WWFStern

Morality/goodness/evilness cannot be tested, gauged, measured nor quantified. There are no units to measure morality/goodness/evilness like there are units to measure length (inches) or weight (pounds).

So, take an action...say, shooting somebody.

How, then, can we say that doing such an action is objectively wrong? Remember, "wrongness" is an immaterial thing, unable to be tested, measured, gauged or quantified. With that in mind, how can one measure wrongness? Without the ability to measure wrongness, how can one compare two actions and say which is right and which is wrong?

I've heard some say one can measure wrongness by the detrimental side effects of an action. If you shoot somebody, you've:

1. Taken a human life.
2. Deprived a family of their loved one.
3. Inflicted pain on an innocent person.

They say, when you point out those negative consequences, there is no choice but to say the action was wrong. But, then, who defines what is positive and what is negative? Who is to say that laughing, playing catch, and picnics are positive whereas violence, hatred and torture are negative? We're back to square one: How does one quantify that which cannot be measured?

All we have, when it comes to morality, is our own subjective, invented, fallible moral code, which defines what is right and wrong, positive and negative.

Someone might say that common sense dictates what is right and wrong: Murder is obviously wrong, right? Common sense is a very, very weak reason to believe in something. As fallible humans, our perception is flawed. Common sense tells us that the earth is stationary and the sun is moving around us. Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, rather than a sphere. Or, if you want something more concrete, just look at the hundreds of optical illusions one can find online. For example, one in which two tables look to be totally different sizes, but upon measurement, turn out to have the exact same dimensions.

These are illustrations of our flawed perception, and the limits of common sense. Without objective measurement, to arrive at objective conclusions, our notions run the risk of being fallacious. In the examples I cited, objective measurement corrects the mistakes of our perception. When it comes to the immaterial, which can never be tested, it should be obvious how subjective and flawed our perception can be, considering the weaknesses common sense demonstrates when attempting to analyze that which can be measured (the sun moving, the earth's shape, comparative size of tables, etc).

And, to be clear, I only cited murder as an example here to demonstrate my faithfulness to this position. Nobody is going to cite a particularly heinous action and make me waver on this. If I'll put up a defense like this when talking about shooting someone, I'll put up this defense for any example one wishes to provide.

So, do you agree that morality/immorality/right/wrong are entirely subjective notions?

the fonz

WWFStern,

What constitutes a "negative consequence" is whether desires are thwarted.

All of these imply desire-thwartings and are hence negative consequences. Who made up the criteria that "negative consequences" has to refer to "desire-thwartings?"

Who made up the criteria that "ball" must refer to "a spherical object or entity?" Well we did, it's just simply the definition we so arbitrarily chose. The same goes for the phrase "negative consequences." In order for something to be "bad," it must "thwart desires."

And as for murder, it is wrong by definition. "Murder" means "wrongful killing." So, of course, murder is wrong. That of course, tells us nothing about whether the wrongness is subjective or not. Just noting that murder must be wrong by definition.

It is my suggestion that "Act X is morally right" means "A good person would perform act X." What is a good person? It is one that fulfills the desires in question. What are the desires in question? All desires, regardless of who has them. The best way for a person to best fulfill the desires in question is to have good desires.

What is a good desire? It is one that tends to fulfill the desires of others. The aversion to killing, for example, is one of these. We, as a society, have good reason to promote a universal aversion to killing because we do not want to be killed. We also do not want our loved ones to be killed. The best way to prevent this is to promote a universal aversion to killing using the tools of praise, blame, reward, and punishment. Doing so helps us to best fulfill our desires.

Hence, a good person would have an aversion to killing and would not kill someone, generally. There will be times where the aversion to killing may be outweighed by other desires the good person may have. For example, if someone were to say to me, "Kill this person or your whole family gets it!" then that person will die. I have an aversion to killing but I have a stronger desire to keep my entire family alive.

So, killing is an act we ought to have an aversion against because of the negative consequences (desire-thwartings) it tends to cause. Us having this aversion is such to make us better off than if we did not.

Now, will we make mistakes? Probably. We are fallible. Does that mean, however, that there is no correct answer? Certainly not. If that was the case, then there would be no correct answer on whether the earth is round or how far we are away from the sun. To argue from "we are fallible" to "there is no correct answer" is to make a fallacious inference.

This is objective, I think, in the sense you are asking for. There is a way to validly argue for the wrongness of a given act. There is evidence one can appeal to. Just as objective as the one who appeals to evidence to prove that the earth is round or that we are 93 million miles away from the sun.

knowitall

For argument's sake, prove that anything is objective.

the fonz

I might be able to, granted you tell me what you mean by "objective?"

His Noodly Appendage

Can you measure the morality of an act? Does a moral act have any physical properties that differ from an immoral one? Does it emit an extra neutrino? Anything at all?

No, it doesn't. The ONLY thing that differentiates the two is our opinion of that act. That's all morality is: opinion.

Now, The Fonz can claim that a moral act is defined as 'an act conforming to the principles of desire utilitarianism', and I can claim that it's defined is 'being listed in the Big Book Of Stuff It's OK To Do' - and I fucking challenge anyone to prove it either way based on external facts.

You can provide argumentam ad populum to attempt to show that DU is correct because lots of people believe it; I can follow up with the fact that millions of people treat the bible or the quran as the definitive guide to morality.

Moral judgement is just an introspective perception of one's own personal principles, beliefs and opinions, and the measuring of an act against them. The derived proiperty of 'morality' of a given act is thus the degree of concordance between the act and the opinion.

As such, it's absolutely, entirely dependent on the mental state of the person doing the judging, and thus it is absolutely, entirely subjective.

Adrian Selby

Fonz, how do we judge whether any given desire tends to fulfil other desires or not universally? My concern is that the framework by which we judge is itself subjective.

We don't know that killing everyone that commits a crime will thwart more desires than it fulfils, unless you have a way of knowing this, universally.

His Noodly Appendage

More to the point, how do you know that frustrating a desire makes an act immoral? What facts have you observed that make this true? How the hell would you prove it? Sure, it makes for a good working set of morals that ties in pretty well with most people's intuition (mine included!) - but that's just ad populum again.

There's nothing in the physical world you can observe, nothing that you can point to to justify any moral framework. It's all true because you say it's true, or because you think it ought to be true because it ties in with what you think is good and right... completely circular, self-referential, ungrounded and subjective, in other words.

James T

The difficulty seems to be that it is possible to identify good reasons for murder as well. There are other actions I would have more difficulty finding any redeeming features in, such as rape of a child. There are concepts I find abhorent. However the golden rule and various other rules seem to ignore the fact that there are many times when the act of a single individual changes the world, sometimes for good, by acting in a way that would be impossible for every person to so act.

DougP

i accidentally voted for objective rather than subjective..clicked the wrong radio button and didnt realize it until it was too later.. Anyway consider one (the only at this poing objective vote to be in the subjective category)

-Doug

India

For those who voted "somewhere in the middle," what do you mean by it?