Is morality objective or subjective?

[popeye1945]

What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right.

It does when people collectively happen to think it. That is how morality works, and if you can't see that, you must be confusing something else with morality.

This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.

The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.

Immanuel,

Where do you think all meanings come from?

[Harbal]

What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right.

It does when people collectively happen to think it. That is how morality works, and if you can't see that, you must be confusing something else with morality.

This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.

The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.

You are comparing what is basically opinion with fact. I don't know what they call that fallacy, but I'm sure it must have a name.

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps you could lay it out for me as to how the world gains meaning. Outline this process for me, so that I might see the error of my ways.

What is, is not determined by what people know. That's the first one.

What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right. That's the second.

The first point just shows your ignorance.

Actually, it's quite obvious. There are thing that existed before any person knew about them. Like North America, for example: the continent existed even when nobody knew it did. So epistemology does not prove or disprove ontology.

[Immanuel Can]

It does when people collectively happen to think it. That is how morality works, and if you can't see that, you must be confusing something else with morality.

This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.

The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.

Immanuel,

Where do you think all meanings come from?

Can you explain the relevance of that question to what we are talking about? Then maybe I can see what kind of answer you're looking for.

[Immanuel Can]

It does when people collectively happen to think it. That is how morality works, and if you can't see that, you must be confusing something else with morality.

This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.

The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.

You are comparing what is basically opinion with fact. I don't know what they call that fallacy, but I'm sure it must have a name.

Well, the fallacy you're employing there would be called "unwarranted assumption." So far as I've seen here, it hasn't been proved that morality is merely an "opinion," and one has no warrant for treating that as a given, therefore.

[popeye1945]

What is, is not determined by what people know. That's the first one.

What people happen to think does not determine what is morally right. That's the second.

The first point just shows your ignorance.

Actually, it's quite obvious. There are thing that existed before any person knew about them. Like North America, for example: the continent existed even when nobody knew it did. So epistemology does not prove or disprove ontology.

Ah but, that which is known is known only by subjective consciousness, and there is no way to prove that anything exists outside of our subjectivity. It remains, that the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious SUBJECTIVE subject, for the subjects experience is apparent reality. So, reality for us is how we are affected by the energies that surround us, informing us of their effect but not the true source.

[Harbal]

This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.

The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.

You are comparing what is basically opinion with fact. I don't know what they call that fallacy, but I'm sure it must have a name.

Well, the fallacy you're employing there would be called "unwarranted assumption." So far as I've seen here, it hasn't been proved that morality is merely an "opinion," and one has no warrant for treating that as a given, therefore.

I don't suppose many people would think of their most strongly held moral beliefs as mere opinions, but that is basically what they are. Until someone can point to an actual, undisputable source of moral facts, it seems to me that not treating morality as fact is the default position, and any proof that is required should be proof to the contrary.

[popeye1945]

This is called, "bandwagon fallacy." It's when a person believes that having more people believe something makes it true.

The thing to remember is that at one time, 100% of the world's population thought the world was flat.

Immanuel,

Where do you think all meanings come from?

Can you explain the relevance of that question to what we are talking about? Then maybe I can see what kind of answer you're looking for.

Well, do meanings belong to the object or the subject, very relevant to whether morality is objective or subjective.

[Immanuel Can]

The first point just shows your ignorance.

Actually, it's quite obvious. There are thing that existed before any person knew about them. Like North America, for example: the continent existed even when nobody knew it did. So epistemology does not prove or disprove ontology.

Ah but, that which is known is known only by subjective consciousness,

That's redundant. And it still doesn't say anything about ontological reality.

If you fall off a cliff, you'll die; because it's ontologically real. It won't matter that you didn't think the cliff was there, or didn't think that it was high, or never considered that it would kill you. It'll do the job anyway.

So "subjective consciousness" doesn't beat ontology.

[Immanuel Can]

You are comparing what is basically opinion with fact. I don't know what they call that fallacy, but I'm sure it must have a name.

Well, the fallacy you're employing there would be called "unwarranted assumption." So far as I've seen here, it hasn't been proved that morality is merely an "opinion," and one has no warrant for treating that as a given, therefore.

I don't suppose many people would think of their most strongly held moral beliefs as mere opinions, but that is basically what they are.

I understand you assume that. But it's only an assumption.

What is more interesting is that people have this strange propensity to think of things in moral terms, and to believe in conscience, and to talk about right and wrong...in a universe which, the Atheist must insist, has absolutely no such real entities as "rightness" or "wrongness" in it.

That's an odd fact. And since it is an obvious fact, one on which we cannot really disagree, since we're both talking about that phenomenon right now, it's that fact that requires explaining.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel,

Where do you think all meanings come from?

Can you explain the relevance of that question to what we are talking about? Then maybe I can see what kind of answer you're looking for.

Well, do meanings belong to the object or the subject, very relevant to whether morality is objective or subjective.

"Meanings" and "morals" are not the same things, so I'm still not clear on the relevance. Maybe you can help me out with that.

[Harbal]

Well, the fallacy you're employing there would be called "unwarranted assumption." So far as I've seen here, it hasn't been proved that morality is merely an "opinion," and one has no warrant for treating that as a given, therefore.

I don't suppose many people would think of their most strongly held moral beliefs as mere opinions, but that is basically what they are.

I understand you assume that. But it's only an assumption.

Yes, just like my assumption that my preference for blue, over red, is just a personal opinion, and does not correspond to a fact out in the world somewhere.

What is more interesting is that people have this strange propensity to think of things in moral terms, and to believe in conscience, and to talk about right and wrong...in a universe which, the Atheist must insist, has absolutely no such real entities as "rightness" or "wrongness" in it.

Right and wrong are just concepts. They don't exist outside of the mind that is conceiving them.

That's an odd fact. And since it is an obvious fact, one on which we cannot really disagree, since we're both talking about that phenomenon right now, it's that fact that requires explaining.

While you are explaining it, could you also explain why I prefer blue to red, or rasberries over strawberries?

[Immanuel Can]

While you are explaining it, could you also explain why I prefer blue to red, or rasberries over strawberries?

Well, first you have to prove that your colour preference or food preference is the same thing as morality. Otherwise, what you've got there is what's called a "dubious analogy," and plausibly even a "false analogy."

[Harbal]

While you are explaining it, could you also explain why I prefer blue to red, or rasberries over strawberries?

Well, first you have to prove that your colour preference or food preference is the same thing as morality. Otherwise, what you've got there is what's called a "dubious analogy," and plausibly even a "false analogy."

I'm just giving you my opinion of what morality is, or more accurately, what it isn't. I can't prove my opinion is correct, but you should be able to prove that yours is. All you have to do is get hold of an objective moral truth and post a photo of it.

[popeye1945]

Can you explain the relevance of that question to what we are talking about? Then maybe I can see what kind of answer you're looking for.

Well, do meanings belong to the object or the subject, very relevant to whether morality is objective or subjective.

"Meanings" and "morals" are not the same things, so I'm still not clear on the relevance. Maybe you can help me out with that.

Beg to differ, morals are meanings, and they are relative to the well-being and security of the common biology of humanity. Our common biology is the only really sane foundation to morality for that is its topic. There is only meaning for life forms and those meanings are the subject's experiences, once he experiences it becomes knowledge/meaning, to which he then bestows as it were on a meaningless world. For biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meanings never belong to the object unless bestowed upon it be a conscious subject. Meanings are biological experiences.