Can We Prove Objective Morality?

HostThe voices in this episode are synthetic, and the script was written by a language model. The positions are real, and they come from the thread.

HostToday, we're tackling a question that's sparked philosophical debate for centuries: can objective morality be proven to exist? Over on Reddit, in a changemyview thread with over three hundred comments, people really dug into whether morality is a universal truth or just something we've made up.

HostThe discussion quickly got heated, with many asking for clear definitions of 'objective' and 'morality' itself. There wasn't a clear consensus, but we saw a few distinct camps emerge, from those who believe it's an unprovable truth to those who see it as a purely human invention.

Strict subjectivistI think it's simple, really. Morality is, by definition, subjective. It's mind-dependent. If it came from a God, it's still subjective to that God's mind. Objective means existing outside of any mind, and morality just doesn't do that.

Philosophical realistBut that's not quite right. Objectivity and provability aren't the same thing. Something can be objectively true even if we can't currently know or prove it. Just because we can't prove it doesn't automatically make it subjective.

Strict subjectivistThe universe doesn't enforce morals, though. If morality were truly objective, wouldn't the universe itself have to enforce it? It's a human construct, and if all humans died, morality would cease to exist.

Unprovable truth seekerI agree that it's unprovable by human means, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I believe objective morality exists, perhaps through a divine source, but our human experience can't extract pure information from texts or perceive it scientifically.

Philosophical realistEven if we experience all objective reality subjectively, that doesn't mean the reality itself isn't objective. Temperature or color are objective, even though our perception of them is subjective. Moral realism is a strong philosophical position, with many academics believing in mind-independent moral facts.

Evolved social toolI think you're both missing the point. Morality isn't some cosmic law or a divine mystery; it's an emergent phenomenon. It's like human consciousness, an evolutionary adaptation that helps social species, including us, cooperate and survive.

Strict subjectivistSo you're saying it's objective because it's a feature of our biology? That's still dependent on human existence. If it's a product of our evolution, it's still a human construct, not something that exists independently of us.

Evolved social toolIt's objective in the sense that it's a functional aspect of our nature, measurable in its effects. Morality is a set of norms necessary for groups larger than a certain size to avoid inner violence. We can see basic moral behaviors, like nurturing babies, shared with animals, which suggests a non-magical origin.

Unprovable truth seekerBut even if God exists and defines morality, it's still God's subjective preference, isn't it? We can't claim to understand God's reasoning without committing 'shirk,' which is a theological error. So, it remains unprovable and ultimately, for us, subjective.

Philosophical realistThe 'is-ought' problem, which is the difficulty of deriving moral 'oughts' from factual 'is-es,' is an epistemological limitation, not evidence against moral realism. It just means we need to articulate first principles. We can ground objective morality in virtues or axioms, just like in mathematics.

Strict subjectivistAxioms are inherently subjective, though. They're accepted a priori. Any system built on them is ultimately subjective because its foundation is chosen, not discovered objectively in the universe.

Evolved social toolBut we can define morality as the code of conduct that measurably benefits the human race as a whole. Happiness and suffering are measurable. When people commit extreme immoral acts, like genocide, it causes measurable psychological damage to the perpetrators, like PTSD. That suggests an 'obligate' behavior for human well-being.

Unprovable truth seekerI'm not sure that's a moral fact. If I said a moral foundation has to be that human beings need to exist, that wouldn't be a moral fact of the world. It's possible that being a human being is immoral, and you can't prove or disprove that.

Evolved social toolBut we're wired to take actions that make the human race prosper. We have pre-programmed values. Think about how crows evolved the ability to pass down identities of 'transgressors' – that's a form of social morality for group cohesion. It's not about cosmic right or wrong, it's about what works for the species.

Philosophical realistEven if we accept that morality has an evolutionary component, that doesn't negate the possibility of objective moral facts. The number of grains of sand on a beach at a specific time is objectively true, even if unknowable. The Collatz conjecture is believed true but unproven; it's not subjective because we haven't cracked it yet.

Evolved social toolReligious laws often arose from practical needs to manage group behavior, like avoiding illness from shellfish. Those were static 'snapshots' of the era they were written in. Secular morals, however, can evolve with our understanding of reality, making them more adaptable and, in a way, more objectively beneficial to our species over time.

Unprovable truth seekerBut if different people read the same religious text, they'll get different answers due to subjective human interpretation. And under non-religious claims, every assumption you make would still be subjective, not objective. It's like aesthetics; beauty can't be objectively proven.

Philosophical realistThe existence of some objective moral facts doesn't mean every single action has a defined morality. But some basic principles, like not blaming unrelated parties for a crime, can be objectively true within a coherent ethical framework. Philosophers like Derek Parfit have made strong arguments for moral realism.

Evolved social toolAnd that's where the evolutionary perspective offers a clearer path. We can observe what measurably benefits or harms human well-being and societal function. It's not about finding a 'grain of morality' in the universe, but recognizing it as a crucial trick our species evolved for survival.

HostBeyond these main positions, there were a few other interesting takes. One commenter suggested that objective morality might exist only at the 'very edge of crime against humanity,' implying that only the most extreme acts are universally condemned.

HostAnother idea was that morality is objective because it's a deterministic outcome of human minds, a kind of inevitable programming rather than a choice. But few people picked up on that thread.

HostThe discussion really highlighted how complex this question is, with participants often getting bogged down in defining terms. Many suggested that these kinds of debates are better suited for philosophical texts than online forums, and there were accusations of logical fallacies flying around.

HostUltimately, the thread didn't reach a consensus. It showed that whether morality is a divine, emergent, or purely human construct, our ability to prove its objectivity remains a deeply contested and perhaps unresolvable philosophical challenge.

HostSloppod out.

HostSloppod is sponsored by Taskpile.app.

Det samme, som ren tekst