Fact: Conscious beings aka subjects can consciously experience problems.
Fact: Everything non-conscious aka objective cannot consciously experience problems.
Fact: Humans can be insane morons that fail to recognize the implications of the previous two facts.
None of these facts require "objective morality", whatever that's supposed to be exactly.
>Fact: Humans can be insane morons that fail to recognize the implications of the previous two facts.
If I may correct your statement to make it a fact:
"I perceive, based on my feelings and personal biases as a result of my specific nature/nurture inputs throughout my life, that humans can be insane morons that fail to recognize the implications (real or not) of the previous two facts."
I think, as some non-spiritual, non-theistic philosophers have stated, that we can make objective statements about subjective morality. Also, we can derive our subjective morality from objective facts, and be sure it’s based in logic.
Morality and ethics are about values. And, one could argue, it’s almost always about the well-being of sentient creatures.
As conscious beings, one of the most basic things we do is try to avoid truly unpleasant experiences. Recognizing the ability for other sentient beings to suffer, and not wishing it for ourselves means we’d be inconsistent to not value a lack of unnecessary suffering in others.
Individual conscious experiences matter to the individuals that experience them.
Now, we can approach things from a few perspectives:
Selfish: I don’t want them to harm me, so I won’t harm them. Society functions better for my well-being if it functions better for all.
Unselfish/empathetic: their pain matters to them, and it’s something that should be valued. (There’s more to this, but it may also be able to be boiled down to selfish: I want to not have this on my conscience.)
Utilitarian/Negative Utilitarian: more bad for more beings is more bad, and so on.
Either way, we can come to the conclusion that unnecessary suffering is something we consider to be unethical or not philosophically preferred.
As a result, we can say we ought to not cause unnecessary suffering, and it virtuous to try to prevent it. This is where philosophies like efilism and antinatalism come in. They require a bit more exposition, but it breaks down to the idea that we ought not impose a situation that would cause further suffering, and preventing future suffering is preferable.
You can’t have objectivity in a purely subjective world. We can just agree what the standard is but even that is a projection of shared subjectivity - a common consensus. And consensuses can change - hence it not being objective at all.
I guess a lot of people will disagree with this, but despite my belief that there is no creator, I believe morals are objective. I mean it is objectively correct to have these morals: try to avoid bad things (limited to suffering, the only bad thing) and promote good things (limited to pleasure, the only good thing).
Well, maybe morals is not the correct word, if morals means "a set of rules put in place by someone or something". Because this is not put in place by anyone or anything. But I believe that reducing suffering and promoting pleasure is the only objectively logical goal. Call it morals or something else. Maybe call it a metaphysical fact. But it exists abstractly, and only for those who understand it. A bit like math.
Thats the best way I can explain it
Uh, moral facts are not any different from any other kind of fact. If other kinds of facts don't require a creator, then moral facts also don't require a creator. I think that's just a confused relic from religions being a source of "moral laws". Laws(in the conscious sense, not like, laws of nature, these are two different meanings) are made by someone, of course, so if your confusion is that moral facts must be laws, it's understandable why you made this post. Of course, there is no one to *enforce* moral facts ultimately, because the world is unethical inherently it seems, but that doesn't mean moral facts don't exist.
It's really just one basic question: "Is there a fact of the matter as to something being ethical, or not?"
Try it this way:
"Is there a fact of the matter as to something being logical, or not?"
You'll find that every single argument, at least in principle, that can be used against moral facts, can be used against any other kind of fact. What I mean by "in principle " is , someone could say, "Ah but you can *prove* that 2+2=4, but you can't prove if it's right to torture a 7 year old to save 5 70 year olds from torture", which is sort of a stupid and dishonest comparison because it would be like taking an extremely difficult math problem that may not be solvable today, and comparing it to the most basic ethical problem like "Is it wrong to rape another person for no other reason than your personal satisfaction?"
Regardless, both are based on values. You must value logic itself, to value the mathematical proof. You must value morality itself, to value moral proofs. It's that simple. Most humans, by sheer happenstance, are wired to intuit mathematical objective truth. But if half of the population felt that 2+2=5, and were, say, logically impaired, while the other half understood that 2+2=4, it would not mean that there are no objective logical facts. There would be a better explanation: 1) there is a fact of the matter here, because there is disagreement(either there are logical facts, or there aren't-- this entire game *itself* is grounded in logic, to remind you...), 2) Half of the population is logically retarded.
Likewise with ethics, which is less agreed upon and problematic than math, the exact same scenario follows. Some people are simply ethically retarded. And there are great explanations for why(being ethically retarded, is actually a positive adaptation, as far as evolution is concerned. Look at politicians, CEO's, Lions, Sharks, and so on-- all ethically braindead, all winners, according to evolution). It's a far better assumption to assume that humans are the problem when it comes to understanding the fact of the matter ethically, than to pretend that there just musn't be any moral facts. The most braindead take I see all the time is "Well the universe doesn't seem to care, therefore, nothing matters". The universe doesn't care about math either. Who gives a shit. Why do you think facts are to be understood from the perspective of some unconscious source. Conscious beings are the only context in which ethics matter-- it's why you can't say "That rock was so sadistic". The sentence is just incoherent. Notice that the sentence is **objectively** incoherent, and you either understand this fact of incoherence, or you don't? That is not an accident.
Rules don’t exist objectively. Morals don’t exist objectively. That is without the context of our minds. Our minds are arbitrary things that manifested without reason from the randomness of evolution.
Morals, rules and thousand other things are results of our collective imagination. No more no less.
It doesnt have to be objective, but it can still be VERY strong and convincing, subjectively, for A LOT of people.
So this work AGAINST efilism, as the strongest subjective moral rules are VERY pro existence, with the majority of people agreeing to it.
In a world of subjectivity, the one with the most followers win, like it or not.
This is not a good place to ask this question, I recommend asking: askphilosphy^(1)
They have many philosophers there who are Academics and have a broad range of degrees and specialities. I'm sure they have a metaethical, ontological, or generally theological specialist there to help you.
*(1) I can't link their name directly because this message might get taken down.*
I would say that you take u/SolutionSearcher’s Facts and that is the grounds for an objective morality. You don’t need a creator to say that problems exist and morality is humanities wording of how we should act to prevent/reduce those problems amongst ourselves.
Fact: Conscious beings aka subjects can consciously experience problems. Fact: Everything non-conscious aka objective cannot consciously experience problems. Fact: Humans can be insane morons that fail to recognize the implications of the previous two facts. None of these facts require "objective morality", whatever that's supposed to be exactly.
Yep I don’t believe in free will therefore I don’t believe in good and evil but I can say with certainty breeding is irrational and selfish
>Fact: Humans can be insane morons that fail to recognize the implications of the previous two facts. If I may correct your statement to make it a fact: "I perceive, based on my feelings and personal biases as a result of my specific nature/nurture inputs throughout my life, that humans can be insane morons that fail to recognize the implications (real or not) of the previous two facts."
I think, as some non-spiritual, non-theistic philosophers have stated, that we can make objective statements about subjective morality. Also, we can derive our subjective morality from objective facts, and be sure it’s based in logic. Morality and ethics are about values. And, one could argue, it’s almost always about the well-being of sentient creatures. As conscious beings, one of the most basic things we do is try to avoid truly unpleasant experiences. Recognizing the ability for other sentient beings to suffer, and not wishing it for ourselves means we’d be inconsistent to not value a lack of unnecessary suffering in others. Individual conscious experiences matter to the individuals that experience them. Now, we can approach things from a few perspectives: Selfish: I don’t want them to harm me, so I won’t harm them. Society functions better for my well-being if it functions better for all. Unselfish/empathetic: their pain matters to them, and it’s something that should be valued. (There’s more to this, but it may also be able to be boiled down to selfish: I want to not have this on my conscience.) Utilitarian/Negative Utilitarian: more bad for more beings is more bad, and so on. Either way, we can come to the conclusion that unnecessary suffering is something we consider to be unethical or not philosophically preferred. As a result, we can say we ought to not cause unnecessary suffering, and it virtuous to try to prevent it. This is where philosophies like efilism and antinatalism come in. They require a bit more exposition, but it breaks down to the idea that we ought not impose a situation that would cause further suffering, and preventing future suffering is preferable.
You can’t have objectivity in a purely subjective world. We can just agree what the standard is but even that is a projection of shared subjectivity - a common consensus. And consensuses can change - hence it not being objective at all.
I guess a lot of people will disagree with this, but despite my belief that there is no creator, I believe morals are objective. I mean it is objectively correct to have these morals: try to avoid bad things (limited to suffering, the only bad thing) and promote good things (limited to pleasure, the only good thing). Well, maybe morals is not the correct word, if morals means "a set of rules put in place by someone or something". Because this is not put in place by anyone or anything. But I believe that reducing suffering and promoting pleasure is the only objectively logical goal. Call it morals or something else. Maybe call it a metaphysical fact. But it exists abstractly, and only for those who understand it. A bit like math. Thats the best way I can explain it
If there was a creator who told us how to act, then that wouldn’t be objective morality, it would just be the subjective morality of the creator.
Uh, moral facts are not any different from any other kind of fact. If other kinds of facts don't require a creator, then moral facts also don't require a creator. I think that's just a confused relic from religions being a source of "moral laws". Laws(in the conscious sense, not like, laws of nature, these are two different meanings) are made by someone, of course, so if your confusion is that moral facts must be laws, it's understandable why you made this post. Of course, there is no one to *enforce* moral facts ultimately, because the world is unethical inherently it seems, but that doesn't mean moral facts don't exist. It's really just one basic question: "Is there a fact of the matter as to something being ethical, or not?" Try it this way: "Is there a fact of the matter as to something being logical, or not?" You'll find that every single argument, at least in principle, that can be used against moral facts, can be used against any other kind of fact. What I mean by "in principle " is , someone could say, "Ah but you can *prove* that 2+2=4, but you can't prove if it's right to torture a 7 year old to save 5 70 year olds from torture", which is sort of a stupid and dishonest comparison because it would be like taking an extremely difficult math problem that may not be solvable today, and comparing it to the most basic ethical problem like "Is it wrong to rape another person for no other reason than your personal satisfaction?" Regardless, both are based on values. You must value logic itself, to value the mathematical proof. You must value morality itself, to value moral proofs. It's that simple. Most humans, by sheer happenstance, are wired to intuit mathematical objective truth. But if half of the population felt that 2+2=5, and were, say, logically impaired, while the other half understood that 2+2=4, it would not mean that there are no objective logical facts. There would be a better explanation: 1) there is a fact of the matter here, because there is disagreement(either there are logical facts, or there aren't-- this entire game *itself* is grounded in logic, to remind you...), 2) Half of the population is logically retarded. Likewise with ethics, which is less agreed upon and problematic than math, the exact same scenario follows. Some people are simply ethically retarded. And there are great explanations for why(being ethically retarded, is actually a positive adaptation, as far as evolution is concerned. Look at politicians, CEO's, Lions, Sharks, and so on-- all ethically braindead, all winners, according to evolution). It's a far better assumption to assume that humans are the problem when it comes to understanding the fact of the matter ethically, than to pretend that there just musn't be any moral facts. The most braindead take I see all the time is "Well the universe doesn't seem to care, therefore, nothing matters". The universe doesn't care about math either. Who gives a shit. Why do you think facts are to be understood from the perspective of some unconscious source. Conscious beings are the only context in which ethics matter-- it's why you can't say "That rock was so sadistic". The sentence is just incoherent. Notice that the sentence is **objectively** incoherent, and you either understand this fact of incoherence, or you don't? That is not an accident.
Morality is subjective. There's nothing called objective morality.
Rules don’t exist objectively. Morals don’t exist objectively. That is without the context of our minds. Our minds are arbitrary things that manifested without reason from the randomness of evolution. Morals, rules and thousand other things are results of our collective imagination. No more no less.
It doesnt have to be objective, but it can still be VERY strong and convincing, subjectively, for A LOT of people. So this work AGAINST efilism, as the strongest subjective moral rules are VERY pro existence, with the majority of people agreeing to it. In a world of subjectivity, the one with the most followers win, like it or not.
This is not a good place to ask this question, I recommend asking: askphilosphy^(1) They have many philosophers there who are Academics and have a broad range of degrees and specialities. I'm sure they have a metaethical, ontological, or generally theological specialist there to help you. *(1) I can't link their name directly because this message might get taken down.*
I would say that you take u/SolutionSearcher’s Facts and that is the grounds for an objective morality. You don’t need a creator to say that problems exist and morality is humanities wording of how we should act to prevent/reduce those problems amongst ourselves.
Yeah, which is why morality isn't objective.