Subjective vs Objective morality

[OzyWho]

I want to just post my thoughts on the previous topic.



(disclaimer: I didn't read anything since my last post)

Not entirely on the topic, because it addressees a different perspective of the "objective vs subjective" debate than in this thread, but I think that people instinctively view 'ought' statements as subjective and 'is' statements as objective. Funny thing is that for that perspective, I think there wouldn't be that distinction in this topic.

Usually, you can't conclude an 'ought' statement from only 'is' statements. You need somewhere an 'ought' premise for that. But that's where a topic like morality becomes, in my opinion, special.

We, as a species/beings, have things ingrained in us. Like wanting wellbeing and not wanting to suffer for an eternity for example.
Because of these things - 'ought' statements can be viewed as 'is' statements for as long as it's about these 'things'. Get what I'm saying?
So, for that perspective debate of "objective vs subjective" wrt morality, all you'd really need is to figure out if morality is one of those things that are ingrained in us when we're born, or it's a "depends on the person" type of deal.



Anyhow, sorry for that derailing, I just thought it interesting.
As I understand, this threads ongoing debate of "objective vs subjective morality" is about wether every person has the same sets of morality or everyone has their own? Well, to be frank, if all I need is to find 1 neonazi who's ok with killing jews or blacks, or 1 serial killer who sees nothing wrong with killing people - I'll take the leap and assume that there's 1 such person amongst the billion people in the world, and say that morality is subjective and the sets of morality depends on the person.

[OzyWho]

Obviously that post was meant for previous topic.

Also, I guess we'll never learn who was the most evil person ever, or what evil even is for that matter.

[Helz]

I feel like this could certainly have its own topic. I have a lot of thoughts but want to take time posting them so I don't end up rambling like a blathering idiot as I seem to do when I rush posts.

I will say off the bat that the 'perspective' you are arguing from as well as well as the model of reality you believe in when discussing the issue.

For example: Objective Morality may be different when considering the perspective of an individual vs the perspective of life on the planet or humans as a species. And a Fatalist is going to have a very different view from a Nihilist.

[OzyWho]

For example: Objective Morality may be different when considering the perspective of an individual vs the perspective of life on the planet or humans as a species. And a Fatalist is going to have a very different view from a Nihilist.
I'm quite certain we've watched the same debate on YouTube, lol. Otherwise this's a REMARKABLE conjecture to make to say the least..

Which is great. This means you'll fill in my ~1h30m gap that I missed due to falling asleep. :weed:

[yzb25]

We, as a species/beings, have things ingrained in us. Like wanting wellbeing and not wanting to suffer for an eternity for example.
Because of these things - 'ought' statements can be viewed as 'is' statements for as long as it's about these 'things'. Get what I'm saying?

kinda, but it would be illuminating to have a concrete example of how an 'ought' statement becomes interchangeable with an 'is' statement in this context. Maybe I'm being slow

[Stealthbomber16]

Morality is of course going to be subjective because different cultures create different practices. We don't even have to look to history to find this (although we can with the US civil rights movement). We can look to today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

FGM is common in african countries. Male suitors in the countries find women who have undergone FGM more attractive. Mothers will do it to their own daughters. To them, this is commonplace.

I would like to see any westerner make an argument that this is something that is "moral". But it's normalized in impoverished african cultures. Doesn't mean that they're all immoral monsters. This is just within their concept of morality. They consider it moral.

This is a topic we discussed in my sociology class. I'm going to follow the shadow of my professor who has a doctorate in sociology and say it's pretty clearly subjective. You can't claim that morality is objective when there have been multiple movements in recent history to change people's moral outlook.

[OzyWho]

kinda, but it would be illuminating to have a concrete example of how an 'ought' statement becomes interchangeable with an 'is' statement in this context. Maybe I'm being slow
Tom is seeking wellbeing.
Tom ought to seek wellbeing.
Both can be used as a premise for same conclusion that Tom ought to do what makes him happy.

I fully realize that a vast vast majority of philosophers see the David Hume's Guillotine as unsurpassable, and that this idea/post is highly controversial.
If someone sees a fault here, I'm all ears. I already forfeit that I can't think of any other topic where you can get a ought conclusion without an ought premise. So it's not far fetched to view the is-ought problem as absolute.

[OzyWho]

I seem to not understand the david hume's guillotine as I don't think it's applicable for a large scope of ought conclusions.. for every living being.. for most oughts..
Someone fill me in what I'm missing..

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Major premise: Anyone should do what is right (by definition of should, no matter how you define "what is right", this is true)
Minor premise: Morality is right (true by the definition of morality, which is always considered as right, no matter the specific distinctions you can make about this)
Conclusion: Anyone should act morally

This reasoning, which is 100 % certainly valid by definition (and I see no possible objections to it; if you do, please do bring them up), is the foundation for other "ought" statements, i.e. moral statements. Then, defining what is moral is another issue, but once you have criteria to define what is moral, you can apply them to reality X and conclude that X is moral or not. Once you concluded that X is moral or not, you can then conclude that X should or should not be done from two "is" premises because you will always apply the reasoning to say X is moral and thus should be done (or is not moral and thus should not be done).

Does that make sense?

Edit for clarity's sake: I am not disproving Hume's law here, but rather circumventing it by implying a 100 % true "ought" reasoning as a logical continuation of every reasoning with two "is" that relates to morality. Since you can give criteria to see what is moral and what isn't, you can have two "is" premises:
P.1: Anything meeting all the criteria about morality is moral.
P.2: [This action] meets all the criteria about morality.
C: [This action] is moral.

And from there, you can apply the reasoning I gave at the beginning of my post to say that human beings should do [this action] because it's moral, since human beings should do what is moral (by definition).

[Helz]

I'm quite certain we've watched the same debate on YouTube, lol. Otherwise this's a REMARKABLE conjecture to make to say the least..

Which is great. This means you'll fill in my ~1h30m gap that I missed due to falling asleep. :weed:

I would like a link to it. My thoughts there are entirely original although I long ago realized I’m just reinventing the wheel most of the time

[rumox]

Objective morality was rather fundamental for certain entities to exist imo. Examples, empires and religion (not so much modern religion). Good way to unite the populace under a single creed while also conveniently setting up outsiders to be labeled as heathens, unworthy of comparison, or even pretext for subjugation.

[rumox]

Also I think one of the most troubling aspects for people to entertain subjective morality is most probably the morbid stuff. I'm going to put forward a fucked up thing in my next line, but it's only as a device to get a point across. Really could insert any other heinous acts in lieu of the following.

They can't accept a viewpoint where, say, raping a kid (or any other fucked up shit) is not objectively immoral across the board. Accepting that these morbid views can exist in validity, even when its not themself nor their society that holds this view, is so revolting to them they just outright refuse to entertain the idea of subjective morality.

I mean I do not blame them, that's pretty fucking evil.

[OzyWho]

Major premise: Anyone should do what is right (by definition of should, no matter how you define "what is right", this is true)
Minor premise: Morality is right (true by the definition of morality, which is always considered as right, no matter the specific distinctions you can make about this)
Conclusion: Anyone should act morally

This reasoning, which is 100 % certainly valid by definition (and I see no possible objections to it; if you do, please do bring them up), is the foundation for other "ought" statements, i.e. moral statements. Then, defining what is moral is another issue, but once you have criteria to define what is moral, you can apply them to reality X and conclude that X is moral or not. Once you concluded that X is moral or not, you can then conclude that X should or should not be done from two "is" premises because you will always apply the reasoning to say X is moral and thus should be done (or is not moral and thus should not be done).

Does that make sense?

https://c.tenor.com/Y83PzNaHumgAAAAM/chakkar-motu.gif

[OzyWho]

Also I think one of the most troubling aspects for people to entertain subjective morality is most probably the morbid stuff. I'm going to put forward a fucked up thing in my next line, but it's only as a device to get a point across. Really could insert any other heinous acts in lieu of the following.

They can't accept a viewpoint where, say, raping a kid (or any other fucked up shit) is not objectively immoral across the board. Accepting that these morbid views can exist in validity, even when its not themself nor their society that holds this view, is so revolting to them they just outright refuse to entertain the idea of subjective morality.

I mean I do not blame them, that's pretty fucking evil.
Do I understand you correct in that you believe that morality doesn't exist if things like upbringing and social influence are out of the equation?

That means you disagree with my previous statement that we're born with predispositions and not blank slates?


Funny thing about this topic is that I think morality could be both - objective and subjective.
Subjective in the sense of to each their own.
Objective in the sense of it existing outside of our 'thinky brains'.

[yzb25]

Tom is seeking wellbeing.
Tom ought to seek wellbeing.
Both can be used as a premise for same conclusion that Tom ought to do what makes him happy.

I fully realize that a vast vast majority of philosophers see the David Hume's Guillotine as unsurpassable, and that this idea/post is highly controversial.
If someone sees a fault here, I'm all ears. I already forfeit that I can't think of any other topic where you can get a ought conclusion without an ought premise. So it's not far fetched to view the is-ought problem as absolute.


I seem to not understand the david hume's guillotine as I don't think it's applicable for a large scope of ought conclusions.. for every living being.. for most oughts..
Someone fill me in what I'm missing..

Well, I watched a 5 min video about this, so I'm kind of an expert now.

Let me modify those two example statements so the logic flows more clearly (I'm just going to make explicit the link between happiness and wellbeing so there's no trivial distractions):

1) premise 1: Tom is seeking wellbeing
premise 2: seeking happiness leads to wellbeing
conclusion: Tom ought to seek happiness

2) premise 1: Tom ought to seek wellbeing
premise 2: seeking happiness leads to wellbeing
conclusion: Tom ought to seek happiness

Hume would highlight that the logic in the first argument makes an additional assumption that the logic in the second argument does not. Namely, the first argument still assumes that Tom ought to seek wellbeing. Perhaps Tom is an asshole and doesn't deserve wellbeing! Or maybe he's a masochist in denial, and merely seeking wellbeing to please his friends! This may seem pedantic or silly, but you are still assuming some kind of ought statement to make the first argument work, even if it's a very reasonable ought statement. This doesn't happen in the second, because we're directly stating Tom ought to seek wellbeing, regardless of what he wants.

Hume would thus say that pretty much any moral argument implicitly needs some "ought" to make it work somewhere, and this ought statement cannot be interchanged with an "is" statement. Though the ought statement may feel very trivial and reasonable. Thus, morality cannot be purely derived from empirical observations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xEcdJHNdZE&ab_channel=PhilosophyVibe

[rumox]

Morality doesn't cease to exist without societal pressure, it's just different. Without societal pressure I'd guess someone would probably have an overwhelming amount of selfish morals.

[OzyWho]

Ngl that leap in logic between the premises in the first example - it's difficult for me to see it.

[yzb25]

Ngl that leap in logic between the premises in the first example - it's difficult for me to see it.

with deductive logic, it's not really about whether the leap seems like something worth talking about, what matters is that it's there. It may help to cut out the white noise and view it like this, too:

Premise 1: Tom wants [X].
Premise 2: [Y] leads to [X].
Conclusion: Tom ought to seek [Y].

Premise 1: Tom ought to get [X].
Premise 2: [Y] leads to [X].
Conclusion: Tom ought to seek [Y].

This might help you think about it too.

The logic shouldn't really care whether you're talking about wellbeing and happiness, [X] and [Y], or two other random nouns. If you've laid out the logic properly, and the premises hold for the values of [X] and [Y], then the conclusion should work too.

Maybe try subbing in these values for [X] and [Y]:

[X] = cat-suffering
[Y] = cat-hunting

We can see the first argument may very well work, but gives us a horrifying conclusion. However, the second argument correctly breaks with the choice of values, because from the outset we require cat-suffering to be something good, which it isn't.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

+1 to what yzb said. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is true or not, that does not affect the reasoning's validity. See for example:

Premise 1: Games are enjoyed by most human beings.
Premise 2: I am an human being.
Conclusion: The Earth revolves around the Sun.

The conclusion is very probably true... :P

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I clarified my earlier post btw, perhaps it's clearer now OzyWho