Is morality a human construct?

[Sparko]

Actually wrong according to what standard? Because we understand the subjective nature of morality, and that people have the ability to create their own moral framework, then it goes without saying that to the person who doesn't value the life of innocent children it is right, and to the person that does value the life of innocent children it is wrong. Now how that works out in the real world is another question. What percentage of the human population actually eats babies, what the rest of the world thinks of that, what people who disagree with it are willing to do to stop it, how consistent it is with the predominant pro-social and empathetic moral intuition of human nature, and many other considerations are all factors that influence how subjective morality applies in this case. But if we're just talking about what we can demonstrate about the nature of morality, aside from the question of its application in the real world, then it depends on what moral framework you are judging the action by. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise, and that, in spite of everything we observe about how morality actually operates, it is objective in nature similar to the laws if physics or logic or mathematics.

so you think that if someone thinks eating babies is good, then it is good? If someone says murdering people by sending an airplane into a skyscraper is good, then it is good? That there is nothing that is objectively evil?

So if I came over to your house and decided to steal your car, you wouldn't have a problem with that because stealing is just fine according to me, being a pirate and all. You wouldn't even call the police because I did nothing objectively wrong, right?

[Raul]

again, you don't bother to read what I wrote and just assume I was arguing that morals are objective. I explained what objective morality is. I think Adrift is right. You seem to have some agenda here and don't really care what anyone writes, and just use whatever as a launching board for your next post. If you want a blog, I am sure you can find nice free blog sites elsewhere. This site is not a blog.

You are trying to cast doubt on my integrity as a way of avoiding answering hard questions. Stick to the issues, and leave the psychoanalysis to the experts.

[Carrikature]

Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

For example: We believe that gassing an entire group of people to commit genocide is evil and wrong, even though the Nazi's believed it to be good when they did it. We look at it and say that it is intrinsically evil. If it were subjective then we would have no argument against it. We could only say that our society thinks it is wrong, but it is not actually wrong, we just don't "like" that it happened. The Nazi's did like it and so for them it was just fine and moral to murder 6 million Jews. Basically do what ever you want as long as YOU think it is right, and I will do whatever I want to do that I think is right. If I eat a baby, that is my business and it is not wrong for me. You might not like it so don't eat babies.

You're conflating subjective with relative. This reasoning is against relative, not subjective.

ETA: Raul appears to be doing the same thing.

[Carrikature]

WLC, as you probably know, deals with questions like these all of the time. Here's a link where I think he helps answer the gist of the OP:

Source: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values

What you’re really asking, I think, is, “Why should I think that objective moral values exist rather than that evolution has made me believe in the illusion that there are objective moral values?” And the answer to that question is, “Because I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.”

This is the same answer we give to the sceptic who says, “How do you know you’re not just a body lying in the Matrix and that all that you see and experience is an illusory, virtual reality?” We have no way to get outside our five senses and prove that they’re veridical. Rather I clearly apprehend a world of people and trees and houses about me, and I have no good reason to doubt what I clearly perceive. Sure, it’s possible that I’m a body in the Matrix. But possibilities come cheap. The mere possibility provides no warrant for denying what I clearly grasp.

That’s not to say that our senses don’t sometimes deceive us or that some people don’t have physical impairments that prevent them from accurately apprehending the world. But that doesn’t justify total scepticism about the veridicality of my senses. Analogously, our moral sense is not infallible, and in some people, like the Nazis, it is terribly twisted and blunted. But that’s no justification for general moral scepticism.

Now, of course, the objector’s claim here will be that we’ve got good evidence that evolution has, in fact, determined our moral perceptions and so gives us a good reason to doubt the deliverances of our moral sense. But is that true? Two issues arise with respect to this claim.

First, to infer that because evolution has programmed us to believe in certain values, therefore those values are not objective is a logical fallacy. This was the point I made in the article against Michael Ruse...

© Copyright Original Source

He goes on, of course, and it's well worth reading if you really are curious about this topic. Unfortunately over the years I've simply read too many skeptics who are not actually interested in answers, but only in asking questions. I imagine this is more of the same.

Unsurprising that his answer is effectively "because it's self-evident".

"The mere possibility provides no warrant for denying what I clearly grasp." Except it does. You don't 'clearly grasp' something when you can't eliminate the other options. That's not how it works. I can be justified in acting as if I'm not a body in the Matrix sans 'good reason', but that doesn't speak at all to the reality of my body being in the Matrix.

[Sparko]

You are trying to cast doubt on my integrity as a way of avoiding answering hard questions. Stick to the issues, and leave the psychoanalysis to the experts.

no I am just calling it like I see it. I didn't even post that I believe in objective morality, but merely explained it. Yet you challenged me to prove it to you. You either didn't bother to read my post, or just glanced at it and posted the next step in your "script"

You also seem to be antagonistic for no reason, right from the beginning.

I used to get into deep long debates with people like you, but then I found out that you really don't care, don't read, and don't learn. That I was wasting my time, so I said, "Life is to short to continue to argue with a brick wall. Move on"

so I am done here. Enjoy yourself though. Have fun, and I hope you do learn something. I will check back from time to time to see how things are going.

[Sparko]

You're conflating subjective with relative. This reasoning is against relative, not subjective.

ETA: Raul appears to be doing the same thing.

okay, 'splain it to me.

[Raul]

so you think that if someone thinks eating babies is good, then it is good? If someone says murdering people by sending an airplane into a skyscraper is good, then it is good? That there is nothing that is objectively evil?

So if I came over to your house and decided to steal your car, you wouldn't have a problem with that because stealing is just fine according to me, being a pirate and all. You wouldn't even call the police because I did nothing objectively wrong, right?

If someone thinks eating babies is good, then, according to the moral framework they've created, it's good. That is just stating the obvious. The interesting thing is that someone can just as easily create a moral framework where eating babies is wrong. This is the nature of morality. People are able to shape it at will. This is not what we would expect if it were in fact an objective fact about reality similar to the laws of physics.

If you think I am mistaken about this then tell me what you think it is about objective realities (things like the laws of physics, math, and logic) that make them objective, and demonstrate that morality possesses these attributes. Also, tell me what you think it is about subjective realities and human constructs (things like traffic laws and the rules that govern various institutions) that make them subjective, and demonstrate that morality does not possess these attributes.

Now saying that I shouldn't have a problem with you coming over to my house and stealing my car, is to misunderstand how human constructs work. Let me ask you this. Would you consider it valid if a person got pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the road, and then told the police officer that he shouldn't have a problem with what the man did because, after all, there is nothing objectively wrong with driving on the left side of the road? It's a rule we made up, a human construct. Of course not. The statement "It is wrong to drive on the left side of the road" is not some kind of objective fact about reality, and yet it is granted a kind of objectivity. This is because with human constructs (things like traffic laws), absolute standards are not required. I am entirely justified, then, in calling the police if you stole my car. It doesn't have to be wrong in the absolute sense, because that is just not how human constructs operate. With human constructs, rules take on a kind of objectivity, just not in the absolute sense. Now I admit that there are obvious differences between traffic laws and moral laws like saying it is wrong to eat babies. So not all human constructs are the same. One unique aspect about prohibitions against things like murder of the innocent and eating babies is that they have to do with such fundamental aspects of human nature like empathy and a sense of justice, so that when someone breaks those rules it evokes a different kind of response than something like driving on the wrong side of the road. So we can live and let live when it comes to the British driving on the left side of the road, but when someone like Hitler starts murdering innocent human beings, we go to war. This is because although both traffic laws and morality are human constructs, they impact different levels of human nature, so that we are compelled to do in the case of Hitler what we are not compelled to do in the case of the British driving on the left side of the road.

[Sparko]

If someone thinks eating babies is good, then, according to the moral framework they've created, it's good. That is just stating the obvious. The interesting thing is that someone can just as easily create a moral framework where eating babies is wrong. This is the nature of morality. People are able to shape it at will. This is not what we would expect if it were in fact an objective fact about reality similar to the laws of physics.

then there is no objective basis to stop someone from eating babies, or murdering someone else or even you, since they are not doing anything wrong. Where do you live? And what kind of car do you have? PM me.

Anarchy for everyone!

[Raul]

then there is no objective basis to stop someone from eating babies, or murdering someone else or even you, since they are not doing anything wrong. Where do you live? And what kind of car do you have? PM me.

Anarchy for everyone!

Correction. There is no ABSOLUTE objective basis to stop someone from eating babies, just like there is no absolute objective basis to stop someone from driving on the left side of the road. And yet I'm guessing you would grant that driving on the left side of the road is not some kind of objective fact about reality, and that in spite of this we are justified in obligating people to do so and holding them accountable if they don't. So I am wondering why you say that, when it comes to morality, we for some reason cannot have things like obligation and accountability in the absence of an absolute standard. Why do you say that moral anarchy is the only logical conclusion of not having an absolute moral standard, but you don't say that traffic anarchy is the only logical conclusion of not having an absolute traffic standard?

[Sparko]

Correction. There is no ABSOLUTE objective basis to stop someone from eating babies, just like there is no absolute objective basis to stop someone from driving on the left side of the road. And yet I'm guessing you would grant that driving on the left side of the road is not some kind of objective fact about reality, and that in spite of this we are justified in obligating people to do so and holding them accountable if they don't. So I am wondering why you say that, when it comes to morality, we for some reason cannot have things like obligation and accountability in the absence of an absolute standard. Why do you say that moral anarchy is the only logical conclusion of not having an absolute moral standard, but you don't say that traffic anarchy is the only logical conclusion of not having an absolute traffic standard?

driving on one side of the road is just a convenient agreement so that we don't run into each other. It has no moral value. Not eating babies for fun is not just a convenient agreement to say, keep the human race going. It has moral implications of right and wrong. objective implications. Even if everyone in the world suddenly decided to start eating their babies for fun, it would still be morally wrong. It wouldn't suddenly become good because everyone was doing it. If you want to argue that it is good, then all that means is that you are morally bankrupt, not that it is good.

And "absolute" before "objective" is superfluous.

[Raul]

driving on one side of the road is just a convenient agreement so that we don't run into each other. It has no moral value. Not eating babies for fun is not just a convenient agreement to say, keep the human race going. It has moral implications of right and wrong. objective implications. Even if everyone in the world suddenly decided to start eating their babies for fun, it would still be morally wrong. It wouldn't suddenly become good because everyone was doing it. If you want to argue that it is good, then all that means is that you are morally bankrupt, not that it is good.

And "absolute" before "objective" is superfluous.

Well I already granted that there is a difference between driving on a certain side of the road and not eating babies. So I agree that not eating babies is more than just a convenience. It touches some of the deepest aspects of human nature, while driving on a certain side of the road does not. But that doesn't make the statement "It is wrong to eat babies" an objective fact about reality similar the statement "2 + 2 equals 4". In fact, when we observe that, theoretically, someone is fully able to construct a moral framework where eating babies is considered right, that makes it seem subjective in nature. The very definition of subjective is that it depends on the subject, and that is exactly what we observe about morality. So how did you arrive at the conclusion that eating babies is an objective fact about reality? Because we know something about how objective realities operate. We see how things like the laws of physics, math, and logic operate, which is why we consider then to be objective facts about reality. It is because they are demonstrably so. But what is it about morality that led you to the conclusion that it, too, is an objective fact about reality?

[Sparko]

Well I already granted that there is a difference between driving on a certain side of the road and not eating babies. So I agree that not eating babies is more than just a convenience. It touches some of the deepest aspects of human nature, while driving on a certain side of the road does not. But that doesn't make the statement "It is wrong to eat babies" an objective fact about reality similar the statement "2 + 2 equals 4". In fact, when we observe that, theoretically, someone is fully able to construct a moral framework where eating babies is considered right, that makes it seem subjective in nature. The very definition of subjective is that it depends on the subject, and that is exactly what we observe about morality. So how did you arrive at the conclusion that eating babies is an objective fact about reality? Because we know something about how objective realities operate. We see how things like the laws of physics, math, and logic operate, which is why we consider then to be objective facts about reality. It is because they are demonstrably so. But what is it about morality that led you to the conclusion that it, too, is an objective fact about reality?

If morals are subjective then we have no basis to make moral decisions about another person's actions. We have no basis for even making laws to prevent someone from eating babies for fun. You know it is wrong even if I said it was good to eat babies. You would know it is intrinsically wrong. You know that you ought not eat babies for fun. Without anyone even telling you that. If someone did eat babies for fun and thought it was good, you would say that they were evil or psychotic. They would be wrong. You know that. Arguing the opposite is just stupid.

What we do observe about morality is that it is objective. We see someone doing something wrong or evil and we can say "that is wrong. that is evil" even if the person claims it is good. It is the very basis of our laws against such things as stealing, killing, and harming others. We treat and know that various actions are objectively good or bad. THAT is what we "observe about morality"

If we actually observed that morality was merely a subjective view, then we would never have come up with the concept of "that is wrong, stop it" or "that is not fair!" when someone does something to you that you don't like.

[shunyadragon]

Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

For example: We believe that gassing an entire group of people to commit genocide is evil and wrong, even though the Nazi's believed it to be good when they did it. We look at it and say that it is intrinsically evil. If it were subjective then we would have no argument against it. We could only say that our society thinks it is wrong, but it is not actually wrong, we just don't "like" that it happened. The Nazi's did like it and so for them it was just fine and moral to murder 6 million Jews. Basically do what ever you want as long as YOU think it is right, and I will do whatever I want to do that I think is right. If I eat a baby, that is my business and it is not wrong for me. You might not like it so don't eat babies.

Naturally certain morals can be intrinsically wrong, as in all cultures in history 'wrongful killing (murder)' is morally wrong. Justification of immoral acts as in Hitler murdering Jews or the Hebrew tribe ethnically cleansing their opponents does not make these acts moral. I do not believe this makes morals objective in the sense that God is necessary for the systems of human morals to exist and function in societies and cultures.

[Carrikature]

okay, 'splain it to me.

Absolute and relative are paired. Objective and subjective are paired. Where absolute is 'always true in all cases', relative is 'true depending on initial conditions'. Where objective is 'independent of individual experience/knowledge', subjective is dependent.

The existence of the elephant is objective for the three blind men. Their knowledge of the elephant is both subjective (they experience only a piece) and relative (their experience depends on which body part they happen to be touching). Likewise, their judgment of 'hairy' or 'thin' is relative to their definition of those terms.

[Raul]

If morals are subjective then we have no basis to make moral decisions about another person's actions. We have no basis for even making laws to prevent someone from eating babies for fun. You know it is wrong even if I said it was good to eat babies. You would know it is intrinsically wrong. You know that you ought not eat babies for fun. Without anyone even telling you that. If someone did eat babies for fun and thought it was good, you would say that they were evil or psychotic. They would be wrong. You know that. Arguing the opposite is just stupid.

What we do observe about morality is that it is objective. We see someone doing something wrong or evil and we can say "that is wrong. that is evil" even if the person claims it is good. It is the very basis of our laws against such things as stealing, killing, and harming others. We treat and know that various actions are objectively good or bad. THAT is what we "observe about morality"

If we actually observed that morality was merely a subjective view, then we would never have come up with the concept of "that is wrong, stop it" or "that is not fair!" when someone does something to you that you don't like.

All you are demonstrating is that we REGARD certain things as wrong, and that we have deeply emotional reasons for doing so. How does this place morality in the category of objective fact?

Also, as I have demonstrated, human constructs work in such a way that things are indeed regarded as objectively true. When someone gets pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the road, the fact that traffic laws are a human construct in no way invalidates the police officer holding that person accountable. The person could appeal to the fact that driving on a certain side of the road isn't some kind of objective fact about reality, but he would be completely misunderstanding how human constructs work. An absolute standard is not required, because objectivity is built into it. The difference with morality is that it has as its foundation certain pro-social tendencies that are an essential part of human nature, and this evokes things like moral disgust in a way that breaking traffic rules does not. So it is not true that if morality were subjective we never would have come up with the concept of "that is wrong, stop it", because you are not taking into account how deeply embedded certain moral inclinations are to human nature. Besides, as I already pointed out, there are indeed many human constructs where we do say "that is wrong, stop it" (such as traffic laws) even though we realize that those laws are a subjective reality.

But my main point is this. You say we just "know" the statement "Eating babies is wrong" is an objective fact about reality. But we don't know that. We know that human nature has a predominant disposition to not eat babies, and that it evokes the strongest of emotional responses in us. But this is just a statement about human nature, not about whether morality is, outside of how we experience it, objective or subjective in nature. Again, we know something about how objective realities operate, and the question is, does morality exhibit the same kind of properties that lead us to the conclusion that things like the laws of physics, math, and logic are objective facts about reality? I don't think it does. In fact, quite the opposite. It has all the properties that we would expect if it were ultimately a subjective reality, with people able to create their own moral frameworks at will. And in one sense I'm with you. I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer it if morality were more similar to the unchangeable laws of physics and logic. But I don't see that.