What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

According to you, I can only point out that 1+1=3 is wrong, if this has a moral dimension?

According to me? I've said nothing! I am just asking you a WHY question.

WHY are you pointing out THAT 1+1=3 is "wrong"?

Without a moral dimension, why does it matter to you that it's "wrong" ?

You're right, we shouldn't point out wrong thing. Now give me 2 million dollars, and I'll also give you 1 million dollars, so you'll have more money in the end. This is going to be great for you.

[Skepdick]

You're right, we shouldn't point out wrong thing. Now give me 2 million dollars, and I'll also give you 1 million dollars, so you'll have more money in the end. This is going to be great for you.

Lucky for you I am a self-defeating altruist who doesn't pursue individual "greatness", so lets do the experiment in reverse to your advantage?

Or... pick one of Peter Holmes' apologetic arguments on "What if I want to give away my money?"

P.S I notice you dodged the WHY question.

[Atla]

You're right, we shouldn't point out wrong thing. Now give me 2 million dollars, and I'll also give you 1 million dollars, so you'll have more money in the end. This is going to be great for you.

Lucky for you I am a self-defeating altruist who doesn't pursue individual "greatness", so lets do the experiment in reverse to your advantage?

P.S I notice you dodged the WHY question.

Hey, you noticed what's wrong with the exchange. Amazing isn't it.

And I didn't dodge any why questions, you're just one of those people who suck at English even more than I do, you don't understand that 'why' doesn't always have a moral dimension.

[Skepdick]

And I didn't dodge any why questions, you're just one of those people who suck at English even more than I do, you don't understand that 'why' doesn't always have a moral dimension.

I do understand and I totally believe you!

Which is WHY you should be perfectly capable of providing an answer to my "WHY?" question; an answer that doesn't contain a moral dimension.

Your own, personal amoral answer as to why pointing out "wrongness" matters.

Surely you can do that? You suck at English way less than me.

[Atla]

And I didn't dodge any why questions, you're just one of those people who suck at English even more than I do, you don't understand that 'why' doesn't always have a moral dimension.

I do understand and I totally believe you!

Which is WHY you should be perfectly capable of providing an answer to my "WHY?" question; an answer that doesn't contain a moral dimension.

Your own, personal amoral answer as to why pointing out "wrongness" matters.

Surely you can do that? You suck at English way less than me.

Why avoiding things like total chaos, total nonsense, and the collapse of civilization matters? If you think that's an interesting question then open a topic about it, I promise I won't show up.

[Skepdick]

Why avoiding things like total chaos, total nonsense, and the collapse of civilization matters?

The question sure is boring, but why did you load it with a moral dimension?

Perhaps you were meant to ask "Does avoiding things like total chaos, total nonsense, and the collapse of civilization matter?"

[Atla]

Why avoiding things like total chaos, total nonsense, and the collapse of civilization matters?

The question sure is boring, but why did you load it with a moral dimension?

Perhaps you were meant to ask "Does avoiding things like total chaos, total nonsense, and the collapse of civilization matter?"

Again, if nothing matters to you then give me 2 millions and I'll give you 1 million.

[Skepdick]

Again, if nothing matters to you then give me 2 millions and I'll give you 1 million.

Don't shift the spotlight away from yourself now.

WHY does anything matter TO YOU?

[Atla]

Again, if nothing matters to you then give me 2 millions and I'll give you 1 million.

Don't shift the spotlight away from yourself now.

WHY does anything matter TO YOU?

Because I'm a human, maybe this is something you overlooked, I'd prefer to live well.

Well according to my calculations, this was about 2 months' worth of stupid questions, see you sometime after that.

[Skepdick]

Because I'm a human, maybe this is something you overlooked, I'd prefer to live well.

Well according to my calculations, this was about 2 months' worth of stupid questions, see you sometime after that.

I am guessing this "living well" is also without a moral dimension?

[henry quirk]

That's where you're honestly wrong

...in your opinion...

This one is a fact, not an opinion. Just because you can't grasp that many people do actually think that way, doesn't mean that they are making it up.

outside of philosophy there are damned few moral anti-realists (truly misguided folks) , and -- once you scrape away irrelevancies -- most folks have a common root morality, one undergirded by recognized moral fact

the anti-realists, like the anti-free willies, are a clear example, and warning, to the world that one can become a prisoner of one's own navel

...in my opinion...

[Immanuel Can]

Of course everything is ultimately unjustifiable, that's just how the world works.

THAT's the point! If Atheism is true, then everything is unjustifiable...indeed, justification is not even possible. Whatever is, is good. Or rather, what is, is neither good nor bad; it simply is what is. There are no alternatives.

That's why subjectivism means amorality. All alleged morals are, from a subjectivist perspective, utterly unjustifiable, utter deceptions, utter fakes.

But now, the problem gets worse. For if all morals are simply unjustifiable, what does it mean that people still speak of morals? It can mean nothing other than this: that they use deceptive moral language to bully others, without justification, into following whatever actions the moral-language-users are advocating.

In other words, as Nietzsche said, all morality is simply a power-play. It has no legitimacy. We are on a morally-benighted plane, struggling in ignorant armies in the night. But it is all futile and deceptive. The deep truth is that there is no substance to morality, and no way to justify any at all.

No morality. Subjectivism is Nihilism. Nietzsche saw it. And now you do too.

But I think you always sensed it. That's why you were arguing against objective morality. In fact, that's why the OP asks, "What could make morality objective?" It's because the OP assumes it cannot be, because it assumes (without even trying to prove it) Subjectivism.

Peter Holmes has this much right: IF Atheism is true, so is moral subjectivism. What he's scared to do is to face the next part: so is moral Nihilism.

He chickens out, where Nietzsche boldly strides forward.

[Atla]

...in your opinion...

This one is a fact, not an opinion. Just because you can't grasp that many people do actually think that way, doesn't mean that they are making it up.

outside of philosophy there are damned few moral anti-realists (truly misguided folks) , and -- once you scrape away irrelevancies -- most folks have a common root morality, one undergirded by recognized moral fact

the anti-realists, like the anti-free willies, are a clear example, and warning, to the world that one can become a prisoner of one's own navel

...in my opinion...

the common root morality is undergrirded by our intrinsic moral psychology, not by some objective moral fact, that's painfully obvious

if anything, breaking free from the illusion of objective morality, is when we are no longer prisoner to our own navels

[Atla]

THAT's the point! If Atheism is true, then everything is unjustifiable...indeed, justification is not even possible. Whatever is, is good. Or rather, what is, is neither good nor bad; it simply is what is. There are no alternatives.

That's why subjectivism means amorality. All alleged morals are, from a subjectivist perspective, utterly unjustifiable, utter deceptions, utter fakes.

But now, the problem gets worse. For if all morals are simply unjustifiable, what does it mean that people still speak of morals? It can mean nothing other than this: that they use deceptive moral language to bully others, without justification, into following whatever actions the moral-language-users are advocating.

In other words, as Nietzsche said, all morality is simply a power-play. It has no legitimacy. We are on a morally-benighted plane, struggling in ignorant armies in the night. But it is all futile and deceptive. The deep truth is that there is no substance to morality, and no way to justify any at all.

No morality. Subjectivism is Nihilism. Nietzsche saw it. And now you do too.

But I think you always sensed it. That's why you were arguing against objective morality. In fact, that's why the OP asks, "What could make morality objective?" It's because the OP assumes it cannot be, because it assumes (without even trying to prove it) Subjectivism.

Peter Holmes has this much right: IF Atheism is true, so is moral subjectivism. What he's scared to do is to face the next part: so is moral Nihilism.

He chickens out, where Nietzsche boldly strides forward.

Boy are you are dense. You are realizing all this just now? And you actually thought that I didn't mean all this all along?

This kind of nihilism is fact as far as we can tell. Not just for morality, but for everything else too. That's where we have to reinvent the whole world anyway, including morality, as a quasi-objective something, but it has no genuine foundations anymore.

That's just how the world is, I was born into it just as much as you were, without being asked whether or not I agree to its terms and conditions. One can learn to deal with it, or seek refuge in delusions.

[henry quirk]

This one is a fact, not an opinion. Just because you can't grasp that many people do actually think that way, doesn't mean that they are making it up.

outside of philosophy there are damned few moral anti-realists (truly misguided folks) , and -- once you scrape away irrelevancies -- most folks have a common root morality, one undergirded by recognized moral fact

the anti-realists, like the anti-free willies, are a clear example, and warning, to the world that one can become a prisoner of one's own navel

...in my opinion...

the common root morality is undergrirded by our intrinsic moral psychology, not by some objective moral fact, that's painfully obvious

if anything, breaking free from the illusion of objective morality, is when we are no longer prisoner to our own navels

opinion...