The laws of morality can be thought of as being analogous to the laws of physics. Aristotle had very different views about the law of gravity than did Isaac Newton. And Newton had very different views than did Albert Einstein. All these different views are approximations to an objective law of gravity that exists independently of human beings.
Morality is the attempt to make subjectivity objective, is the first thought that came to mind when I saw this question. And therefore can never become objective.
Thank you very much! Did morality exist prior to humans, and we (sometimes) happen to discover it, or is it a creature entirely of our own development?
You can think about this question as it relates to something not even bound to humans. Imagine if aliens from outer space came to our planet, and they have a society in which slavery, murder, and grape are all normal aspects of their culture. Would you consider that wrong?
That is the big question. Ie is it some thing or force intrinsic to the universe? That would exist a bit like maths (by one argument), ie two would still be two without an observer, without life? We seem to have evolved a loose set of heuristics, don’t kill, steal, rape, kill etc, but then capital punishment is enshrined in so many legal systems. And with any supposed wrong it is easy to devise a thought experiment where doing one of those things is in utilitarian terms, closest thing we have to ‘objective,’ ‘right.’ It seems there cannot be morality without mind, subject to evolution (I feel like I can accept ‘cultural’ along with ‘natural’), and always subject to change, and never the same from any individual perspective. This seems like an excellent lecture, I better listen to it now 😁
@@Thedisciplemike Well, I like grapes, but rape not so much. On a more serious note; the way I see it, every living thing follows some inborn or learned rules of conduct in order to keep on living. Richard Dawkins famously argued that even animals have some basic moral code by which they make sure their species survive, for instance caring for the young, reciprocating beneficial actions, etc. I would think that if aliens came to see us, we could put their mind at ease quite quickly by stating that rape, murder, slavery, abandoning the elderly when they are weak is not alright here , so if they want to stay, they should live by our rules or else. Morality is always subjective IMHO, while simultaneously there are objective facts of existence with which every singly living being must deal with on a daily base to survive. Then we have the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do to you, plus the observation that 'what goes around comes around' and also the saying 'do, but do that you have no reason to regret what you have done'. These simple rules suffice for most of us most of the time.
@@evinnra2779 I'm sorry, but you can't build a society off the conception that morality is subjective. Wars have been fought over the defense of moral integrity. Would you be willing to die and kill for your subjective worldview?
@yp77738yp77739 and that point doesn't have bearing on a transcendental argument of the nature of objectivity. It's declaring that it is indeed something to talk about. To deny this is to deny ethics in the first place, and then you've just lost the discussion for all morals are subjective to which the only conclusion you have is "to each his own." You can no longer debate "what ought to be." The fact that all of us make decisions proves this to the contrary
@@Thedisciplemike To that I would argue that none of us do make decisions, to do so would require free will and there is no evidence of such a condition with much (and increasing) evidence to the contrary. I reject that concepts such as morality or ethics have any basis of existence. I do however see this as highly problematic for human societal cohesion, I’d much rather the masses shared in your delusions, providing it remains benign and does not adversely impact my freedoms.
@yp77738yp77739 so were you free to arrive at that belief? You're just as much under the illusion as I am if you are correct, even if you tell yourself you've broken free from it lol. Also, it's a fallacious argument to say there is "much and increasing evidence to the contrary". That's a bias of personal interpretation. It stems from the premise of materialism, to which I and many outright reject. Your latter half of your argument is also interesting, for it shows the problem of your meaningless existence. Society cannot exist if we all believed what you believe, which you posit as the truth. But you believe the pursuit of truth was meaningful, which paradoxically led you to strip away all your meaning. It seems society is proof of the transcendence of materialism. It breaks the rules of materialism, implying notions of worthwhile endeavor, rewarding qualities like honesty, work, truth, goodness, and beauty, whilst punishing natural inclinations like thievery, lust, envy, and violence. You wouldn't be having these thoughts unless your society was built on the back of 2 millenia of the Christian worldview
There is not a clear divisible line separating the “objective” from the “subjective”. They are interconnected. Besides the language we use to define what is subjective and what is objective how are they separate? Point to it. They are parts of the same whole.
yes, but its more insidious that as well. the distinction between objective and subjective is a mechanism of social control. those who claim to be "objective" claim to be "beyond reproach" - you can't argue with "objective truth," they tell you. Trying to tell the difference between objective and subjective is not just useless, but overtly manipulative.
@@Philosophy_Overdose problem is the TRUTH can change, depending on the individuals time, location, situation, culture, etc. there is no unchanging truth, or universally correct moral, the morals of the Greeks, Christians, Buddhists, atheists vary greatly over time, morals get their value from their usefulness, for example if you happen to be a vegan, and you believe eating animals was wrong, yet one day you happen to get trapped on a desert island were there was no edible plant life , only fish and other sea creature to live off it wouldn't be too long before your vegan morals went out the window!
Or say flat earth was once considered true or correct, now it’s thought of as false, that we are limited by our senses , the truth is unattainable, as the universe being in constant change and flux, that to pin down the truth is simply impossible. We can only do our best with our limited point of view.
@@darillus1 What's at issue is the truth, not what is _considered_ to be true. These clearly aren't the same and must not be conflated! It was _never true_ that the Earth was flat, it was only _thought_ to be true, but mistakenly so! The Earth was round all along and this was always true, regardless of what anyone may have believed about such at different times or in different places. So while beliefs may change or vary, the truth does not. But note, even if the truth itself somehow changed, that still wouldn't pose any unique difficulty to the case of morality anyway. It would apply just as much to non-moral truths (like those about the shape of the Earth) as it would to truths about morality.
@@TheVeganVicar But aren't we the one's commenting on the "moral volition" of other mammals? Animals behave as they do, and we can comment on the extent to which that behavior reminds us of our own moral behavior, but its not like animals can "define morality" in any sense that has meaning for us. "If a lion could talk, we wouldn't understand it." - Wittgenstein.
@@trumpbellend6717 Indeed, we are. It seems the comment I was replying to was deleted. That comment, as I remember, was saying that other, non-human animals exhibited "moral behavior," therefore morality wasn't "man-made" (see OP). My reply was meant to show that humans are the ones commenting on non-human animal behavior, so the extent to which we find their behavior "moral" is still an expression of "human" morality. So even if we do say that other, non-human animals exhibit moral behavior, that still doesn't show that morality, as we perceive it, isn't "man=made."
I would say morality is objective, and an objective. The viscosity of morality between human objects in some environment is objective. Morality is not an object but can be used by objects, as objectives in a subjective way.
@@sturmgewehr4471 Sure it can. You just have to prove why one subjective idea is better than the other subjective thing. My go-to argument is appealing to utility, or whatever brings about the most happiness for most people. "What if others think that subjective thing is bad, and that their subjective thing, for example, bringing about misery, is good?" That's the kind of person I'd want removed from discourse, by force of necessary.
@@comradefreedom8275 "You just have to prove why one subjective idea is better than the other subjective thing" How exactly do you prove that without first assuming that something is objectively better? "My go-to argument is appealing to utility, or whatever brings about the most happiness for most people. " First issue would be what exactly is happiness and how you measure it and how do you predict that something brings more happiness and not misery. But even if put all of these aside, since it is all subjective theres no objectively "good" there is no logical reason to assume that happiness is better than misery.
@@sturmgewehr4471 By appealing to people's biases, duh. That's what makes them subjective. Everyone has emotions that make them biased in favor of one thing over another, but they're still individual because everyone is different. Run through arguments and you'll eventually find one that lands. Because anyone who thinks that bringing misery to any group of people would be the kind of people I'd want to bully out of discourse, or lock up in some cave away from society forever if I have to.
Facts about what is rational to belive is a descriptive matter, it has nothing in common with the normative claims of morality. To say that it is rational to belive in X simply means that given the current available evidence X is likely to be true, since rational people belive in what is more likely to be true, then rational people will belive in X, there's nothing normative about it.
Sort of, but people often disagree about how to interpret available evidence, right? When this happens, they keep talking until they reach agreement or come up with a plan of action for gathering further "evidence" that they could use to make their case, right? In other words, we don't ever appeal to "rationality," but rather to other people in our process of evaluating evidence. When we finally all agree with each other, we congratulate ourselves by calling ourselves "rational," or perhaps even "objective." It is in this way that "rational," and "morality" and even "objective" and "subjective" are all "normative."
@@rodolfo9916 Isn't "normative" the way we describe the rules that we collectively decide should govern our actions? And you seem to agree that what constitutes "rationality" is determined by our interactions with other people, right? What constitutes "rationality" is a textbook example of "normative."
@@ericb9804 ///And you seem to agree that what constitutes "rationality" is determined by our interactions with other people, right?/// No, what constitutes "rationality" isn't determined by our interactions with other people, what constitutes "rationality" is independent of our belives and interactions with others, but it is still usefull to interact with others to discover what is "rationality". Just like the laws of physics are independent of our belives and interactions with others, but it is still usefull to interact with others to discover which are the laws of physics. ///Isn't "normative" the way we describe the rules that we collectively decide should govern our actions?/// We don't follow what we consider rational because we "collectively decide should govern our actions", some people don’t even follow what they consider "rational", and others follow it because they consider it to be the most efficient way to form correct knowledge about the world.
@@rodolfo9916 Isn't it the case that other cultures at other times have answered the question "what is rational?" differently that you do now? Isn't it also the case that you are free to change your mind right now as to how to answer the question "what is rational?" Isn't' also the case that people in the future may very well answer the question "what is rational?" differently than you do now? Aren't you and I likely to hold some beliefs right now that we find "rational" that the future will find just laughably silly? Isn't it possible, perhaps even likely, that the future looks back on us as being hopelessly naive about the question "what constitutes rational?" Yes. It is, isn't it? Because at any given time, we don't know if what we currently think is "rational" is also "objective" (i.e. "independent of our belives and interactions with others") or not. We can't tell the difference between our beliefs being "objective" and them being "subjective" or "normative." Either way it looks the same to us because all we have to go on is each other - i.e. we don't ever know if we are being "objective" or not, we only know if other people agree with us or not. You are falling into the same trap as the video, declaring by a kind of "diving fiat" that not only is "objectivity" something we can identify, but that you actually know what is is, despite all evidence to the contrary.
@@Khuno2 Hello, old friend. No, it's not an "objective fact" in the way that you mean, that it "corresponds to reality." But that doesn't mean it isn't "true." As I've explained to you before, pragmatism is a practical understanding about how we use language. It is not a declaration on the "nature of the world." You either understand it in those terms, or you don't understand it at all. The "truth" of a statement (including this one you are reading right now!) does not depend on it's relation to some outside state of affairs. Rather the 'truth" of a statement depends on the extent to which a person finds it "justified by their experience." In the example of "objectivity," experience is clear that we can't tell which of our beliefs are "objective" and which aren't, if any. And this is how we know that insisting objectivity matters, simply isn't important.
I think a theistic model of objective morality is quite robust, the video below explains it by William Lane Craig th-cam.com/video/OxiAikEk2vU/w-d-xo.html And to quote Dostoevsky “If there is no God, then anything is permitted”
The laws of morality can be thought of as being analogous to the laws of physics. Aristotle had very different views about the law of gravity than did Isaac Newton. And Newton had very different views than did Albert Einstein. All these different views are approximations to an objective law of gravity that exists independently of human beings.
Yeah it will be objective after I destroy everyone and I’m the last man standing.
Yup, but you wont be standing for long. ;)
**Doom music starts playing**
if you where the last man on earth there would be no morality as morality if fundamentally about how we should engage with others
@@kdub9812 morality in application is how one interacts with the world around them, going as far as their own relationship with themselves.
Morality is the attempt to make subjectivity objective, is the first thought that came to mind when I saw this question. And therefore can never become objective.
Thank you very much! Did morality exist prior to humans, and we (sometimes) happen to discover it, or is it a creature entirely of our own development?
You can think about this question as it relates to something not even bound to humans. Imagine if aliens from outer space came to our planet, and they have a society in which slavery, murder, and grape are all normal aspects of their culture. Would you consider that wrong?
That is the big question. Ie is it some thing or force intrinsic to the universe? That would exist a bit like maths (by one argument), ie two would still be two without an observer, without life? We seem to have evolved a loose set of heuristics, don’t kill, steal, rape, kill etc, but then capital punishment is enshrined in so many legal systems. And with any supposed wrong it is easy to devise a thought experiment where doing one of those things is in utilitarian terms, closest thing we have to ‘objective,’ ‘right.’ It seems there cannot be morality without mind, subject to evolution (I feel like I can accept ‘cultural’ along with ‘natural’), and always subject to change, and never the same from any individual perspective. This seems like an excellent lecture, I better listen to it now 😁
@@Thedisciplemike Well, I like grapes, but rape not so much. On a more serious note; the way I see it, every living thing follows some inborn or learned rules of conduct in order to keep on living. Richard Dawkins famously argued that even animals have some basic moral code by which they make sure their species survive, for instance caring for the young, reciprocating beneficial actions, etc. I would think that if aliens came to see us, we could put their mind at ease quite quickly by stating that rape, murder, slavery, abandoning the elderly when they are weak is not alright here , so if they want to stay, they should live by our rules or else. Morality is always subjective IMHO, while simultaneously there are objective facts of existence with which every singly living being must deal with on a daily base to survive. Then we have the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do to you, plus the observation that 'what goes around comes around' and also the saying 'do, but do that you have no reason to regret what you have done'. These simple rules suffice for most of us most of the time.
@@evinnra2779 I'm sorry, but you can't build a society off the conception that morality is subjective. Wars have been fought over the defense of moral integrity. Would you be willing to die and kill for your subjective worldview?
@@Thedisciplemike No, I wouldn't, but my subjective world view may develop into following an ideal, provided the ideal is impressive enough.
Surely that question is, in itself, paradoxical.
only if you have a preconception that morality is subjective
@@Thedisciplemike What we can not speak about, we must pass over in silence.
@yp77738yp77739 and that point doesn't have bearing on a transcendental argument of the nature of objectivity. It's declaring that it is indeed something to talk about. To deny this is to deny ethics in the first place, and then you've just lost the discussion for all morals are subjective to which the only conclusion you have is "to each his own." You can no longer debate "what ought to be." The fact that all of us make decisions proves this to the contrary
@@Thedisciplemike To that I would argue that none of us do make decisions, to do so would require free will and there is no evidence of such a condition with much (and increasing) evidence to the contrary. I reject that concepts such as morality or ethics have any basis of existence. I do however see this as highly problematic for human societal cohesion, I’d much rather the masses shared in your delusions, providing it remains benign and does not adversely impact my freedoms.
@yp77738yp77739 so were you free to arrive at that belief? You're just as much under the illusion as I am if you are correct, even if you tell yourself you've broken free from it lol. Also, it's a fallacious argument to say there is "much and increasing evidence to the contrary". That's a bias of personal interpretation. It stems from the premise of materialism, to which I and many outright reject. Your latter half of your argument is also interesting, for it shows the problem of your meaningless existence. Society cannot exist if we all believed what you believe, which you posit as the truth. But you believe the pursuit of truth was meaningful, which paradoxically led you to strip away all your meaning. It seems society is proof of the transcendence of materialism. It breaks the rules of materialism, implying notions of worthwhile endeavor, rewarding qualities like honesty, work, truth, goodness, and beauty, whilst punishing natural inclinations like thievery, lust, envy, and violence. You wouldn't be having these thoughts unless your society was built on the back of 2 millenia of the Christian worldview
There is not a clear divisible line separating the “objective” from the “subjective”. They are interconnected.
Besides the language we use to define what is subjective and what is objective how are they separate? Point to it.
They are parts of the same whole.
yes, but its more insidious that as well. the distinction between objective and subjective is a mechanism of social control. those who claim to be "objective" claim to be "beyond reproach" - you can't argue with "objective truth," they tell you. Trying to tell the difference between objective and subjective is not just useless, but overtly manipulative.
Morality changes depending on the perspective.
The issue isn’t whether there are different moralities, but whether any of those different moralities are correct or closer to the truth.
@@Philosophy_Overdose problem is the TRUTH can change, depending on the individuals time, location, situation, culture, etc. there is no unchanging truth, or universally correct moral, the morals of the Greeks, Christians, Buddhists, atheists vary greatly over time, morals get their value from their usefulness, for example if you happen to be a vegan, and you believe eating animals was wrong, yet one day you happen to get trapped on a desert island were there was no edible plant life , only fish and other sea creature to live off it wouldn't be too long before your vegan morals went out the window!
Or say flat earth was once considered true or correct, now it’s thought of as false, that we are limited by our senses , the truth is unattainable, as the universe being in constant change and flux, that to pin down the truth is simply impossible. We can only do our best with our limited point of view.
@@darillus1 What's at issue is the truth, not what is _considered_ to be true. These clearly aren't the same and must not be conflated! It was _never true_ that the Earth was flat, it was only _thought_ to be true, but mistakenly so! The Earth was round all along and this was always true, regardless of what anyone may have believed about such at different times or in different places. So while beliefs may change or vary, the truth does not. But note, even if the truth itself somehow changed, that still wouldn't pose any unique difficulty to the case of morality anyway. It would apply just as much to non-moral truths (like those about the shape of the Earth) as it would to truths about morality.
@@Philosophy_Overdose true, thanks for clearing that up, btw love your channel , keep up the great work👍
Is objectivity moral?
In other words, is morality man-made?
@@TheVeganVicar But aren't we the one's commenting on the "moral volition" of other mammals? Animals behave as they do, and we can comment on the extent to which that behavior reminds us of our own moral behavior, but its not like animals can "define morality" in any sense that has meaning for us. "If a lion could talk, we wouldn't understand it." - Wittgenstein.
@@trumpbellend6717 Indeed, we are. It seems the comment I was replying to was deleted. That comment, as I remember, was saying that other, non-human animals exhibited "moral behavior," therefore morality wasn't "man-made" (see OP). My reply was meant to show that humans are the ones commenting on non-human animal behavior, so the extent to which we find their behavior "moral" is still an expression of "human" morality. So even if we do say that other, non-human animals exhibit moral behavior, that still doesn't show that morality, as we perceive it, isn't "man=made."
I would say morality is objective, and an objective. The viscosity of morality between human objects in some environment is objective. Morality is not an object but can be used by objects, as objectives in a subjective way.
I think it's intersubjective. However, I do think that some moral opinions are superior to others.
It cant be suprior if its not objective
@@sturmgewehr4471 Sure it can. You just have to prove why one subjective idea is better than the other subjective thing. My go-to argument is appealing to utility, or whatever brings about the most happiness for most people.
"What if others think that subjective thing is bad, and that their subjective thing, for example, bringing about misery, is good?"
That's the kind of person I'd want removed from discourse, by force of necessary.
@@comradefreedom8275 "You just have to prove why one subjective idea is better than the other subjective thing" How exactly do you prove that without first assuming that something is objectively better?
"My go-to argument is appealing to utility, or whatever brings about the most happiness for most people. " First issue would be what exactly is happiness and how you measure it and how do you predict that something brings more happiness and not misery. But even if put all of these aside, since it is all subjective theres no objectively "good" there is no logical reason to assume that happiness is better than misery.
@@sturmgewehr4471 By appealing to people's biases, duh. That's what makes them subjective. Everyone has emotions that make them biased in favor of one thing over another, but they're still individual because everyone is different. Run through arguments and you'll eventually find one that lands.
Because anyone who thinks that bringing misery to any group of people would be the kind of people I'd want to bully out of discourse, or lock up in some cave away from society forever if I have to.
@@comradefreedom8275 Locking people away doesnt make your position rational
Short answer, no.
Signed sincerely Nietzsche.
Facts about what is rational to belive is a descriptive matter, it has nothing in common with the normative claims of morality.
To say that it is rational to belive in X simply means that given the current available evidence X is likely to be true, since rational people belive in what is more likely to be true, then rational people will belive in X, there's nothing normative about it.
Sort of, but people often disagree about how to interpret available evidence, right? When this happens, they keep talking until they reach agreement or come up with a plan of action for gathering further "evidence" that they could use to make their case, right? In other words, we don't ever appeal to "rationality," but rather to other people in our process of evaluating evidence. When we finally all agree with each other, we congratulate ourselves by calling ourselves "rational," or perhaps even "objective." It is in this way that "rational," and "morality" and even "objective" and "subjective" are all "normative."
@@ericb9804 The fact that we interact with others in order to form our conclusions about what is rational doesn't make it normative in any way.
@@rodolfo9916 Isn't "normative" the way we describe the rules that we collectively decide should govern our actions?
And you seem to agree that what constitutes "rationality" is determined by our interactions with other people, right?
What constitutes "rationality" is a textbook example of "normative."
@@ericb9804 ///And you seem to agree that what constitutes "rationality" is determined by our interactions with other people, right?///
No, what constitutes "rationality" isn't determined by our interactions with other people, what constitutes "rationality" is independent of our belives and interactions with others, but it is still usefull to interact with others to discover what is "rationality". Just like the laws of physics are independent of our belives and interactions with others, but it is still usefull to interact with others to discover which are the laws of physics.
///Isn't "normative" the way we describe the rules that we collectively decide should govern our actions?///
We don't follow what we consider rational because we "collectively decide should govern our actions", some people don’t even follow what they consider "rational", and others follow it because they consider it to be the most efficient way to form correct knowledge about the world.
@@rodolfo9916 Isn't it the case that other cultures at other times have answered the question "what is rational?" differently that you do now? Isn't it also the case that you are free to change your mind right now as to how to answer the question "what is rational?" Isn't' also the case that people in the future may very well answer the question "what is rational?" differently than you do now?
Aren't you and I likely to hold some beliefs right now that we find "rational" that the future will find just laughably silly? Isn't it possible, perhaps even likely, that the future looks back on us as being hopelessly naive about the question "what constitutes rational?"
Yes. It is, isn't it?
Because at any given time, we don't know if what we currently think is "rational" is also "objective" (i.e. "independent of our belives and interactions with others") or not. We can't tell the difference between our beliefs being "objective" and them being "subjective" or "normative." Either way it looks the same to us because all we have to go on is each other - i.e. we don't ever know if we are being "objective" or not, we only know if other people agree with us or not.
You are falling into the same trap as the video, declaring by a kind of "diving fiat" that not only is "objectivity" something we can identify, but that you actually know what is is, despite all evidence to the contrary.
We don't know if morality is "objective" because our notion of "objective" is metaphysical non-sense on par with claims of supernatural deities.
And that's an objective fact, right?
@@Khuno2 Hello, old friend. No, it's not an "objective fact" in the way that you mean, that it "corresponds to reality." But that doesn't mean it isn't "true." As I've explained to you before, pragmatism is a practical understanding about how we use language. It is not a declaration on the "nature of the world." You either understand it in those terms, or you don't understand it at all.
The "truth" of a statement (including this one you are reading right now!) does not depend on it's relation to some outside state of affairs. Rather the 'truth" of a statement depends on the extent to which a person finds it "justified by their experience." In the example of "objectivity," experience is clear that we can't tell which of our beliefs are "objective" and which aren't, if any. And this is how we know that insisting objectivity matters, simply isn't important.
This guy is boring and saying non sense
The fact that you don't understand him does not make it nonsense.
@@TheVeganVicar And I have a thick book about spaghetti and monsters to sell you.
no it’s not
@@TheVeganVicar no and neither are u
My answer: no, moralities vary from tribe to tribe .
I think a theistic model of objective morality is quite robust, the video below explains it by William Lane Craig
th-cam.com/video/OxiAikEk2vU/w-d-xo.html
And to quote Dostoevsky “If there is no God, then anything is permitted”
That makes no sense. An ethical system based on God is by definition subjective.
So our common laws mean nothing? Stoning women, cutting off hands and other horrids are premisible?