Clarifications On Morality

[I Am The Scum]

Introduction

Inevitably, the morality discussion brings with it a great deal of confusion. Many people fail to define their terms, treat complex issues as though they are simple, or talk past one another. Ambiguity runs rampant, and it is quite rare for two individuals to be on the same page. The purpose of this thread is to help sort out the mess that this debate spawns.

This thread will be broken down into several parts, with each section separated into its own post.

Objective and subjective: What these words mean, and why they are not completely separate entities with nothing to do with one another.

Morality: A look at what we mean when we call things “moral.” This will be done independent of the previous objective/subjective discussion.

Moral behavior: An analysis of how we tie the two previous sections together, to come to a conclusion on what moral behavior is.

Moral oughts: Once we have established what moral behavior is, the next practical step is to decide why we ought to behave in that manner.

I am not making this thread to prove that morality is objective or subjective. The morality discussion tends to stall at that point, and I would prefer that it move forward. The truth is, morality does not quite fall into that dichotomy, and pretending that it does will typically get you nowhere.

[I Am The Scum]

Objective And Subjective

Most of us understand the distinction between objective and subjective. If something is objective, then it is the way it is, independent of any mind. If it’s subjective, it’s mind-dependent. For example, the chocolate bar exists, independent of what you think. That’s objective. In addition, I think the chocolate is delicious. You might disagree. That is a subjective matter.

This will get you by most of the time, but there are some ways in which such a simplistic view will lead to confusion. I’ll give you an example. Is the following sentence objective or subjective?

Giving speeches is enjoyable.

This is obviously subjective. Depending on who you are, it might be true, or it might be false. But let’s try this exercise again, with a trickier example:

Barack Obama enjoys giving speeches.

On one hand, you might be inclined to say that this is subjective. After all, the claim entails subjective enjoyment. It’s a claim about the mind of Barack Obama, meaning the heart of the claim is mind-dependent. On the other hand, we all know this claim is undeniably true. It doesn’t matter who you are, the individual in question does enjoy giving speeches. It’s not up for interpretation. It’s a fact.

And thus, we must establish a counter-intuitive truth: In some cases, we can make objectively true claims in regards to subjective matters. Our previous example shows that it doesn’t matter what you think of speeches, it is still true that there are others that do enjoy giving them.

The most likely argument against this point would probably go something like this: As previously noted, since our statement is one in regards to a mind, there is no way it can be mind-independent. If there was no mind, there would be no enjoyment, and the statement would be meaningless.

I would like to point out that going this route will lead to a few issues. Most notably, defining subjective in such strict terms will lead to the consequence that all truth is subjective. How can one arrive at truth independent of a mind? All knowledge is, in some way, perspective-based. Now, there is no such thing as an objective conclusion, including the conclusion that there are any objective things in existence whatsoever. At this point it becomes apparent that we are now stretching the term “subjective” so wide that it sweeps its own distinction under the rug.

So it turns out that objective and subjective are not as inseparable as we may have initially thought. Can we take this a step further? Can we use subjective premises to come to objective conclusions? Let’s analyze this logically. Take the following argument:

1. Hamburgers are delicious.
2. Tofu is not.
C. Hamburgers taste better than tofu.

The premises are obviously subjective, but is that an objective conclusion? Again, both ways of analyzing the distinction have merit. On one hand, we could say that the conclusion is a matter of taste, and thus, obviously subjective. On the other hand, we could say that this is a perfectly valid argument, in that, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be.

If you argue on the side of subjective, you might say that the nature of the argument doesn’t matter. If those premises are not accepted, then the conclusion would not be accepted, either. However, going this route only shows a fundamental misunderstanding of precisely what an argument is. Arguments do not create reality. Rather, arguments are a tool by which we can come to a better understanding of reality. The reason I’m pointing this out is because the criticism I outlined in the beginning of this paragraph does not only apply to “subjective arguments,” it applies to all arguments.

Think about it. Every argument ever made, in order to prove its conclusion, necessitated that some premises had to be accepted. Whether those premises were objective or subjective in nature doesn’t really change the inevitable truth of the conclusion. Provided that hamburgers are delicious and tofu is not, then hamburgers are better than tofu. It doesn’t matter who you are, this must be true.

At this point, you’re probably starting to realize the whole objective vs. subjective distinction can get a bit fuzzy at times, and you’d be right. Treating the two like a strict dichotomy will cause you to ignore the subtle nuance required to properly analyze many situations, and learning to cast away that rigid thought process is probably the best lesson you could possibly gain from this section.

[I Am The Scum]

Morality

There comes a time in the argument where we have to be very clear with one another precisely what it is we are discussing. Ideally, this time would be at the beginning, but in the morality discussion, this clarification is late, if it occurs at all.

Before I tell you what morality is, it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as a “true definition.” If you think you can falsify the previous sentence by pointing out the existence of dictionaries, you’re only showing that there are definitions for which there is consensus. Consensus is not truth, and arguing to the contrary is nothing more than argumentum ad populum.

It also bears mentioning that definitions are certainly not, in any way, themselves subjective or objective things.

So here are my terms.

Actions that increase well-being and/or decrease suffering are morally good.
Actions that decrease well-being and/or increase suffering are morally bad.
Morality is the system by which we come to conclusions on what actions coincide with the two previous definitions.

When I offer my definition, there’s really no need to accept or reject it. It’s just a definition, and it’s only there for the purpose of facilitating communication. I fully acknowledge that “morality” is a word which carries with it a fair amount of emotional baggage, and it is not my intent to imply that because I have given the aforementioned definitions the “morality” label, that they have been propped up with some undue superiority.

You may have noticed that the definitions I have provided are fairly distinct from any idea of objective morality that you’ve probably heard from any theist. I am not defining morality as the instructions from any being, supernatural or otherwise, and I am not proposing some sort of “moral law” that can be discovered in the same way as physical laws. I am talking about morality in the simplest way I possibly can, in the way that we all use it. We analyze actions, and pass moral judgments upon them. Though you may not realize it now, these definitions are fairly in line with the way we talk about morality in day-to-day discussions, but we’ll explore that in the next section.

I’m certainly not proposing that morality exists in the way that we would be able to look out into nature, find it, and place it under a microscope. To be honest, I would prefer to shy away from “existence” in this discussion. That’s a word with enough complications of its own.

If you have some alternate ways of analyzing morality, then I’m open to other possibilities, though if you’re going to be nearly as in-depth as I am, you may want to start another thread for it.

[I Am The Scum]

Moral Behavior

In this section, we will be analyzing the manner by which we come to moral conclusions, using the definitions provided from the previous section.

It bears mentioning that there are exceptions to most any moral dilemma, based on the individuals interacting with one another. After all, some people might enjoy being sexually assaulted by complete strangers. Does this mean that the whole thing is now subjective? Not so fast.

Exceptions to truths do not make them subjective. Is an envelope easy to open with the use of a knife? Of course. But some knives are dull, and not effective at all. Does this mean that envelope-opening-efficiency is now subjective? No. The truth is, more often than not, any given blade will accomplish the task. We can analyze the results of moral issues the same way. Throughout the rest of this discussion, you can assume that when it is posited that something causes suffering, it is not a claim that it always does, without exception. Rather, it is a claim that it does so, more often than not.

With that out of the way, let’s draw some moral conclusions.

Does torturing people cause suffering? Undoubtedly. Is this objectively true? The question of suffering is a statement in regards to a mind, but just like in our examples from the first section, it is objectively true that this suffering takes place. Given the definition provided before, we can now state that torture is objectively bad.

At this point, you might think that by calling the conclusion “objective,” that it’s running contrary to how you normally determine morality. “Isn’t it up to each of us to decide?” you might say. But is it? It’s not up to me to decide if squares are round. It’s certainly not the task of society. After all, if a great number of people decided that torture was “good,” would that make it any less painful?

There are some details that complicate matters, which I’ll address shortly, but take a moment to put this analysis into practice. Think of something that you consider immoral. How do you know it’s immoral? Have you made this determination because you realized that the action causes suffering? Or does it just “feel wrong?”

Before long, you should realize the superior nature of viewing morality in this way. For example, if someone were to say that homosexuality is immoral, and when asked why they think so, they were to reply only by saying, “It just feels wrong to me,” you would be inclined to say that this is insufficient at proving their case. But without establishing definitions, on what basis can you criticize their reasoning? If morality is subjective, and nothing else, how can feelings be insufficient? They suffice in all other cases. My taste in music is subjective, and I just listen to whatever makes me feel good. You might be starting to realize that a more robust method of looking at moral issues is in order, and that’s precisely what I am establishing here.

However, you are probably also noticing that there are many issues that cause suffering for one person, but well-being for another. Stealing is not good for the victim, but it is beneficial to the thief. Here, you might argue that this proves that it is perspective-based, because a person is going to decide how good or bad this situation is depending on whether they are the one gaining or losing. This would only illustrate that people are capable of setting aside their moral beliefs for the sake of greed (among other reasons). This does nothing to disprove the objective conclusions we have established before. The fact that one is capable of compartmentalizing their moral beliefs does not disprove the notion of morality, any more than the fact that one who is capable of compartmentalizing their intellectual beliefs disproves the idea of knowledge.

Theft, when divorced from the emotional impact, may initially seem like an equitable arrangement. One person loses an item, and the other one gains it. But there is a wider impact to these actions that needs to be considered. Stealing has broader implications for society as a whole. The normal way for goods to be exchanged is in the course of a consensual trade between one party and another. All societies, beside the most oppressive of totalitarian regimes, operate in this manner, even if there is nothing but a simple bartering system in place. Theft undermines this system. When something is stolen, the item is taken at no cost to the new owner, whereas it did take something for rightful owner to obtain it. What naturally follows is that you have one man laboring for the sake of another, without his consent. This creates an imbalance of power. One man is bearing the burden of two, and that is needless suffering.

Things can get even more complex from here. What about robbing from the rich to give to the poor? Is that moral? What if doing so was the most efficient way of saving people from starving to death? Do the lives saved in the short run outweigh the possible economic harm in the long run? As the intricacies of these matters are so detailed, I’ll leave you to explore the issues on your own.

[I Am The Scum]

Moral Oughts

Though I have established that some actions are good and some are bad, I have yet to show why we should behave in the good way and not in the bad. How do we go from the “is” to the “ought?”

It is a common misconception that you cannot get an “ought” from an “is.” It can be done, but it requires two things. First, you need a desire that is to be fulfilled. Second, you need a cause and effect relationship, to show that the actions you can perform are capable of fulfilling that desire.

You may have noticed that the desire I just pointed out is a subjective thing, and you’d be correct. This is where the objective vs. subjective fight really breaks down. It’s not possible to demonstrate that I ought to do something without first establishing that there’s some desire that I need to bring to fruition, and if you can’t tell me why I should care, then your argument fails. I’m only pointing this out to note that this is where the theistic view of hard-line objective morality really falls apart. If a Christian were to define morality as the “commands of God,” then that’s fine. They can define it however they want. But then when they try to explain to me that I should act in accordance with such a system, they will always fail to demonstrate that God’s supposed will is a desire that I should care about.

And this is where the superiority of secular morality really shines. As previously noted, we must establish a desire before we go any further, and here’s what I propose: Most every human on the planet has a desire to live a happy, productive life where the society around him is also full of happy, productive individuals. This is so basic that in all likelihood I don’t need to explain why this is desired, but I should point out that even an extremely selfish individual can see how the well-being of those other than him can come back around to benefit him in the long run. After all, no man is an island.

So can we actualize this desire? If we act in a moral way, as previously established, will the well-being of ourselves and our neighbors be increased? Of course it will. This is true by definition. The morality we have created is perfectly in line with our desire to improve society. When there is less murder and theft, and more cooperation and justice, we are all better for it.

But you may be curious about those who do not hold such a desire. What do we do about those who wish to destabilize society, for whatever reason? We stop them. Because that’s what we should do, for precisely the same reasons as we ought to behave in a moral fashion. If stopping those who wish to do us harm will have humanity as a whole suffer less, then we should act in that manner.

[I Am The Scum]

Conclusion

If it hasn’t been made clear by this point, morality is not simple, and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is selling snake oil.

The purpose of all that I have done here is to propose a moral system, but I have not made any attempt to classify it as objective or subjective, because such talk serves only to dumb down the debate. Rather, I am showing that the objective and subjective components of our reasoning need to be fully acknowledged.

No matter what method you use, everybody agrees that morality is the method we use to inform our actions, and this has undeniable importance. There are alternate systems out there, possibly even superior ones. But until I am made aware of one, this is what I will use, and I encourage you to do the same.

-Tyler Overman



Further reading:
Morality
Validity
The Is-ought Gap

Many of the ideas expressed here can also be found on this video. Subscribe to Scott. He’s a cool guy.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Objective And Subjective

Most of us understand the distinction between objective and subjective. If something is objective, then it is the way it is, independent of any mind. If it’s subjective, it’s mind-dependent. For example, the chocolate bar exists, independent of what you think. That’s objective. In addition, I think the chocolate is delicious. You might disagree. That is a subjective matter.

This will get you by most of the time, but there are some ways in which such a simplistic view will lead to confusion. I’ll give you an example. Is the following sentence objective or subjective?

Giving speeches is enjoyable.

This is obviously subjective. Depending on who you are, it might be true, or it might be false. But let’s try this exercise again, with a trickier example:

Barack Obama enjoys giving speeches.

On one hand, you might be inclined to say that this is subjective. After all, the claim entails subjective enjoyment. It’s a claim about the mind of Barack Obama, meaning the heart of the claim is mind-dependent.

Oh come now - you are just playing on an ambiguity in the term "mind-independent".

It is an objective statement - no ambiguity here. There can be objective statements about subjective propositions.

Quote:

Can we take this a step further? Can we use subjective premises to come to objective conclusions? Let’s analyze this logically. Take the following argument:

1. Hamburgers are delicious.
2. Tofu is not.
C. Hamburgers taste better than tofu.

The premises are obviously subjective, but is that an objective conclusion? Again, both ways of analyzing the distinction have merit.

No, you are just conflating two separate questions.

The question as to the validity of the argument is objective. The conclusion follows from the premisses.

The question as to the soundness of the argument is subjective since it depends upon the truth of the subjective premisses.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Conclusion

If it hasn’t been made clear by this point, morality is not simple, and anyone trying to tell you otherwise is selling snake oil.

Just out of interest - who has been saying that morality is simple?
.

[Cavemonster]

Quote:

It is a common misconception that you cannot get an “ought” from an “is.” It can be done, but it requires two things. First, you need a desire that is to be fulfilled. Second, you need a cause and effect relationship, to show that the actions you can perform are capable of fulfilling that desire.

But that isn't the sort of "ought" that the is/ought problem is addressing.

When you use a desire to be fulfilled as a baseline, you're talking about a predictive statement, not a normative statement. I don't think there is any common misconception that is/ought precludes predictive statements flowing from observation, since it's pretty much the whole basis of science, I especially doubt such a misconception is popular in this forum.

[ArmillarySphere]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

It also bears mentioning that definitions are certainly not, in any way, themselves subjective or objective things.

The word you are looking for is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

So here are my terms.

Actions that increase well-being and/or decrease suffering are morally good.
Actions that decrease well-being and/or increase suffering are morally bad.
Morality is the system by which we come to conclusions on what actions coincide with the two previous definitions.

When I offer my definition, there’s really no need to accept or reject it. It’s just a definition, and it’s only there for the purpose of facilitating communication.

And as above, entirely arbitrary.

Where it breaks down is that the definition depends on a couple of (again, arbitrarily defined) terms that first must be established.

1. What does "well-being" and its opposite "suffering" include? With a theist framework, the fate of your soul after death would be included, so burning a heretic would be morally sound, since the averted suffering in purgatory outweighs the pain of the mortal flesh. As this shows, there's also a judgement call of how to weigh different kinds of suffering and well-being.
2. Who does this apply to? Women? Foreigners? Animals? Plants? The planet? You can easily find people who extend or restrict these rules so that only a part of reality is included. Noone I know is concerned with the suffering of rocks, but after that, it's up to you.

And then there are all the problems in normative ethics: how to deal with situations where harm can't avoided, how to weigh intent, group vs individual and so forth.

[Hokulele]

Regarding the objective/subjective discussion and the example of Obama giving speeches, it suffers from over-generalization. Does Obama always enjoy giving a speech? Is killing someone always wrong? While it is an objective fact that Obama generally enjoys giving speeches, using a generalization as the basis of an ought should be a cause for concern.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Barack Obama enjoys giving speeches.

On one hand, you might be inclined to say that this is subjective. After all, the claim entails subjective enjoyment. It’s a claim about the mind of Barack Obama, meaning the heart of the claim is mind-dependent. On the other hand, we all know this claim is undeniably true.

I disagree. It is not an objective fact that Obama enjoys giving speeches. It is not something that can be objectively verified, and the only reason you would believe it to be true is that you trust Obama not to act like he does if he doesn't. And that trust is purely subjective.

Quote:

It doesn’t matter who you are, the individual in question does enjoy giving speeches. It’s not up for interpretation. It’s a fact.

You have to interpret Obama's behaviour to determine whether he enjoys giving speeches, and you can only do this subjectively. Some people may interpret his behaviour differently than others, even if many interpret it in much the same way.

Quote:

And thus, we must establish a counter-intuitive truth: In some cases, we can make objectively true claims in regards to subjective matters.

No, I don't think we can. You'll certainly have to come up with a better example to prove that we can.

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

So here are my terms.

Actions that increase well-being and/or decrease suffering are morally good.
Actions that decrease well-being and/or increase suffering are morally bad.
Morality is the system by which we come to conclusions on what actions coincide with the two previous definitions.

I think you should start with defining what "morality" is, instead of defining what a "correct morality" should be.

Quote:

It also bears mentioning that definitions are certainly not, in any way, themselves subjective or objective things.

In the case of your definitions though, they are clearly your subjective opinion.

Quote:

You may have noticed that the definitions I have provided are fairly distinct from any idea of objective morality that you’ve probably heard from any theist.

Not really. Such utilitarian ideas of morality are fairly common in Western thought, even among theists.

[BottledWater]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

MoralityActions that increase well-being and/or decrease suffering are morally good.
Actions that decrease well-being and/or increase suffering are morally bad.
Morality is the system by which we come to conclusions on what actions coincide with the two previous definitions.

Does this mean from the perspective of a murderer in prison, his sentence was immoral because it decreased his well-being and increased his suffering?

[Earthborn]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Exceptions to truths do not make them subjective. Is an envelope easy to open with the use of a knife? Of course. But some knives are dull, and not effective at all.

I fail to see where you are trying to go with this example. Letter openers are usually dull knives, and that doesn't diminish their effectiveness at opening envelopes at all.

Quote:

Does torturing people cause suffering? Undoubtedly.

Yes.

Quote:

Is this objectively true?

No. It is not objectively true. We can only infer that someone is subjectively suffering by using our subjective interpretation of their behaviour.

Quote:

Given the definition provided before, we can now state that torture is objectively bad.

The definition you provided does not in any way reflect objective reality, only your subjective opinion of it. Then you subjectively interpret someone's behaviour to decide whether someone is having the subjective experience of suffering. Your argument consists of stacking subjectivity upon subjectivity on top of subjectivity, and declaring the outcome "objective". It doesn't work that way.

A simple way to get out of this "objective morality" mess, is simply to stop fetishising "objectivity" and recognise that in our everyday lives "subjectivity" is much more important.

Quote:

Think of something that you consider immoral. How do you know it’s immoral?

I don't know it's immoral. Saying something is immoral is not a statement of knowledge; it is a statement of disapproval.

Quote:

Before long, you should realize the superior nature of viewing morality in this way.

I usually tune out when people start declaring their views as "superior".

Quote:

For example, if someone were to say that homosexuality is immoral, and when asked why they think so, they were to reply only by saying, “It just feels wrong to me,” you would be inclined to say that this is insufficient at proving their case.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't demand that someone "proves" that something is immoral, because I don't think morality is the kind of thing that can be proved or disproved.

Quote:

But without establishing definitions, on what basis can you criticize their reasoning?

One the same basis as they can criticise my view that they are wrong: none at all.

Quote:

If morality is subjective, and nothing else, how can feelings be insufficient? They suffice in all other cases. My taste in music is subjective, and I just listen to whatever makes me feel good.

Feelings are sufficient, but because we make moral judgements in a social context, we have to consider other people's feelings in our moral judgements. It is no different from music: you may want to just listen to whatever makes you feel good, but if that music intrudes in the way your neighbours feel you will have to take that into account in your choice of music.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Earthborn

No. It is not objectively true. We can only infer that someone is subjectively suffering by using our subjective interpretation of their behaviour.

But all evidence is inferred from subjective interpretation of something.

If I measure something using a precise instrument - that is still subjective information, I am subjectively interpreting the readout from the machine.

It only becomes objective when it tallies with independent measurement by others.

It is either objectively true or false that torture causes suffering. But we cannot directly observe someone's suffering, so we have to use indirect observation - which in this case is pretty reliable.

(And I suppose someone is going to point out that torture causes suffering by definition. If the person is not suffering it is not torture. But you know what we mean).

[Pup]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

So can we actualize this desire? If we act in a moral way, as previously established, will the well-being of ourselves and our neighbors be increased? Of course it will. This is true by definition.

Not necessarily, unless you put an "or" in there instead of an "and." The benefit to society of doing something that requires self-sacrifice may or may not trickle back around to help the individual in his lifetime more than he sacrificed. In theory, overall, on average, it would improve society, but it might or might not improve the life of any particular individual.

Quote:

But you may be curious about those who do not hold such a desire. What do we do about those who wish to destabilize society, for whatever reason? We stop them. Because that’s what we should do, for precisely the same reasons as we ought to behave in a moral fashion. If stopping those who wish to do us harm will have humanity as a whole suffer less, then we should act in that manner.

"Destabilize"? That's not the word I would have picked. Destabilizing an oppressive society on the way to organizing a better one, is generally considered morally good, though of course the oppressors would argue in favor of preventing destabilization.

For example, were the civil rights activists of the 1960s morally wrong for trying to destabilize a society that was comfortable with racism and sexism?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

So can we actualize this desire? If we act in a moral way, as previously established, will the well-being of ourselves and our neighbors be increased? Of course it will. This is true by definition.

In general, yes. But as you say before, it is not simple.

Take a group of 10 people.

Action 1 significantly increases the wellbeing of 9, but causes suffering to 1.
Action 2 slightly decreases the wellbeing of all 10

If there is no course but to take action 1 or action 2, which do we take?