Moral Objectivism

On what or from where would a Moral Objectivism be based? Some greater spiritual law relative to gravity under nature? If I accept Moral Objectivism must I then accept Spirituality on the same level as Gravity and Science? How do we know the laws of nature are static, all the time, everywhere? Are not there particles that change just by being observed? IF there truly is one, does it only apply to humans, or ALL creatures? Why stop there? IF its universal and proves the impact and presence of the spiritual, maybe it applies to rocks, too?

Could we ever understand it? IF not, how can we ever say we knew it was there?

And karma isn't a system of reward, its just doing the right thing, right now.

rugadd wrote: On what or from where would a Moral Objectivism be based? Some greater spiritual law relative to gravity under nature? If I accept Moral Objectivism must I then accept Spirituality on the same level as Gravity and Science? How do we know the laws of nature are static, all the time, everywhere? Are not there particles that change just by being observed? IF there truly is one, does it only apply to humans, or ALL creatures? Why stop there? IF its universal and proves the impact and presence of the spiritual, maybe it applies to rocks, too?

Could we ever understand it? IF not, how can we ever say we knew it was there?

We don't know what we don't know.

Alexandre Orion wrote: Is the world flat and at the centre of the solar (or perhaps 'Terran') system for "some cultures" today in the face of evidence to the contrary, or could you truly defend creationism simply because most Americans think, feel, believe that it is right ? Is wife beating or child genital mutilation "good" in the cultures wherein it is practised, albeit not for "us" ? Moral/Ethical arguments defending persecution, discrimination and alienation are "okay" as long as it is the cultural standard ?

Do you see where moral relativism gets silly ?

No, to be honest I don't find that silly at all, my friend.

The example of the flat-earth theory and terracentrism isn't a very promising analogy. Those are verifiable qualities. Morality is not verifiable as it is entirely subjective. And yes, if the cultural majority agrees with it then it is "okay." In fact, even if they say its wrong its still "okay." It just isn't going to get you far if you intend to operate within society successfully.

I eschew words like "good" and "evil" altogether. However, that doesn't mean I'm "immoral" and have absolutely no moral creed/law.

Lyke, Orvis:
Just as you can test if the world is flat and the universe is revolving around it, you can also test wether things suffer or not and just how necessary their suffering is, i.e. what kind of benefit outweights it. This sort of basic morality has some objectivity to it, while it doesn't cover moral dilemmas or degrees of suffering and joy, but its a start.

Please, note, that the empowerment of women to the level of equals by value in every respect, has been reliably one of the most effective ways to prosperity and welfare of a society considering the idea. The benefit of not treating them like property or lesser beings is demonstrable.

Please, note, that mutilating the genitals of beautiful, healthy newborn boys and girls is done exclusively under moral pronouncement (divine command?) and never ever is derived from an actual moral system.

Please, also note, that both of these examples Alex brought up (thanks for reminding me, Lyke) are always only an issue to people who do not have or rely on an actual moral system that can be derived from observable reality, but always from proclamations that either cannot be tested (divine will) or are falsified every time they are (women, blacks, homosexuals, infidels, you name it - are inferior people).

Tradition is not a source of any sort of morality, and under tradition falls culture and religion. Now, one could argue that not everyone would agree with me on that point. But I'm sorry if I must be dismissive of someone who'd argue that suffering and joy or pain and pleasure are a bad basis for morality. If suffering of actually demonstrably living human (and potentially other) beings is not a bad thing to you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

On that note, specifically to Orvis: Moral relativism doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is equally correct with his moral views and while our instincts are evolved to tell us right from wrong pretty well, morality can also be an intellectual construct and usually it is more justifiable and reliable when it is.

Now to rugadd:
Objectivity doesn't include being-agreed-upon. For instance: It is objectively true that the earth is a more or less spherical object, revolves around the sun and by definition takes a year for every one complete round. It is objectively true that human sexual activity, along with being a natural reproductive mechanism also brings pleasure to the practitioners. It is objectively true that heat melts ice. None of these tested and numerous times verified phenomena are agreed upon by people, and yet they are still facts.

We have the privilege to live in a world where things like gravity and evolution cannot just be switched off at a random point in time, at least not as far as we can tell. So we can rely upon what we know about the universe and since we are all subject to it and any morality must necessarily be tied to our living on this only world we know we live in, we can try and derive a more or less objective moral standard from this more or less objective world itself.

The invocation of a spiritual realm in which actions are judged or spiritual beings that have a certain idea of what needs to be done and not done isn't only unnecessary to build a moral system but has shown itself to be detrimental for the process. So no, the existence of at the very least a more or less objective basis for moral philosophy proves magic about as good as the existence of a more or less objective universe does.

And on a side note, karma, while being an interesting idea based in imagination, as a teaching is pretty darn immoral. At least in my humble world view to teach someone that bad things happening is ultimately one's own fault is pretty disgusting the moment you think of natural catastrophes. There is a reason why psychotherapists here in the civilized world tell raped children to not blame themselves - the very opposite of what a karma-based world view would have to propose...

Yes, Gisteron, people suffering unnecessarily is a "bad" thing. What it is not is a morally "bad" thing. Suffering is a part of life. While causing suffering for someone else simply out of spite or some selfish sadism is unacceptable that doesn't have to carry moral connotations. It is "bad" because it does not advance society or contribute to the overall health of the people in a society. As Spock said in his dying words: "The good of the many trumps the good of the few or the one." Paraphrasing of course, but the overall message is clear. If a person goes around randomly harming others it is not good for the society as it harms not only the direct objects of their violence but those close to said victims. It is not because of some morally objective principal, IMHO, but because we all (generally) agree that this is so.

Also, I'm not sure that the karmic system is that simple and oblique. I don't believe that everything that happens to one is considered a result of some karmic debt. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are many cases where suffering could actually be considered the means for the aggregation of good karma. The poor girl who is raped is the victim of someone else's polluted karma and for her suffering she gains powerful good karma. *shrug* Just my two cents on that one.

Note that I'm not arguing that actions have no benefits or ill benefits. I'm just arguing that these are benefits of utility and not of morality.

Oh, and did you know that the earth actually has its own shape? They named a shape after our slightly oblong spherical planet. The earth is geoidal, its a geoid. Just a fun little fact there! Haha.

Great points as always Gisteron! You certainly have gotten me thinking!

rugadd wrote: And karma isn't a system of reward, its just doing the right thing, right now.

I never viewed Karma as doing the right thing, right now.

To me Karma is objective and neutral. I view it as a teacher. Action vs reaction. A cause has a consequence. Like the Tao it doen't differentiate between good and evil.

So if I go out in the world and create good chances are I will get a positive response but I can also go out in the world and create evil and their wiil be a karmic response as well. Like killing someone, having an affair, stealing from my company,etc... Karma doesn't let me get away with anything. I would imagine that the purpose and goal of karma is to make us reach a deeper level of understanding. That all action has a consenquence so it is up to us to make a better choice. Moral objectivism. Can't escape it.

Jayden
...
/|\

Objectivity as in a quality of inateness to reality, of course, cannot be meant when talking about moral objectivity. So yes, if we want to split hairs then bad things aren't objectively bad but only bad because we decided they are. However, what morality always must come down to is the actual real world, and be it only for our morality informs our actions within it. So, when I'm arguing for an objective morality I'm not saying, that it is inate to the universe itself, I'm saying that it only concerns beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain (etc!) and by extension is subject to beings capable of making decisions. Conversely, if there were no such beings, there would be no morality, either. And yes, in that sense it is subject to that kind of beings. We and the world around us are the only thing that can reasonably matter to what we currently are.

One might argue that there may be some supernatural reality, but while we're still in this world, it is this world and its qualities that we need to deal with and us humans agreeing upon a few principles such as that life is (generally) preferable to death and well-being is (generally) pereferable to suffering is a necessary prerequisite before any moral discussion can even begin.
So yes, it is subjectively wrong to throw people off bridges, in that we had to decide that the suffering it causes is a bad thing and we should avoid that when we can, but it objectively does cause suffering and thus the general rule we derive from our decision to be opposed to harmful outcomes, to generally try not to toss people off rooftops, applies everywhere for as long as there are people and rooftops and it is not a matter of culture or opinion.

So, while what causes pleasure may be more fuzzy than what causes suffering, they are fairly universal and fairly objective at root (if you're on fire it hurts... it really does). The subjective bit is to decide that being hurt is a bad thing. And those who don't think so usually are under medical treatment in the civilized world. People who think its a good thing to torture others are usually locked up, too. And for a darn good reason, I'd suggest! The other people, the sane ones, all have or should have a consensus on the most basic things, and as that is acheived, a basic moral system can be built quickly and be as objective as it can get.

And yes, I'm not open-minded to the idea that maybe pain and agony is a generally good thing worth seeking and inflicting. I have this irrational mere subjective opinion that this idea is wrong and its probably one of the few things I wouldn't make subject of a debate and be dogmatic about instead. That is just because I'd find someone who thought otherwise to be inhumane and worthier of my disgust rather than attention.


And about karma. Yes, the idea as Jayden illustrated is what I thought of it, too. In addition, as far as I know, karma extends to previous lives and lives yet to come, so for the most part whatever bad happens to you usually must be because you did evil, too, at some point, and whatever bad you do now may actually never be corrected in this life but be taken over into your next life, just so you can always live in cheerful anticipation of something bad happening to you anywhen. If the prospect were true it would be terrifying, but while it doesn't seem like it, its kind of... evil... to terrify people with the concept of it being true.
But also, even if the idea were to be considered that something bad being inflicted on a person will be corrected with something good in the future isn't much of a consolation, and besides, it is a prediction that may never come true. So rather than telling people to wait for the good, I'd try and help them deal with the bad and move on without expecting some compensation from the fair and well-meaning subject-to-karma world that just so happens to punish children by the millions through starvation and torturous deaths because either their previous lives were evil or their next ones will be great...
Sorry, the entire concept remains an immoral teaching no matter how you spin it... The only justification to teach it might be, if it were demonstrated to be an accurate description of reality.. And that is yet to be done...

Hm, we may just have to agree to disagree here Gist. I know you aren't budging and I still believe morality is entirely subjective. I just can't concur that there is some objective baseline for morality. Even the suffering vs. non-suffering thing isn't cutting it for me.

So, let's shake hands and just say that's that!

Since the Original Post, the term “moral objectivism” keeps creeping into awareness for contemplation. Truly, i had pretty much fired the word “moral” from my language base.

What does moral objectivism mean to me now? Can it tell me anything about my own moral basis for my conduct?

I found myself returning again and again to the three aspects of the term.

morality is objective
unchanging
universal


While Plato may have been applying this concept relative to institutions, it is not included in the Original Post.

Therefore, the concept itself rises within me in the form of a basis for an individual internal and personal application as to a way of valuing other men from which personal decision-making and conduct can then proceed.

So what is it about human beings that is not created by other men or society?
What is it about human beings that is unchanging?
What is universal about human beings regardless of race, gender, social standing? through time and now?

I ask myself.

Basic human needs were discussed in chat today . . . food, shelter, air, water
Basic human instincts: fear and love
Basic human physical associations of: pain and pleasure
Basic human curiosity and pull: to reconcile the visible and the unseen

The basis of the moral objectivism is absolutely gorgeous in its simplicity, without suffering the definitions of “morality” ,“ethics”, and who decides what for whom. I see it as a concept, a principle, a standard available to anyone for application. . . anywhere. . . anytime.

Whenever i contemplate or deliberately practice universal application along the lines of respecting and appreciating the similarities of “all humans” . . . . . . . .

empathy, compassion and love become more dominate,
differences tend to become more meaningless,
and decision-making easier and clearer

i personally am attracted to the idea of intending moral objectivity for myself over boxing up human beings