99Percent

I am going to make my case for the existence of non-theistic objective morality. This is strongly based on Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but I have made some modifications of my own.

Objective existence depends on the realm it is being established

When establishing the objective existence of things we should first determine in what realm of existence we are talking about. All matter is composed of atoms, so in the molecular level, nothing exists except atoms, and it would be irrelevant and therefore not objectively true that, say, a chair exists. In the larger physical realm all physical things are composed of matter so any living or non-living matter is just matter, so in this realm, the objective existence of life itself would be irrelevant and not true either. Going a step further we can have sentient and non-sentient life, so the objective reality of "feelings" can also be irrelevant although the objective existence of life and death is certainly proven, since life or lack of life is what actually defines the realm. Another example is the existence of information and language which needs to be set within the realm of the communicators. Taken out of this realm, information is just noise, and language just a bunch of sounds or random markings.

Now we can understand what we mean by the realm of morality. Morality for it to exist must involve free choice and consciousness. Free choice because morality involves chosing between one or more courses of actions and it requires consciousness because the entity debating the possible choices must be aware of the consequences. If there is no possiblity of choice then there is no morality. If there is no consciousness of the consequences of moral decisions then there can also be no morality. So when we establish the realm of morality we must do so absolutely regarding human free will and human consciousness. Moral relativism is therefore discarded because going beyond this realm makes the existence of morality a moot point. For example killing insects is clearly very bad for the insects, but insects do not have free will and consciousness so they don't participate in our human moral realm.

So in my argument for objective morality I establish the realm of its existence within the human consciousness and free will.

Recognizing undeniable objective moral factors.

• Truth: As human beings we have the ability to distinguish what is true and what is false, why? Because we can also invent, lie and distort truth. Therefore we can also objectively determine when another human being is not being truthful, dishonest or is just plain cheating.
• Violence: Another undeniable objective moral factor is the state of willful violence. A violent state can be objectively recognize because it is a state where free will is being going against (like imprisonment) or because it consciously recognized that is a life and death situation, or a potential for physical harm. Nature by itself can cause violence (say a shark, or a tornado), but the difference is that an objectively moral violent state is when there is an entity with free will behind the source of the violence. Likewise we can objectively determine this way the initiation of force. Once force or a state of violence is initiated objective morality ceases to exist. You will lie, cheat and steal if your life is at immediately at stake.
• Property: It is an undeniable fact that human beings require their own means of survival. Unlike animals, we rely on building our own shelter, producing our own food and clothes, therefor property is an unavoidable requirement for human survival. Going even further, happiness is subjective to the individual so each individual decides for himself what material goods are worthwhile for himself because the individual mind is sovereign, ie, nobody can read or feel what another is thinking or feeling. So the individual has to have its own property that he believes makes him happy. Of course it is upto him if he wishes to share or give away his excess property if he so considers.
• Loyalty: As human beings we can objectively determine the loyalty of others to others or themselves because we obviously have memory so we remember when people make promises and we therefore recognize when people break their promises.

Deriving some "commandments" from these objective moral factors[list][*]Thou shalt not lie: Because any deceit is going against the truth[*]Thou shalt not cheat: Because cheating goes against the truth and personal loyalty.[*]Thou shalt not steal: Because you are taking away someone's property.[*]Thou shalt not kill (a conscious moral human entity): Because you are initiating violence.[*]Thou shalt not be unfaithful: Because you are cheating on your significant other (note that this is not the same as commiting adultery, you can have sex with other partners if your S.O. is aware and giving consent).

Understanding the difference between subjectivist ethics and objective morality

Objective morality does not mean there is no subjective ethics. Individually each one of us always determine what is good and what is bad according to what we learn or experience. For example, forsome, smoking is considered a personal sin, for others it is a benefit. I can give more value to exercising on a stairmaster than getting drunk, for another it could be the opposite. Notice that subjective ethics involves the consideration and weighing of different values that can be different for each individual. These are clearly have nothing to do with objective and universal human morals that I just outlined.

Understanding the difference between religious "objective" morality and true objective morality

Religion claims the existence of objective morality because it is comes from an unquestionable authority such as the bible, the ten commandments or some other prophet. Religious faith requires the abandonment of reason and objectivity itself in order to be able to adopt these absolutists morals. This type of morality is bound to fail and to be in conflict specially if it does not take into consideration true objective morality (such as not respecting the conscious and moral capacity of blacks "destined to be slaves", or homosexuals "are an abomination", etc).

Pomp

99percent,

First, on your Realms of Existence:

When establishing the objective existence of things we should first determine in what realm of existence we are talking about.

Do you think that your realms themselves have objective existence, or are they arbitrary (or semi-arbitrary) points of view?

All matter is composed of atoms, so in the molecular level, nothing exists except atoms, and it would be irrelevant and therefore not objectively true that, say, a chair exists.

I disagree. From an atom’s-eye point of view, it may not be obvious that a chair (or, the relatively stable pattern of matter we would refer to as a chair) exists, but that does not change the fact that the chair does exist.

Another example is the existence of information and language which needs to be set within the realm of the communicators. Taken out of this realm, information is just noise, and language just a bunch of sounds or random markings.

Not necessarily. DNA, for example, codes for information that exists without a communicator. I’ll agree with you that, for language information to have meaning, we need a sufficiently complex system to interpret it, that system being the human brain for the languages we use to discuss ethics.

Nitpicks with your “theory of realms” aside, I’m not sure how you jump from the observation that we need communicators to have meaningful language to:

Now we can understand what we mean by the realm of morality. Morality for it to exist must involve free choice and consciousness. Free choice because morality involves chosing between one or more courses of actions and it requires consciousness because the entity debating the possible choices must be aware of the consequences.

I agree that volition (to avoid the use of the somewhat loaded term “free will”) and consciousness are necessary (but not sufficient, in my view) for the existence of a moral system, but I don’t see how you based that on your “realms” idea, or even why your “realms” idea was necessary.

Moral relativism is therefore discarded because going beyond this realm makes the existence of morality a moot point. For example killing insects is clearly very bad for the insects, but insects do not have free will and consciousness so they don't participate in our human moral realm.

Moral relativism is not generally concerned with the differing perspectives of human and insect, but with the differing perspectives of different humans.

On to your Objective Moral Factors:

Truth: As human beings we have the ability to distinguish what is true and what is false, why? Because we can also invent, lie and distort truth. Therefore we can also objectively determine when another human being is not being truthful, dishonest or is just plain cheating.

OK. This is uncontroversial, with the minor caveat that I’m not entirely sure that we can always objectively determine whether or not another person is lying. I don’t think this will have any great effect on your theory, though.

Violence: Another undeniable objective moral factor is the state of willful violence. A violent state can be objectively recognize because it is a state where free will is being going against (like imprisonment) or because it consciously recognized that is a life and death situation, or a potential for physical harm.

I think you need to pin it down a little more specifically. If I refuse to give you my car, I am going against your free will. Am I committing an act of willful violence?

Once force or a state of violence is initiated objective morality ceases to exist. You will lie, cheat and steal if your life is at immediately at stake.

Is morality also negated when violence is used in a non-life-threatening manner, such as imprisonment or my refusal to give you my car?

Property:It is an undeniable fact that human beings require their own means of survival. Unlike animals, we rely on building our own shelter, producing our own food and clothes, therefor property is an unavoidable requirement for human survival.

I’m not sure you can make that claim or, at least, not universally. While property is, of course, necessary (or nearly necessary) in modern societies, early humans did not, AFAIK, have the concept of property, and it is not unfeasible that humans could survive in a communal society in which no one held any private property.

The rest of your “property” topic is uncontroversial.

Loyalty: As human beings we can objectively determine the loyalty of others to others or themselves because we obviously have memory so we remember when people make promises and we therefore recognize when people break their promises.

OK.

Next you attempt, Deriving some "commandments" from these objective moral factors

Thou shalt not lie: Because any deceit is going against the truth

How do you support this conclusion? The closest you’re come to providing a basis for this is your observation that we can know truth. How does the fact that we can know what is true imply that we ought not misreport that truth to each other? You don't show us any of your reasoning here.

I’m going to avoid responding to your other “commandments” because they all suffer from similar problems. In the Moral Factors section, above, you either make an observation about our ability to do something or present a definition, then fallaciously derive an imperative from that in this section. I’m not necessarily saying that there is no way to derive your conclusions from your premises ( I would think you would need to add a few more premises first), but you haven’t done so here.

This is the crucial problem with your theory as it is presented here: there is no argument, just a lot of assertions with no reasoning to connect them.

On to Understanding the difference between subjectivist ethics and objective morality:

So, we are all bound by your objective morality, but also free to pursue our own subjective values as well? Actually, I think that your “objective” system provides a workable system in which we could negotiate the fulfillment of our subjective values but what on earth could persuade us to give your system a second thought if it did not?

I hope this made some kind of sense. I’m about to fall asleep sitting up.

tronvillain

As I read it, that system's claim to being "objective morality" is fairly unimpressive. It simply examines what individual humans tend to want and then proscribes universal rules devoted towards those ends. Of course, the system provides no reason to obey those universal rules, so as I said it is fairly unimpressive.

99Percent

Pompous Bastard: Thanks for replying, my argument for objective morality is obviously a work in progress and any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Do you think that your realms themselves have objective existence, or are they arbitrary (or semi-arbitrary) points of view?

I don't think they are arbitrary at all, for example the objective existence of "living organisms" can be firmly established by accepting the meaning life and death itself. Likewise, the objective existence of morality can be establish by accepting the meaning of free will and human consciousness.

I disagree. From an atom’s-eye point of view, it may not be obvious that a chair (or, the relatively stable pattern of matter we would refer to as a chair) exists, but that does not change the fact that the chair does exist.

In the definition that all matter is ultimately composed of atoms, the existence of a chair, a rock or any physical object is no longer relevant, although it does exist in the grander scale of course. In the definition that living organisms are only affected by the "laws of nature" such as gravity the existence of morality is no longer relevant. It is by amplifying the realm of existence to a larger comprehension if you will, that you can establish the existence of more complex objective facts.

I think you need to pin [definition of violence] down a little more specifically. If I refuse to give you my car, I am going against your free will. Am I committing an act of willful violence?

Well, one has to see who is the one initiating the violence. Not giving me the keys of your car is not a life or death threatening situation for me (unless we amplify the situation more) so by demanding that you give me the cars of your keys or else I am in fact provoking violence to you.

Is morality also negated when violence is used in a non-life-threatening manner, such as imprisonment or my refusal to give you my car?

Imprisonment is certainly life threatening matter as it means death (or life in at the mercy of another).

I’m not sure you can make that claim [of property being a moral factor] or, at least, not universally. While property is, of course, necessary (or nearly necessary) in modern societies, early humans did not, AFAIK, have the concept of property, and it is not unfeasible that humans could survive in a communal society in which no one held any private property.

Early humans did have the concept of property although maybe not explicitly I think. If I went back to the past and destroyed a primitive hut out of spite, I bet you the primitive dwellers will be pissed. I don't deny that communal societies are possible, but they must be done out of unanimous free will of all the people in sharing their property. Even in communal society, the boundaries of property are still implicitly or explicitly established with other communes or external individuals.

How do you support this conclusion [deceit goes against the truth]? The closest you’re come to providing a basis for this is your observation that we can know truth. How does the fact that we can know what is true imply that we ought not misreport that truth to each other? You don't show us any of your reasoning here.

Lying and misrepresenting the truth (truth in the human realm of knowledge of course) can be objectively morally determined because it is done with the volition to do so. In other words, what is immoral and can be objectively established is to willfully lie with the intention of deceit.

So, we are all bound by your objective morality, but also free to pursue our own subjective values as well?

Well, objective morality is not "mine" of course, but we are bound to it regardless whether we want to or not, and yes we are free to pursue our own subjective values as long as we don't trespass this objective morality.

I think that your “objective” system provides a workable system in which we could negotiate the fulfillment of our subjective values but what on earth could persuade us to give your system a second thought if it did not?

I don't need to "persuade" anyone with "my" system. Objective morality, like any objective existence, is already there. It is up to each one of us to realize and accept its existence or not. If you refuse to see it (because you want to break these rules or whatever) it is going to be your loss in the long run, becuase others will refuse to accept your existence as free moral entity.

tronvillian: As I read it, that system's claim to being "objective morality" is fairly unimpressive. It simply examines what individual humans tend to want and then proscribes universal rules devoted towards those ends. Of course, the system provides no reason to obey those universal rules, so as I said it is fairly unimpressive.

First, I am not trying to impress anyone. If you want an argument with universal moral rules in the sense that they have immediate cause and effect like the laws of gravity, we are not going to get any of course. But ask yourself this: If you go to any human society or group and start lying, killing, stealing and cheating, how long do you think your fellow human beings are going to accept your actions? And I really do mean any.

RED DAVE

99Percent writes:

Taking aside the ungrammatical nature of the opening line, right here, at the very beginning, we see some obvious problems.

Is the hierachy of "realms" that 99Percent establishes objective or does it involve, itself, some manner of human activity, of choice? It reminds me of nothing so much as the medieval concept of "the great chain of being," which establishes everything as having its place in the universe according to the order established by God. There is something incredibly Aristotelian about this proliferation of categories. And they are clearly arbitrary.

Let's take a set: "living" and "non-living" matter. Obvious as this category is, it is not sustainable on an absolute basis. Is, for example, a virus living or non-living? And, on a larger scale, when is a human living or non-living? If you think these categories are absolute and noncontroversial, just jump into the fight over abortion.

Morality cannot be established absolutely or objectively. There are always questions of values, choices and interests. This is exactly where Libertarians lose it. They try to establish their morality as outside history and human choices and values in an attempt to place capitalism on the altar of eternity.

THIS IS RELIGIOUS THINKING!!!

RED DAVE

Adrian Selby

99percent, just a couple of problems of my own:



Do we? Why do courts of law have such difficulty with that. I don't see how we have the means to objectively determine this, particularly if you're referring to 'all cases'. We don't always have the means of determining truth or falsehood, perhaps you'd outline what you mean by 'means'.

Do you think so? Aren't there people who stand up for what they believe even when their life is at stake and the requirement is to lie cheat and steal in order to sustain life. Life is not the ultimate value I'm afraid. At least if we mean one's own, from one's own point of view. Acts of self sacrifice and voluntary euthanasia seem to contradict this view.



Is this right? How does this follow from the fact that we need shelter? If I ask everyone I know, they do not need more shelter than they have (I'm in the UK, its affluent) but they all want more than they have. Is this right? Given a finite amount of space, we cannot all have the property we want. Thus, I would argue that while the mind might be sovereign with regard to that person, it is not the mind that is sovereign if the person desires to live in harmony with others when it comes to determining the amount of property. Needing shelter and needing a mansion seem quite different things.

I of course have a problem with what you derive from this.

Isn't it sensible to ask whether that property was arrived at morally, and what such a thing constitutes. If the property was, 800 years ago, stolen by an ancestor, how is it rightfully the current persons, or does morality get affected by temporal distance from the act of acquiring property. What gives an ancestor, or indeed anyone now the right to claim a huge chunk of free land, or even a small chunk of free land for their own? From what is this right derived, merely from a fact that they need shelter? Shelter can be provided in about 5 square feet, and allowing the individual to determine what constitutes shelter might open your thinking to the charge that the individual could act greedily and selfishly? Are these acceptable traits in the sovereignty of the mind?

Autonemesis

Even his example of a chair is unconvincing. What about a rock chair, an arrangement of small boulders that a human appropriates for sitting on because it looks like a chair? Did this chair exist objectively before someone sat on it and called it a chair? 99Percent would either have us accept that it did, or would have to do some fancy realm-shifting to avoid the problem. :P

My thoughts exactly: this objectivism must be the result of a kind of vestigial religious attitude.

tk

Didn't Nathaniel Branden said something about distinguishing between "reason" and "something that seems reasonable"? Apparently it didn't catch on in 99Percent's mind.

Autonemesis

Right there, you have made property subservient to human survival. The reason property is so important according to you, is that it is necessary to human survival. Have a fairly paraphrased you? If so, then human survival is your base value, not property itself. Property is the means to survival. But you haven't made any case for why exclusively owned property should be the exclusive means to human survival, which is what you're proposing. There could be other means to human survival that are as effective or moreso, but you're promoting private property without much justification, and to the exclusion of any other systems for promoting or ensuring survival. Furthermore, if you want to make that argument you're going to run into the contradiction that the property system involves willfully permitting in some cases the substantial impairment of the ability of other humans to survive in order to preserve someone else's property rights, despite the implicit assumption in your defense of property rights that property is the means to survival, not an end in itself.

This makes property implicitly subservient to individual happiness. Maximizing individual happiness is really your overarching value, property is again in the service of or the means to a "higher" or more dearly held value, not the value itself. On the one hand, this presents some problems for your case for the existence of non-theistic objective morality - it depends on the assumption of subjective values that objectivism tries cleverly to distract you from noticing are at the core of its defense of these so-called objective principles. And often it seems to me that those values vary from objectivist to objectivist.

On the other hand, you present these principles of objectivist morality as if they are rationally derived from a sort of scientific observation of the human condition. Yet your definition of the human condition and therefore your observational parameters - what you look for - focuses on human interaction with property as fundamental. So in this way you are assuming what you're trying to prove. Ultimately though, you assume property as a fundamental value for subjective, emotional reasons: it makes you happy to own things.

pug846

In all honesty, what the hell was the point of this post? Did you just want to insult 99 percent? If you had nothing constructive to say, why did you bother to post? Of course, since 99 is a moderator, you put him in the akward position of not really being able to edit you since I'm sure there would be all sorts of whining that he was abusing his privelage by editing someone in a thread he started.

99 percent said:

This was said to pomp, but I’d like to respond.

I’m not following your chain of logic here and it appears to me you just repeated to pomp what you initially wrote. You’ve asserted twice now that it is immoral to lie, but you haven’t given any reason why this is so.

Telling the truth can be objectively morally determined because it is done with the volition to do so. In other words, what is immoral and can be objectively established is to willfully tell the truth with the intention not to deceive. You haven’t explained why this reasoning is wrong.

It might help if you were to write out your argument. All I see is:

1) Humans can know the truth
Therefore
2) Humans ought to tell the truth

You are trying to go from facts about the world, that we can know the truth, to a moral conclusion that we ought to tell the truth. I value the truth, but not as an end in itself. I put a high value on the truth, but there are often times that I place a higher value on something else. A simple example: My grandmother gives me a hideously ugly shirt. Now, it’s obviously impossible to be so exact, but it will make my example clearer: Lets say I value “truth” with a 15, but I value not hurting my grandmother at 20. (This is in fact close to the truth, I value not hurting many of the people I love more than the truth. Especially in situations like these were there are no other costs or values affected by lying.) If I tell the truth, I would be acting irrational. I think in a lot of cases it’s simply in the actor’s best interest to tell the truth, but not all of the time.