What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

To believe something is morally right or wrong just because a god or anyone else says it is - that is an abdication of moral responsibility.

Is it, now?

Well, then you're no subjectivist. You're invoking a moral principle there as if it were objective -- you're assuming we have a universal "moral responsibility" to do what you like, which is not to believe that God grounds moral obligations. You're indignant over a thing you don't even believe exists, really. Because subjectivism requires that all you mean is "Peter doesnt' like..."

And while I am not deliberately attempting to displease you, you will have to explain to me how that universal and objective moral obligation not to ground morals in God devolves upon me...with only reference to subjectivist assumptions.

So I'm ready to hear about that.

For example, you and I believe slavery is morally wrong.

No, according to subjectivism, all you believe is that you don't like slavery. That's where the power of your claim has to begin and end, or you'll transgress your own philosophy and become an objectivist.

You think there are moral facts, so that immorality exists independent from judgement. So how is the objective immorality of your invented god not, in fact, immoral?

Because in your subjectivist telling, NOTHING can be "immoral." It can only be "Unliked, right now, by Peter."

In fact, as per subjectivism, Peter could change his "liking" in the next five minutes, without violating moral subjectivism. His "liking" is totally personal, and devoid of objective force or referent in the outside world. It's not "immoral" for anyone to "like" anything at all, per subjectivism, and this "liking" has no obligation whatsoever even to endure itself.

Again, you're clearly not even able to stay a subjectivist even long enough to write one message, Pete. Isn't it quite obvious to you by now that subjectivism is either totally solipsistic, individual, temporary and contingent on mere personal feelings? And since it is ungrounded in any objective reality, you just can't manage to moralize at all, as you do here, without violating it over and over.

Give it up. Either subjectivism is false, in which case you can put objective moral questions to me, or it's true, in which case you simply cannot without violating your own claims.

Which is it?

As expected, you don't defend your abdication of moral responsibility to a god. And you don't justify the immorality of your god. No surprise there.

Easier to add stuffing to your straw man caricature of moral subjectivism.

Once again, it's been a waste of time. Reminder to self.

[Immanuel Can]

...the immorality of your god...

There you go again...violating subjectivism.

You've now declared that the Supreme Being is, in your word "immoral," which inevitably implies you have an access to a moral code so absolute, so universal and so objective that it can judge even Him! Classic.

Rationally, speaking, Pete, you're defeating yourself over and over again, and yet can't see it, for some reason. I have to think that your denial of moral objectivity is like your antipathy to God...just something you've decided to believe, in defiance of everything.

So I'm not surprised to see you make that "note to self." Your mind's made up, evidently.

[RCSaunders]

It'll be a glorious exercise in cut & paste, expansion, and mule-headedness.

I'm livin' for it.

Tonight, mebbe tomorrow.

Soon.

So, where's the, "why ownness is a moral fact," thread you promised?

[henry quirk]

I'm livin' for it.

Tonight, mebbe tomorrow.

Soon.

So, where's the, "why ownness is a moral fact," thread you promised?

I'll get to it when I get to it.

Can't believe you're that eager to disagree with me.

Ain't you got nuthin' better to do?

Might be time to get a hobby.

[RCSaunders]

Tonight, mebbe tomorrow.

Soon.

So, where's the, "why ownness is a moral fact," thread you promised?

I'll get to it when I get to it.

Can't believe you're that eager to disagree with me.

That's an entirely unwarranted presumption. But think what you want. It's no skin off my nose, you old curmudgeon, you.

[Peter Holmes]

...the immorality of your god...

There you go again...violating subjectivism.

No. There you go again, misrepresenting moral subjectivism. And why you have to do that is obvious. If morality is objective - if there are moral facts - then the invented god of Judaeo-Chritstianity is monstrously immoral. But that has to be covered up. So deflect attention back onto the whistleblower. Intellectually and morally dishonest - but the religion-show must go on.

You've now declared that the Supreme Being is, in your word "immoral," which inevitably implies you have an access to a moral code so absolute, so universal and so objective that it can judge even Him! Classic.

No. I abide by my quite ordinary, secular moral code - in which oppressing women and murdering homosexuals are morally wrong - and illegal in my country - and judge your invented god accordingly. To do that is NOT to assume that morality is objective, or that there are moral facts. Repeating that falsehood incessantly - as you have done - doesn't make it true.

Rationally, speaking, Pete, you're defeating yourself over and over again, and yet can't see it, for some reason. I have to think that your denial of moral objectivity is like your antipathy to God...just something you've decided to believe, in defiance of everything.

No, I've been consistently pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of moral subjectivism; your failure to demonstrate the existence of moral facts and therefore moral objectivity; your failure to understand that if there are facts, their source is irrelevant anyway; and your ideological refusal to accept the wickedness of your invented god.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

2 A god doesn't evolve or have a history in the way that a real thing may do - unless, say, unicorns and fairies can be said to evolve and have a history.

Fairies as ideas did evolve as ideas. Same with the God idea which evolved and still does. Many people's ideas change with time and experience. It's a mistake to throw out the God idea unless you understand the benefits of the evolved idea of God.

You yourself are so attached to the idea of God as entity rather than idea you can't see any benefit in evolved modern ideas of God.

For instance, do you understand the difference between transcendent God and immanent God?

Two different things here:

1 The idea of non-existent things such as gods, unicorns and fairies has changed. True, but they still don't exist.

2 Some current ideas of non-existent things may be useful and so worth holding on to. But not if the ideas also cause harm.

I think the damage caused by even 'evolved' ideas of gods and other imaginary things far outweighs any good from holding on to them.

Microbes, buttercups, and chairs arguably do not exist as things in themselves. They do exist as ideas.
Some ideas such as fairies, unicorns, and gods , unlike microbes, buttercups, and chairs, lack the space-time attribute. So do communism and other powerful ideologies lack the space-time attribute.

You seem to think the space-time attribute defines existence and that is the same as denying minds exist.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:



Fairies as ideas did evolve as ideas. Same with the God idea which evolved and still does. Many people's ideas change with time and experience. It's a mistake to throw out the God idea unless you understand the benefits of the evolved idea of God.

You yourself are so attached to the idea of God as entity rather than idea you can't see any benefit in evolved modern ideas of God.

For instance, do you understand the difference between transcendent God and immanent God?

Two different things here:

1 The idea of non-existent things such as gods, unicorns and fairies has changed. True, but they still don't exist.

2 Some current ideas of non-existent things may be useful and so worth holding on to. But not if the ideas also cause harm.

I think the damage caused by even 'evolved' ideas of gods and other imaginary things far outweighs any good from holding on to them.

Microbes, buttercups, and chairs arguably do not exist as things in themselves. They do exist as ideas.
Some ideas such as fairies, unicorns, and gods , unlike microbes, buttercups, and chairs, lack the space-time attribute. So do communism and other powerful ideologies lack the space-time attribute.

You seem to think the space-time attribute defines existence and that is the same as denying minds exist.

So you think chairs arguably don't exist as things-in-themselves, but do exist as ideas. I think this is incoherent nonsense, for which there is absolutely no evidence. And I think the way you live your life demonstrates that you don't believe it. It's just metaphysical delusion writ large.

What and where are abstract things such as what we call ideas and minds? If you can't answer that question, you have to explain what the word 'exist' means in the assertion 'abstract things exist'. Because they don't exist in the way that chairs and you and I and words exist.

[uwot]

According to Peter "Why is murder morally wrong?" is not a factual question.

It isn't. Murder being wrongful killing, it's analytic.

According to Peter "Why does Earth orbit the Sun?" is a factual question.

Well, yeah, because there is some reason why the Earth orbits the Sun.

If you are going to interpret one question in a "factual" reference frame, but the other question in an "analytic" reference frame without telling us how/why/when you've chosen to switch reference frames - that parallax in perspectives is precisely the source of special pleading I am drawing attention to.

It's bleedin' obvious. The way you find out whether the Earth goes round the Sun is by looking at the evidence. The way you discover if murder is morally wrong is by looking at the meaning of the word, which is some version of 'morally wrong killing'. Granted you have to establish what constitutes morally wrong killing, but once that's in the bag, you've got yer template for murder.

[Immanuel Can]

...the immorality of your god...

There you go again...violating subjectivism.

No. There you go again, misrepresenting moral subjectivism.

I can't be. It's you who is tying an objective claim of "immorality" to your subjective position. That is, unless you want to say you mean, "Peter doesn't like your God." You can say that, but it won't inform anyone of much, except your present feeling.

Moral subjectivism can never be used to pass judgment on anything...man or god. Since there are no trans-personal, obligatory moral positions under subjectivism, and any agreements between agents are totally incidental, nobody can every be indicted for failing to agree with your position. There's no moral indictment a subjectivist can make.

Rationally, speaking, Pete, you're defeating yourself over and over again, and yet can't see it, for some reason. I have to think that your denial of moral objectivity is like your antipathy to God...just something you've decided to believe, in defiance of everything.

No, I've been consistently pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of moral subjectivism

I'm actually not "representing" anything.

Your subjectivism is incapable of grounding any objective claim...that's analytic from your own terms, and I don't have to add a thing for it to be obvious.

Subjectivism warrants no universal or objective claims. Do you dispute that fact? Let's see how. If you can, then you've answered your own OP.

[Peter Holmes]

There you go again...violating subjectivism.

No. There you go again, misrepresenting moral subjectivism.

I can't be. It's you who is tying an objective claim of "immorality" to your subjective position. That is, unless you want to say you mean, "Peter doesn't like your God." You can say that, but it won't inform anyone of much, except your present feeling.

Moral subjectivism can never be used to pass judgment on anything...man or god. Since there are no trans-personal, obligatory moral positions under subjectivism, and any agreements between agents are totally incidental, nobody can every be indicted for failing to agree with your position. There's no moral indictment a subjectivist can make.

Rationally, speaking, Pete, you're defeating yourself over and over again, and yet can't see it, for some reason. I have to think that your denial of moral objectivity is like your antipathy to God...just something you've decided to believe, in defiance of everything.

No, I've been consistently pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of moral subjectivism

I'm actually not "representing" anything.

Your subjectivism is incapable of grounding any objective claim...that's analytic from your own terms, and I don't have to add a thing for it to be obvious.

Subjectivism warrants no universal or objective claims. Do you dispute that fact? Let's see how. If you can, then you've answered your own OP.

No, this misrepresents the issue. If moral subjectivism is correct, there are no moral facts independent from judgement, belief or opinion. So to criticise moral subjectivism for its inability to 'warrant' objective moral claims is fatuous. Of course it doesn't and can't.

Moral subjectivism isn't a tool that 'can be used to pass judgement', any more than moral objectivism is. They're opposed explanations of the nature of moral judgement - and more specifically, the function of moral assertions.

The actual question here is: what is the status and function of a moral assertion? Does it make a factual claim, with truth-value, about reality? Or does it express a value-judgement, with no factual truth-value, about a feature or reality?

You and other objectivists here have failed to demonstrate that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong' makes a factual claim, with a truth-value. And because you've failed to make the case for moral objectivism, you've had to divert attention with false claims and fallacious arguments from supposed (but undemonstrated) undesirable consequences.

As I've asked many times: please demonstrate that any moral assertion makes a factual claim, with a truth-value of 'true', about reality. I'm resolving to ignore your deflections until you do that - because until then, your argument for moral objectivism is dead in the water.

[Immanuel Can]

If moral subjectivism is correct, there are no moral facts independent from judgement, belief or opinion. So to criticise moral subjectivism for its inability to 'warrant' objective moral claims is fatuous. Of course it doesn't and can't.

If subjectivist claims are dependent on "judgment, belief and opinion" of the sort unrelated to objective facts, then it really means that subjectivism is based on nothing but temporary personal preference...or worse, on outright delusion. The one thing it means for sure is there's not a thing in the objective world to back this "judgment, belief or opinion." So it's not a "judgment of truth," a "belief about reality" or a "warranted opinion."

Moral subjectivism isn't a tool that 'can be used to pass judgement'...

Wait a minute: above, you call it a "judgment." And now you say it isn't that? Which do you stand by?

You and other objectivists here have failed to demonstrate that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong' makes a factual claim, with a truth-value.

We've given you reasons to think it is that. You just don't like the reasons.

And I understand that: it's your Atheism. Reality, considered Atheistically, being nothing but a contingent product of cosmic accidents, can have no meaning of its own, no objective purpose, and no real moral values. So of course you're a subjetivist -- but what you're not grappling with is the obvious fact that subjective morality really means no morality. Every moral claim becomes a mere delusion, an odd primate phenomenon that lacks any reference to reality, and this is incapable of being right as it it also incapable of being wrong.

And yet, you remain big on making moral condemnations of others. So even you are not living by your subjectivism. And that should tell you everything you need to know about why subjectivism is self-defeating.

[Peter Holmes]

If moral subjectivism is correct, there are no moral facts independent from judgement, belief or opinion. So to criticise moral subjectivism for its inability to 'warrant' objective moral claims is fatuous. Of course it doesn't and can't.

If subjectivist claims are dependent on "judgment, belief and opinion" of the sort unrelated to objective facts, then it really means that subjectivism is based on nothing but temporary personal preference...or worse, on outright delusion. The one thing it means for sure is there's not a thing in the objective world to back this "judgment, belief or opinion." So it's not a "judgment of truth," a "belief about reality" or a "warranted opinion."

Moral subjectivism isn't a tool that 'can be used to pass judgement'...

Wait a minute: above, you call it a "judgment." And now you say it isn't that? Which do you stand by?

You and other objectivists here have failed to demonstrate that a moral assertion, such as 'slavery is morally wrong' makes a factual claim, with a truth-value.

We've given you reasons to think it is that. You just don't like the reasons.

And I understand that: it's your Atheism. Reality, considered Atheistically, being nothing but a contingent product of cosmic accidents, can have no meaning of its own, no objective purpose, and no real moral values. So of course you're a subjetivist -- but what you're not grappling with is the obvious fact that subjective morality really means no morality. Every moral claim becomes a mere delusion, an odd primate phenomenon that lacks any reference to reality, and this is incapable of being right as it it also incapable of being wrong.

And yet, you remain big on making moral condemnations of others. So even you are not living by your subjectivism. And that should tell you everything you need to know about why subjectivism is self-defeating.

This is just more deflection - and you repeat crude and obviously deliberate misrepresentations. Not interested.

Please provide one example of a moral assertion that makes a factual claim about reality, whose truth is independent from anyone's judgement, and which would be false if reality were different.

[Skepdick]

It's bleedin' obvious. The way you find out whether the Earth goes round the Sun is by looking at the evidence.

No, you don't. You do it by interpreting the evidence against the axioms of your reference frame with respect to the meaning of the terms "orbit" and "around".

In the strict and precise sense of "orbit" and "around", Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. Any two (or more) body system orbits a Barycentre.

And so the answer to "Does Earth orbit the Sun?" depends on how strictly you choose to interpret the meaning of your terms.

The way you discover if murder is morally wrong is by looking at the meaning of the word, which is some version of 'morally wrong killing'.

So the same process I just described above then. Great! We are agreeing.

Granted you have to establish what constitutes morally wrong killing, but once that's in the bag, you've got yer template for murder.

You have to establish the meaning of your terms in every sentence or question. Once that's in the bag you have a template for anything.

[Peter Holmes]

'In the strict and precise sense of "orbit" and "around", Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. Any two (or more) body system orbits a Barycentre.'

So words do or can have strict and precise senses? Who'd have thunk it? And the words 'strict' and 'precise' have strict and precise uses? I wonder who decides what those uses are. Who decides that 'the earth orbits the sun' is a slack, imprecise use of those words - that that assertion isn't quite true or true enough?

Metaphysical claptrap.