What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

It does not matter what I think about slavery.

Well, thank the Lord that's true.

Slavery is perfectly natural.
For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule...

Aristotle, Politics

Would you willingly wear the yoke?

Why? Why not?

[Immanuel Can]

Slavery is inevitable, deserved, and endorsed by god.

Ah. Your god is Augustine?

Good thinking, Sculpy. Give us another.

[Sculptor]

Slavery is inevitable, deserved, and endorsed by god.

Ah. Your god is Augustine?

Good thinking, Sculpy. Give us another.

I can play thins came all day. You were wrong, you are wrong, and you remain wrong.
Your failure to engage just makes you look stupid too.
Wrong and stupid.

[Sculptor]

Slavery is inevitable, deserved, and endorsed by god.

Ah. Your god is Augustine?

Good thinking, Sculpy. Give us another.

A son, as such, belongs to his father, and a slave, as such, belongs to his master; yet each, considered as a man, is something having separate existence and distinct from others. Hence in so far as each of them is a man, there is justice towards them in a way: and for this reason too there are certain laws regulating the relations of father to his son, and of a master to his slave; but in so far as each is something belonging to another, the perfect idea of "right" or "just" is wanting to them.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

[Peter Holmes]

...your mistake is to insist that an action must in fact be morally right or wrong, independent from opinion. And you have no evidence or sound argument to justify that claim.

You won't accept any.

Two statements:

• Peter does not believe in God.

• Peter does not have any criteria that would ever allow him to believe in God.

Does it surprise anyone that these two statements are both true?

What? My assertion (that you quote above0 is about moral objectivity, not the existence of a god.

Don't deflect. Produce the goods. What evidence or sound argument do you have for the claim that an action is, in fact, morally right or wrong, independent from anyone's opinion?

[henry quirk]

Not in my opinion, no. But 'subjective' means 'a matter of opinion', not 'a matter of majority opinion'. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Indeed. So: if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?

What? Have a think about what I've been saying. That morality is subjective does NOT mean that moral rightness and wrongness are a matter of majority opinion.

Note my scenario about Joe and his kid. I said nuthin' about morality or right or wrong. I merely ask about the opinion of one bein' over-ruled by the opinion of many. If there's no objective morality to appeal to, then we're left with only opinion and who asserts that opinion most forcefully.

Surely, you see this, yeah?

As aside: what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?

[Peter Holmes]

Indeed. So: if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?

What? Have a think about what I've been saying. That morality is subjective does NOT mean that moral rightness and wrongness are a matter of majority opinion.

Note my scenario about Joe and his kid. I said nuthin' about morality or right or wrong. I merely ask about the opinion of one bein' over-ruled by the opinion of many. If there's no objective morality to appeal to, then we're left with only opinion and who asserts that opinion most forcefully.

Surely, you see this, yeah?

As aside: what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?

Well, first, do you agree that saying morality is subjective (a matter of opinion) isn't saying that what's morally right or wrong is a matter of majority opinion? Have we established that yet?

[Immanuel Can]

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Now you're a Catholic?

[Immanuel Can]

...your mistake is to insist that an action must in fact be morally right or wrong, independent from opinion. And you have no evidence or sound argument to justify that claim.

You won't accept any.

Two statements:

• Peter does not believe in God.

• Peter does not have any criteria that would ever allow him to believe in God.

Does it surprise anyone that these two statements are both true?

What? My assertion (that you quote above0 is about moral objectivity, not the existence of a god.

Objectivity requires God. But you won't entertain any evidence for God, so you're not going to find any objective morality. It's that simple. That's why you're a subjectivist -- not because subjectivism is coherent...or true. It's not. But you've got nothing else.

[henry quirk]

What? Have a think about what I've been saying. That morality is subjective does NOT mean that moral rightness and wrongness are a matter of majority opinion.

Note my scenario about Joe and his kid. I said nuthin' about morality or right or wrong. I merely ask about the opinion of one bein' over-ruled by the opinion of many. If there's no objective morality to appeal to, then we're left with only opinion and who asserts that opinion most forcefully.

Surely, you see this, yeah?

As aside: what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?

Well, first, do you agree that saying morality is subjective (a matter of opinion) isn't saying that what's morally right or wrong is a matter of majority opinion? Have we established that yet?

Sure, but it doesn't really matter, does it? One opinion, a group's opinion, a nation's opinion.

If morality is opinion, then it's only opinion (singular or multiple).

Your turn: answer my questions...

*what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?

*Would you willingly wear the yoke (be a slave)? Why? Why not?

*Why is slavery wrong, Pete? If I want to own you, why shouldn't I? If a nation, by popular vote, decrees slavery is acceptable, why is that nation wrong? Is that nation wrong? Why?

*if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?

*Let's say...the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?

[Peter Holmes]

You won't accept any.

Two statements:

• Peter does not believe in God.

• Peter does not have any criteria that would ever allow him to believe in God.

Does it surprise anyone that these two statements are both true?

What? My assertion (that you quote above0 is about moral objectivity, not the existence of a god.

Objectivity requires God. But you won't entertain any evidence for God, so you're not going to find any objective morality. It's that simple. That's why you're a subjectivist -- not because subjectivism is coherent...or true. It's not. But you've got nothing else.

Don't deflect. What evidence and sound argument do you have for the claim that an action is in fact morally right or wrong, independent from any one's opinion?

If you have no evidence or sound argument, there's no reason for anyone to believe the claim is true - and you shouldn't either.

[Immanuel Can]

What evidence and sound argument do you have for the claim that an action is in fact morally right or wrong, independent from any one's opinion?

If God exists, then creation was purposive. It has objective rights and wrongs for its existence built right into it.

Locke realized this, for example, especially in the case of human beings, but the principle extends to all of creation. Because God created everything FOR something, there is a right and a wrong kind of use for everything that exists, a right and wrong kind of attitude for any person to have, and a right and a wrong kind of person for human beings to be.

And that's objective. It's in the very nature of what each thing is. You can get it right, or you can get it wrong. But you can't change it. And human subjectivity is objectively right or wrong, to the extent it conforms or fails to conform to the moral truth of things.

But you can't be convinced of that, because you've arbitrarily refused any possibility of evidence of God. So you're bound to continue to think that nothing has any inherent value, and morality is just an odd mental game human beings happen to play, but which has no right or wrong about it.

I get why you think what you think. You've truly left yourself no other option.

[Peter Holmes]

Note my scenario about Joe and his kid. I said nuthin' about morality or right or wrong. I merely ask about the opinion of one bein' over-ruled by the opinion of many. If there's no objective morality to appeal to, then we're left with only opinion and who asserts that opinion most forcefully.

Surely, you see this, yeah?

As aside: what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?

Well, first, do you agree that saying morality is subjective (a matter of opinion) isn't saying that what's morally right or wrong is a matter of majority opinion? Have we established that yet?

Sure, but it doesn't really matter, does it? One opinion, a group's opinion, a nation's opinion.

If morality is opinion, then it's only opinion (singular or multiple).

Your turn: answer my questions...

Thanks. And you're wrong. It really does matter. Your recognising it means you're a moral subjectivist, even if you don't like the idea.

As for your questions:

1 Your Joe-and-son scenario demonstrates precisely the problem with moral objectivism. The majority presumably think their moral opinion is fact, with brutal consequences. That's what can happen if people believe there are moral facts - that morality is objective.

2 I'd guess that you and I - as civilised, rational westerners in 2020 - will largely agree on what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness, in our opinion. And I'd guess we have similar reasons for our moral opinions.

[Skepdick]

If you have no evidence or sound argument, there's no reason for anyone to believe the claim is true - and you shouldn't either.

You have no objective evidence (never mind a "sound" a argument) to believe the claim "Earth exists" is true. Why do you believe it?

I insist that you stop believing it immediately.

[henry quirk]

Thanks. And you're wrong. It really does matter. Your recognising it means you're a moral subjectivist, even if you don't like the idea.

But, I don't recognize it, Pete. Explain it to me.


1 Your Joe-and-son scenario demonstrates precisely the problem with moral objectivism. The majority presumably think their moral opinion is fact, with brutal consequences. That's what can happen if people believe there are moral facts - that morality is objective.

Why are the consequences brutal? Why is it wrong to eat baby humans but okay to eat lambs? Or is it wrong to eat lambs as well? And: in my question I'm supposin' a majority that -- like you -- believes there's no moral objectivity. They eat babies cuz they can. What's to stop them? What's to stop you ('cept personal preference)?


2 I'd guess that you and I - as civilised, rational westerners in 2020 - will largely agree on what constitutes moral rightness and wrongness, in our opinion. And I'd guess we have similar reasons for our moral opinions.

My notions of moral rightness & wrongness extend out from my view of ownness (that a man belongs to himself as moral fact), so, no, I'm thinkin' our reasons aren't the same at all.

You missed a few...

*what constitutes sumthin' bein' morally disgusting to you. And why is it morally disgusting to you?

*Would you willingly wear the yoke (be a slave)? Why? Why not?

*Why is slavery wrong, Pete? If I want to own you, why shouldn't I? If a nation, by popular vote, decrees slavery is acceptable, why is that nation wrong? Is that nation wrong? Why?

*if Joe wants to raise his kid to adulthood, but the majority of his community, his society, his nation have decided every third child is to be butchered, turned into veal (and Joe's kid is a third) well, Joe's opinion is over-ruled by the opinion of the majority, yeah?

*Let's say...the majority of states amend the Constitution to make it acceptable to round up homosexuals and put them down. Would that be morally disgusting? If so, why?

...and...

*How did you conclude I'm a moral subjectivist?