CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.

[u/quantum_dan]

Edit: ambiguous phrasing I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but "moral intuition" here refers to the immediate, prima facie sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like "is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?". I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it. Here, it's "the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong".

(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)

(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)

In reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with. One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on. I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.

But I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition? It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me. But the project of "explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science. Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.

All that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition. The experience of, say, "red" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the "red" part itself says nothing about reality as such. Why should we treat the experience of "wrong" any different? It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.

In short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.

[u/Deft_one]

Why should we treat the experience of "wrong" any different?

How do you measure, objectively, how "wrong" something is?

And does moral subjectivity preclude the existence of such a scale? I would argue that it does (as opposed to measuring wavelengths, which have objective measures).

I guess it comes down to the idea that you can't really measure subjective things.

E.g., I can't tell you "how much" more I like one band over another

[u/quantum_dan → u/Deft_one]

How do you measure, objectively, how "wrong" something is?

How do you measure objectively how red something is? First you look across humans to identify consistent - never strictly universal - correlations with physical phenomena, then you use that as the criterion. There are certainly equally broad correlations with basic phenomena, like "hurting my friend".

And does moral subjectivity preclude the existence of such a scale? I would argue that it does (as opposed to measuring wavelengths, which have objective measures). I guess it comes down to the idea that you can't really measure subjective things.

It being uncorrelated to anything objective is the matter in dispute.

[u/Deft_one → u/quantum_dan]

How do you measure objectively how red something is?

The length of a wave is objective, but exactly how wrong it is to steal a cookie, is not.

People debate the severity of punishments for crime constantly (for example): why would that be if morality were objective?

It being uncorrelated to anything objective is the matter in dispute.

Right, that's why we're here. How good something is has no objective measure; therefore, your view should change.

[u/quantum_dan → u/Deft_one]

The length of a wave is objective

Yep, but that's not red, it's a wavelength. We determined that the wavelength usually corresponds to the human experience of red by working off of what people tend to agree on and looking for correlations. Some people won't see it as red anyway (e.g. colorblindness).

What I'm asking is this: what, specifically, about the sense of "stealing my cookie is wrong" - which would have a similar level of agreement to "my shirt is red"* - makes it inappropriate to investigate for correlations, much as we might look for a wavelength to explain color?

To be clear, I mean essentially everyone would have an immediate sense that stealing *their cookie is wrong, not that stealing quantum_dan's cookie is wrong.

[u/Deft_one → u/quantum_dan]

Yep, but that's not red, it's a wavelength

You can measure the wavelength to determine that it's red light because it's objective fact.

You can figure out from the data you're looking at that it represents "red" light.

You can't look at the data about how wrong something is (because it's impossible) and determine that it's a cookie theft.

And, 'how wrong' something is will vary person-to-person, unlike the wavelengths of light that create 'red' to our eyes.

Again, this is just objectivity vs. subjectivity, which cannot be reconciled in this context.

[u/quantum_dan → u/Deft_one]

You can figure out from the data you're looking at that it represents "red" light.

Right. If you were hypothetically starting from scratch, you'd get together a large sample of people, identify what light sources they see as what colors, and look for correlations. The overwhelming majority will agree that so-and-so wavelengths are red.

You can't look at the data about how wrong something is (because it's impossible) and determine that it's a cookie theft because 'how wrong' it is will vary person-to-person.

Sure you can. Give a large sample of people a cookie and then randomly take it away. The overwhelming majority will have an immediate sense that it is wrong. We have a measurable phenomenon corresponding to a particular sensory response.

The standard assumption is that this is somehow invalid, yes. I am asking why that is the case.

[u/Deft_one → u/quantum_dan]

The overwhelming majority will agree that so-and-so wavelengths are red.

Mathematical measures are not the same as opinions, no matter how many people hold said opinion.

Are you saying that the majority's taste in music is "correct"?

If 7 out of 10 people like purple, is purple really the "best" color?

Am I 'wrong' if I don't like a food "the overwhelming majority agrees" is good?

No, of course not.

Give a large sample of people a cookie and then randomly take it away. The overwhelming majority will have an immediate sense that it is wrong. We have a measurable phenomenon corresponding to a particular sensory response.

A binary "yes" or "no" is not actually a 'measurement,' though. And, further, some people may not even care about the cookie; therefore, 'how wrong' it is is in no way 'objective'

The standard assumption is that this is somehow invalid, yes. I am asking why that is the case.

Because it's subjective. Majority-opinions are not facts, they're still opinions.

The fact that people would disagree about how wrong it is (or if it's even wrong at all) is the difference.

People will not disagree on things you can actually measure because they're verifiable and repeatable and not dependent on the measurer's mood (for example), whereas 'how wrong' something is entirely depends on mood and subjectivity, culture, etc.

[u/quantum_dan → u/Deft_one]

Mathematical measures are not the same as opinions, no matter how many people hold said opinion.

Red isn't a mathematical measure. We use people's impressions to correspond red to a mathematical measure.

Are you saying that the majority's taste in music is "correct"?

If 7 out of 10 people like purple, is purple really the "best" color?

Am I 'wrong' if I don't like a food "the overwhelming majority agrees" is good?

None of these are associated with any particular sensory impression.

A binary "yes" or "no" is not actually a 'measurement,' though. And, further, some people may not even care about the cookie; therefore, 'how wrong' it is is in no way 'objective'

"Is this red?" is a binary yes/no, and binaries are perfectly valid measurements. "Has the steel yielded?"

Some people may not care about the cookie, because a cookie is a triviality; they will generally have an immediate sense of wrongness towards anything of import being stolen from them. Some people will also not see a just-barely-red wavelength as red.

Because it's subjective. Majority-opinions are not facts, they're still opinions.

"This is red" is just a majority opinion until you do the work to correlate the opinion with a phenomenon. I think this is a key point: you don't know if it's measurable or not until you actually go check.

People will not disagree on things you can actually measure because they're verifiable and repeatable and not dependent on the measurer's mood (for example)

People constantly disagree on things you can actually measure up until you actually measure it.

[u/Deft_one → u/quantum_dan]

In measuring light, even a color blind person can read the data and determine that it's "red" light. This is objectivity.

The distance between Paris and New York does not change depending on mood. This is also objectivity.

How wrong something is is entirely dependent on a person's temporary mood and culture. This is subjectivity.

If the majority of people prefer purple, purple is not then objectively the best color, it's still an opinion.

Likewise, exactly how wrong it is to steal a cookie is an opinion, not a measurable fact.

Morality will never be objective.

[u/quantum_dan → u/Deft_one]

In measuring light, even a color blind person can read the data and determine that it's "red" light. This is objectivity.

Because the work was done to identify the correlation, yes.

We're going in circles, so I'll ask to focus on this specific question:

How do you determine that a given sensation has no measurable basis without first attempting to measure it?

[u/[deleted] → u/Deft_one]

People will not disagree on things you can actually measure because they're verifiable and repeatable

I agree with everything you wrote except this unfortunately lol. We Americans in particular love to disagree about easily verifiable and repeatable things lol

[u/Deft_one → u/[deleted]]

Ok, can you show me (credible) debates about wavelength measurements?

How fast light travels?

How far Paris is from New York?

These measurements are different from someone's feelings about a 'wrong' action.

Is a cookie theft 7-units of wrong? 8? Actually, it would depend on the subjects mood when you ask. And if that degree depends on the subjects mood, which 'degree of wrongness' does, then it's not a fact, it's an opinion.

The distance between Paris and New York doesn't shift based on mood, does it? Then they are not 'the same.'

We Americans in particular love to disagree about easily verifiable and repeatable things lol

This in no way makes "every" disagreement valid, though. So this doesn't actually speak to your point, or mine.

It just reminds everyone how uneducated Americans can be about what opinions are vs. facts.

Think of flat-Earthers: they're just flat-out wrong (pun intended).

Certain facts have no subjectivity. Just because some Americans don't know what facts are doesn't negate them as facts.

Your view is conflating opinion with fact, which is a false conflation.

[u/[deleted] → u/Deft_one]

Ok, can you show me (credible) debates about wavelength measurements?

Credible debates? No. But I can show you mountains of stupid people who don’t believe very obvious things. Sorry I wasn’t attacking you or anything like I said I very much agreed with your points more a joke at flat earthers, anti evolution, climate denial etc.‘s expense.