doggabone:

squashed:

SDS and robot-heart-politics are having an interesting back and forth about Objective Moral Standards.

SDS writes,

Nobody argues with any seriousness that people who deny an objective moral standard can’t in fact act morally. Of course they can; they just can’t provide a valid reason why it’s moral and why anyone else should give a damn.

Robot-Heart (politics) responds,

The day someone presents me with an objective moral standard is the day I’ll stop following my own conscience on matters of morality. Until then, you’ll have to pardon me if I scoff at the idea that anyone has the monopoly on “valid” reasons for believing what they believe.

In this case, “objective” is a tricky word. Is there a moral standard that exists independently from our culturally influenced perception of morality? Most of us, whether we admit it or not, believe that there is. Afterall, if there isn’t some sort of objective moral standard, be it secular or be it sacred sacred, virtue and vice become meaningless. We might be able to declare our own actions right or wrong. We can also declare somebody else’s actions right or wrong. But we don’t have anything to draw on if we’re trying to persuade anybody else to our point of view. If we condemn injustice, our condemnation is only shared by the people who already feel the same way we do. Whether we believe in an objective morality or not, we act as if there is one. At least, we act as if there is some morality beyond ourselves that should also bind others.

But believing in an objective morality doesn’t answer the question of how the heck we’re supposed to answer it. I believe, for example, that parrots exist, objectively. I believe that if some people believe parrots breathe fire that they are objectively wrong. And I have all sorts of evidence for my belief. Some are indirect. I have read texts about parrots. I seen parrots portrayed in movies. I have somebody tell the story of a yowling cat and a parrot imitating a yowling cat on a cross-country car trip. And I also have sensory experiences. I have heard parrots. I have touched parrots. I have heard parrots. All of this is relatively direct—in that mine is the only mind filtering it. But it is indirect in that my mind doesn’t connect directly with the parrot. Somebody deaf could not hear the parrot as I could. Somebody colorblind would not see the parrot in quite the same way I would. Somebody closer or further would see a different aspect of the parrot. Somebody who saw parrots more frequently would react differently to a parrots appearance. And somebody who had studied parrots for years might notice different things about the parrot. Even as there is an objective parrot, we experience it subjectively.

If (as I believe) there exists an objective morality, we still have the problem of how to access it. Is it embedded in our experiences of the world? Do we get it second hand—taught to us by our parents or through a holy or inspired text? The belief in objective morality doesn’t eliminate the problems of moral relativity.

Almost every single sentence of this that is not about parrots is contrary to my own objective experiences, and to my own subjective beliefs.

• It is not my experience that most people believe in an objective morality. Not even nearly. I wonder if there is anything more than assumption to indicate that most people do, as I can find no studies or other indications.
• Suggesting that those who don’t believe in an objective morality actually do although they admit to it is spurious. One might as well say that atheists are actually church-goers who haven’t been recently, or that Republicans unconsciously wish for a welfare state. Begging the question of an objective morality to assert it’s existence is patently false.
• Subjectivity doesn’t make ideas such as virtue, sacred, and vice meaningless. No more than it does for beauty, melody, or justice. Personal standards have great merit and great value.
• Similarly, behaving with morality does not inherently mean that we are behaving as if there is an objective morality.
• A physical, observable object is a poor metaphor for an unobservable, unquantifiable ideal. The parrot doesn’t fly.

One can come to morality by trial and error, by instruction, by authority, and by example just as well as by following some objective standard. We learn lying is wrong, because when we do we lose the trust, friendship, and social benefits of our peers, because our parents tell us not to and punish us for it, and because the most socially successful people around us are honest.

Morality is a community standard, a consensus which has evolved over millenia, through the rise and fall of cultures, changes in resource, and the progress of technology. Morality has more to do with common sense than anything else, and it doesn’t need a point of origin to have personal and public merit. There is nothing to indicate that there is an objective core to it, and saying that one believes there is an objective foundation is purely subjective.

We are living in a world of multiple moralities - not only as individuals, but historically and anthropologically.  Different times, different societal structures even different geographies and environments are seen to give rise to different moralities. An objective morality, surely, would be universal, an accord all would recognize and share, but this has never happened.

Maybe I’m wrong and there is such a thing, but if there is it has not been found or described. And I hope an objective morality is never defined, even if there were a standard by which to do so. There is great value in all of these subjective value systems giving way to new ones, influencing each other, creating new contexts for new ideas.

I will take comfort in the fact that morality is subjective until the day comes that someone can demonstrate an unassailable, absolute, objective morality by objective means and to an objective standard. To date no-one has come close, nor made the attempt with making a lot of subjective leaps (and expecting me to follow).  But if you prefer to believe in an objective morality, I’m not interested in changing your mind - only in sharing ideas. My subjective notions are offered for consideration, not conversion.

You ask good questions and bring up valid issues. Rather than respond to them all myself, I’ll simply refer you to some quotes I’ve posted previously that discuss the same questions here at hand:

http://sds.tumblr.com/post/85273072
http://sds.tumblr.com/post/83855116
http://sds.tumblr.com/post/83592004
http://sds.tumblr.com/post/83591402
http://sds.tumblr.com/post/83582382