All ethical/moral codes of behavior, discourse, and belief converge upon behavioral expectation of oneself and/or others.

Forget that argument. (In your previous post) It's not important, and its off topic. Continue proving your claim.

Is that an example of a "common denominator?"

If so,

How is that independent from the function of the brain?

Yes, that(behavioral expectation) is a common denominator extant within all moral belief. It is objective because it holds true, it is a fact, regardless of what one thinks about it. What we think about it does not effect it in any way, shape, or form.

Our recognition(knowledge) of such is another matter altogether. However, as I've already said, and you agreed with "Duh... no kidding!", our awareness of a thing(in this case common denominators which do not owe their existence to our minds), and the thing are not one in the same.

Gotcha.

However, I don't know how you can say that your common denominator in this case, does not owe its existence to our minds.

The subject, or common denominator --(behavioral expectations)-- which can perhaps be observed and measured -- owes its existence to the specific details that make up that common denominator which are: ethical/moral codes of behavior, discourse, and belief.

I need my brain in order to accept or create a code of behavior.
I need my brain to engage in discourse.
I need my brain to decide what to believe.

Without the brain/human mind, that common denominator would not exist.

That's my thinking.

If you disagree, please explain.

Subjective or objective? (a quote from: http://www.reference.com/motif/Science/subjective-vs-objective)

"It sounds almost like "to be or not to be". Here is the main deal about this question. Subjective means that something is not direct. That the idea, question, suggestion, opinion, problem, etc lies underneath the main argument. It is not clear but it exists.

Objective is clear as water. It is usually the first things you realize or the main point of an argument or conversation."

Creative,

Please explain how your common denominator does not owe its existence to the human mind and is independent.

Behavioral expectations, the common denominator, (of universal morality) depends on things that 'do' owe their existence to the human mind, so please explain how can it be considered independent?

Or has Creativesoul left the building for the night?

It is objective because it holds true, it is a fact, regardless of what one thinks about it. What we think about it does not effect it in any way, shape, or form.

(That's your convincing argument?)


If what you say is true, then it is Law.

However, I found your explanation (or statement) above insufficient to satisfy my curiosity about Objective or Universal morality and what it is, so I have been reading some articles on both sides of the topic and I found an article that did make more sense to me.

In search of a law that pertains to objective morality.




In short, the law is the law of causality.

Out of that law, Objective and Universal Morality is realized. (or is the term enforced?)

I do believe strongly in the law of cause and effect, (law of Karma etc.)--- and it appears that this is what they are talking about.

I have often said the same thing as you said above about the law of causality. (Karma or cause and effect or what ever you want to call it.) That,regardless of what one thinks about it, it holds true. What we think (or believe) about it does not effect it in any way, shape, or form. Whether we believe it or not, it exists and we are subject to it.

Therefore, I agree with your claim, but I had to find a convincing argument elsewhere.

Objective morality exists and is independent of the human mind.

NOTE:
I agree with your claim,(TO A POINT, within the established premise of your understanding and use of the term "mind." as being a human mind which is a function of the brain.)

Interesting Reading:

Introduction to Objectivist Morality

by Francois Tremblay


http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/introduction_to_objectivist_morality/

Snippet from article:

Good to see your interest in the topic. It seems we're still far apart in thinking though. I was a little caught off guard by your willingness to concede the use of the term "objective". Although the term "objective" is one I tend to steer clear of for reasons I'll explain here, I figured using it here would have been useful in order to help you better understand where I'm coming from. I prefer "universal" because it conveys a more concise and appropriate meaning of how morality works.

My reiterating why behavioral expectations are considered an "objective" common denominator does not bode well with my own thinking to be honest with you. We are performing a comparitive analysis. Behavioral expectation, or any expectation for that matter, is a product of the mind... necessarily so. Therefore, when using the terms "objective" and "subjective" to denote properties of different moral codes, including the objective common denominator of behavioral expectation, an unavoidable contradiction arises. You've briefly hinted upon that contradiction, although I think you've not quite hit the nail on the head. It is a thorn in the side of anyone claiming "objective" morality(or knowledge of any kind).

When using common language to communicate thoughts, beliefs, and ideas, the distinction between "objective" and "subjective" only holds good when we look at what it is that makes a statement true. If it is true because it obtains a state of mental affairs, then it is objectively true of things which owe their existence to the mind. "Her favorite icecream is rocky road" is an objectively true statement iff her favorite icecream is rocky road. If it is a fact that her favorite icecream is rocky road then that subjective state of her mental affairs is obtained by the statement itself. That can be confusing if we do not keep in mind that the statement is not about the icecream(it is not true of the icecream), rather it is about her personal tastes/preferences, it is true of those. Because that is the case, objective/subjective are properly used to denote a feature of a statement, namely how they correspond to facts which obtain and preserve truth(or not). Since statements are a part of language, and language is a part of communication, and communication is contingent upon the mind, all statements are subject to the mind. Thus, the contradiction is apparent.

Purely objective statements cannot exist.

No. That was the very beginning of answering your request. A narrowing down of things as it were. Not all behavioral expectations are subject to our mind, some are autonomous, unavoidable, and necessary in order to form thought/belief(which the mind is a product of). The important thing to note, is that behavioral expectation is a necessary part of all moral/ethical code, discourse, and thought/belief. IOW, if you remove it, ethical/moral considerations no longer remain intelligible.

I thought some more about the subject last night and decided that Objective Morality or Universal morality is not exactly a "law" like the law of causality, and it is not the same thing as the law of causality.

Instead, I compared it to your example of math to calculations. Math is a system that enables people to make calculations.

The law of causality is the objective part but it requires rational thinking (and learning) to make moral judgments.

Moral judgments can vary from person to person but the law of causality remains firm (objective.) It states that there are consequences for every action. We learn from consequences, rational thinking and from considering consequences.

But learning and making moral judgments do require the use of the human mind (brain.) It is the combination of the law of causality and rational thinking that equals universal or objective morality. It is as if the law of causality is the dominant gene, so to speak, and it sets the process or system of morality into the objective realm. Combined with rational thinking, the system is complete.

But here is a thought. Where does feeling, love, and instinct come in? Rational thinking and causal consequences alone does not a compassionate system make.

A pure unfeeling psychopath can learn to abide by acceptable moral codes through the law of causality, rational thinking and consequence, although it may take him a lot longer than a person who actually feels love and compassion for fellow human beings. His actions would not be from love or compassion but from rational thinking and trial and error of what works and what gets him the life he wants.

I'm not sure what you think that universal morality is, but judging by the material you've put forth here, those authors hold a significantly different conception of that than I do. They follow what I claim is the historically mistake path of identifying morality.

Causality is just one necessary element. You are correct in that in order to be able to make a moral judgment(deciding the acceptability/unacceptability of an intent/action), or any judgment for that matter, we employ the mind... necessarily so.

I think you're confusing morals and/or moral judgment with morality though, in the same manner as most people who think about the concept of morality. While judgment is contingent upon the mind, that which gives rise to judgment is not necessarily so. We can say the same about moral judgment.

Not at all.

My current understanding of morality is the individual's ability to make moral judgments. Not the moral judgments themselves.

Edit: Actually it is the SYSTEM that an individual uses to make moral judgments.

That which gives rise to making a moral judgment is Objective morality.
That would, in my opinion, have to include the law of causality, rational thinking, and love, compassion, feeling.

There may be other elements too.

The only thing that would be outside of the human mind, or human consciousness would be the law of causality.

If this is not your understanding, I am hoping you will tell me what you think. You are real good at saying what you don't think it is, but I still do not understand what you do think it is.

If it exists Objectively, it should be very clear.

Very good. The questions become 1. How do we identify morality? 2. What does it consist of?

Rationality is a property of the human mind. Likewise with love and compassion(all emotion for that matter). Therefore, those things, while extremely important to establishing a reasonable moral/ethical code because those things compell people to act morally, they cannot be the measure of what is 'objectively' moral/immoral for those very same things compell people to act immorally.

Moral thought/behavior does not violate morality, immoral does.

"What is morality" is the question. If it cannot be reasonably shown to consist of things which exist independently of our thoughts, feelings, personal tastes/preferences, and concerns, then there can be no objective/universally true basis from which to judge intent/behavior.

To mind, yes, to our minds no.

A mind is required for morality to interact, however the structural relationships of how minds interact exists outside of the minds themselves. Its this form of interaction that I see as the core of this argument for objective morality.

That sounds similar to my concept of a universal mind or group mind actually.

Seriously, what you are talking about here is what I have always refereed to as a group mind.

There are 'nicknames' for it.

Think tank
group mind
Two heads are better than one.
Brain storming.
The hive mind.

In a quantum sense, it is called quantum entanglement, a property of the quantum mechanical state of a system containing two or more objects, where the objects that make up the system are linked in such a way that the quantum state of any of them cannot be adequately described without full mention of the others, even if the individual objects are spatially separated.

In meetings of two or more people, a connection is created. Communication, often unknown consciously by either person can be exchanged.

I already gave a clear, concise definition of not only what I think universal morality is, but what it must be in order to be properly called such. A major part of any and all identification processes is not only apprehending what something is, but also what something is not. They go hand in hand.



If it is completely understood it should be very clear. Whether or not it is objective is not affected by human understanding.

My position is that we have historically gotten morality wrong. So there are major hurdles to overcome when talking about morality simply because in order to talk in a meaningful way, we must use meaningful terms. Doing that requires following the historical path, at least enough to be able to show where it is mistaken.

The main point of my contention(with academics) is that we have historically examined the contents of moral/ethical codes, belief, and discourse and have been calling that morality. If morality is to be held as independent of our codes/belief, then it cannot be contingent upon those. Therefore, morality cannot be an established standard of behavior. That is not to say that it cannot be used in order to establish such a thing, only that it cannot be said to already be such a thing.

Since all ethical/moral discourse involves/converges upon behavioral expectations, looking at those is in order. Not all behavioral expectations are of moral import. That is basically a given, meaning it is not a matter of contention. We expect to wake up after sleeping. That is not necessarily universally true, nor is it of moral import. Therefore, we need to perform some kind of comparitive analysis in order to determine which behavioral expectations are of significant moral import, in addition to which ones are true of each and every known or reasonable imaginable case.