What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

You either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent moral subjectivism.

I have repeatedly implored you to show me how subjectivism can possibly mean more than "Peter, at this moment, doesn't like X." But so far, you've given no reason at all to believe subjectivism is anything but closeted nihilism.

You can't show that morality is objective - that there are moral facts - so you have no positive reponse to my OP question.

Well, we'll see. But what we see for certain right now is that your OP question was misleading. It asks, "What could make morality objective," AS IF MORALITY COULD BE ANYTHING ELSE.

We now see that it can't: it can be objective or nothing. So I will ask again,

Are you willing to be a nihilist? The question is sincere: I want to know what rationally coherent position you want to hold. And anyone can see that subjectivism is an incoherent, impossible one.

And, before you say it, I'm not saying objectivism wins on negation. You can be a nihilist, for one thing.

Let's try this: do you at long last agree that you can't demonstrate the objectivity of morality? That nothing could make morality objective, because a moral assertion expresses a value-judgement, and doesn't make a factual claim?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's try this: do you at long last agree that you can't demonstrate the objectivity of morality?

Not at all. The truth is simply that I have not been allowed to try: my interlocutor has insisted that he will accept nothing at all to be any kind of "demonstration."

But what is your answer to my question? Will you be a nihilist?

[Peter Holmes]

Let's try this: do you at long last agree that you can't demonstrate the objectivity of morality?

Not at all. The truth is simply that I have not been allowed to try: my interlocutor has insisted that he will accept nothing at all to be any kind of "demonstration."

But what is your answer to my question? Will you be a nihilist?

So, we've yet to see your demonstration that morality is objective. You've offered no evidence, plus an unsound argument involving an invented god.

What do you mean - you've not been allowed to try? Don't be faux pathetic. Just bloody-well do it. You don't need anyone's permission. (Hint: 'If X is contrary to God's will, then X is morally wrong' doesn't follow.)

And moral subjectivism has nothing to do with moral nihilism, so your question is stupid - and anyway, irrelevant.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's try this: do you at long last agree that you can't demonstrate the objectivity of morality?

Not at all. The truth is simply that I have not been allowed to try: my interlocutor has insisted that he will accept nothing at all to be any kind of "demonstration."

But what is your answer to my question? Will you be a nihilist?

So, we've yet to see your demonstration that morality is objective.

You won't agree to any. Heck, I've even let you specify what it should look like. I can't possibly be more accommodating. But how can I give you what you absolutely refuse to take?

And moral subjectivism has nothing to do with moral nihilism,

Show that, then. Blow my objection to pieces. It should be dead easy to do, if you're right.

Show how "X is immoral" can mean anything more than "Peter doesn't, at this moment, happen to like X," without relying on any objectivist assumptions.

If you can't do it, then, are you willing to be a nihilist? Because those are your only remaining alternatives.

[Peter Holmes]

Not at all. The truth is simply that I have not been allowed to try: my interlocutor has insisted that he will accept nothing at all to be any kind of "demonstration."

But what is your answer to my question? Will you be a nihilist?

So, we've yet to see your demonstration that morality is objective.

You won't agree to any. Heck, I've even let you specify what it should look like. I can't possibly be more accommodating. But how can I give you what you absolutely refuse to take?

And moral subjectivism has nothing to do with moral nihilism,

Show that, then. Blow my objection to pieces. It should be dead easy to do, if you're right.

Show how "X is immoral" can mean anything more than "Peter doesn't, at this moment, happen to like X," without relying on any objectivist assumptions.

If you can't do it, then, are you willing to be a nihilist? Because those are your only remaining alternatives.

We await your demonstration that morality is objective. You offered 'incest is morally wrong' as a gotcha moral fact, and I showed you why it isn't a fact. And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

Notice: I'll be cutting and pasting the above in response to any post of yours that fails to offer anything new.

[Belinda]

So, we've yet to see your demonstration that morality is objective.

You won't agree to any. Heck, I've even let you specify what it should look like. I can't possibly be more accommodating. But how can I give you what you absolutely refuse to take?

And moral subjectivism has nothing to do with moral nihilism,

Show that, then. Blow my objection to pieces. It should be dead easy to do, if you're right.

Show how "X is immoral" can mean anything more than "Peter doesn't, at this moment, happen to like X," without relying on any objectivist assumptions.

If you can't do it, then, are you willing to be a nihilist? Because those are your only remaining alternatives.

We await your demonstration that morality is objective. You offered 'incest is morally wrong' as a gotcha moral fact, and I showed you why it isn't a fact. And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

Notice: I'll be cutting and pasting the above in response to any post of yours that fails to offer anything new.

Immanuel Can will not detach himself from his faith God revealed good and evil mediated by The Bible.

[Peter Holmes]

You won't agree to any. Heck, I've even let you specify what it should look like. I can't possibly be more accommodating. But how can I give you what you absolutely refuse to take?


Show that, then. Blow my objection to pieces. It should be dead easy to do, if you're right.

Show how "X is immoral" can mean anything more than "Peter doesn't, at this moment, happen to like X," without relying on any objectivist assumptions.

If you can't do it, then, are you willing to be a nihilist? Because those are your only remaining alternatives.

We await your demonstration that morality is objective. You offered 'incest is morally wrong' as a gotcha moral fact, and I showed you why it isn't a fact. And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

Notice: I'll be cutting and pasting the above in response to any post of yours that fails to offer anything new.

Immanuel Can will not detach himself from his faith God revealed good and evil mediated by The Bible.

You may be right, Belinda. But people increasingly do lose their faith, as rational skepticism takes over and the power of institutional religions declines - so we can't be sure she's permanently damaged.

What we can do is refute arguments for the existence of gods, and expose the foot-shooting folly of arguing from moral objectivity to a god's existence.

[Immanuel Can]

We await your demonstration that morality is objective.

Actually, no, you don't: you don't "await," you refuse to accept anything as a demonstration that morality is objective. No line of argument can possibly beat that strategy...but it's the strategy that is at fault, not the argument.

As for subjectivism, you offer no defence of it at all to show that it can mean more than "Peter doesn't happen to like X, at this moment." Thus, subjectivism is revealed as nihilism -- subjectivism is like jumping off a logical cliff, and trying to stop half way down. If you are being rational, you're going to "hit the ground" at nihilism, the minute you say "morality cannot be objective."

Are you prepared to be a nihilist? Again, you won't say. It seems you want to remain floating in illogical space, believing both that morality is in some sense "real" or "universal," and at the same time as trivial as a momentary whim. How can that work?

So here's the summary:

1. Peter claims morality is not objective.
2. Peter insists there are, and can be, no demonstrations to show that it is objective. Then he objects that he hasn't received any.
3. Peter believes subjectivism is true (i.e. that all morality is a momentary personal whim of his).
4. Peter has no stopper for ending up at nihilism, but doesn't want to be a nihilist.

[Peter Holmes]

We await your demonstration that morality is objective.

Actually, no, you don't: you don't "await," you refuse to accept anything as a demonstration that morality is objective. No line of argument can possibly beat that strategy...but it's the strategy that is at fault, not the argument.

As for subjectivism, you offer no defence of it at all to show that it can mean more than "Peter doesn't happen to like X, at this moment." Thus, subjectivism is revealed as nihilism -- subjectivism is like jumping off a logical cliff, and trying to stop half way down. If you are being rational, you're going to "hit the ground" at nihilism, the minute you say "morality cannot be objective."

Are you prepared to be a nihilist? Again, you won't say. It seems you want to remain floating in illogical space, believing both that morality is in some sense "real" or "universal," and at the same time as trivial as a momentary whim. How can that work?

So here's the summary:

1. Peter claims morality is not objective.
2. Peter insists there are, and can be, no demonstrations to show that it is objective. Then he objects that he hasn't received any.
3. Peter believes subjectivism is true (i.e. that all morality is a momentary personal whim of his).
4. Peter has no stopper for ending up at nihilism, but doesn't want to be a nihilist.

We await your demonstration that morality is objective - that there are moral facts.

You offered 'incest is morally wrong' as a gotcha moral fact, and I showed you why it isn't a fact - and wouldn't be a fact even if incest were contrary to the will of god that actually did exist.

And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

[Immanuel Can]

We await your demonstration that morality is objective.

Actually, no, you don't: you don't "await," you refuse to accept anything as a demonstration that morality is objective. No line of argument can possibly beat that strategy...but it's the strategy that is at fault, not the argument.

As for subjectivism, you offer no defence of it at all to show that it can mean more than "Peter doesn't happen to like X, at this moment." Thus, subjectivism is revealed as nihilism -- subjectivism is like jumping off a logical cliff, and trying to stop half way down. If you are being rational, you're going to "hit the ground" at nihilism, the minute you say "morality cannot be objective."

Are you prepared to be a nihilist? Again, you won't say. It seems you want to remain floating in illogical space, believing both that morality is in some sense "real" or "universal," and at the same time as trivial as a momentary whim. How can that work?

So here's the summary:

1. Peter claims morality is not objective.
2. Peter insists there are, and can be, no demonstrations to show that it is objective. Then he objects that he hasn't received any.
3. Peter believes subjectivism is true (i.e. that all morality is a momentary personal whim of his).
4. Peter has no stopper for ending up at nihilism, but doesn't want to be a nihilist.

We await your demonstration that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

You won't accept any demonstration. You've already said so.
Meanwhile, throwing a meaningless pejorative at a rational argument won't make it go away.

Are you a nihilist?

[Peter Holmes]

Actually, no, you don't: you don't "await," you refuse to accept anything as a demonstration that morality is objective. No line of argument can possibly beat that strategy...but it's the strategy that is at fault, not the argument.

As for subjectivism, you offer no defence of it at all to show that it can mean more than "Peter doesn't happen to like X, at this moment." Thus, subjectivism is revealed as nihilism -- subjectivism is like jumping off a logical cliff, and trying to stop half way down. If you are being rational, you're going to "hit the ground" at nihilism, the minute you say "morality cannot be objective."

Are you prepared to be a nihilist? Again, you won't say. It seems you want to remain floating in illogical space, believing both that morality is in some sense "real" or "universal," and at the same time as trivial as a momentary whim. How can that work?

So here's the summary:

1. Peter claims morality is not objective.
2. Peter insists there are, and can be, no demonstrations to show that it is objective. Then he objects that he hasn't received any.
3. Peter believes subjectivism is true (i.e. that all morality is a momentary personal whim of his).
4. Peter has no stopper for ending up at nihilism, but doesn't want to be a nihilist.

We await your demonstration that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

You won't accept any demonstration. You've already said so.
Meanwhile, throwing a meaningless pejorative at a rational argument won't make it go away.

Are you a nihilist?

We await your demonstration that morality is objective - that there are moral facts. And the claim that I refuse to accept any demonstration is a lie.

You offered 'incest is morally wrong' as a gotcha moral fact, and I showed you why it isn't a fact - and wouldn't be a fact even if incest were contrary to the actual will of a god that actually exists.

And your attempt to deflect attention from your failure to establish moral objectivity by attacking moral subjectivity is pathetic.

[Skepdick]

If you want to ask me a question about any idea, I'll be glad to answer.

If you want to interrogate me about anything personal, as though I were on trial, forget it. It's just none of your business.

The only thing you are "on trial" for is pretending your heritage/culture/circumstances didn't play a role in who you have become.

Yet here you are - speaking a language you didn't invent.

[Skepdick]

SNB

Still not bothering.

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

[Immanuel Can]

And the claim that I refuse to accept any demonstration is a lie.

Great! What will you accept?

[Immanuel Can]

SNB

Still not bothering.

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

Me transmisi sursum, Caledoni.