Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

Fashion only needs to exist as a cultural artifact for me to say "you are wearing silly trousers" and for that to be completely meaningful.

But it's only trivial. You're not requiring anybody to have to agree. You're not even stating that you personally wouldn't change your opinion one day.

But morality requires more. It requires people to agree, and that they agree durably, and that they feel duty toward the particular moral assertion in question; because it's the foundation of all our common social projects, whether in commerce, education, justice, distribution, mutual respect, welfare, domestic life, and so on.

So "fashion-level" thinking is just useless when it comes to creating such common projects. Would we be satisfied to say no more than, "Your slavery/rape looks silly to me?" It would be "meaningful": but would it be enough?

That's a problem for you, but I'm not a moral realist so "not real enough" isn't a problem for me.

And I have no idea why you would ever put the words "Your rape looks silly to me" into my mouth. I am describing how our normal cultural moral practices work in real life, along with all the normal attitudes to moral judgment and language. This is a descriptive account IC.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea why you would ever put the words "Your rape looks silly to me" into my mouth.

Well, because those were your exact words.

You were saying that your antipathy for fashion is exactly the same as your antipathy to morally-reprehensible actions. You ended your message with the words,

"Same goes for morals."

So, if I believe you, that would mean your antipathy to slavery or rape would read, "it looks silly to me." That's logically certain.

Now, I see how horrible that is. But you didn't, when you floated the idea of making morality equivalent to fashion tastes. Now you see it.

Job done. That is "why" I would do it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have no idea why you would ever put the words "Your rape looks silly to me" into my mouth.

Well, because those were your exact words.

You were saying that your antipathy for fashion is exactly the same as your antipathy to morally-reprehensible actions. So, if I believe you, that would mean your antipathy to slavery or rape would read, "it looks silly to me." That's logically certain.

Now, I see how horrible that is. But you didn't, when you floated the idea of making morality equivalent to fashion tastes. Now you see it.

Job done. That is "why" I would do it.

No I wasn't. For two portions of our cultural practices to hold similar basic foundation within locally arranged practices that vary between societies does not make them the same.

[FlashDangerpants]

That puts us back here because I don't have the inclination to waste much time on your deliberate edgelord misrepresentations.

That's a problem for you, but I'm not a moral realist so "not real enough" isn't a problem for me.

Actually, it IS a problem for you, if you insist that moral language means anything at all, or that any morality at all (such as "Thou shalt not enslave," or "Thou shalt not rape") should hold for everybody. But it's not a problem for a moral nihilist -- and moral nihilism is where personal or social moral relativism have to end up, so long as they are held consistently.

What a weird and nonsensical claim. Fashion only needs to exist as a cultural artifact for me to say "you are wearing silly trousers" and for that to be completely meaningful. There doesn't need to be a cosmic fact of the matter.

Same goes for manners, they do things a bit oddly in France and the Germans are overly direct. I can say these things without needing to consult any grand universal truths.

Same goes for morals.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea why you would ever put the words "Your rape looks silly to me" into my mouth.

Well, because those were your exact words.

You were saying that your antipathy for fashion is exactly the same as your antipathy to morally-reprehensible actions. So, if I believe you, that would mean your antipathy to slavery or rape would read, "it looks silly to me." That's logically certain.

Now, I see how horrible that is. But you didn't, when you floated the idea of making morality equivalent to fashion tastes. Now you see it.

Job done. That is "why" I would do it.

No I wasn't. For two portions of our cultural practices to hold similar basic foundation within locally arranged practices that vary between societies does not make them the same.

Then you'd maybe better clear up what you meant. Because you did say "the same." I just believed you.

[Harbal]

Jesus said (allegedly):

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

This looks very much like a principle by which to guid moral behaviour, and it also makes rational sense. So even though I perform what I subjectively consider to be a morally good act simply because I have a personal, emotional impulse to do it, which is apparently irrational, I can also do it in order to perpetuate this principle, and thus benefit from it myself when others treat me in the same way, which is rational. There is no guarantee that they will treat me in the same way, of course, but, overall, they pretty much do, so it does actually seem to function to some degree.

I also get to be an honorary Christian, which is fine, because I don’t have to go to church, or believe the mumbo jumbo.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, because those were your exact words.

You were saying that your antipathy for fashion is exactly the same as your antipathy to morally-reprehensible actions. So, if I believe you, that would mean your antipathy to slavery or rape would read, "it looks silly to me." That's logically certain.

Now, I see how horrible that is. But you didn't, when you floated the idea of making morality equivalent to fashion tastes. Now you see it.

Job done. That is "why" I would do it.

No I wasn't. For two portions of our cultural practices to hold similar basic foundation within locally arranged practices that vary between societies does not make them the same.

Then you'd maybe better clear up what you meant. Because you did say "the same." I just believed you.

Really? Here's the words I used....

Fashion only needs to exist as a cultural artifact for me to say "you are wearing silly trousers" and for that to be completely meaningful. There doesn't need to be a cosmic fact of the matter.

Same goes for manners, they do things a bit oddly in France and the Germans are overly direct. I can say these things without needing to consult any grand universal truths.

Same goes for morals.

Thing P only needs to exist in <particular sense of exist> for phenomenon Y to apply.
Same goes for Q
Same goes for R

It just doesn't seem that difficult to get for an average person of average intelligence. I'm not asking for much.

[Immanuel Can]

No I wasn't. For two portions of our cultural practices to hold similar basic foundation within locally arranged practices that vary between societies does not make them the same.

Then you'd maybe better clear up what you meant. Because you did say "the same." I just believed you.

Really? Here's the words I used....
Same goes for morals.

Sure looks like you said, "the same."

But you're allowed to explain and revise. No problem.

And I agree. Morality is not at all like fashion choices. It would be a trivializing suggestion.

So how do you manage to issue a moral prohibition against slavery or rape? What do you base it on?

[FlashDangerpants]

Then you'd maybe better clear up what you meant. Because you did say "the same." I just believed you.

Really? Here's the words I used....
Same goes for morals.

Sure looks like you said, "the same."

But you're allowed to explain and revise. No problem.

And I agree. Morality is not at all like fashion choices. It would be a trivializing suggestion.

So how do you manage to issue a moral prohibition against slavery or rape? What do you base it on?

I'm not a moral realist IC, so what is supposed to be the problem for me in that question?

We collectively hold to a set of social practices that we call morality and we have largely agreed a set of rules, a set of meanings, a set general way of rationalising these practices and rationales for how that all sort of fits together. That may be limited and you might wish for something changeless and 'perfect', but I am describing what we actually have in our real existing human lives.

[Immanuel Can]

Really? Here's the words I used....
Same goes for morals.

Sure looks like you said, "the same."

But you're allowed to explain and revise. No problem.

And I agree. Morality is not at all like fashion choices. It would be a trivializing suggestion.

So how do you manage to issue a moral prohibition against slavery or rape? What do you base it on?

I'm not a moral realist IC, so what is supposed to be the problem for me in that question?

Well, you expressed horror at the examples of rape and slavery. So I'm going to suppose you probably would want to see them prohibited, no?

(If you're in favour of letting them rage unchecked, please say so...but I'm going to suppose you probably aren't.)

But if that's your social bias speaking, and nothing more...or worse, just a kind of "fashion preference," then all you can say about them is, "I happen to live in a society that doesn't advocate rape or slavery, but it's not wrong if your society does otherwise...or even if MY society changes soon, and decides to practice both."

That's what the sociological relativism you're suggesting requires you to believe.

Is that what you believe? I think it's unlikely you do. But that's what your argument would entail, logically speaking: your society can make bad things good, or good things bad, and do it as often as it likes.

[FlashDangerpants]

Sure looks like you said, "the same."

But you're allowed to explain and revise. No problem.

And I agree. Morality is not at all like fashion choices. It would be a trivializing suggestion.

So how do you manage to issue a moral prohibition against slavery or rape? What do you base it on?

I'm not a moral realist IC, so what is supposed to be the problem for me in that question?

Well, you expressed horror at the examples of rape and slavery. So I'm going to suppose you probably would want to see them prohibited, no?

(If you're in favour of letting them rage unchecked, please say so...but I'm going to suppose you probably aren't.)

But if that's your social bias speaking, and nothing more...or worse, just a kind of "fashion preference," then all you can say about them is, "I happen to live in a society that doesn't advocate rape or slavery, but it's not wrong if your society does otherwise...or even if MY society changes soon, and decides to practice both."

That's what the sociological relativism you're suggesting requires you to believe.

Is that what you believe? I think it's unlikely you do. But that's what your argument would entail, logically speaking: your society can make bad things good, or good things bad, and do it as often as it likes.

We collectively hold to a set of social practices that we call morality and we have largely agreed a set of rules, a set of meanings, a set general way of rationalising these practices and rationales for how that all sort of fits together. That may be limited and you might wish for something changeless and 'perfect', but I am describing what we actually have in our real existing human lives.

There's no point arguing from ought to is. It makes no difference that you believe there ought to be a grand moral truth, that is not the basis for a successful argument that because there ought to be there must be.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not a moral realist IC, so what is supposed to be the problem for me in that question?

Well, you expressed horror at the examples of rape and slavery. So I'm going to suppose you probably would want to see them prohibited, no?

(If you're in favour of letting them rage unchecked, please say so...but I'm going to suppose you probably aren't.)

But if that's your social bias speaking, and nothing more...or worse, just a kind of "fashion preference," then all you can say about them is, "I happen to live in a society that doesn't advocate rape or slavery, but it's not wrong if your society does otherwise...or even if MY society changes soon, and decides to practice both."

That's what the sociological relativism you're suggesting requires you to believe.

Is that what you believe? I think it's unlikely you do. But that's what your argument would entail, logically speaking: your society can make bad things good, or good things bad, and do it as often as it likes.

We collectively hold to a set of social practices that we call morality and we have largely agreed a set of rules, a set of meanings, a set general way of rationalising these practices and rationales for how that all sort of fits together. That may be limited and you might wish for something changeless and 'perfect', but I am describing what we actually have in our real existing human lives.

I see that's your assumption. I see no reason to think it's true. So why should I concede it? And I can see huge, huge problems with it, problems so bad that you probably can see them, too.

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

So you see, I'm not arguing ought to is. I'm simply pointing out the logical and necessary consequences of social relativism, and seeing how strong your commitment to that "description" is. And if you're prepared to bestow it with the status of "descriptively right," then you have to be fine with slavery and rape, too. They can't be "wrong" in any sense stronger than a local and contingent one.

[Harbal]

Well, you expressed horror at the examples of rape and slavery. So I'm going to suppose you probably would want to see them prohibited, no?

(If you're in favour of letting them rage unchecked, please say so...but I'm going to suppose you probably aren't.)

But if that's your social bias speaking, and nothing more...or worse, just a kind of "fashion preference," then all you can say about them is, "I happen to live in a society that doesn't advocate rape or slavery, but it's not wrong if your society does otherwise...or even if MY society changes soon, and decides to practice both."

That's what the sociological relativism you're suggesting requires you to believe.

Is that what you believe? I think it's unlikely you do. But that's what your argument would entail, logically speaking: your society can make bad things good, or good things bad, and do it as often as it likes.

We collectively hold to a set of social practices that we call morality and we have largely agreed a set of rules, a set of meanings, a set general way of rationalising these practices and rationales for how that all sort of fits together. That may be limited and you might wish for something changeless and 'perfect', but I am describing what we actually have in our real existing human lives.

I see that's your assumption. I see no reason to think it's true. So why should I concede it? And I can see huge, huge problems with it, problems so bad that you probably can see them, too.

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

We don't allow slavery in Northern Europe and America any more, and i think it inconceivable that we ever will. Something seems to be preventing it.

[Immanuel Can]

We collectively hold to a set of social practices that we call morality and we have largely agreed a set of rules, a set of meanings, a set general way of rationalising these practices and rationales for how that all sort of fits together. That may be limited and you might wish for something changeless and 'perfect', but I am describing what we actually have in our real existing human lives.

I see that's your assumption. I see no reason to think it's true. So why should I concede it? And I can see huge, huge problems with it, problems so bad that you probably can see them, too.

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

We don't allow slavery in Northern Europe and America any more, and i think it inconceivable that we ever will. Something seems to be preventing it.

Not true, actually. We don't socially approve it, but we do allow it, in the sense that it goes on pretty much unchecked. A lot of it today is child and sex slavery, rather than traditional "minority-based" slavery, but it's there, and more abundant than at any time in history.

But you're right about this much: in public, we condemn it. And yet that doesn't seem to amount to much, in practice. What's missing?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, you expressed horror at the examples of rape and slavery. So I'm going to suppose you probably would want to see them prohibited, no?

(If you're in favour of letting them rage unchecked, please say so...but I'm going to suppose you probably aren't.)

But if that's your social bias speaking, and nothing more...or worse, just a kind of "fashion preference," then all you can say about them is, "I happen to live in a society that doesn't advocate rape or slavery, but it's not wrong if your society does otherwise...or even if MY society changes soon, and decides to practice both."

That's what the sociological relativism you're suggesting requires you to believe.

Is that what you believe? I think it's unlikely you do. But that's what your argument would entail, logically speaking: your society can make bad things good, or good things bad, and do it as often as it likes.

We collectively hold to a set of social practices that we call morality and we have largely agreed a set of rules, a set of meanings, a set general way of rationalising these practices and rationales for how that all sort of fits together. That may be limited and you might wish for something changeless and 'perfect', but I am describing what we actually have in our real existing human lives.

I see that's your assumption. I see no reason to think it's true. So why should I concede it? And I can see huge, huge problems with it, problems so bad that you probably can see them, too.

I also have some advantages on my side....

• I can easily account for the differing moral views that we do see in our society (like when some people think a tax is justified while others see the same thing as tyranny and theft.

• I can easily account for why rape and murder are uncontroversially bad today.

• I can easily account for why murder id often allowed in the Bible and marriage is sometimes the punishment for rape.

• I can easily account for why future generations are going to judge us rather harshly even though you and I can't guess what they will be judging us for (environmental shit and animal rights spring to mind but I could well wide of the mark).

Above all, I can account for why it is that some moral disagreements just never get resolved while others become strange antiques.

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

So you see, I'm not arguing ought to is. I'm simply pointing out the logical and necessary consequences of social relativism, and seeing how strong your commitment to that "description" is. And if you're prepared to bestow it with the status of "descriptively right," then you have to be fine with slavery and rape, too. They can't be "wrong" in any sense stronger than a local and contingent one.

You are question-begging with all this talk of They can't be "wrong" in any sense stronger than a local and contingent one.. What is the importance of that observation if you aren't arguing from ought to is?

I don't have to be fine with anything. As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of. So we all get to continue judging, arguing, debating and all the other stuff too.