Is morality objective or subjective?

[Terrapin Station]

My comments about this stuff have nothing to do with whether anything "matters" or not. It's a fact that there are some people who think very different things when it comes to moral stances, and they're not getting something wrong in thinking that. Their very different opinions may have no impact on anything, they might not even act on them, and they might not "matter" in your opinion, but who cares? It's still a fact that they have the different moral stance and they're not getting anything wrong in having that different moral stance.

You don't seem to grok the scale of the problem and you continue to confuse social norms with morality.

Wearing a mask during a pandemic is about morality.
Wearing pants in public is about social norms.

There's nothing inherently wrong/harmful about NOT wearing pants in public, but you aren't free to do it and if that's the hill you want to die on - go for it.

Fight for your rights! The court system awaits you and your money.

What makes the difference between whether we're talking about morality or something else is if the individual in question feels that it's an issue of permissible/impermissible, good/bad, etc. interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette.

This means that there's no behavior that's necessarily a moral issue and no behavior that's necessarily not a moral issue. It just depends on the individual in question, how they think about it, what they say about it, etc.

[Skepdick]

What makes the difference between whether we're talking about morality or something else is if the individual in question feels that it's an issue of permissible/impermissible, good/bad, etc. interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette.

This means that there's no behavior that's necessarily a moral issue and no behavior that's necessarily not a moral issue. It just depends on the individual in question, how they think about it, what they say about it, etc.

Yeah! Because all binary classification is subject to Type I and Type II errors. It's a fuzzy-match. I keep telling you this.

But of all the fuzzy lines in the sand, all the categorization schemes you can't quite pin down with your definitions extinction events are pretty damn definitive.

And I should sure hope you feel much stronger about not-dying (morality) than you feel about your car being stolen (social norm).

[Terrapin Station]

What makes the difference between whether we're talking about morality or something else is if the individual in question feels that it's an issue of permissible/impermissible, good/bad, etc. interpersonal behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette.

This means that there's no behavior that's necessarily a moral issue and no behavior that's necessarily not a moral issue. It just depends on the individual in question, how they think about it, what they say about it, etc.

Yeah! Because all binary classification is subject to Type I and Type II errors.

It's a fuzzy-match. I keep telling you this.

But of all the fuzzy lines in the sand, all the categorization schemes you can't quite pin down with your definitions extinction events are pretty damn definitive.

It's not something that people can be right or wrong about. It's a report of how they're thinking about something.

[Skepdick]

It's not something that people can be right or wrong about. It's a report of how they're thinking about something.

Which is why I've externalized the criterion of "wrongness" so that it's not up to anyone's opinion.

If you don't think that ALL humans dying AT THE SAME TIME is "wrong", then you probably don't think that anything is "wrong".

You are infinitely tolerant of any outcome. You are unbiased in exactly the most idiotic way. #YOLO

[Terrapin Station]

It's not something that people can be right or wrong about. It's a report of how they're thinking about something.

Which is why I've externalized the criterion of "wrongness" so that it's not up to anyone's opinion.

It would be your not right/wrong (in the sense of informationally correct/incorrect) view that that's what "wrongness" should be, that that's what should count as "wrongness."

If you don't think that ALL humans dying AT THE SAME TIME is "wrong",

It's not objectively morally wrong, and someone can't get things wrong (in the sense of getting information incorrect) in saying that they don't feel that it's morally wrong.

If it were due to a persons' actions I'd say that it was morally wrong. That would be my opinion. I wouldn't pretend that it's something other than my opinion. It would also be the opinions of most other people. That that's the case doesn't somehow make the majority's opinions objectively correct or true or anything like that. A person isn't getting something informationally incorrect in having a view that's not the same as the majority's opinions. Thinking that they are is just being a slave to conformity.

Also, if it were due to a natural disaster, I wouldn't say that it's morally wrong. Moral wrongness only applies to actions performed by persons. I would say it's unfortunate if it were due to a natural disaster, but it's not morally wrong for there to be a gamma ray burst or a nearby black hole or a huge asteroid or something like that.

[Skepdick]

It's not objectively morally wrong, and someone can't get things wrong (in the sense of getting information incorrect) in saying that they don't feel that it's morally wrong.

So you are going to nit-pick semantics in the face of human extinction?

Fucking idiot.

Also, if it were due to a natural disaster, I wouldn't say that it's morally wrong.

It doesn't matter what the cause! The OUTCOME is the worst possible thing that could happen to us, humans.

And if a natural disaster wiped us out you wouldn't be alive to pass moral judgment.

Moral wrongness only applies to actions performed by persons.

Yeah. For some. unfathomable reason you think it's somehow "wrong" to be murdered, but it's not wrong to die from malaria; or heart disease; or cancer; or any preventable disease.

You seem to have preference for one mode of death over another.

I don't have a preference for HOW I die, because I prefer NOT dying.

Here's a piece that just keeps ringing truer and truer.... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/ ... isk_2.html

We over-react to intentional actions, and under-react to accidents, abstract events, and natural phenomena.
That’s why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn’t. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.

That's why moral philosophers over-react to intentional murders and under-react to the stuff that actually kills 1000x more humans

[bahman]

It's not objectively morally wrong, and someone can't get things wrong (in the sense of getting information incorrect) in saying that they don't feel that it's morally wrong.

So you are going to nit-pick semantics in the face of human extinction?

Fucking idiot.

He thinks that the majority has the right to torture an individual to death if they feel so.

[Peter Holmes]

If there are no moral facts, then there are only moral opinions.

If there are only moral opinions, then there can be rational moral disagreements.

The existence of such irreconcilable disagreements, such as over abortion and capital punishment, counts against the case for moral facts. Moral realists and objectivists have all their work still to do.

[Terrapin Station]

It's not objectively morally wrong, and someone can't get things wrong (in the sense of getting information incorrect) in saying that they don't feel that it's morally wrong.

So you are going to nit-pick semantics in the face of human extinction?

Fucking idiot.

He thinks that the majority has the right to torture an individual to death if they feel so.

I think that rights are something we invent. They might have a legal right depending on the laws of the locale. Re moral rights, it depends on who you ask. There aren't correct/incorrect answers. I'd say there's a moral right to torture certain individuals to death, depending on the circumstances. I'd need more information to give my moral opinion. But it's just my opinion, as would be the case with anyone, regardless of how many opinions we get.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah. For some. unfathomable reason you think it's somehow "wrong" to be murdered, but it's not wrong to die from malaria; or heart disease; or cancer; or any preventable disease.

I understand the distinction between morality and natural events. For whatever reason you do not.

You don't even understand what makes the difference between morality and other things, and you don't care about the conventional distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, yet you're eager to argue until you're blue in the face in a thread about whether morality is objective or subjective.

And you want people to think you're not a troll. lol

[Skepdick]

I think that rights are something we invent. They might have a legal right depending on the laws of the locale. Re moral rights, it depends on who you ask. There aren't correct/incorrect answers. I'd say there's a moral right to torture certain individuals to death, depending on the circumstances. I'd need more information to give my moral opinion. But it's just my opinion, as would be the case with anyone, regardless of how many opinions we get.

The point of moral rules ANY rules is that they are context free!

Devoid of context and further information it is wrong to murder.

There are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances, duh! Just because a rule has exceptions it doesn't mean it's not a good rule.

[Terrapin Station]

I think that rights are something we invent. They might have a legal right depending on the laws of the locale. Re moral rights, it depends on who you ask. There aren't correct/incorrect answers. I'd say there's a moral right to torture certain individuals to death, depending on the circumstances. I'd need more information to give my moral opinion. But it's just my opinion, as would be the case with anyone, regardless of how many opinions we get.

The point of moral rules ANY rules is that they are context free!

That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective.

[Skepdick]

I understand the distinction between morality and natural events. For whatever reason you do not.

Moron. I understand the difference perfectly well. What I don't understand is your bias.

Why is death (by murder) wrong, but death (by preventable disease) not wrong?

[Skepdick]

That's obviously not the point to everyone. Points are subjective.

That's obviously not always true!

If you are going to keep defaulting to the exceptions I will except your exceptions till you are exceptionally exhausted to except exceptions.

[Terrapin Station]

I understand the distinction between morality and natural events. For whatever reason you do not.

Moron. I understand the difference perfectly well. What I don't understand is your bias.

Why is death (by murder) wrong, but death (by preventable disease) not wrong?

You don't understand the distinction between morality and other things if you think that death by a gamma ray burst is morally wrong.

Morality requires agency.