PensivePenny wrote:Looking for some clarification on why people believe morality is objective. I just don't get it. I am not a well read philosopher so when people talk about "moral objectivism" I have a hard time supplanting the meaning of those words with what the "ism" really means. To me, moral objectivism is the belief that morality is objective and that right and wrong are objective, meaning that it is observable, measurable, repeatable, etc. Maybe that's not what it means at all. So, when people poo-poo the idea of moral relativism, I interpret that that it is the opposite of moral objectivism, a belief that morality is "relative" to something. To me, the latter is obvious and self-evident and I can't understand how ANYONE could see otherwise. So, what am I missing?.. I mean, while I think the belief in God, is absurd, I can at least comprehend a number of reasons why a person might believe in a deity, mistaken as they might be. But morality? How can that be objective?

Even the Christians arguing that their morality is objective are basing it on God... therefore, even the morality they claim is objective, is relative to their God, which is a product of their culture, ingrained in them from birth. Clearly, other cultures, with other Gods, ingrained from birth with THEIR sense of morality feel just as intensely certain that their morality is objective... When pointing this out to Christians, the apologetics begin. Clearly, there is NO objective point from which right and wrong can be discerned.

What am I missing?

I strongly agree with you that there’s nothing out there, separate from the machinery of evolved human brains, to say that anything’s inherently right or wrong. I think the objectivity of morality (I'm using "morality" and "ethics" interchangeably) can make sense for people who believe there’s a god out there demanding it, since they take the line that their god is objectively there and all adherents of other religions or belief systems are simply mistaken. For atheists with a scientific background, there’s no such grounding for any kind of “ought”. I agree with you in rejecting Sam Harris’s claim that there is an objective morality of that kind.

At the same time, I think it is correct to say that morality, in the sense of a shared set of rules enforced by the group as a whole, is, objectively and scientifically speaking, a feature of every functioning human society. This is “descriptive morality”, in contrast with the claim that some actions are inherently right or wrong, which is referred to by philosophers as “normative morality”. The difference is explained, for example, in this quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here:

The SEP wrote:There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

1) descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or

2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Which of these two senses of “morality” a theorist is using plays a crucial, although sometimes unacknowledged, role in the development of an ethical theory. If one uses “morality” in its descriptive sense, and therefore uses it to refer to codes of conduct actually put forward by distinct groups or societies, one will almost certainly deny that there is a universal morality that applies to all human beings. The descriptive use of “morality” is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt 2006; Hauser 2006; De Waal 1996) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals: primarily, but not exclusively, other primates.

While I’m strongly of the view that there’s no straightforwardly objective normative morality, I also think that there’s masses of evidence that humans have evolved as a social species to set up rules of conduct and to gang up on individuals who break those rules. Without this strong predisposition, I think human societies would fall apart (or become much more like e.g. chimp groups); this feature of our evolved psychology seems to me to be central to our functioning. Other animals have nothing approaching the human capacity for setting up detailed rules and then singling out those who break the rules for punishment, though as mentioned in the SEP quote above, there are many examples of precursor behaviours, especially in our closest primate relatives. Even human babies too young to speak will punish individuals who mistreat others, as described by Paul Bloom in an article here (which I’ve linked to before). The article opens with a representative anecdote:

Paul Bloom wrote:Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head.

With this wired-in feature of our psychology being central to the way human societies work, it may become difficult to argue too heatedly that there’s no such thing as right or wrong? Certainly, different societies can have markedly different sets of rules, and the rules can change, usually with a good deal of heated argumentation, but every society has them, and I think a fair number of those rules are generally shared (such as not hitting people without good reason)? Some rules work better (in the sense of enabling a society to function as most participants would want, as romansh suggests) in particular circumstances, for example, avoidance of racial discrimination in mixed societies which are also democracies, and to that extent may be regarded as the “right” rules to have in those circumstances??

Zoon, a lot to address there. First, I don't see anything significant there that I'd take exception to. The story of the toddler is interesting. But how about a thought experiment involving someone a little older? I have only read excerpts of her autobiography, but Helen Keller wrote about her dreams before and after her teacher's introduction. I think it might be safe to make the assumption that dreams and a persons personal morality, normative morality if you prefer, are somewhat linked in as much as both are creations of the brain. To my knowledge, Keller didn't write about her views on right and wrong before her education. If she did, I hope someone shares that. I'd find it interesting. In any case... to summarize, her dreams before her education were of darkness and only familiar in as much as she could relate. Vibrations, thumping, ground shaking etc. Without the ability to perceive vision or sound, smell touch and taste didn't offer her the necessary input to conjure dreams we would recognize. Now, if she could convince me that she knew it was wrong to bite someone or to lash out with her fists... or murder or lie... all without an understanding of the complexities of humanity, speech or relationships, well, then I might be convinced in the existence of moral objectivism. My guess is that she had no concept whatsoever of right and wrong until she became aware of social connection. I might even be persuaded to believe in god if she did. Kids are remarkably sharp and perceive things almost unimaginable. Being able to string sounds together into words and sentence not much after that one year mark. I'm not surprised that a toddler, infant even, might not begin recognizing right and wrong behaviors. I have to wonder... where did he learn that smacking the puppet in the head was the appropriate punishment for running away with a ball? Surely he was taught either by example or experience?

The point of the OP wasn't to start a debate, though I don't mind that. I'm sincerely just trying to understand the argument in favor of moral objectivism. I acknowledge the semantics as you've pointed out, but in my experience, christians aren't talking about the 10 commandments or the Nicene Creed when they speak of morality... they're talking about their personal relationship with their lord and savior, Jesus Christ... can I get a witness? Their consciousness is their telephone to the almighty who makes them feel guilt, relief, peace et al. It's through interpreting those emotions that they commune directly with him. I'm not trying to paint all theists with a broad brush, but those are the christians I know and have known personally.

So my only claims to the lack of right and wrong is within that context of normative morality. I'm also not claiming that people don't have a sense of right and wrong. My only claim is that it is learned and/or imagined and that there is enough evidence that while any non-sociopath possesses that sense, rational people will also recognize that what one person perceives as "right" is perceived by others as "wrong" and that neither has a claim to absolute authority on the matter. I might claim that god doesn't exist... that doesn't mean deny people believe he does.

In my mind, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that normative morality is shared that isn't first taught or learned. The bible speaks of children as innocents. Simply, a child has no concept of death, therefore murder doesn't even occur to them. And there is where I think Harris is making his conflation, perhaps. Morality can't be found in knowledge, but morality can't exist without it.

romansh wrote:Penny
Try dropping the concept of morality all together. Look carefully at what you or what you think society might want. And then go with that. Will our actions achieve our collective wants? If so go with that. If not try some other direction.

You cannot tell someone in one breath to drop the concept of morality, and then in the next breath tell them how they ought to act.

zoon wrote:I strongly agree with you that there’s nothing out there...

You could have skipped the rest. Not only will you say there's nothing out there, but you don't know what's in there, either. At least, at the level of 'there'.

PensivePenny wrote:Zoon, a lot to address there. First, I don't see anything significant there that I'd take exception to. The story of the toddler is interesting. But how about a thought experiment involving someone a little older? I have only read excerpts of her autobiography, but Helen Keller wrote about her dreams before and after her teacher's introduction. I think it might be safe to make the assumption that dreams and a persons personal morality, normative morality if you prefer, are somewhat linked in as much as both are creations of the brain. To my knowledge, Keller didn't write about her views on right and wrong before her education. If she did, I hope someone shares that. I'd find it interesting. In any case... to summarize, her dreams before her education were of darkness and only familiar in as much as she could relate. Vibrations, thumping, ground shaking etc. Without the ability to perceive vision or sound, smell touch and taste didn't offer her the necessary input to conjure dreams we would recognize. Now, if she could convince me that she knew it was wrong to bite someone or to lash out with her fists... or murder or lie... all without an understanding of the complexities of humanity, speech or relationships, well, then I might be convinced in the existence of moral objectivism. My guess is that she had no concept whatsoever of right and wrong until she became aware of social connection. I might even be persuaded to believe in god if she did. Kids are remarkably sharp and perceive things almost unimaginable. Being able to string sounds together into words and sentence not much after that one year mark. I'm not surprised that a toddler, infant even, might not begin recognizing right and wrong behaviors. I have to wonder... where did he learn that smacking the puppet in the head was the appropriate punishment for running away with a ball? Surely he was taught either by example or experience?

I think the interesting point about Paul Bloom’s experiments on babies is how young they are. The boy in that anecdote (backed up by a statistically significant number of similar results) was barely a toddler, he was 12 months old, much younger than 19 months, Helen Keller’s age when she had the illness which left her deaf and blind. Babies at that age are only beginning to speak, it seems unlikely that they have been taught negative reactions to a puppet which mistreats another puppet. These reactions show up even earlier; quoting from another article here about Bloom’s work:

Put on a puppet show for 3-month-old babies and they seem able to tell the good guys from the bad, looking at the puppets behaving well for longer. By the age of 6 months, babies reach for the good guys, while by their first birthday they punish the bad by taking a treat away, with some even whacking them.

Morality, or its roots, appears to come so evolutionarily hardwired that mere babes can tell good from bad. This is the core of Paul Bloom’s book, Just Babies. Bloom, who is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology at Yale University, decries the notion that humans are born moral blank slates, proposing that “we possess an innate and universal morality”.

I certainly agree that these babies are not yet displaying the complexities of adult morality, which is indeed mostly learnt, but I think 6-month-old babies (mostly not even crawling yet) responding accurately to third parties being helped or harmed indicates some serious social hardwiring in evolved human brains. Adult morality builds on this basis, and, like language, can take many forms.

PensivePenny wrote:The point of the OP wasn't to start a debate, though I don't mind that. I'm sincerely just trying to understand the argument in favor of moral objectivism. I acknowledge the semantics as you've pointed out, but in my experience, christians aren't talking about the 10 commandments or the Nicene Creed when they speak of morality... they're talking about their personal relationship with their lord and savior, Jesus Christ... can I get a witness? Their consciousness is their telephone to the almighty who makes them feel guilt, relief, peace et al. It's through interpreting those emotions that they commune directly with him. I'm not trying to paint all theists with a broad brush, but those are the christians I know and have known personally.

Yes, your OP was asking a separate question, about theists, I’m somewhat dragging the thread off-topic. My feeling is (you may disagree on this) that the common thread in all religions where morality is concerned, is that a supernatural, non-human power both lays down moral rules and punishes offenders. The rules may be communicated by written scriptures, or priests, or directly to the individual’s mind, and the punishments may be in this life or the next, and may affect the whole community as well as the individual offender, but it’s the non-human power, which believers suppose is as objectively real as any table or boulder, which both specifies and enforces the moral rules. It seems to me that if one does believe there’s an objectively real power behaving like this, then it’s fair to argue that morality is objective, not dependent on what humans think. Furthermore, it would probably be correct (on that assumption) to argue that what humans may think is entirely irrelevant; it’s the supernatural moral power which is the only source of morality. Then, when scientifically-minded atheists come along arguing that there is no evidence that any such supernatural morally-minded power exists, the immediate corollary is that such atheists must also think there is no basis for right and wrong.

As a scientifically-minded atheist, I am querying that conclusion. I don’t think there’s any supernatural power laying down or enforcing moral rules, but I do think that humans evolved to cooperate unusually closely, in part by enforcing conformity. Human groups can get along very well without believing in gods or other human-like supernatural powers, but I’m not so sure we can ditch the sense of right and wrong. We need to operate in tightly coordinated groups, we don’t yet understand how our brains work, especially at the social level, and our evolved readiness to set up rules and enforce them by group punishment of offenders does seem to be central to the way our societies function. Morality seen as an evolved feature of our psychology is far messier and less absolute than the religious variety, and religious people will almost certainly argue that being merely human it doesn’t count as morality, but my view is that it does count as morality, and we need it. ?

PensivePenny wrote:So my only claims to the lack of right and wrong is within that context of normative morality. I'm also not claiming that people don't have a sense of right and wrong. My only claim is that it is learned and/or imagined and that there is enough evidence that while any non-sociopath possesses that sense, rational people will also recognize that what one person perceives as "right" is perceived by others as "wrong" and that neither has a claim to absolute authority on the matter. I might claim that god doesn't exist... that doesn't mean deny people believe he does.

In my mind, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that normative morality is shared that isn't first taught or learned. The bible speaks of children as innocents. Simply, a child has no concept of death, therefore murder doesn't even occur to them. And there is where I think Harris is making his conflation, perhaps. Morality can't be found in knowledge, but morality can't exist without it.

I am agreeing with you that there’s no ultimate normative morality: such a morality needs an external power such as a god, and there’s no evidence that any such power exists. I do think that we’ve evolved with a predisposition (this showing up in a fairly nebulous way in babies), to set up rules and to punish those who break them. The rules themselves are partly innate (again, the babies’ negative reactions to mean behaviour), and are sharpened by learning, experience, and much arguing, into a form which enables the group to function reasonably effectively. The actual rules will depend on circumstances, it’s the flexibility of this system which has in part enabled humans to take over every ecosystem on the planet. While we don’t understand our brains, I think we still need this system? If (?or when) we did understand the evolved brain mechanisms underlying morality, we probably wouldn’t use them, because we would have more direct and efficient ways of controlling each other??

zoon wrote:I am agreeing with you that there’s no ultimate normative morality: such a morality needs an external power such as a god, and there’s no evidence that any such power exists

Why would normative morality require an 'external power'? How would that make morality normative? Rather than, say, externally imposed?

zoon wrote:
I am agreeing with you that there’s no ultimate normative morality: such a morality needs an external power such as a god, and there’s no evidence that any such power exists.

Well, at least we agree on the remedial issues.

I do think that we’ve evolved with a predisposition (this showing up in a fairly nebulous way in babies), to set up rules and to punish those who break them. The rules themselves are partly innate...

And here we part ways, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the emphasized text above. Where's the evidence? The study you cited doesn't stand up to that conclusion. At 12 months a child is already learning language. At 12 months they can even be instructed to "take a way one treat" from one of the puppets, according to the same study. So, at 12 months, that child is far from ignorant. He understands language, though he may not have yet mastered complex sounds with his tongue. Apparently, he also understands the rudiments of math and can at least count to one. Both of those are learned qualities. What else might he have learned? Categorizing things into things I like and don't like? The ability to empathize with the wronged puppet? To claim that "The rules themselves are partly innate" is wholly unsubstantiated.

I certainly don't deny that we evolved a mechanism (let's call it the ability to moralize) that has been/is crucial to maintain collective compliance. Speciation most likely created humanoid variants without that ability, all of which failed. Of course that is pure speculation but it's based on my understanding of how evolution happens. But having the ability to categorize "good" and "bad" things and to possess a brain chemical reaction (emotion) in response to them, while itself is innate, the RULES are no more innate than a Chinese baby having the innate vocabulary of the Chinese language... not even "partly." Babies have the ability to learn language, but the words are learned the same as "moral rules."

I think we still need this system? If (?or when) we did understand the evolved brain mechanisms underlying morality, we probably wouldn’t use them, because we would have more direct and efficient ways of controlling each other??

You mean like fake news? Whether we need this system or not, I'll leave to you to decide. I've made no argument for or against the mechanism. I have implicityl expressed my inability to understand how any rational thinking human can be so arrogant to think that the rules they possess in their brain, is what all people think or at least should think... moral objectivism.

Still waiting for a good argument in the existence of moral objectivism... the rules we all know as right and wrong? That IS learned. (Edited: Corrected botched last sentence)

PensivePenny wrote:Babies have the ability to learn language, but the words are learned the same as "moral rules."

QFT. The ability to learn is general.

scott1328 wrote:

romansh wrote:Penny
Try dropping the concept of morality all together. Look carefully at what you or what you think society might want. And then go with that. Will our actions achieve our collective wants? If so go with that. If not try some other direction.

You cannot tell someone in one breath to drop the concept of morality, and then in the next breath tell them how they ought to act.

Read carefully there is no ought or should.

romansh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

romansh wrote:Penny
Try dropping the concept of morality all together. Look carefully at what you or what you think society might want. And then go with that. Will our actions achieve our collective wants? If so go with that. If not try some other direction.

You cannot tell someone in one breath to drop the concept of morality, and then in the next breath tell them how they ought to act.

Read carefully there is no ought or should.

What is 'ought' or 'should' but a recommendation? Do you think it must be backed up by some force or other? If so, what do you think that force is? What is morality when it consists of compulsions?

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

romansh wrote:Penny
Try dropping the concept of morality all together. Look carefully at what you or what you think society might want. And then go with that. Will our actions achieve our collective wants? If so go with that. If not try some other direction.

You cannot tell someone in one breath to drop the concept of morality, and then in the next breath tell them how they ought to act.

Read carefully there is no ought or should.

What is 'ought' or 'should' but a recommendation? Do you think it must be backed up by some force or other? If so, what do you think that force is? What is morality when it consists of compulsions?

Not arguing here with you Cito. But don't you think there can be an implied morality? And I think this was Scott's point.

romansh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
You cannot tell someone in one breath to drop the concept of morality, and then in the next breath tell them how they ought to act.

Read carefully there is no ought or should.

What is 'ought' or 'should' but a recommendation? Do you think it must be backed up by some force or other? If so, what do you think that force is? What is morality when it consists of compulsions?

Not arguing here with you Cito. But don't you think there can be an implied morality? And I think this was Scott's point.

I've never heard of such a thing.

romansh, if I can just butt in this one point, I think your original post started off with the incorrect assumption that I was grappling with some personal issue on morality, trying to determine what moral code I should follow. At least that's how I understood your post. I am quite content with my morality the way it is. I don't give a damn how it may parallel the needs or desires of my community. Be that as it may, the OP was not about the moral "rules," rather the idea that some people believe that there is a universal normative code that is objective, self-evident and clear for all to see without dispute or argument. I fail to understand that bizarre view. For example, murder is often held up as the one thing we can all agree is "wrong." I disagree that it is "wrong." I don't condone it, encourage it nor have I ever committed it. But it is "wrong" for me at this time, today, with reservation for exceptions in the future... not to mention, incarceration (consequence) doesn't comport with my plans for the future. I'm not disputing the existence of morality or even the collective need for it and the benefit to society... only that there isn't one fucking thing about it that is OBJECTIVE! THAT is the point of the OP.

Cito di Pense wrote:
I've never heard of such a thing.

Take it up with Scott then ... if should and ought are just recommendations then fine. Scott will have explain why having a recommendation is somehow illogical.

PensivePenny wrote: I am quite content with my morality the way it is.

If you are happy with your sense of morality then fine ... if that is what you want OK.

But it may well be that morality is not what it seems. And as a concept ultimately unnecessary, at least in my opinion.

romansh wrote:

PensivePenny wrote: I am quite content with my morality the way it is.

If you are happy with your sense of morality then fine ... if that is what you want OK.

But it may well be that morality is not what it seems. And as a concept ultimately unnecessary, at least in my opinion.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with the concept of me having no morality... It's the "other guy" I'm worried about not having any.

As zoon pointed out, this convo is highly susceptible to misunderstanding due to semantics. Maybe that is at play here. From your first reply to this thread, I would say you have a morality,. You haven't disposed of it. It's normative. You may not prescribe to any descriptive morality, but in a sense, you follow behaviors that are mutually beneficial to you and your community, if I understand you correctly. I would call that morality.

romansh wrote:

PensivePenny wrote: I am quite content with my morality the way it is.

If you are happy with your sense of morality then fine ... if that is what you want OK.

But it may well be that morality is not what it seems. And as a concept ultimately unnecessary, at least in my opinion.

If you make certain kinds of recommendations, morality is what you have, necessary or otherwise. You don't even need to insist on anything.

romansh wrote:Read carefully there is no ought or should.

Should one read (this kind of crap) carefully, or not? There's always an if-clause implied. When the conclusion is necessary, it depends on the if-clause. Unless it just depends on Sanity Clause.

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:

PensivePenny wrote: I am quite content with my morality the way it is.

If you are happy with your sense of morality then fine ... if that is what you want OK.

But it may well be that morality is not what it seems. And as a concept ultimately unnecessary, at least in my opinion.

If you make certain kinds of recommendations, morality is what you have, necessary or otherwise. You don't even need to insist on anything.

OK ... for you a certain kind of recommendation and morality are more or less synonymous.?

romansh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:

PensivePenny wrote: I am quite content with my morality the way it is.

If you are happy with your sense of morality then fine ... if that is what you want OK.

But it may well be that morality is not what it seems. And as a concept ultimately unnecessary, at least in my opinion.

If you make certain kinds of recommendations, morality is what you have, necessary or otherwise. You don't even need to insist on anything.

OK ... for you a certain kind of recommendation and morality are more or less synonymous.?

Who's morality for, if not for someone else?