Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Not all value judgments or preferences are moral.

No shit.

The good ones are moral.
The rest are immoral.

How are you so smart/knowledgeable about some stuff but so clueless about this?

Value judgments about interpersonal behavior (that (a) one thinks are more significant than etiquette and (b) that one is saying are acceptable/unacceptable, permissible/impermissible, recommendable/not recommendable, etc.) are moral judgments, regardless of what the evaluation is.

So:

"It is good to help an elderly person with mobility issues across the street" is a moral judgment (as long as it meets criterion (a) for the person in question)

and

"It is bad to commit murder" is a moral judgment, too. The fact that we're saying it's bad doesn't make it not a moral judgment.

But:

"That donut is good"

and

"That painting is bad"

are not moral judgments, because they don't have anything to do with interpersonal behavior.

"Good" doesn't indicate that something is a moral judgment. "Good" is only a moral judgment when it has to do with interpersonal behavior (as explained above).

You are scrambling to muddy the waters because you got caught with your pants down.

The statement "I think a donut is good" is not equivalent to a statement to "I believe X for good reasons".

The goodness of the belief is in the method of its making, not in the belief itself.
The goodness of the donut is in the eating, not in the method of its making it.

[Terrapin Station]

If we're making a "moral/immoral" distinction, the context is that we're talking about evaluations of interpersonal behavior.

When we say that something is a moral judgment, we're not saying that we're judging it to be permissible morally. We're saying that we're making a value judgment about interpersonal behavior.

It's similar to how "classical" refers to both an entire genre and to a specific historical/stylistic period within that genre. The context tells you which sense is being used.

[Skepdick]

If we're making a "moral/immoral" distinction, the context is that we're talking about evaluations of interpersonal behavior.

When we say that something is a moral judgment, we're not saying that we're judging it to be permissible morally. We're saying that we're making a value judgment about interpersonal behavior.

It's similar to how "classical" refers to both an entire genre and to a specific historical/stylistic period within that genre. The context tells you which sense is being used.

Goodness of beliefs is a judgment of inter-personal behaviour.

I don't fucking like your beliefs. They are immoral.

[Terrapin Station]

The statement "I think a donut is good" is not equivalent to a statement to "I believe X for good reasons".

The "good" part is similar in that it's an evaluation. Neither is a moral evaluation.

Why anything is good or not is subjective. There's not any set of characteristics that's going to work for every single person.

[Skepdick]

The "good" part is similar in that it's an evaluation. Neither is a moral evaluation.

Why anything is good or not is subjective. There's not any set of characteristics that's going to work for every single person.

Confused child.

Your abstract beliefs lead to concrete actions.

IF your actions are immoral, then the beliefs which caused them are NOT good. The goodness (or badness) of your beliefs IS a moral judgment.

Otherwise, you are just affirming the beliefs you already have. My beliefs are good. AAAAAH! *fap*fap*fap* <insert own penis in own ass for greater self-gratification>

[Terrapin Station]

The "good" part is similar in that it's an evaluation. Neither is a moral evaluation.

Why anything is good or not is subjective. There's not any set of characteristics that's going to work for every single person.

Confused child.

Your abstract beliefs lead to concrete actions.

IF your actions are immoral, then the beliefs which caused them are NOT good. The goodness (or badness) of your beliefs IS a moral judgment.

Otherwise, you are just affirming the beliefs you already have. My beliefs are good. AAAAAH! *fap*fap*fap*

You might evaluate all beliefs to be good/bad morally, but that wouldn't make much sense without a lot of explanation unless you were connecting beliefs to interpersonal behavior (which can include the behavior or one towards oneself) that you consider to be more significant than etiquette.

On my view, most beliefs have nothing to do with morality. And most actions have nothing to do with morality on my view, too.

If it wasn't clear with respect to what I said above, whether anything counts as moral to someone or not (that is, whether they think it's permissible/impermissible, etc. re behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette) is subjective. It would be very unusual to parse all beliefs and/or actions morally, but maybe you're an example of someone very unusual in that regard. (Not that there's anything wrong with being very unusual. I'm very unusual when it comes to some things, too.)

[Skepdick]

You might evaluate all beliefs to be good/bad morally, but that wouldn't make much sense without a lot of explanation unless you were connecting beliefs to interpersonal behavior (which can include the behavior or one towards oneself) that you consider to be more significant than etiquette.

On my view, most beliefs have nothing to do with morality.

If it wasn't clear with respect to what I said above, whether anything counts as moral to someone or not (that is, whether they think it's permissible/impermissible, etc. re behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette) is subjective.

Horseshit. Even by the standards you established.

If this was a monologue between yourself and your reflection in the mirror while you are busy choking your monkey, then you can tell yourself the story that you are just making qualitative assertions about your own beliefs.

But the context you are participating in right now is a dialogue, not a monologue. So you are not making qualitative assertions about your own beliefs.

You are making moral claims about beliefs. You are distinguishing good from bad beliefs.

[Terrapin Station]

You might evaluate all beliefs to be good/bad morally, but that wouldn't make much sense without a lot of explanation unless you were connecting beliefs to interpersonal behavior (which can include the behavior or one towards oneself) that you consider to be more significant than etiquette.

On my view, most beliefs have nothing to do with morality.

If it wasn't clear with respect to what I said above, whether anything counts as moral to someone or not (that is, whether they think it's permissible/impermissible, etc. re behavior that they consider more significant than etiquette) is subjective.

Horseshit. Even by the standards you established.

If this was a monologue between yourself and your reflection in the mirror while you are busy choking your monkey, then you can tell yourself the story that you are just making qualitative assertions about your own beliefs.

But the context you are participating in right now is a dialogue, not a monologue. So you are not making qualitative assertions about your own beliefs.

You are making moral claims about beliefs. You are distinguishing good from bad beliefs.

On my view there are no morally good or bad beliefs per se.

Certainly a lot of people feel there are morally good or bad beliefs, but I don't feel the same way about that.

[Skepdick]

On my view there are no morally good or bad beliefs per se.

Certainly a lot of people feel there are morally good or bad beliefs, but I don't feel the same way about that.

Then why do you feel the need to use the adjective "good" if there's no qualitative distinction to be drawn between beliefs?

[Terrapin Station]

On my view there are no morally good or bad beliefs per se.

Certainly a lot of people feel there are morally good or bad beliefs, but I don't feel the same way about that.

Then why do you feel the need to use the adjective "good" if there's no qualitative distinction to be drawn between beliefs?

Didn't I just explain that "good" there had nothing to do with morality?

[Skepdick]

Didn't I just explain that "good" there had nothing to do with morality?

Context error.

[Terrapin Station]

Didn't I just explain that "good" there had nothing to do with morality?

Context error.

Yes, you made a context error when you read what I wrote, apparently. Can we move on now?

[Skepdick]

Yes, you made a context error when you read what I wrote, apparently. Can we move on now?

I don't make context errors. Which is why I am pointing out at yours.

If you are using the word "good" in a non-moral sense I insist you explain the difference between the feeling which corresponds to "good beliefs" versus the feeling which corresponds to "non-good beliefs"

Why do you feel differently about different beliefs? Why don't you feel the exact same way towards all beliefs?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, you made a context error when you read what I wrote, apparently. Can we move on now?

I don't make context errors. Which is why I am pointing out at yours.

If you are using the word "good" in a non-moral sense I insist you explain the difference between the feeling which corresponds to "good beliefs" versus the feeling which corresponds to "non-good beliefs"

Why do you feel differently?

First, I wasn't saying "good beliefs" versus "bad beliefs." I said "good reasons," which would be opposed to "bad reasons" (as well as "no reasons").

So a couple criteria I use for whether something is a "good reason" (I'll just give a couple because it would take awhile, it would take a lot of work, to try to come up with an exhaustive list):

(1) The reason has to have some relevance to the proposition in question,
(2) The reason has to do some work to imply the proposition in question,
(3) There needs to either be some sort of evidential content to the reason, or there needs to be some sort of logical weight to it, where the logical weight is more than just being a possibility

[Skepdick]

First, I wasn't saying "good beliefs" versus "bad beliefs." I said "good reasons," which would be opposed to "bad reasons" (as well as "no reasons").

Potato/potatoh.

Qualitatively all beliefs are beliefs. Even ones based on good, bad or no reasons.

So why do you discriminate/prefer one over the other?

So a couple criteria I use for whether something is a "good reason" (I'll just give a couple because it would take awhile, it would take a lot of work, to try to come up with an exhaustive list):

(1) The reason has to have some relevance to the proposition in question,
(2) The reason has to do some work to imply the proposition in question,
(3) There needs to either be some sort of evidential content to the reason, or there needs to be some sort of logical weight to it, where the logical weight is more than just being a possibility

Why?

Nobody needs any reasons for their beliefs. You can believe what you believe because you can and you want to and that's that.

To insist on any standards/criteria whatsoever is a normative/moral claim.