us (by not revealing concretely his presence and beliefs). God could give us objective morality in a complex and specific way that no human a priori or a posteriori ethical system ever could. However, humans would either be overloaded with information on how to ethically approach every possible situation, and we would be oppressed because our creative license over our own life would be significantly diminished, if not entirely obliterated.

[Tim Cornelis]

No. I generally believe that meaning is constructed from social interactions with people and things. Meaning, then, is what determines morality.

In this sense, the ruling ideas of the era, that is, the meaning attributed to different things, will be those of the ruling class, and as such, morality reflects the interests of the ruling class.

(towards a marxist symbolic interactionism?)

I disagree. 'Morality' is the projection of one's own perception of empathy onto others.

For example, if a person (A) hits a pedestrian (B) and kills him and A is seen crying and being really upset we feel sorry for A and B (especially his family) because we can imagine how it must feel to accidentally kill someone: terrible!

But if the exact same thing happens and A is seen acting indifferent and joking we feel enraged because we know how it would feel to us if we did it: terrible, yet he is so indifferent to it.

The act is the same, yet we judge it completely different because we project our own sense of empathy onto others.

Which is not to say that our sense of empathy cannot be shaped by our surroundings. Westerners are likely to be much more empathic because they grew up in a save environment, whilst some Africans who know only war may feel indifferent.

That's why we feel so angry when we see someone drown a cat, the act is--be honest--very insignificant, yet we cannot bring ourselves to do such a thing because we feel such an affection for the animal. Therefore, when someone does drown a cat--the act itself being rather insignificant--we project our own empathy onto him and judge: he is inhumane.


TL;DR: empathy + projection thereof = morality.

[Manic Impressive]

But not everyone will feel enraged by your second scenario. Someone else who is used to dealing with accidents or death may react completely differently to someone who isn't. This means that the material conditions specific to the individual combined with the shared social norm will determine how the individual will react.

[Rafiq]

Morals a a mere reflection of the conditions brought about by the mode of production. So no.

[Broletariat]

Instead of looking for reasons that underpin morality, we should be looking at the way we use ethical language.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nope.

[Tim Cornelis]

But not everyone will feel enraged by your second scenario. Someone else who is used to dealing with accidents or death may react completely differently to someone who isn't.

No that means morality is not objective and that everyone has a different level of empathy, some none. Your argument does not disprove that thesis, it merely reinforces that morality is relative.


This means that the material conditions specific to the individual combined with the shared social norm will determine how the individual will react.

No, that's a non-sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that everyone has a different level of empathy and projection that material conditions and social norms are the root of morality.

Morality is not determined (solely) by social or societal norms, it is mostly determined by "biological" circumstances. Environment only plats a secondary role.

[Thirsty Crow]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?
Facts cannot be "moral" by the sole virtue of them being facts, or existing physical entities. What is moral is the significance attributed to facts, occurences and phenomena. In other words, morality is a specific way human societies, and strata within these, organize the relationships within the groups which constitute society, as well as value norms which are also prescriptive: they are intended to produce an effect.

Frankly, this whole issue with "objective" morality is very confusing for me. It most clearly is objective insofar as there are tangible effects produced by whichever morality you take up, and it is also incorporated in one way or another (for example, religious exegeses on the bible which codify and prescribe desirable behaviour: here you have the organization and a body of texts, whose relations are determined in one way or another). But cb9's_unity has a point, and I'm guessing that you were aiming at similar conclusions, that objective morality could only exist if God did as well, or if there were to be a definite natural basis for certain human behaviours and value judgements which accompany them. I can't say I know enough biology to have a definite opinion on this specific problem.

Long story short, no, there's no objective morality, or to word it differently, different morals are to a significant degree a matter of interpersonal negotiation stemming from concrete social conditions in which humans lead their lives.



Morality is not determined (solely) by social or societal norms, it is mostly determined by "biological" circumstances. Environment only plats a secondary role.
I'd like to see some solid evidence for this bold claim.

[¿Que?]

I disagree. 'Morality' is the projection of one's own perception of empathy onto others.

For example, if a person (A) hits a pedestrian (B) and kills him and A is seen crying and being really upset we feel sorry for A and B (especially his family) because we can imagine how it must feel to accidentally kill someone: terrible!

But if the exact same thing happens and A is seen acting indifferent and joking we feel enraged because we know how it would feel to us if we did it: terrible, yet he is so indifferent to it.

The act is the same, yet we judge it completely different because we project our own sense of empathy onto others.

But it's not simply the act, but the meaning associated with the act. We simply do not give the same significance to viewing a person rejoice at someone's misfortune, as we do someone lamenting it. And I'm speaking here in terms of social norms i.e. the morals of society, not an individual's personal moral convictions. I'm speaking about morality sociologically.

As for god, even if god existed and somehow determined morality, one would still have to contend with the euthyphro (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)dilemma.



The dilemma (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dilemma) has had a major effect on the philosophical theism (faith) of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Good_and_evil) commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Ever since Plato's original discussion, this question has presented a problem for some theists (believers), though others have thought it a false dilemma, and it continues to be an object of theological and philosophical discussion today.

[CAleftist]

Well, the cause of morality is objective, but the expression of that morality is inherently subjective, and the subjectivity is based on human beings' perception of objective reality.

[Mr. Natural]

Mythbuster, Others,

Mythbuster aks if objective moral facts exist, and if so, what might their moral compass be?

The moral compass of human life needs to be natural life: human morality and ethics need to be rooted in the natural organizational relations of life.

Life is a bottom-up, self-organized community of communities. Ecosystems and bodies are communities. Life is a bottom-up, systemic process created by and composed of communal living systems: self-organized, integrated wholes existing in dynamic interdependence with each other and their physical environment. This is science, this is community, this is democracy, and this is communism.

So the "moral compass" of a communist society would be the natural, ecological, grassroots, communal relations that foster the nurture and development of human social individuals. Thus the new science(s) of life's organizational relations provides the moral compass for human ethics and morality.

These new sciences reveal life and the cosmos to be self-organized "community." Can we successfully organize our societies, hence our moralities, differently?

Capitalism's "moral compass" is profit taken from human labor and community. Communism's moral compass must be self-organized communities generated from a sustainable, ecological surplus (profit). That's communism and that's life.

"We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condlition for the free development of all." (Manifesto)

"Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible." (German Ideology)

My red-green best.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I know we dislike Richard Dawkins here but... couldn't help it...
dxdgCxK4VUA

[MarxSchmarx]

Objective morality could only exist if God exists. And even if God exists, he has hidden objective morality from us (by not revealing concretely his presence and beliefs). God could give us objective morality in a complex and specific way that no human a priori or a posteriori ethical system ever could. However, humans would either be overloaded with information on how to ethically approach every possible situation, and we would be oppressed because our creative license over our own life would be significantly diminished, if not entirely obliterated.

I disagree. Why should I do something just because God told me to?

[Decolonize The Left]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?

No. Objective morality is a self-contradiction. Morality is a human construction and by definition subjective.

- August

[The Jay]

Your moral framework determines your moral facts. Your moral framework is built upon axioms that you accept as true. Objective morality does not exist, only logical justification.

[Revolution starts with U]

I know we dislike Richard Dawkins here but... couldn't help it...
dxdgCxK4VUA
What we like around here is truth, and what we dislike is falsehood. Individual persons are irrelevant.


Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?
You said: "Do you believe squaring circles?
This question has grammar, but it makes no sense to a rational mind. Morality by definition cannot be caused. Morality is a choice by definition; right, wrong, or let it be.
The only cause of morality is individual will, this is subjective to the individual. As has been said, even if morality comes from G-D (another squared circle term) why should I choose to follow it? Perhaps I like hell.
But there is a caveat. Morality is expressed objectively through inter-subjectivity. To the extent that if I murder someone, and are caught, I will possibly face the death penalty... yes, morality is objective. But whether or not I follow that morality is my choice.

[Luís Henrique]

Instead of looking for reasons that underpin morality, we should be looking at the way we use ethical language.

So have a look at it and tell us what you see...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?

I will disagree with most people, and say that yes, there is a material basis for morality.

Can you imagine a society that deems murder moral in all cases? What would such a society become, in a rather short span of time?

Things that make living in common impossible tend to be considered "immoral". Then we should probably look at what kind of "life in common" we wish, and discuss what is "moral" (ie, conducive to that way of life) or not.

Luís Henrique

[∞]

I always believed that there is no actual objective morality, however, there is a general morality. There is a general conception of what is "right" and "wrong" to promote safety among our species. Killing someone is frowned upon because if it becomes a common practice we would be living frantically and afraid (I'm mean in civil society not in militant regions deprived of critical thinking). We avoid doing these things for the most part because of a mutual interest. The term objective morality is a clever usage of the word to imply there is a creator. Theists will often use this as a way to prove there is a god. The fact that we have a "right" and "wrong", can easily be explained by almost any evolutionary biologist.

[Sputnik_1]

I think that morality is influenced by both nature and society. We can't really separate two, as the second is the consequence of the first one (just like base and superstructure i think). So for example, by nature we understand that killing or torturing another person is a wrong action, it ends life, we ourselves wouldn't like anyone to do that to us. But society created precise laws and rules according to which such thing as killing might be justified or punished depending on circumstances (for example, if you kill someone in self defense it's justified, if you kill a convict with death penalty on electric chair it's still ok etc.). Of course, everyone can have different opinion on the existing "morality", laws etc, but it's still influenced by the general one we've created (like people discussing if abortion is right or wrong) and those variations may depend on different factors; personality, religion, political opinion, influences we absorbed in our childhood etc.
Well, at least that's the way i see it...

[Luís Henrique]

The fact that we have a "right" and "wrong", can easily be explained by almost any evolutionary biologist.

Yes? And how would that evolutionary biologist explain the fact that cows, corks, or amoebas, do not display anything that could be called "morality"?

Luís Henrique

[∞]

They still do what they do to survive. And killing other cows will accomplish nothing. We have that mixed with emotion, therefore we call it morality.

Young Based Lord

[Hit The North]

No. Objective morality is a self-contradiction. Morality is a human construction and by definition subjective.

- August

True, but not so simple. It is important to recognise that morality exists as a social power and therefore has an objective existence over and above the subjectivity of the individual.

[Hit The North]

I think that morality is influenced by both nature and society. We can't really separate two, as the second is the consequence of the first one (just like base and superstructure i think). So for example, by nature we understand that killing or torturing another person is a wrong action, it ends life, we ourselves wouldn't like anyone to do that to us.

Except we don't know anything through nature, but only through society.


But society created precise laws and rules according to which such thing as killing might be justified or punished depending on circumstances (for example, if you kill someone in self defense it's justified, if you kill a convict with death penalty on electric chair it's still ok etc.). Of course, everyone can have different opinion on the existing "morality", laws etc, but it's still influenced by the general one we've created (like people discussing if abortion is right or wrong) and those variations may depend on different factors; personality, religion, political opinion, influences we absorbed in our childhood etc.
This is true. In short, morality is a site of social struggles - particularly in complex societies with heterogeneous social divisions.

[ericksolvi]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?

I live by the code "If it harm none do what you will". Therefor I never cause physical or emotional harm to those around me, to the best of my ability. Don't think that I'm taking a passive tact. I hold myself responsible for the well being of my fellow man. Being ignorant to the suffering of others is allowing harm to come to them.
My one line moral statement has massive ramifications. For instance I've already started to study child psychology, despite not having children, because I need the information so that I can raise a child without causing emotional harm (I've noticed many people who really love their children but are still bad parents, it takes more then good intentions). I devote a great deal of my time to helping others.
So yes I do believe that there is one absolute moral position. Don't hurt anyone. Simple, but it manages to stop about half of my base desires cold.

[leftace53]

No, my standpoint is that morality is completely subjective based on socialization, interactions among people, and as a subset of decision theory.

[Thirsty Crow]

I will disagree with most people, and say that yes, there is a material basis for morality.

This statment testifies to the confusion which tends to arise from the idiosyncratic uses of the term "subjective" and "objective". Maybe it's not the use that is exclusively troublesome, but the very terms in itself, which lend themselves too easily to communicative practices which obscure more than they reveal.

In short, I honestly do not think that a single person responding to this thread meant that there is no material basis for morality. That would mean that there's only a "spiritual" basis for it (God) or that morality is entirely self-referential (morality as the basis for morality; morality for its own sake, as an autonoumous power). I find these two positions quite erroneous, and I agree with you: human social life acts as the material basis for human morality/different systems of morals.

[Sputnik_1]

Except we don't know anything through nature, but only through society.

Yes, i agree. I might have worded it kinda awkward there. What I mean, is that society evolved this way and not the other also cause the nature and certain conditions shaped it this way.

[Luís Henrique]

They still do what they do to survive. And killing other cows will accomplish nothing. We have that mixed with emotion, therefore we call it morality.


So your evolutionary biologist isn't able to realise the difference between bovine behaviour (genetically determined) and human behaviour (socially constructed)? Or does he think that genetic determinism+"emotion" accounts for morality?

Luís Henrique

[Meridian]

The problem here is a recurring one in philosophy, I think.

We take a word which strikes us as somewhat vague, and we treat it as if it refers to an object or 'concept', a spirit. We attempt to look at its existence in and of itself, to look 'beyond' the word.

After all, otherwise it must be a useless word, right?

This is apart from the fact that statements with the word "morality" tend to be describing varying conceptions of 'morality', or saying stuff like "society lacks morality". This last sentence can be true, but what it means is that society is in a certain way. No "moral facts" needed, the meaning is still understood and based off of how the word is usually used in similar statements.

It is more usually said that "this act was immoral", or "she is a very immoral person".

We can still protest the use of the words "morality", "moral" and "immoral", though, since even though their meanings are understood they are used to make condemnations or justifications based on nothing but air.

[ZeroNowhere]

Generally, when people preface a word with 'objective' in philosophy, the best approach is to run for the hills. This also means, by the way, that one should almost never listen to a physicist attempting to philosophize.

In any case, though, I'd see the question of whether morality has a material basis as in essence equivalent to the question of whether truth/knowledge has a material basis. Insofar as it is based in purposive, practical action, and the development of the concrete human, then yes, it does have a material basis. Insofar as it's thought to be based on various moral principles, axioms and so on essentially pulled out of thin air (or, what is the same, one's own arse), then it can't have a material basis as such, or indeed have sense. Insofar as it's based on simply instincts, 'intuitions' and urges, it's not morality, any more than knowledge is knowledge when based purely upon whim and fancy; indeed, generally a priori moral principles fall under this wider category.


We can still protest the use of the words "morality", "moral" and "immoral", though, since even though their meanings are understood they are used to make condemnations or justifications based on nothing but air.In which case we still need to establish where land may be found.

[Meridian]

We can still protest the use of the words "morality", "moral" and "immoral", though, since even though their meanings are understood they are used to make condemnations or justifications based on nothing but air.
In which case we still need to establish where land may be found.

Where land is found is determined by the use of the words.

What I meant is that some uses of these terms are based on religious dogma.

[ZeroNowhere]

And what is the use of words determined by?

[∞]

So your evolutionary biologist isn't able to realise the difference between bovine behaviour (genetically determined) and human behaviour (socially constructed)? Or does he think that genetic determinism+"emotion" accounts for morality?

Luís Henrique

Doesn't matter you can talk to a sociologist about social constructs. All the biologists and neuroscientists I know are staunch determinists.

[Luís Henrique]

Doesn't matter you can talk to a sociologist about social constructs.

And a sociologist quite certainly will tell you that the behaviour of humans is qualitatively different from the behaviour of cows...


All the biologists and neuroscientists I know are staunch determinists.

Then they are wrong.

Do they apply their "determinism" to anything else than their own field of knowledge? Namely, do they believe that human societies, human history, human psychology, are "determined" by genetics? Because if so, they are doubly wrong.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

We take a word which strikes us as somewhat vague, and we treat it as if it refers to an object or 'concept', a spirit.

But objects, concepts, and spirits are quite different things; such words are not used interchangeably. I don't say, "give me that spirit that is over the table", or "he has an upbeat concept", or "the object of gender is controversial".


We attempt to look at its existence in and of itself, to look 'beyond' the word.So, do you contend that there is no such thing as morality, outside the word 'morality'? How do you use the word 'morality', then?


After all, otherwise it must be a useless word, right?Quite probably. What is the use of a word that has no relation to anything outside itself (and is not a preposition, or other "empty" morpheme)?


This is apart from the fact that statements with the word "morality" tend to be describing varying conceptions of 'morality', or saying stuff like "society lacks morality".Well, an obvious use of the word morality is to describe as immoral anything that doesn't fit my own morality... because it is obvious that society doesn't lack morality, or moralities.


This last sentence can be true, but what it means is that society is in a certain way.How can a sentence like 'society lacks morality' be true?


No "moral facts" needed, the meaning is still understood and based off of how the word is usually used in similar statements.And what does 'society lacks morality' actually mean?


It is more usually said that "this act was immoral", or "she is a very immoral person".Ah, the idea that we can understand a word by looking at how other word is used. But, of course, 'moral' and 'imoral' are adjectives, while 'morality' and 'imorality' are nouns; they can't be, and are not, used in the same way.

(A quite comical example of why one shouldn't do this is (or used to be) Wikipedia's article on philosophy of language, which tries to explain the word 'reality' by analising different words (the adjective 'real', the phrase 'in reality', etc.) and ends by... using the word 'reality' just like everybody uses it, ie, in a way completely different from the way we use 'real' or 'in reality'...)


We can still protest the use of the words "morality", "moral" and "immoral", though, since even though their meanings are understood they are used to make condemnations or justifications based on nothing but air.But who has decided that saying that some act is immoral is a condemnation based on nothing but pure air?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

This statment testifies to the confusion which tends to arise from the idiosyncratic uses of the term "subjective" and "objective". Maybe it's not the use that is exclusively troublesome, but the very terms in itself, which lend themselves too easily to communicative practices which obscure more than they reveal.

Indeed, and we are probably veering into another conundrum, created by the false dillema of determinism/free will.

There is no sence in the opposition objective/subjective, unless we reject the obvious fact that human subjectivity has objective consequences.


In short, I honestly do not think that a single person responding to this thread meant that there is no material basis for morality. That would mean that there's only a "spiritual" basis for it (God) or that morality is entirely self-referential (morality as the basis for morality; morality for its own sake, as an autonoumous power).

I think some believe there is no material basis for morality, but take a different, though equally mistaken, conclusion: that, not being "objective", morality doesn't exist.


I find these two positions quite erroneous, and I agree with you: human social life acts as the material basis for human morality/different systems of morals.

Rather both you and me agree with Marx, it would seem.

Luís Henrique

[Meridian]

But objects, concepts, and spirits are quite different things; such words are not used interchangeably. I don't say, "give me that spirit that is over the table", or "he has an upbeat concept", or "the object of gender is controversial".
I agree that these are different words and as such have different uses, but I do not see the relevance.


So, do you contend that there is no such thing as morality, outside the word 'morality'? How do you use the word 'morality', then?
I don't even understand what you mean by asking whether there is such a thing as morality "outside the word 'morality'".


Quite probably. What is the use of a word that has no relation to anything outside itself (and is not a preposition, or other "empty" morpheme)?
Well, what is the relation that the word "what" has to anything besides itself? I am not saying there isn't one.


Well, an obvious use of the word morality is to describe as immoral anything that doesn't fit my own morality... because it is obvious that society doesn't lack morality, or moralities.


How can a sentence like 'society lacks morality' be true?

And what does 'society lacks morality' actually mean?
I suppose your troubles come from what is meant by "morality", which it is proposed that society lacks.

People from one group might have a discussion in which the sentence is uttered, and the listener(s) may 1. understand the statement perfectly well, and 2. understand the sentence with the word "morality" having the same use as intended by the utterer. Meanwhile, a person from another group may understand the statement but misunderstand its intended meaning, in that they have another use for the word "morality".


Ah, the idea that we can understand a word by looking at how other word is used. But, of course, 'moral' and 'imoral' are adjectives, while 'morality' and 'imorality' are nouns; they can't be, and are not, used in the same way.
I was simply pointing out that the words "moral" and "immoral" are used more often. I have no idea where you get your ideas from.


(A quite comical example of why one shouldn't do this is (or used to be) Wikipedia's article on philosophy of language, which tries to explain the word 'reality' by analising different words (the adjective 'real', the phrase 'in reality', etc.) and ends by... using the word 'reality' just like everybody uses it, ie, in a way completely different from the way we use 'real' or 'in reality'...)
This is besides the point of this topic and I do not see why you bring it up, but did you perhaps think that the word "reality" might come from the word "real"? These related words may be relevant for the use of the word "reality" and I find your (non-)attempt at dismissing such areas of research quite odd, without having looked at whatever article you are talking about.


But who has decided that saying that some act is immoral is a condemnation based on nothing but pure air?
Well, what the attentive would catch is that I said "they are used to", by which I meant that it does occur. As I said, I meant that certain judgments are made on the basis of dogma, or "because it says so", "because He says so", and so on. And this is a use that I disagree with.

[Desperado]

"Objective" implies being able to look at something as if we play no part and so have no bias - we are outside, looking onto the situation. This isn't possible absolutely - we can't use our heads to stand outside of our own heads, or as Marx emphasised, we can't stand outside our own historical and social development.

But looking at morality as worthless without this absolute objectivity is a mistake. Morals are ultimately wants, but are "we" statements, not "I". Morality I'd say is then quite inherently objective - it's a collective, not individual concept. Of course, this is to a varying degree - plenty of moral systems exclude others from the "we" - for example, the Christianity of the crusades kept it to the Christians (but if a Christian was to realise that the heathens were the same as them, that morality would be quite meaningless to him). A meaningful moral proposition stands outside of what I want, it's what we want.

[ZeroNowhere]

As I said, I meant that certain judgments are made on the basis of dogma, or "because it says so", "because He says so", and so on. And this is a use that I disagree with.
I assume that you don't disagree with it arbitrarily. Nonetheless, is the reason why this morality is baseless simply because it's based upon what somebody else has said, or would it be equally baseless if it were simply made up arbitrarily by oneself? Implying that some forms of morality and justification are ultimately based upon thin air implies likewise that some aren't, unless one is to argue that no morality has any basis (as in some forms of relativism), and far from escaping the problem it just comes back to it again.

[∞]

Do they apply their "determinism" to anything else than their own field of knowledge? Namely, do they believe that human societies, human history, human psychology, are "determined" by genetics? Because if so, they are doubly wrong.

Luís Henrique

Not by genetics but social constructs which still is pre-determined.

[RHIZOMES]

There is no such thing as objective morality. Nature is just a random process that humans have provided an imperfect narrative to. Basing morality/ethics in the realm human nature and evolution, while being a good angle to look at it from, should never be confused with something "objective". It is still a subjective moral system even if it appeals to science.

That being said, we as human beings make our own truths.

[Luís Henrique]

I agree that these are different words and as such have different uses, but I do not see the relevance.

Well, they are different words, with different meanings, that are used in different ways. So , when you say, "We take a word which strikes us as somewhat vague, and we treat it as if it refers to an object or 'concept', a spirit", what do you mean? That we treat the word 'morality' as if morality was an object? Or as if it was a concept? Or as if it was a spirit?

Because I really don't think anyone thinks that morality is an object or a spirit, and I frankly don't see a problem with thinking of morality as a concept. Or do you contend that morality is not a concept? What would qualify as a concept, then?


I don't even understand what you mean by asking whether there is such a thing as morality "outside the word 'morality'".Well, just look at how words are used. There is something like a car outside the word 'car', meaning that we can walk through the streets and see cars. There is something like a lie outside the word 'lie', because you can point to a sentence and say, "this is a lie".


Well, what is the relation that the word "what" has to anything besides itself? I am not saying there isn't one.Yeah, that was why I included a clause on "prepositions and other empty morphemes". 'What' doesn't have any relation to anything outside discourse, it only relates to other words in the context of sentences or dialogues.


I suppose your troubles come from what is meant by "morality", which it is proposed that society lacks.Hm, no, I don't think I have any troubles. You said that "society lacks morality" is a sentence that can be true, and it seems you are the one having some trouble in explaining how it could be true. So, again... how can this sentence be true, and what does it actually mean, so that we can decide if it can or cannot be true?


People from one group might have a discussion in which the sentence is uttered, and the listener(s) may 1. understand the statement perfectly well, and 2. understand the sentence with the word "morality" having the same use as intended by the utterer. Meanwhile, a person from another group may understand the statement but misunderstand its intended meaning, in that they have another use for the word "morality".Yes, but this kind of relativism precludes the concept of 'misuse' of language. After all, for any given philosopher X, there is a group of "Xists" that understand what the philosopher says, and agree with it. Even if it is something like, "the history of mankind is nothing else than the progress of freedom".


I was simply pointing out that the words "moral" and "immoral" are used more often. I have no idea where you get your ideas from.I think you misuse the method in a few different ways. See below.


This is besides the point of this topic and I do not see why you bring it up, but did you perhaps think that the word "reality" might come from the word "real"? These related words may be relevant for the use of the word "reality" and I find your (non-)attempt at dismissing such areas of research quite odd, without having looked at whatever article you are talking about.First of your misuses is to bring different words into the discussion. Wittgenstein said (well, he didn't, but that's a different issue) that the meaning of a word is its use, not that the meaning of a word is in the use of a different, even if related, word. There are plenty of related words that have very different meanings and uses. Would you bring 'humane' into a discussion about the use of the word 'human'? Or 'underdog' when the issue is 'dog'? 'Terrific' into the discussion of 'terror'? So no, whatever the meaning or the use of the word 'morality', it cannot, in principle, be properly discussed by pointing to the uses of the word 'moral'.

Second, I think you misuse the method by not being thorough in your research. It is true that some sentences that feature the word 'morality' can be paraphrased with the use of the word moral:


Society lacks morality. -> Society is immoral. (this is just one possible meaning of this sentence; the other would be, "morality is not a feature of societies, and so to say that a society is immoral makes as much sence as to say that love is colourless".)



John's morality is quite elevated. -> John is a highly moral person.

And even


I don't trust his morality. -> I don't trust him being a moral person.

But there clearly are uses of 'morality' that cannot be paraphrased in such way, or would at least sound awkward if so:


Morality is a social construct.
The morality of the Ancient Greeks was quite different from ours.
It is the morality of the Christian faith that I am questioning here.

Third, I think you misuse the method by not applying it to the relevant words.

"Society lacks morality" features, besides 'morality', the words 'lack' and 'society'. By not discussing how 'society' and 'lack' are used, you miss the main problem with that sentence, which resides in the word 'lack', rather than in the word 'morality'.


Well, what the attentive would catch is that I said "they are used to", by which I meant that it does occur. As I said, I meant that certain judgments are made on the basis of dogma, or "because it says so", "because He says so", and so on. And this is a use that I disagree with.Sorry, but this analysis is clearly faulty: ethic commandments whose only authority is "because it says so" or "because He says so" carry no weight, and consequently cannot have actual impact on society. To actually be followed by enough people as to become an actual problem, they would have to resonate, at some level, with the needs and fears of a given society.

But this, of course, would entail a discussion about the real world, not about words, their misuse, or the misuse of a method intended to point out their misuse.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Not by genetics but social constructs which still is pre-determined.

Ah... and what determines social constructs? Or do social constructs have free will?

Luís Henrique

[ZeroNowhere]

There are plenty of related words that have very different meanings and uses. Would you bring 'humane' into a discussion about the use of the word 'human'? Or 'underdog' when the issue is 'dog'? 'Terrific' into the discussion of 'terror'? So no, whatever the meaning or the use of the word 'morality', it cannot, in principle, be properly discussed by pointing to the uses of the word 'moral'.
To be fair, the connection between the words 'moral' and 'morality' is quite a bit closer than that of 'dog' and 'underdog' or 'terrific' and 'terror'. This just means that using the word 'moral' instead of 'morality' doesn't really solve anything, though.


The morality of the Ancient Greeks was quite different from ours.
What the Greeks considered moral and immoral was quite different from us.


It is the morality of the Christian faith that I am questioning here.
It's what the Christian faith designates moral and immoral that I am questioning here.


Morality is a social construct.
The idea of actions being moral or immoral is a social construct.


Ah... and what determines social constructs? Or do social constructs have free will?
It's a bit strange to say that humans are 'determined' by social constructs. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe it would make sense in specific cases, such as in reference to capital, but that's a result of alienation, and as such not transhistorical.

Oh well, let's give it a shot.

Social constructs are determined by nature and individuals, both which are determined by social constructs, which are also determined by genetics, which are determined by external nature, which is determined by individuals, who are determined by genetics, which are determined in configuration and effect by society, which is determined by thought, which is determined by practice, which is determined by the means of production and consumption, which are determined by external nature...


Yes, but this kind of relativism precludes the concept of 'misuse' of language
I think that this is a decent point, especially if one is attempting to display other philosophies as being a misuse of language, or otherwise incompatible with it, in some sense.

[Luís Henrique]

To be fair, the connection between the words 'moral' and 'morality' is quite a bit closer than that of 'dog' and 'underdog' or 'terrific' and 'terror'. This just means that using the word 'moral' instead of 'morality' doesn't really solve anything, though.

Yes, there are degrees of ethymological relation between words, and some are closer than others. But close or not close, they are different words, with different uses. And so I would maintain that this is a misuse of the method.


What the Greeks considered moral and immoral was quite different from us.Indeed, and so in some of its uses, 'morality' means 'what a given group of people consider moral or immoral'. It happens to be quite economical in the comparison.


It's what the Christian faith designates moral and immoral that I am questioning here.Hm, I don't think so, tough this is a possible reading. I would think the most plausible reading would be 'It's whether the Christian faith is moral or immoral that I am questioning here'. Anyway, again we would use 'morality' instead of 'what one considers moral or immoral', out of concerns of economy.


The idea of actions being moral or immoral is a social construct.And so, in some other of its uses, 'morality' means 'the idea of actions being moral or immoral'. Again seems quite economical to use 'morality' here.


It's a bit strange to say that humans are 'determined' by social constructs. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe it would make sense in specific cases, such as in reference to capital, but that's a result of alienation, and as such not transhistorical.It is rather circular than strange, as I think you tried to point below:


Oh well, let's give it a shot.

Social constructs are determined by nature and individuals, both which are determined by social constructs, which are also determined by genetics, which are determined by external nature, which is determined by individuals, who are determined by genetics, which are determined in configuration and effect by society, which is determined by thought, which is determined by practice, which is determined by the means of production and consumption, which are determined by external nature...You mean, what is under the sea that is under the gigantic turtle that carries the gigantic elephants that bear the pillars on which the world is based?


I think that this is a decent point, especially if one is attempting to display other philosophies as being a misuse of language, or otherwise incompatible with it, in some sense.That's how it strikes me. But there are other conundrums; it is said that "philosophers misuse language"; but it is also said that it is language itself that tricks us into error. These seem to me to be quite different things, and perhaps even mutually exclusive. If language tricks us into misbelieving in "concepts" and "spirits", then the misconception lies at the origin of language, not at the origin of philosophy. On the other hand, if philosophy is a violation of (what Wittgenstein mistakenly called) grammar, then language does not trick us into anything, and the problem lies in the Conspiracy of Philosophers Against Truth.

... but I don't think we can appropriately discuss whether there is something like "objective morality" by discussing words. Morality, or moralities, are part of the world; speech about them doesn't create them, and so they cannot be explained away by "looking at how words are used".

Luís Henrique

[ZeroNowhere]

... but I don't think we can appropriately discuss whether there is something like "objective morality" by discussing words. Morality, or moralities, are part of the world; speech about them doesn't create them, and so they cannot be explained away by "looking at how words are used".Perhaps it could be said that a discussion of the word 'morality' must go beyond a discussion of simply the word 'morality', insofar as meaning is by no means internal to language but to human practice (and human practice is by no means internal to itself, but you get the point). A discussion about morality is inevitably a discussion about the use of certain words pertaining to morality, because we can only discuss it in words, but this doesn't mean that it's reducible to simply putting forward facts about the word and not the world, insofar as thought and language are not independent from the material. Of course, just saying that people know what they mean by the word 'morality', and leaving it at that, is an evasion at best; of course, it could be said that they realize its meaning in practice, whether or not they could explain it in words, but this would involve describing the practice itself, and in addition would be, strictly speaking, false in a capitalist society.


Hm, I don't think so, tough this is a possible reading. I would think the most plausible reading would be 'It's whether the Christian faith is moral or immoral that I am questioning here'.Yeah, I wasn't sure about in which sense the original sentence was meant. Yours is more intuitive, but I thought that in this context you may have been referring to the one which I described.


Indeed, and so in some of its uses, 'morality' means 'what a given group of people consider moral or immoral'. It happens to be quite economical in the comparison.Yes, of course, my point was just that one can use 'moral' in such sentences in a way which one couldn't do with say, 'underdog' in a sentence about dogs.

[∞]

Ah... and what determines social constructs? Or do social constructs have free will?

Luís Henrique

Go deep enough and you'll find reactions between atoms determine everything.

[Luís Henrique]

Go deep enough and you'll find reactions between atoms determine everything.

So we are back to hard core determinism, and "social constructs" became just an intermediate step.

Of course, determinism is false; some notion of thermodinamics may dispell that false "philosophy". But this is another thread, I think.

Luís Henrique

[∞]

So we are back to hard core determinism, and "social constructs" became just an intermediate step.

Of course, determinism is false; some notion of thermodinamics may dispell that false "philosophy". But this is another thread, I think.

Luís Henrique

How does a study of heat within a closed system disprove determinism?

[Luís Henrique]

How does a study of heat within a closed system disprove determinism?

Are you acquainted with Laplace's demon?

... but this would need another thread; let's not further derail this one, which, after all, is about morality.

Luís Henrique

[∞]

Are you acquainted with Laplace's demon?

... but this would need another thread; let's not further derail this one, which, after all, is about morality.

Luís Henrique

All I am saying is that morality is not something that is objectively visible in the universe. All it is a concept that only humans have come up in a tiny inhabitable spec called Earth.

[Luís Henrique]

All I am saying is that morality is not something that is objectively visible in the universe. All it is a concept that only humans have come up in a tiny inhabitable spec called Earth.

So is communism.

Luís Henrique

[∞]

So is communism.

Luís Henrique

But communism directly determines objective physical circumstances. But as an idea it is not objective. You can say however, many aspects of Marxism as a science are objective, in terms of analyzing classes and class antagonisms.

[Luís Henrique]

But communism directly determines objective physical circumstances. But as an idea it is not objective. You can say however, many aspects of Marxism as a science are objective, in terms of analyzing classes and class antagonisms.

Morality also directly determines objective physical circumstances. And classes and class antagonisms are social constructs too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps it could be said that a discussion of the word 'morality' must go beyond a discussion of simply the word 'morality', insofar as meaning is by no means internal to language but to human practice (and human practice is by no means internal to itself, but you get the point).

Yes, this would be a better way to say it.


Of course, just saying that people know what they mean by the word 'morality', and leaving it at that, is an evasion at best

Sure. It "leaves everythin as it is" - even our knowledge about words and language.


and in addition would be, strictly speaking, false in a capitalist society.

That's intriguing. Why would it be false in a capitalist society?


Yes, of course, my point was just that one can use 'moral' in such sentences in a way which one couldn't do with say, 'underdog' in a sentence about dogs.

Fair, but this can only be known after we analyse words; we can't take for granted that their ethymology immediately points to their semantic.

But the problem is elsewhere: in the pervasive notion that abstract nouns are somehow "invalid" words (or adjectives crossdressing as nouns), and that when we use them we are somehow "misusing language" and necessarily delving into "metaphysics". That's just absurd. Abstract nouns are words like any other, useful or not depending on context. And if it is true that they can be hypostasised, this is no less true of concrete nouns; the most ancient deities weren't Freedom, Reason or Morality, but Sky, Earth, and Moon... (which is probably the reason that the pseudo-Wittgensteinians don't like discussing religion and the way it "misuses words".)

Luís Henrique

[∞]

Morality also directly determines objective physical circumstances. And classes and class antagonisms are social constructs too.

Luís Henrique

Morality can be derived from physical phenomena. If morality is derived from physical phenomena that can be determined, there is no fundamental "truth" in morality.

[RHIZOMES]

Objectivity and subjectivity are both mistakes that we make. Trying to totalise one at the expense of the other's relation to it is foolish, I see a few comrades veering into that murky direction.

[Luís Henrique]

Morality can be derived from physical phenomena. If morality is derived from physical phenomena that can be determined, there is no fundamental "truth" in morality.

Well, the opposite seems more logical. If the atoms, who determine everything, tell us that eating pork is immoral, then "thou shalt eat no pork" is a fundamental moral truth.

Luís Henrique

[∞]

Well, the opposite seems more logical. If the atoms, who determine everything, tell us that eating pork is immoral, then "thou shalt eat no pork" is a fundamental moral truth.

Luís Henrique

However, that particular interaction doesn't count for everyone's behavior.

[Luís Henrique]

However, that particular interaction doesn't count for everyone's behavior.

So not everyone's behaviour is "determined" by "determinism"?

Luís Henrique

[∞]

So not everyone's behaviour is "determined" by "determinism"?

Luís Henrique

No I was talking about a physical interaction that determines one behavior opposed to one that determines another.

[Luís Henrique]

No I was talking about a physical interaction that determines one behavior opposed to one that determines another.

And so, if we could ask the atoms, would they tell us which of these behaviours is moral? Or do the atoms fight each others on those issues, too?

Luís Henrique

[∞]

And so, if we could ask the atoms, would they tell us which of these behaviours is moral? Or do the atoms fight each others on those issues, too?

Luís Henrique

No they create molecular machines with morals.

[ZeroNowhere]

Sure. It "leaves everythin as it is" - even our knowledge about words and language.
While it would be true to say that philosophy does not alter the concrete historical tendencies of human society, taking a historical view of human practice and its realization by degrees does mean taking a revolutionary view at the present point in time. To see capitalism as an eternal 'end of history' ultimately entails necessary misconceptions about the nature of human practice, inasmuch as it must then proclaim capitalist society as the highest realization of human, rational practice, which implies illusions about the latter (as, for example, with the political economists Marx attacks who try to locate capital in primitive life, or for example try to explain capitalism simply through noting that tools, the means of production, are wealth which produces more wealth.)

Insofar as philosophy entails investigation of thought-determinations which not only are products of this same human practice but also pervade the analysis of it, philosophy does not leave things as they are in any conservative sense. However, it does do so in a concrete sense, insofar as it does not alter human practice by itself, and at the same time in a more significant sense, insofar as human practice and the simple labour process are already carried out, concretely, by humans, and this already comes into conflict with the capitalist mode of production, again concretely, in the form of crises and the revolutionary tendency of the proletariat. This crisis is not an effect of philosophy; however, the nature of this relationship is captured fairly well in Marx's comment that, "Philosophy can only be realized by the abolition of the proletariat, and the proletariat can only be abolished by the realization of philosophy."

Here, philosophy does leave the world as it is, in a sense. If, as Engels notes, truth is a practical matter (to simplify, of course. This is not the same as what is known as 'pragmatism'. That the word 'book' plays a role in practice does not mean that something is a book if it is practical), then what philosophy does when dealing with it is not to conjure up something new, but simply to state that it is ultimately a matter of practice, and hence historical rather than absolute.

It is true to say that 'What is true is not false' in an ordinary sense, as words spoken temporally and in the present, but what is less valid is when the philosopher elevates this to 'absolute truth', which absolutes excludes falsehood and hence exists in abstraction from it. What must then be done is to exit a narrow slit of time and rather look at things historically and in motion, in which case it becomes clear that truth is not some sort of absolute thing, completely oblivious to falsehood, while at the same time their distinction is not lost in such a way as to make each term meaningless and purely 'relative', or worse, simply arbitrary; that is, a level of 'absoluteness' is maintained, which makes it valid to say that something is true rather than false at all, if only historically and within a particular historical and practical (rather than axiomatic) paradigm.

In recognizing this, then, philosophy does in a sense simply concern itself with the use of the word 'truth', and see it as a word which derives its meaning from practice, thereby leaving the world 'as it is'. However, the world 'as it is' is conceived not as something fixed, but rather in flux; however, the basic flux here is not a product of philosophy, but rather of human practice and the development thereof. The same applies, of course, to socialism.

One could also make a Platonic (or Socratic) point here; the role which the Sophists play in the Republic is precisely in illustrating that, in an individual ruled by the appetites, reason, rather than existing as such, takes on the form of illusions which posit the pleasures of the appetites as real self-interest and as the good, but ultimately, rather than being reason in reality, this is simply its reproduction of the prevailing state of the individual, hence simply the reproduction of the pleasures of the appetites. These illusions are not, however, a matter of chance, but are rather immanent to the state of rule by the appetites itself, insofar as it takes place within the human, rational individual, where reason is inevitably present, but not always in rational form. In seeing the truth, that this is not true reason, interest, or good, an imperative is implied to go beyond this state by the analysis itself.

Likewise, Marx, in dispelling the illusions of capital, already implies communism (Engels noted that communism is simply 'practical materialism'), and this through the fact that capitalism ultimately has its basis in rational practice, the simple labour process, and hence contains in this the seed of its destruction.

But then, I am rambling a bit, so enough of that.


That's intriguing. Why would it be false in a capitalist society?
When Marx identifies illusions in capitalism, he is not simply identifying chance foolishnesses, but rather the illusions immanent in capitalist practice itself. Of course, the most basic illusions only become clearly illusory, clearly simply 'semblance' in Hegel-speak, when capital comes to the point where it comes into conflict with the forces of production and hence, far from acting in the social interest, plunges society into a spiral of crisis. (This negation must then be negated.)

If such is the case, however, and capitalist production contains illusions immanent to itself, then it can hardly be said that humans 'recognize the truth in practice' in realms such as morality, materialism and so on, but rather this must come about in revolution. Hence, though materialism takes as its aim the abolition of the alienation of the human essence from humanity, nonetheless humanity alienates this human essence every day; the statement of materialism does, however, have the significance that this state of affairs comes into conflict with human practice, and hence shall of necessity be overthrown. How this is to happen is the task of economic analysis (although Capital may hardly be abstracted from thought-determinations, and hence from philosophy; of course, it isn't abstracted from this in text, either.) Hence, materialism takes on a historical form, where reason is realized only in degrees and through limitations. Nonetheless, this means that such things will only be recognized implicitly in human practice in a more advanced state of affairs, and even there not absolutely.

Marx says something like this when he comments that:


But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis. Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.

And also:


This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species.

[...]

We see how subjectivity and objectivity, spirituality and materiality, activity and suffering, lose their antithetical character, and – thus their existence as such antitheses only within the framework of society; <we see how the resolution of the theoretical antitheses is only possible in a practical way, by virtue of the practical energy of man. Their resolution is therefore by no means merely a problem of understanding, but a real problem of life, which philosophy could not solve precisely because it conceived this problem as merely a theoretical one.

Incidentally, you can note in this not only the dialectical nature of the piece, but also the usage of categories which Engels would use quite blatantly in his later writings, such as in arguing against the antithesis of freedom and necessity, or subjectivity and objectivity (which he identifies explicitly with the question of the possibility of knowledge), in terms of human practice. It also illuminates the nature of Marx's critique of 'philosophy', and what he meant by it, although this has some more depth to it as well (to be brief, he argued that the materialism which Hegel has his idealism construct and then supersede is in fact simply a product of beginning from idealist premises, identifying words with concepts (as, for example, if one were to construct a view which saw the world in terms of propositions about the world, which, as the early Wittgenstein admitted, actually implied the metaphysical subject in every proposition, even though logically speaking statements about the metaphysical subject ought to be impossible), rather than actually locating the meaning of thought and hence language in material, social practice.)


But the problem is elsewhere: in the pervasive notion that abstract nouns are somehow "invalid" words (or adjectives crossdressing as nouns), and that when we use them we are somehow "misusing language" and necessarily delving into "metaphysics". That's just absurd. Abstract nouns are words like any other, useful or not depending on context.
Well, yes, and indeed I suspect that as much mystification has been written on 'how to be moral' as on 'morality'. I suppose that the point that is trying to be made is that people in 'ordinary language' do not usually say the word 'morality', but rather 'moral' or 'immoral', and it is illegitimate for philosophy to systematize this into a study of 'morality'. However, that seems about as useful as criticizing Marx's introduction to the Grundrisse because people generally don't talk about production and consumption in the same terms, or likewise criticizing Capital due to its analyses of value, capital, modes of production, and such abstractions, and could belie a hostility to actual analysis and terms used for it in general.

[Rafiq]

Luis:



Ah... and what determines social constructs? Or do social constructs have free will?

Luís Henrique

Human survival. The mode of production is the source of social construction.

[Luís Henrique]

Human survival. The mode of production is the source of social construction.

This misses the important part: social constructs are (collectively) made by people. So, "human survival" cannot account for social constructs, otherwise all societies would have the same social constructs (or the social constructs would be determined by mere geography). If "human survival" determines social constructs, it can only be "human survival as understood by actual humans" (which, of course, is itself already done within social constructs).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

No they create molecular machines with morals.

And how does it happen that Ted Bundy and Mahatma Ghandi had so very different morals, if their chemical composition was about the same?

Luís Henrique

[∞]

I'm not denying social constructs. But our anatomy reacts with said constructs.

[Rafiq]

This misses the important part: social constructs are (collectively) made by people. So, "human survival" cannot account for social constructs, otherwise all societies would have the same social constructs (or the social constructs would be determined by mere geography). If "human survival" determines social constructs, it can only be "human survival as understood by actual humans" (which, of course, is itself already done within social constructs).

Luís Henrique

I hate to keep bringing up the Marx quote "Men and Women create history, but not as they please" but it remains more relevant than ever.

Social constructs are created to address the influence of the mode of production. For example, the family is organized in the fashion it is today because it is the most efficient structure in which the bourgeoisie (who are almost all males) passes down it's property to it's kids.

Social Constructions do not have a "Free Will" because many of the constructions that would be attempted by individuals that do not correspond with their economic situation would ultimately fail.

Morals were not causes of human advancement, but consequences of the productive power of the Mode of production.

Example: Internet is created. Only afterwords were Internet laws and regulations created. Or for example, after the internet was created "Trolling" became sort-of "immoral".

[Rafiq]

And how does it happen that Ted Bundy and Mahatma Ghandi had so very different morals, if their chemical composition was about the same?

Luís Henrique

because ted bundy and Mahatma Ghandi came from two totally different conditions. A lot of the "Morals" that scum Ghandi had were a direct result of the situation he was in: British controlled India.

[Luís Henrique]

I hate to keep bringing up the Marx quote "Men and Women create history, but not as they please" but it remains more relevant than ever.

Evidently. But it is "not as they please" because it is "under the conditions handed down to them by the previous generations", ie, still human-made conditions.


Social constructs are created to address the influence of the mode of production. For example, the family is organized in the fashion it is today because it is the most efficient structure in which the bourgeoisie (who are almost all males) passes down it's property to it's kids.

That's false, mechanistic, and caricatural. Family is organised as it is today because it is a modification of pre-existing models of family; yes, such modification makes it more efficient from the point of view of the bourgeosie, but it is not a creation ex nihilo.

And from where do you take the absurd idea that the bourgeoisie is "almost all males"? The bourgeoisie, like most human groups, is about 50% male and 50% female.


Social Constructions do not have a "Free Will" because many of the constructions that would be attempted by individuals that do not correspond with their economic situation would ultimately fail.

Yes, "free will" is a bogus concept, of course. That doesn't mean that "determinism" - particularly mechanistic determinism - is any less bogus than that.


Morals were not causes of human advancement, but consequences of the productive power of the Mode of production.

Again this is excessively mechanistic. "Morals" are part of those "conditions handed down by the previous generations", and yes, it resists change and so becomes for the most part a conservative feature of societies.


Example: Internet is created. Only afterwords were Internet laws and regulations created. Or for example, after the internet was created "Trolling" became sort-of "immoral".

Yes, but internet laws are certainly modeled on other laws, by analogy. Same goes for internet etiquette. Trolling is "immoral" because it is similar to other non-internet "immoral" behaviours.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Evidently. But it is "not as they please" because it is "under the conditions handed down to them by the previous generations", ie, still human-made conditions.

Not necessarily. The society that is evolving in countries transitioning from feudalism to capitalism much resembles ours.



That's false, mechanistic, and caricatural. Family is organised as it is today because it is a modification of pre-existing models of family; yes, such modification makes it more efficient from the point of view of the bourgeosie, but it is not a creation ex nihilo.

Minus all of the "Mechanistic" claims, I didn't argue other wise.


And from where do you take the absurd idea that the bourgeoisie is "almost all males"? The bourgeoisie, like most human groups, is about 50% male and 50% female.

Men own almost all of the property in the world. Are you saying that the Wife's of these men own just as much as they do? And by the way, I don't consider children and women in patriarchal family structures to be Bourgeois, under any circumstances.



Yes, "free will" is a bogus concept, of course. That doesn't mean that "determinism" - particularly mechanistic determinism - is any less bogus than that.


It depends what you mean by determinism. If you mean the determinism of, how Kaku puts it "The universe is a big pre determined clock" and everything I am doing is out of some kind of inevitability, then yes, that is a load of shit. But if you mean in that the mode of production determines the constraint in which human behavior exists then I don't see a problem with determinism. The mode of production determines human social behavior in this sense, but I don't ignore the dynamic nature of Human history, either.

I like to think of humans as robots (Ironic to the mechanical accusations :rolleyes:), that are like a computer playing chess with you. The program was not pre determined to do everything it does, however, the moves you make will determine what choices it makes, with "us" being "The Material conditions".

I don't buy into the petty dualism of a lot of the users here, either. You can't be a Materialist and still hold Idealist views about the world. That's dualism.



Again this is excessively mechanistic. "Morals" are part of those "conditions handed down by the previous generations", and yes, it resists change and so becomes for the most part a conservative feature of societies.

Morals are evolving all the time. Swearing in schools isn't as bad, Women aren't treated as bad, etc.

Morals are a consequence of the material conditions, not a cause. Need these Morals get in the way of the productive power of the mode of production, or the authority of the Bourgeoisie, for that matter, they are thrown away.




Yes, but internet laws are certainly modeled on other laws, by analogy. Same goes for internet etiquette. Trolling is "immoral" because it is similar to other non-internet "immoral" behaviours.

Luís Henrique


No, not really. Internet laws were created only within the context of what the internet produced. Laws regarding the internet that are simply their just because they exist in other societies do not exist. If "Other laws" didn't exist, and all we had was the internet, and the current bourgeois society had to model laws for the internet, they would look almost exactly the same.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't buy into the petty dualism of a lot of the users here, either. You can't be a Materialist and still hold Idealist views about the world. That's dualism.


This seems like a crude definition of materialism, idealism, and dualism. If you are both a metaphysical idealist and a metaphysical materialist then you are a dualist, but there are other alternatives for reconciling the two views or at least aspects of them than Cartesian-style dualism. Maybe one is a transcendental monist and materialism and idealism are both merely useful intellectual constructs for instance. Or maybe one is a philosophical pragmatist like James or Dewey.


Morals are evolving all the time. Swearing in schools isn't as bad, Women aren't treated as bad, etc.

Morals are a consequence of the material conditions, not a cause. Need these Morals get in the way of the productive power of the mode of production, or the authority of the Bourgeoisie, for that matter, they are thrown away. The existence of dynamic social mores does not necessarily exclude the possibility of some absolute morality. I don't necessarily buy the existence (or non-existence) of absolute morality, but if one assumes that it has no equivalent among the moral systems in existence then there's no contradiction between the existence of dynamic social mores and some type of "eternal" morality.

Also, it's not always so easy for the bourgeoisie to throw away morals which they don't like for material productive reasons. The phenomenon of "Islamic Banking" is interesting in that regard-not in that I think the banks are actually "Islamic" but in the fact that the banking system has to take all sorts of extra steps to be profitable due to rules over interest-taking in that part of the world. That said, I more or less agree that economic forces will work to erode or destroy those moral values in time, but those kinds of changes can be a long process.

[Azraella]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist?

No. Moral relativism is the more likely philosophical position to be correct. Objective morality is simply impossible for cultural, religious, and other ideological reasons. I consider eating meat wrong for ideological and religious reasons, for instance. Even if you agreed that eating meat was wrong you might get to that point through different means.

[Rebid]

Yes, I do believe that objective moral facts exist, I believe that some actions are wronger or righter than some other actions. Action's wrongess or rightness doesn't change when the viewer changes (only the opinion of it might change). My view is that morality is a question of how should conscious beings (humans, marsians, etc.) act towards each other, not of how should one play a piano. I don't know of what that 'should' consists, but I believe it's a question of trying to guarantee the best possible life for all involved. I don't know why one should one do that, but I believe it's what one does if one is moral. Don't know yet how to prove it, though.

There is no need for gods in this belief, since I believe in autonomy of ethics (pious is not pious because gods love it, but gods love pious because it's pious).

[MotherCossack]

Morality does not have to be considered a weapon in the arsenal of the enemy, or a tool at their disposal. I do not see why we have to*dismiss the entire concept point blank as a negative constrict with nothing at all to offer.
I agree that the concept of morality is so frequently used as a whopping great stick to beat us all with, by those only interested in controlling us, subverting us and by dividing us ensure we remain disempowered.
But I have always wanted to believe that we should reclaim that word... it is ours not theirs.
In the perfect future when we, as a race have rediscovered our full human potential and have learned, all over again, to trust our instincts and learn to live without all the stifling social constraints and expectations, and all the dangerously misguided mis-conceptions and the plethora of layered shite, stacked up to the edge of reason, almost.

After all that I predict that we will be able to take responsibility for our own morality, trusting one another, I hope, to fairly judge each other.

(I have got a feeling that something similar operated a long time ago in England.... Middle ages, perhaps.)

[Doflamingo]

Morality is a subjective topic. Morality develops in childhood based on environmental and hereditary factors, meaning that based on where the child is raised and who raises them, they will have different morals and a different view on what is good and what is evil.

[Rebid]

Morality is a subjective topic. Morality develops in childhood based on environmental and hereditary factors, meaning that based on where the child is raised and who raises them, they will have different morals and a different view on what is good and what is evil.

However having different views on some question doesn't mean that the question couldn't have an objective answer.

If morality is objective, then it may very well be that no-one will ever know what is morally right conduct, even if we have billions of opinions of which everyone holds their own dear and right. What something is, is not same as people's opinions on it. So people's differing opinions on some X does in no way prove that X has no existence independent of people's opinions. It only proves that the nature of X is not obvious for people. Also, how people come to form opinions about X doesn't change the nature of X.

[ColonelCossack]

I don't think it exists. Moraality is a social construct; the morality of feudalism is a lot differen from the morality of capitalism, as that will be very different from the morality of people in communism. For instance, in Capitalism, seizing a capitalist's (privately owned) means of production, and giving them to the workers, would be highly immoral; but in socialism, putting the means of production in the hands of the workers would be good.

[MotherCossack]

may-be i am just a hippy child and a nut-job who thinks that we have all got dependable solid human instincts that, were we to listen to them, would guide us in a natural, and as- it- should- be kind of a way.....

i mean humanity did begin a long time before all this civilised crap started, did it not.

[∞]

Humans got dirty instincts and we have altruistic ones too. Humans aren't greedy, humans aren't good. They are humans.

[The Jay]

may-be i am just a hippy child and a nut-job who thinks that we have all got dependable solid human instincts that, were we to listen to them, would guide us in a natural, and as- it- should- be kind of a way.....

i mean humanity did begin a long time before all this civilised crap started, did it not.

You're not really answering the OP. The question is: does objective morality exist? I say that it does not.

[MotherCossack]

gawd... i suppose you are right...
no actually....hang about ..... i know loads of people that are genuinely selfless and whose motives do stand up to close scrutiny.

so i would say that being human means a lot of different things ....
it is just so hard to separate us from this god-awful modern construct....

maybe it would be more use studying the behaviour, especially in a social context, of our nearest relatives the apes... at least they exist in a more unspoilt environment.

[Thirsty Crow]

However having different views on some question doesn't mean that the question couldn't have an objective answer...
As I've said, the only way this question could have an "objctive" answer would be for a transcendent entity to actually exist and thus lay the basis for a heteronormative morality (like the ten commandments and yahweh).

And maybe, just maybe you could turn this around and claim that the "objective", natural basis for morality are based in human instinct of self preservation. Then you'd end up with a thin book on ethics, arguing that behaviour resulting from that instinct is moral beyond debate, while all other is open to it (it would be funny to see some people trying to squezee all sorts of behaviour under that category).

I don't think either is particularly useful in ethical investigations, and nor in practical activity.


You're not really answering the OP. The question is: does objective morality exist? I say that it does not.
That's not the real question since the formulation is highly vague and potentially misleading. I'd advise anyone debating here to try and see what "objective" here really means.


Morality develops in childhood based on environmental and hereditary factors...
No, morality most certainly does not develop based on hereditary factors since it is altogether not only a way persons behave, but also a system of explanation. In other words, hereditary factors account for the disposition to certain kinds of behaviour, which are post hoc justified or criticized as moral or immoral.

[Luís Henrique]

i mean humanity did begin a long time before all this civilised crap started, did it not.

It did. I wouldn't like to live in a society without "civilised crap" though.

Uncivilised crap is much worse.

Luís Henrique

[The Jay]

Menocchio, how is there any ambiguity in the word objective? It's pretty clear that it means some permanent outside structure or object that is unchangeable.

To MotherCossak: I'm not sure what living in modern society has to do with the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. Could you re-state your opinion in another way please?

[Thirsty Crow]

Menocchio, how is there any ambiguity in the word objective? It's pretty clear that it means some permanent outside structure or object that is unchangeable.

Outside of what?
How could there be a permanent external (to what???) structure we call morality?
I think you've effectively demonstrated what I mean by ambiguity brought on by the term since you're entangled your argument in the nasty question of what is this structure actually external to.

[Hermes]

I'd have to say that it's subjective.

If morality were objective, I can't believe that we're pretty much the first age to follow the 'true' morality.

It's always changing based on societal and cultural background (in my opinion). I guess my main example would be ritual sacrifice, viewed as abhorrent (to most today), regularly practiced by many civilizations before.

[MotherCossack]

Menocchio, how is there any ambiguity in the word objective? It's pretty clear that it means some permanent outside structure or object that is unchangeable.

To MotherCossak: I'm not sure what living in modern society has to do with the subjectivity or objectivity of morality. Could you re-state your opinion in another way please?

i suppose... looking back... i am not the most incisive of commentators... am i?

i definetely do mean something... its just hard for me to focus and translate stuff in my head into words...when i am asked, like now, to clarify or explain....
i mean.... that i have a feeling that our species has been travelling along a road and up a hill known as progress and develpment.
we have long since moved out of the ocean of the dark ages, onto to the land, survived mass extinctions, survived catastrophic collisions with astral objects, evolved into humans, dealt with climate change,*evolved a bit more, caused mass extinctions, adapted to changing conditions, spread out over the globe, created separate civilisations, begun to build societies, invented mythologies and religons to improve and explain our lives, established the notion of government, giving power to those who are chosen to represent our interests, seen the population grow immeasurably, slowly come to understand more and more of the universe and how it and we came into being..... etc etc etc ....
so here we are moving along learning more and more about stuff... getting faster, cleverer , better gadgets, living longer, and wanting more and more expecting more, needing more, moving further and further away from all things natural, from where we started.
it just strikes me that some of the progress and improvement feels like the opposite.... maybe we might need to entertain the notion of selective choice....not all progress is progress!

[The Jay]

Outside of what?
How could there be a permanent external (to what???) structure we call morality?
I think you've effectively demonstrated what I mean by ambiguity brought on by the term since you're entangled your argument in the nasty question of what is this structure actually external to.

You never bothered to ask if I thought that such a thing exists, which I do not. I'm not going to teach you the side of the argument that I don't ever subscribe to. Also, you sound like a dick with your aggressive writing style. I'm not sure that's how you meant to come across as I'm guilty of making that mistake myself on occasions, so I just thought I'd let you know how your coming across.

[Saviorself]

Morality, to be sure, is an entirely subjective matter. Though there is a common agreement among most people on what constitutes moral behavior (Social Contract Theory) but there is certainly no such thing as objective morality.

[MotherCossack]

It just occurred to me, (actually, i have known this for many years,since i got an E for my Art a level. whereas my teacher and I, had been happily anticipating at least a B maybe A.
I felt more than a little robbed... no one had told me how subjective the whole thing would be. from that moment on i have always regarded the word;
objective and the notion of objectivity with a huge amount of suspicion.)
i consider that the human race does not do objectivity very well....
we are far too involved and emotive.
so in that case it is not only the morality but the objectivity as well which examining.

[Catma]

Guess I'll put this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-yLH4bXAI

[CommunityBeliever]

Morality is a product of the predominant social relations to production and the available means of production. In slave society it wasn't seen as immoral to own chattel slaves, but the development of feudalism and capitalism made chattel slavery an obsolete factor of production, so slavery became immoral. Similarly, when sufficiently advanced means of production are available to produce effective alternatives to all animal products then slaughtering animals will be considered immoral.

[∞]

Morality is a product of the predominant social relations to production and the available means of production. In slave society it wasn't seen as immoral to own chattel slaves, but the development of feudalism and capitalism made chattel slavery an obsolete factor of production, so slavery became immoral. Similarly, when sufficiently advanced means of production are available to produce effective alternatives to all animal products then slaughtering animals will be considered immoral.

TL;DR version. People's morals change over time. What may be immoral now may be moral then.

[ChrisK]

Do you believe objective moral facts exist? If so, what is the moral compass that determines those "objective moral facts"?

This sort of question requires a two part response. The first is directly related to the question about whether moral propositions constitute facts. After that it taken care of, then the question is where does morality arise from.

First, the simple answer is no. The more complex answer is that the logical form of a moral dictate is "Thou shall not..." which is a rule. Facts about the world are things that empirical propositions can be applied to such as "It is raining outside" which can be a fact. These empirical propositions have the quality of being either true or false. Rules, on the other hand, cannot be true or false. Rather, they can be useful or useless. And if these are to be objective, then they are to be tautologous. That would mean that they would have be logical propositions. But they are not. At what point would the rule "Thou shall not have sex before marriage" something that is true in all possible worlds? Thus it is not objective, but is simply a rule.

Second, rules like this arise from societal need, especially ruling class need. The ruling class creates certain morals to keep the working class in line. Ie "Thou shalt work hard for your place of work" or "Thou shall not harm the economy by striking". Others simply exist to help society function more smoothly, "Thou shall not kill without justifiable reasons." Which is why some moral rules seem to be universal. It just so happens that some moral rules are useful in all societies. This additionally helps to explain change in morality over time. Ie in Feudal systems "Thou shall not question your lord because it is the natural order of things" while in capitalist systems "Thou shalt question the government when they interfere with business."

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

As an Existential Nihilist, I do not believe in "Inherent Objective Morality". Morality tends to be superficial, as many have their own definitions as right or wrong, especially when it comes to Objectivism. Regardless, it dosent mean I dont have my own morals, as contradictory as that may seem, after all I'm a leftist (obviosuly) and I support and believe in the proletarian.

[Ned Kelly]

No. The moral code of a society is derived from the code of the class in power, the class who has control. Gramsci and Althusser are right

[noble brown]

in order to answer the ops question, i think it would be useful to determine the the function of morality itself. well in order to do that it may be helpful to figure out from whence morality came. most basically why we have a sense of right and wrong.

imagine a very solitary species w no social tendencies except to mate maybe. would this species have a need for a sense of morality? no, because a sense of right and wrong only affects interactions of individuals.

now imagine a species that is hyper social, one in which the individual, for all intents and purposes, doesnt exist. say the ant or even better the borg from star trek. would morality be needed in this configuration? no, again, because with out individual perspectives independent of the social perspectives there is no cosideration for right or wrong because the species acts as one organism; the will of the whole is the will of the one.

so right and wrong only become meaningful questions when you have a social species with independent individual desires or motivations. this would also mean that morality isnt a solely human trait. there is scientific basis for this. within the animal kingdom there appears to be correlations between the level of social complexity and the level of moral complexity. pictured as a scale with hyper individuality on on end and the hyper social at the other end. the point of the highest moral complexity potential lies in the middle. i say "potential" because the intellectual capability of the species would determine the degree to which the potential was actually realised.

this observation tells us that morality serves as a sort of check and balance between the individual and the social group. so now i can have my own independent desires an yet benifit from a cohesive group. so the sense of morality serves the individual only in regards to the social construct. the more complex the sense of morality the more robust the social construct would be. so morality serves the species and the individual. so if by objective you mean universally true or applicable to the entire species then if we can agree that the species as a whole has a common set of goals or desired states, even something as fundamental as survival, then it could be said that under these definitions there would be an objective morality as well as subjective morality. it would be like federal laws and local laws. federal laws trump local but local law is more specific and dynamic. anthropologists have found what appears to be universal moral laws; meaning there are some very basic social norms that find unanimous expression across cultures regardles of subjective differences. universal norms against lying is one of them.

so far ive only addressed this question descriptively, but to answer the op within a normative framework it only makes sense that if we agree that we as a species commonly share some very basic goals, like survival of the species, then it would be necessary to develop a universal normative moral framework based upon the biological needs of the species. like not destroying the environment that provides us our life giving resources. just for starters.

[Valdyr]

I'm a moral anti-realist; I don't think there are moral facts. Morality is part of the superstructure of a society, and frankly is often one of the greatest distractions from material conditions there is in terms of serving the ruling class. In the course of my studies of metaethics, the question I found I was asking myself was "why is it we want morality so badly?" Well, it's a tool for resolving antagonisms. But if antagonisms emerge from the productive relations of society, then I find it hard to see "morality" as anything else than a ruling-class superstructure designed to make us think that antagonisms must be resolved through an appeal to a hopelessly hand-wavy "goodness" rather than the alteration of actual material conditions.