Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

I agree - it's a reasonable principle, along with others. But I also think a lion belongs to itself, and so does a whale - whatever that really means. Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion. They're not facts.

Your thinking is too rhetorical and perverted.

If you use the term 'opinion' in such a rhetorical manner, then note this;

I have always argued,

Scientific facts are also a matter of opinions, i.e. conjectures to start with.
It is only that such opinions/conjectures got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Scientific Framework and System, that they are accepted as facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

If you insist,
"Moral principles and their scope are matters of opinion"
then, as with Scientific facts from opinions/conjectures,
Moral Facts are opinions/conjectures that got 'polished' up to a high degree via justifications within the Moral Framework and System, that they are accepted as Justified True Moral Facts representing their respective referent [state-of-affairs].

And the idea that they are facts - even fuzzy facts - is what leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings - or shooting lions for fun, or slaughtering whales for profit.

How can the moral maxim with the moral FSK,
'no human ought to kill another'
logically and possibly leads to throwing homosexuals off tall buildings, or flying planes into those buildings??

This is why. People who think there are moral facts think their own moral opinions are facts. Big surprise.

So if you think homosexuality or is immoral or evil, or that the USA is the Great Satan, and you think those are facts, then you can justify to yourself killing homosexuals, or flying planes into US buidings. Or if you think other species are outside the scope of human moral concern - that that's a fact - then you can justify subjugating and abusing those species. Moral objectivism is fundamentally evil.

Your morality FSK argument is specious. It assumes that moral rightness and wrongness are 'objects of knowledge' - things that can be known, about which therefore facts - true factual assertions - can be produced. Your claim that, because all facts are contextual, therefore there can be contextual moral facts, is flat out false - how ever often you repeat it. Your argument is this:

A fact is a matter of (polished?) opinion; therefore any matter of (polished?) opinion is a fact.

Do you really not understand why that is fallacious? Does it look like sound reasoning to you?

On more than second thoughts. WAFWOT.

[RCSaunders]

It is true, every individual does, "belong to himself," in the sense that he has sole authority for his own life and choices and is totally responsible for his own life." 2. It is also true that it is wrong for one human being to violate by force another individuals self-sovereignty, by harming or enslaving him, for example. But, for the life of me, I do not see how you can derive 2. from the fact of 1.

But this is the rub. Both of the things that you say are true are moral principles - things that you, I and many of us hold to - not facts - true factual assertions. In this context, the expression 'it is true that...' is only an emphatic.

The rub is you keep injecting the word, "moral," into things which have nothing to do with anything that is called, "morality," in philosophy or religion.

Responsibility only means one cannot escape the consequences of their choices and actions and if they want to evade bad consequences they must choose to do what is required to evade them. Responsible only means how you live your life is your choice and you must bear the consequences of your own choices. It has nothing to do with anyone's absurd views of, "morality."

A human being, like all organisms, has a specific nature that defines how one must live if they are to survive and live successfully as the kind of organism he is. Just as a fish cannot live out of water, and a bird cannot live under water, human nature determines the limits and requirements of human nature for their successfully living as a human being.

The primary attribute of human organisms that differentiates them from all other organisms is psychological. Just as all organisms, physiologically, cannot live without food, human beings, psychologically, cannot live without knowledge. Human beings require knowledge because they must consciously choose what they do, and if they are going to live they must provide themselves with both the physical and psychological requirements of their natures. The behavior that human beings engage in to provide their needs is called productive work. All organisms engage in some form of productive work, but only human beings must choose to work and use their knowledge to do their work.

Just as a human being may choose to do things which are self-destructive, like consuming poison or wasting their lives pursuing meaningless pleasures, a human being can choose to evade the requirement of their nature to do productive work and attempt to live as predator or parasite or an irrational hedonist seeking pleasure in others suffering, but a human being cannot do any of those things without suffering enormous damage to their own psychology or sense of personal value. What is wrong with interfering in others lives is not what harm it does to othersd, but the irreparable harm it does to those who do such things.

There is nothing, "moral," about either of those issues.

[RCSaunders]

Let's focus on that: what is the empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery?

The problem is the word, "moral." Like it or not, insisting that one explain why slavery is, "morally wrong," is a loaded question.

Slavery is a wrong way for rational beings to deal with one another because it subordinates reason to force. Human beings are rational volitional beings who must live by using knowledge to reason to make the choices necessary to live. Whatever is contrary to reason, the ultimate requirement of human nature, is anti-human life. There is only one thing that can interfere with human reason: force.

The individual who resorts to force in dealing with other human beings denies his own nature and its requirement to live by reason, reducing himself to something less than human, a brute or monster, a predator or parasite.

[RCSaunders]

... I'm just gonna live my life as if I'm in charge of it.

You are in charge of it, uwot. That is the whole answer to the question.

It is your life, you are its only authority, it is totally your responsibility, and yours to make of it all you can and choose to.

I think you, henry and I are united in this. The difference, certainly between myself and henry, is what we see as our 'moral' responsibilities to others; by my reckoning henry's a heartless bounder and by his, I'm a meddling commie bastard.

You analysis of the difference between your and Henry's view, though a bit hyperbolic, probably correct. But you have raised an interesting question for me.

How is anyone responsible for anyone else if every individual is responsible for themselves?

[Peter Holmes]

It is true, every individual does, "belong to himself," in the sense that he has sole authority for his own life and choices and is totally responsible for his own life." 2. It is also true that it is wrong for one human being to violate by force another individuals self-sovereignty, by harming or enslaving him, for example. But, for the life of me, I do not see how you can derive 2. from the fact of 1.

But this is the rub. Both of the things that you say are true are moral principles - things that you, I and many of us hold to - not facts - true factual assertions. In this context, the expression 'it is true that...' is only an emphatic.

The rub is you keep injecting the word, "moral," into things which have nothing to do with anything that is called, "morality," in philosophy or religion.

Responsibility only means one cannot escape the consequences of their choices and actions and if they want to evade bad consequences they must choose to do what is required to evade them. Responsible only means how you live your life is your choice and you must bear the consequences of your own choices. It has nothing to do with anyone's absurd views of, "morality."

A human being, like all organisms, has a specific nature that defines how one must live if they are to survive and live successfully as the kind of organism he is. Just as a fish cannot live out of water, and a bird cannot live under water, human nature determines the limits and requirements of human nature for their successfully living as a human being.

The primary attribute of human organisms that differentiates them from all other organisms is psychological. Just as all organisms, physiologically, cannot live without food, human beings, psychologically, cannot live without knowledge. Human beings require knowledge because they must consciously choose what they do, and if they are going to live they must provide themselves with both the physical and psychological requirements of their natures. The behavior that human beings engage in to provide their needs is called productive work. All organisms engage in some form of productive work, but only human beings must choose to work and use their knowledge to do their work.

Just as a human being may choose to do things which are self-destructive, like consuming poison or wasting their lives pursuing meaningless pleasures, a human being can choose to evade the requirement of their nature to do productive work and attempt to live as predator or parasite or an irrational hedonist seeking pleasure in others suffering, but a human being cannot do any of those things without suffering enormous damage to their own psychology or sense of personal value. What is wrong with interfering in others lives is not what harm it does to othersd, but the irreparable harm it does to those who do such things.

There is nothing, "moral," about either of those issues.

I'm sorry, but I think the confusion is yours.

I agree with your last sentence, but the penultimate sentence couldn't be more mistaken. Morality - moral discourse - deals with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour towards others - what makes an action morally right or wrong, good or bad. That's what morality in philosophy and religion has always been about - so I've no idea why you say I 'keep injecting the word, "moral," into things which have nothing to do with anything that is called, "morality," in philosophy or religion'.

Instead, you make contested factual claims about 'human nature' - including the unique human need for knowledge in making choices, if people want to live 'to survive and live successfully'. And those things have nothing to do with morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. What counts as living successfully - and what behaviour is conducive to doing so - is a matter of opinion, as is the claim that we should live or want to live 'successfully'.

In other words, you are either making unacknowledged moral assumptions, or you're not talking about morality at all.

[uwot]

How is anyone responsible for anyone else if every individual is responsible for themselves?

Well responsibility is one of those ought, rather than is words. I think if someone was drowning, most people would be inclined to throw them a lifebelt. I doubt many people so damaged that they could walk past would make themselves any worse, but the point you made to Peter Holmes might well be true of some individuals.
I suppose you could make a case that it is in everyone's interest to contribute to being a society of which the members will probably try and save each other, if for no other reason that one day it might be you that is drowning. But if someone was indifferently watching me drown, I wouldn't try to persuade them that they have a responsibility to throw the lifebelt; I'd just shout louder and hope someone with a bit more empathy hears.

[RCSaunders]

Morality - moral discourse - deals with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour towards others - what makes an action morally right or wrong, good or bad. That's what morality in philosophy and religion has always been about ...

That is exactly what is wrong with everything that is called morality.

You are absolutely wrong that, "behavior toward others," is what, "morality in philosophy and religion has always been about." It has only been about behavior toward others since Comte thrust altruism into all future ethical discussion and Kant et. al. perpetuated the mistake of substituting, "altruism," for, "ethics." There have been many other ethical views in philosophy (mostly wrong), including, utilitarianism, deontology, relativism, intrincism, divine command, virtue ethics, egoism, and natural rights, for example.

If an individual's own life is not the primary value, there are no values. "Others," are only, "other individuals," with their, "own lives." If your, "own life," does not matter, how does anyone else's, "own life," matter? Do other's lives matter only to others? It's absurd.

Instead, you make contested factual claims about 'human nature' - including the unique human need for knowledge in making choices, if people want to live 'to survive and live successfully'. And those things have nothing to do with morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. What counts as living successfully - and what behaviour is conducive to doing so - is a matter of opinion, as is the claim that we should live or want to live 'successfully'.

You will never find anyplace where I have ever said anyone, "should live or want to live 'successfully." What I did say was, "if people want to live 'to survive and live successfully'." If you don't care about your own life, it really does not matter what you do, but if you do care, if you want a life worth living, that you can cherish and enjoy, you cannot do just anything and have it. It is not, "just a matter of opinion," that you will die if you do not eat and drink and provide yourself with the things your life requires.

In other words, you are either making unacknowledged moral assumptions, or you're not talking about morality at all.

I am certainly not talking about what you mean by morality, or anyone else means by it today. So long as morality means what it does to you, and all modern philosophers, and all religions, morality is an anti-human ideology that can only result in individual suffering and failure.

[RCSaunders]

How is anyone responsible for anyone else if every individual is responsible for themselves?

Well responsibility is one of those ought, rather than is words. I think if someone was drowning, most people would be inclined to throw them a lifebelt. I doubt many people so damaged that they could walk past would make themselves any worse, but the point you made to Peter Holmes might well be true of some individuals.
I suppose you could make a case that it is in everyone's interest to contribute to being a society of which the members will probably try and save each other, if for no other reason that one day it might be you that is drowning. But if someone was indifferently watching me drown, I wouldn't try to persuade them that they have a responsibility to throw the lifebelt; I'd just shout louder and hope someone with a bit more empathy hears.

There is something peculiar about these discussions I have noticed over the years. Whenever someone wants to put over altruism as a form of, "morality," instead of using an example that is likely something everyone will experience or one actually has experienced, they pick something that almost surely no one will ever have, like what one should do if they see someone drowning. Is one's whole philosophy of life supposed to be based on what they might do in some very unlikely hypothetical situation?

The question is about what one is obligated (responsible) to do, but you have turned into a question of empathy or individual magnanimity. So, should someone throw someone a life line because it is their responsibility, or because they do not like to see other human beings suffer? How would empathy make something a responsibility? Doing something because it's your duty does not require any empathy, does it?

The final thing about such hypothetical examples is that they are always totally without context. In the real world, drowning people do not just happen. Why is the individual in the water drowning? Was he running from the police who were chasing him after he just raped a woman. Does he do this every week because he likes the attention he gets? Is he trying to commit suicide? Is there any risk to the one holding the lifeline? And you want a pat answer?

Years ago I used to work with some people who tried to help those who are, these days, called, "homeless." There was one, "couple," that built themselves a shack out of trash, spent their days panhandling, and their nights drinking. Somehow, with many contributions and the help of the city, this group managed to acquire an apartment for the couple, and even provided them food. It's a long story, but eventually the couple sold all the furniture that came with the apartment and moved back into their shack in the field. I was asked at another time to contribute to another effort to, "save," this couple, but I was hard-hearted, and saved my money to spend selfishly on my own family.

Other's failure to fulfill their own obligation to make something of their own life does not constitute an obligation on anyone else's life.

[Skepdick]

There is something peculiar about these discussions I have noticed over the years. Whenever someone wants to put over altruism as a form of, "morality," instead of using an example that is likely something everyone will experience or one actually has experienced, they pick something that almost surely no one will ever have, like what one should do if they see someone drowning. Is one's whole philosophy of life supposed to be based on what they might do in some very unlikely hypothetical situation?

Then remove the details which are distracting you from the point and focus on the question: Would you risk your life to save somebody else?

Say, would you intervene in a robbery?

Your wife? Sibling? Child? 1st cousin? 2nd cousin? N-th cousin? Since we are all ultimately cousins I am curious to see where you draw the line.

The question is about what one is obligated (responsible) to do, but you have turned into a question of empathy or individual magnanimity.

You are obliged to do absolutely nothing. The bare minimum of human existence is a pretty low bar. Food, water. Maybe shelter. Don't forget to breathe.

So, should someone throw someone a life line because it is their responsibility, or because they do not like to see other human beings suffer? How would empathy make something a responsibility? Doing something because it's your duty does not require any empathy, does it?

When you answer my question re: risking your life for others then you've answered your own question. Why would an individual (like yourself) risk your life to save anybody but yourself?

Me... I do it because I am wired for a righteous fight. Risk is fun! Might die helping others. But I haven't. When the kids come this will change...

The final thing about such hypothetical examples is that they are always totally without context. In the real world, drowning people do not just happen. Why is the individual in the water drowning? Was he running from the police who were chasing him after he just raped a woman. Does he do this every week because he likes the attention he gets? Is he trying to commit suicide? Is there any risk to the one holding the lifeline? And you want a pat answer?

You could ask all those questions after you throw them a rope?

Years ago I used to work with some people who tried to help those who are, these days, called, "homeless." There was one, "couple," that built themselves a shack out of trash, spent their days panhandling, and their nights drinking. Somehow, with many contributions and the help of the city, this group managed to acquire an apartment for the couple, and even provided them food. It's a long story, but eventually the couple sold all the furniture that came with the apartment and moved back into their shack in the field. I was asked at another time to contribute to another effort to, "save," this couple, but I was hard-hearted, and saved my money to spend selfishly on my own family.
Other's failure to fulfill their own obligation to make something of their own life does not constitute an obligation on anyone else's life.

Suppose it was your own, homeless child that did that. Would you have spent the money the 2nd time around?

What would it take for you to give up on your children? Wife? Family?

[Peter Holmes]

Morality - moral discourse - deals with the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour towards others - what makes an action morally right or wrong, good or bad. That's what morality in philosophy and religion has always been about ...

That is exactly what is wrong with everything that is called morality.

You are absolutely wrong that, "behavior toward others," is what, "morality in philosophy and religion has always been about." It has only been about behavior toward others since Comte thrust altruism into all future ethical discussion and Kant et. al. perpetuated the mistake of substituting, "altruism," for, "ethics." There have been many other ethical views in philosophy (mostly wrong), including, utilitarianism, deontology, relativism, intrincism, divine command, virtue ethics, egoism, and natural rights, for example.

If an individual's own life is not the primary value, there are no values. "Others," are only, "other individuals," with their, "own lives." If your, "own life," does not matter, how does anyone else's, "own life," matter? Do other's lives matter only to others? It's absurd.

Instead, you make contested factual claims about 'human nature' - including the unique human need for knowledge in making choices, if people want to live 'to survive and live successfully'. And those things have nothing to do with morality - the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour. What counts as living successfully - and what behaviour is conducive to doing so - is a matter of opinion, as is the claim that we should live or want to live 'successfully'.

You will never find anyplace where I have ever said anyone, "should live or want to live 'successfully." What I did say was, "if people want to live 'to survive and live successfully'." If you don't care about your own life, it really does not matter what you do, but if you do care, if you want a life worth living, that you can cherish and enjoy, you cannot do just anything and have it. It is not, "just a matter of opinion," that you will die if you do not eat and drink and provide yourself with the things your life requires.

In other words, you are either making unacknowledged moral assumptions, or you're not talking about morality at all.

I am certainly not talking about what you mean by morality, or anyone else means by it today. So long as morality means what it does to you, and all modern philosophers, and all religions, morality is an anti-human ideology that can only result in individual suffering and failure.

Okay. Your claim that moral discourse before Comte was not about the rightness and wrongness of behaviour is just false.

And your claim that morality in itself is an ideology of any kind is beyond ridiculous.

But since you're not talking about morality as most of the rest of us understand the term, tant pis. Over and out.

[uwot]

The question is about what one is obligated (responsible) to do, but you have turned into a question of empathy or individual magnanimity.

Yes, because as a someone who does not believe that morality is objective no one, in my view, is obliged to do anything.

The final thing about such hypothetical examples is that they are always totally without context.

Which pretty much puts the lid on any list of duties being a workable moral system.

And you want a pat answer?

I think you might have mistaken me for someone else. There are no pat answers in my opinion; that's why the law in liberal democracies is convoluted and tries to account for context, not the least of which is the empathy or individual magnanimity of the person on trial.

[RCSaunders]

There is something peculiar about these discussions I have noticed over the years. Whenever someone wants to put over altruism as a form of, "morality," instead of using an example that is likely something everyone will experience or one actually has experienced, they pick something that almost surely no one will ever have, like what one should do if they see someone drowning. Is one's whole philosophy of life supposed to be based on what they might do in some very unlikely hypothetical situation?

Then remove the details which are distracting you from the point and focus on the question: Would you risk your life to save somebody else?

It's just the opposite. It's the total lack of detail that makes it impossible to answer such hypothetical questions objectively. If you cannot provide the details of what a threat is, who is making it, what possible responses there are, in what environment it occurs, what the consequences of each possible response is, there is no way to answer such questions.

There are two other problems with such questions, the most important of which is, what difference does make what I would. Principles are not determined any individual possible idiosyncrasies. Are you willing to accept what I would do as a rule for your life? No? Then what do you care what I would do.

The other problem is, I have no interest in being interrogated, so let's quit the interrogation game and get back to discussing principles.

[If you really want to play that game, try this. A man threatens you with a knife. You have a gun. What do you do?]

I am curious to see where you draw the line.

There is no, "line." The principle is clear. One never sacrifices a higher value to a lower value. If anyone threatens me or mine and I have no way of evading that threat (which is always the first choice) or alternative way of defending against that threat (second choice), I would kill the one making the threat without hesitation or regret. I always carry. (So does my wife.)

Why would an individual (like yourself) risk your life to save anybody but yourself?

For that totally selfish reason, that there are great many people I happen to love and who are so important to me and my life that the risk is worth it to me and my life to save them if possible. It is for the sake of those I love that I would not risk my life defending the life of strangers, because I will not sacrifice a higher value to a lower one.

Me... I do it because I am wired for a righteous fight. Risk is fun! Might die helping others. But I haven't. When the kids come this will change...

Maybe. Once a thug, always a thug, has been my experience.

Years ago I used to work with some people who tried to help those who are, these days, called, "homeless." There was one, "couple," that built themselves a shack out of trash, spent their days panhandling, and their nights drinking. Somehow, with many contributions and the help of the city, this group managed to acquire an apartment for the couple, and even provided them food. It's a long story, but eventually the couple sold all the furniture that came with the apartment and moved back into their shack in the field. I was asked at another time to contribute to another effort to, "save," this couple, but I was hard-hearted, and saved my money to spend selfishly on my own family.
Other's failure to fulfill their own obligation to make something of their own life does not constitute an obligation on anyone else's life.

Suppose it was your own, homeless child that did that. Would you have spent the money the 2nd time around?

Absolutely not.

What would it take for you to give up on your children? Wife? Family?

I have no idea what you mean, "give up on your ..." They are not mine in the sense that they belong to me, like property or slaves. I regard all individuals as individuals and respect their choices in all things. Whatever they choose, I'll never interfere. If they choose to continue a relationship with me, which I know I must earn and be worthy of, I'll enjoy that relationship. If they decide they do not wish to continue that relationship, if it is not a value to them, then I respect their choice. I expect the same respect for my choices from them.

[Skepdick]

It's just the opposite. It's the total lack of detail that makes it impossible to answer such hypothetical questions objectively.

Which is why I told you to remove the "hypothetically" out of them. Real-world decision making is pretty much always done under uncertainty and with incomplete information. The scenario you are insisting upon (having all the details) is the actual hypothetical one here. Nobody ever has perfect information.

Tell me about ANY non-hypothetical scenario you can come up with in which you would risk your life to save somebody else.

You don't know any? Ok. Here's one. Sitting in a restaurant, having lunch. Car parks 10 meters to your left. Mother and daughter you don't know. Two guys approach the car guns drawn, pull the passengers out, one guy pins the woman to the ground trying to rip the chain off her neck, she resists - he shoots her.

Do you watch or get involved?

If you cannot provide the details of what a threat is, who is making it, what possible responses there are, in what environment it occurs, what the consequences of each possible response is, there is no way to answer such questions.

Sunshine. You are supposed to figure ALL of those out. One of the possible outcomes is you dying. Everything else is more favourable.

There are two other problems with such questions, the most important of which is, what difference does make what I would.

Oh. That's easy enough. If you don't do anything the other person might die.

Principles are not determined any individual possible idiosyncrasies. Are you willing to accept what I would do as a rule for your life? No? Then what do you care what I would do.

Which is why we aren't discussing principles. We are discussing decision-making under uncertainty. It's a 1st person game.

The other problem is, I have no interest in being interrogated, so let's quit the interrogation game and get back to discussing principles.

Sure. I'll give you principles. Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

[If you really want to play that game, try this. A man threatens you with a knife. You have a gun. What do you do?]

If the threat poses a risk to my life, I neutralise the threat.

If you want'a principle, I'll give you one: Don't die.

There is no, "line." The principle is clear. One never sacrifices a higher value to a lower value.

So you have just drawn a line between "lower" and "higher" values. Which is why I asked you the damn question, so I can figure out who you put in each box.

Obviously you put your life in the "higher value" box. Is your wife in the same box? Your daughter? Your Nth cousin? Which members of your family tree goes in the "lower value" box?

If anyone threatens me or mine and I have no way of evading that threat (which is always the first choice) or alternative way of defending against that threat (second choice), I would kill the one making the threat without hesitation or regret. I always carry. (So does my wife.)

OK, but what if the threat isn't threatening you or your wife?

Would you get involved if they are threatening your 17th cousin?

For that totally selfish reason, that there are great many people I happen to love and who are so important to me and my life that the risk is worth it to me and my life to save them if possible. It is for the sake of those I love that I would not risk my life defending the life of strangers, because I will not sacrifice a higher value to a lower one.

Great! Do you love your 17th cousin?

Maybe. Once a thug, always a thug, has been my experience.

If I am a thug then you are a thug. I just love all of my cousins.

Absolutely not.

So you value your money more than your children. Man, you draw your lines in weird places.

[RCSaunders]

Man, you draw your lines in weird places.

Your right! You just stepped over it.

[RCSaunders]

Okay. Your claim that moral discourse before Comte was not about the rightness and wrongness of behaviour is just false.

It is not what I said. Comte made altruism the only view of ethics, the view that ethical right and wrong is whatever is good for others. It is the basis of all collectivist and Marxist philosophy.