What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Mr Harbal, I salute you! That is genius.

You really can't seem to make up your mind - does knowledge come from books or not?

If the knowledge in your book was already in another book why couldn't you just point us to it?
You know - like I am doing with wikipedia.

Anyway, have you finished editing Skepdick? That's 13 times so far.

Lucky number! Go for it.

[Skepdick]

An objective assertion is actually a fact and so there are really only subjective ones

So there is no difference between objectivity and subjectivity?

And they are subjective because in absence of any evidence they are merely opinions

So if there is evidence to support the fact that you like pizza, then is your liking of pizza objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Here's my argument:

It's objective morality, or no morality: those are the choices.
There is no such thing as justifiable subjective morality.
There is only Nihilism.
Subjective morality is an illusion, because nothing legitimizes subjective moralizing.

Note Moral Relativism is Moral Subjectivism.

That's not a way of strengthening the case.

Moral Relativism, if one means, "What each individual thinks is moral, is," is obviously incoherent. If everybody happens to think different things, then there is no such thing as "morality" at all...just individual quirks and preferences, none of which has any special dignity or status at all, nothing that would warrant us making a distinction between right and wrong, or calling anything "moral" at all. Why bother, when the word "moral" refers to precisely nothing that is not already abundantly covered in the word "personal"?

But if one opts for socio-cultural relativism, one has not solved anything. What is true of individuals is also true of groups. Their quirks do not merit the term "moral" anymore than the individual's quirks do." And appealing to majorities or consensus solves nothing about that, either. For example, the majority of persons worldwide, as well as the majority of human beings who have ever lived, have believed things that we do not believe in the West...such as that outsiders are less human or valuable than members of tribe or country, or that women are subservient to men. Consensus is against us, as is majority; but even if it were not, consensus is not a moral dignified, because majorities can be, and often have been, morally wrong.

Relativism just doesn't add up on any terms. So if Moral Subjectivism is Moral Relativism, it's a dead dog. It amounts to Nihilism as well.

[uwot]

You really can't seem to make up your mind - does knowledge come from books or not?

Which book did you read on how to write books?

Well...oh wait, you're editing this one now.

If the knowledge in your book was already in another book why couldn't you just point us to it?
You know - like I am doing with wikipedia.

Gizza shout when you're done.

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you IC.

Can I ask that you dismiss all my points one by one? Dealing with it all at once like this is making my head spin, and I'm sure that isn't your deliberate tactical intention.

Yes, sure...do you mean, "Discuss my points just one per message," or "Do each one in turn, but all in one message?"

I'll do whichever you prefer.

[Skepdick]

You really can't seem to make up your mind - does knowledge come from books or not?

Which book did you read on how to write books?

Well...oh wait, you're editing this one now.

If the knowledge in your book was already in another book why couldn't you just point us to it?
You know - like I am doing with wikipedia.

Gizza shout when you're done.

Maybe I am done. Gamble on it.

[surreptitious57]

If other awareness of morality exists in the universe then moral values neither come into being with human cognition nor vanish when
human cognition shifts or ends

This argument is unfalsifiable and therefore invalid and unsound because it cannot be confirmed or denied and so is just superfluous
So for reasons of practicality we have to regard morality as something exclusively human less we discover evidence to the contrary
Incidentally the moral values of other life forms may be entirely different to our own and by our standards may not be moral at all

[Immanuel Can]

If that is the truth, then there is no such thing as "morality" at all. All there is are the individual preferences of individual people. Nothing about one's personal choices merits bestowing them with any such gloss of honour as to call them "moral" -- they're just preferences.

But that is exactly my definition of morality; it is merely a category of individual preferences. And that is exactly why we bestow them with a gloss of honour, because without the gloss, we wouldn't have quite the same compulsion to choose those particular preferences. This perhaps explains our difficulty in agreeing on this subject, which I seem to remember us arguing about in the past; we have differing opinions on what morality actually is.

I think that's partly true. But I also think there are some ways of resolving that.

If morality is "merely a category of individual preferences," then we need to say more about what kind of preferences we're speaking of. Can a preference be "immoral," for example? Or does the mere fact that a preference is "personal" guarantee that it is also deserving of the honorific additional title of "moral"?

So, for example, if my personal preference were for eating cats, would we call that a "moral" preference, or just a plain "preference"? Or what if my preference were for something others consider evil, such as molesting children? Would the fact that it were "my preference" be sufficient to warrant my claim that I was "morally right" to do it?

I don't doubt that calling my predilections "moral" might indeed make them more "compelling" to me. I might, for example, excuse my cruelty to cats or pedophiliac practices by way of calling them "alternate lifestyles," or even "right for me." I have no doubt that would help a cat-eater or pedophile feel much better about himself or herself...but would we, because they are personal preference, be content to concede that those were also "moral" preferences?

I'm suggesting we tend to ask more of the word "moral" than a synonym for "personal." And I'm wondering what quality we might think that is, the quality that "moral" adds, that "personal" does not have.

[surreptitious57]

So if there is evidence to support the fact that you like pizza then is your liking of pizza objective or subjective ?

Subjective because you cannot actually get evidence from first person subjective interpretation
And also because it is entirely subjective my opinion about it could change anytime in the future

[uwot]

Why does it even matter whether this is red, or this is red?

When you are ready to commit yourself to an answer let me know.

To be honest, I couldn't care less what anyone calls red or blue. As you intimate, it doesn't matter. Killing people, on the other hand, matters a great deal, so it's a bit rich of you to accuse me of trivialising things.

Now all ya gotta do is show that everyone objects to the same examples of killing another person, and we can wrap up this thread.

Yeah! I guess the shape of the Earth isnt' going to become round until we convince ALL of the flat-earthers.

I see. You think you can demonstrate that murder is wrong in some way analogous to flying to the Moon and taking a photo of a spherical Earth. Okie-dokie, let's see that picture.

[Harbal]

Do you recognise anybody's perspective as objective?

Well of course I don't. "Personal perspective" is more or less the definition of subjectivity. If they hold an opinion regardless of their personal perspective, that would be an objective opinion. "I like the colour blue" is a subjective opinion. "Donald Trump is a compulsive liar" is an objective opinion. Blue is only the best colour because I say it is, but Donald Trump is a liar because it isn't possible to come to any other conclusion, regardless of personal perspective.

You seem to be arguing against the existence of objectivity!

That's because you are interpreting my words subjectively.

You believe that there exists a choice between objectivity and subjectivity.

Both are arbitrary concepts, but we also have rules regarding what may be placed in either category. I am following what I understand to be those rules.

You've chosen subjectivity over objectivity.

When I used to take my son to watch football, we both chose to give our allegiance to Sheffield Wednesday, rather than Sheffield United. It is more or less a criminal offence in Sheffield to support both. It doesn't really work like that with subjectivity and objectivity.

Me and Wittgenstein both. Don't look at my words - look at the thing they are pointing at.

But at least with Wittgenstein it was possible to get a sense of what he was pointing at.

All the points you are objecting to are ones that I haven't made.

[surreptitious57]

does knowledge come from books or not ?

Knowledge can certainly be found in books but it does not come from them
Rather it comes from empiricism and logic that the are bases for knowledge

[Skepdick]

Subjective because you cannot actually get evidence from first person subjective interpretation

Then don't get evidence from first person. Make your preferences testable and get evidence from third person.

And also because it is entirely subjective my opinion about it could change anytime in the future

And if your opinion never changes does it mean that it never was "entirely subjective" ?

[Immanuel Can]

If other awareness of morality exists in the universe then moral values neither come into being with human cognition nor vanish when
human cognition shifts or ends

This argument is unfalsifiable and therefore invalid and unsound because it cannot be confirmed or denied...

I disagree. I think it's both verifiable and falsifiable.

It's verifiable, because any genuine evidence for God at all counts for the claim, "God exists." So one genuine creation, one divine law, one miracle, one intervention, one revelation, one incarnation, one resurrection, one prayer answered, one vision seen, one divine judgment...one, just one, anywhere, anytime -- if any one, even one of these were genuine...then we would have certain reason to believe in the existence of God. That's verification.

What would falsification look like? That's slightly harder, but I think it works this way. If there were none of the above, not even one, and if there were thus no indications in any part of human history of God existing, then we might not be given full falsification, but we would at least have warrant in saying, "If there is a God, then He's a matter of no relevance to human beings." After all, in that case he would not be the creator, he's not going to intervene, there are no miracles, prayers are never answered...etc....and God won't be showing up in the future either. And if we knew that was all true, then a rational Theist would have to concede that it made no difference whether or not God existed, so the question was truly moot.

But back to the implications of this for morality. If God exists, one thing follows; if He does not, then another does. That's very straightforward, and I've shown that already, in the message you cite. If there were humans on Mars, we wouldn't say that morality depended only on Earth-bound humans. If there were morally-conscious aliens on Mars, we would know for sure that their moral awareness would continue, even if Earth itself, and all humans, blew up. Likewise, if God exists, then what He knows about morality is not dependent on humans.

The question is this, though: can we make a case for God existing, and how strong is that case relative to any case for God not existing? Clearly we can make a case for God...and I gave Peter what I think is the best current available resource to prove that's true. So a case can be made, even if we were to decide we didn't want to believe it.

Can an equally-weighty case be made to defend the proposition, "There is no God"?

If not, then on balance, we're better to remain open to the possibility, at least, that God exists. For we would have to admit that while the statement "There is a God" is capable of evidence and reasons, the statement "There is no God" is considerably weaker, and considerably more problematic, and perhaps not defensible at all.

That is, unless perhaps you have a new argument against the existence of God, which I'd love to see, if you have one. I'm up for a new challenge on that.

[Skepdick]

Well of course I don't.

Then what does the word "objectivity" mean when you claim that there exists a distinction between the "objective" and "subjective"?

"Personal perspective" is more or less the definition of subjectivity.

Since you are using the adjective 'personal" to describe perspectives, I assume there some other kinds of perspectives you are familiar with.

Can you give me an example of a non-personal perspective?

If they hold an opinion regardless of their personal perspective, that would be an objective opinion.

So let me make sure I understand what you are saying.

You don't recognize any perspective as objective, but you do recognise some opinions as objective.

Is that correct?

"I like the colour blue" is a subjective opinion.

It's not A subjective opinion. It's YOUR subjective opinion that you like the color blue.

It is my objective opinion that you like the color blue.

Your liking of the color blue is an objective fact, despite your subjective opinion.

"Donald Trump is a compulsive liar" is an objective opinion. Blue is only the best colour because I say it is, but Donald Trump is a liar because it isn't possible to come to any other conclusion, regardless of personal perspective.

That's a double standard right there.

It's impossible for you to come to any other conclusion except "blue is the best color" - according to you that's subjective.
It's impossible for you to come to any other conclusion except "Donald trump is a lier" - according to you that's objective.

It also appears to confirm my hypothesis. Liking and lying are both verbs.

What you are calling a "subjective opinion" is an opinion about things you do (you like blue)
What you are calling "objective opinion" is an opinion about what other people do (Donald Trump lies).

But they are both still opinions.

That's because you are interpreting my words subjectively.

Strawman. I have suspended my judgment/interpretation.

That is why I am asking you to give me an example of something you consider objective; or somebody whose perspective you consider.

So far you are leaving me with the impression that you don't have any such examples, and so I am sceptical about your belief in objectivity.

Both are arbitrary concepts, but we also have rules regarding what may be placed in either category. I am following what I understand to be those rules.

That's an appeal to authority. What legitimises those rules?

When I used to take my son to watch football, we both chose to give our allegiance to Sheffield Wednesday, rather than Sheffield United. It is more or less a criminal offence in Sheffield to support both. It doesn't really work like that with subjectivity and objectivity.

Great! I am asking you to tell me how it works.

But at least with Wittgenstein it was possible to get a sense of what he was pointing at.

All the points you are objecting to are ones that I haven't made.

What I am pointing out is the artificial boundary - the dividing line between your concepts of "objectivity" and "subjectivity", and how choosing different rules would result in a different classification scheme.

I am pointing at Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox.

How would you know if you are following the rules for "subjectivity" and "objectivity" incorrectly if you don't have a concept for "incorrectness"?