Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

It's not a delusion, it's a personal sense that is actually there, and that influences our behaviour.

If you have a "personal sense" something is "there," but there's objectively nothing "there," that's a "delusion."

But morality is there; my sense of morality exists,...

Those are different claims. I have a sense of the bogeyman, and the bogeyman is there are not equivalent. One is a delusion, and the other is not. And here's another non-equivalent statement: I fear the bogeyman, so it motivates me. That, too is not the same as the bogeyman is there. And another: my society tells me there's a bogeyman, is not the same as the bogeyman is there.

So we're debating what it is you have, not whether or not you have it. Does this "sense" you speak of refer to anything real, or is it just a delusional "sense" of things that do not actually exist? That's what we need to answer.

But that really is a delusion, and one that we have suffered under before. A delusion that stifled and inhibited moral progress.

There is no such thing as "moral progress." That's maybe the biggest delusion of all.

I admit that moral progress is a tricky concept, as my idea of progression towards higher moral standards is quite different to yours, and that of some others.

There's such a thing as "technological development," perhaps, but there's zero evidence that human beings are becoming morally better.

I think there is lots of evidence that we have become morally better, at least in my country,

The evidence is a little shaky in Rotherham, among other places. And now I hear that the country's running out of fuel, due to making an unnecessary war against the dictator on who England's been paying off for fuel previously. So I'll await the evidence of the moral superiority you mention. I haven't seen it yet.

We no longer execute people.

...unless they're children. Those we rip to pieces in utero, and call it a "right." And you see, that's the trick we play on ourselves: we imagine that if we socially-approve something morally reprehensible, then the reprehensibility goes away. But it doesn't. The only thing that goes away is our proper sense of shame. One can kill a conscience, after all, or at least sear it to the point where one takes pride in disgrace or pats oneself on the back for murder.

In fact, since we're killing people in greater numbers and faster as the centuries pass, and because we are continually inventing new forms of twistedness, there's a fair bit of evidence that the trajectory goes, if anything, the other way. We might be gradually morally decaying, as the scope of our actions are made bigger by our technologies; we're certainly not improving.

If human beings are killing one another at a greater rate than previously, it is probably because we have become much more efficient at it, due to the technology you mentioned.

That's true, but it's also just an excuse. As our technology has gotten greater, we've killed vastly greater numbers of people: where is the evidence of moral progress, then?

I keep trying to bring up the subject of homosexuals, but you are stubbonly refusing to be drawn.

Well, you have a stereotype in mind, perhaps...the "religious" person as "inquisitor," let us call it. And your thought seems to be that sooner or later I will start advocating for the use of force to compel moral rightness. But that's not realistic, for two reasons: one, inquisitional attitudes and techniques only rationalize with political religions such as Catholicism, all of which are errant anyway, since Christianity is inherently non-political; and two, they violate the basic right of a person to make his/her own moral choices, be they good or bad ones, and to answer for that, so they actually operate opposite to divine intention.

I'm glad to hear you wouldn't advocate the use of force to compel people to behave in accordance with the moral views of a particular set of other people. I hope you wouldn't advocate social condemnation and vilification, either.

That which is vile stays vile, even if society approves of it. A good society condemns all that is vile. And that which is commendable stays commendable, even if society decides to condemn it. The touchstone is not public opinion, but God.

[popeye1945]

All this has nothing to do with your silly imaginary friend called God.

I don't know which is the bigger mistake: To imagine he exists or to imagine he is your friend.

EXCELLENT!

[Immanuel Can]

All this has nothing to do with your silly imaginary friend called God.

I don't know which is the bigger mistake: To imagine he exists or to imagine he is your friend.

EXCELLENT!

The biggest mistake of all time is imagining that pretending God doesn't exist gets you off being accountable to Him, actually.

[promethean75]

but one would never make that mistake becuz if one knows one is only pretending, i.e., they know they will be accountable if God exists, they wouldn't ever pretend he didn't exist for the purposes of avoiding accountability, sir.I mean logically, it's impossible for someone to do that.

[Harbal]

If you have a "personal sense" something is "there," but there's objectively nothing "there," that's a "delusion."

But morality is there; my sense of morality exists,...

Those are different claims. I have a sense of the bogeyman, and the bogeyman is there are not equivalent. One is a delusion, and the other is not. And here's another non-equivalent statement: I fear the bogeyman, so it motivates me. That, too is not the same as the bogeyman is there. And another: my society tells me there's a bogeyman, is not the same as the bogeyman is there.

Forget about bogeymen, IC, your attempt to distract me won't work.

So we're debating what it is you have, not whether or not you have it. Does this "sense" you speak of refer to anything real, or is it just a delusional "sense" of things that do not actually exist? That's what we need to answer.

It refers to my moral values. Don't you have moral values?

I think there is lots of evidence that we have become morally better, at least in my country,

The evidence is a little shaky in Rotherham, among other places. And now I hear that the country's running out of fuel, due to making an unnecessary war against the dictator on who England's been paying off for fuel previously. So I'll await the evidence of the moral superiority you mention. I haven't seen it yet.

You are clutching at straws now, IC.

We no longer execute people.

...unless they're children. Those we rip to pieces in utero, and call it a "right." And you see, that's the trick we play on ourselves: we imagine that if we socially-approve something morally reprehensible, then the reprehensibility goes away. But it doesn't. The only thing that goes away is our proper sense of shame. One can kill a conscience, after all, or at least sear it to the point where one takes pride in disgrace or pats oneself on the back for murder.

I doubt that many people pat themselves on the back for terminating a baby. It must be an awful decision to have to make, and I'm sure many people who have an abortion feel absolutely terrible, and make no attempt to come up with a trick to make themselves feel fine about it. There are strict rules regulating when it is permissible to perform an abortion; the law that allows it wasn't just calously thrown together. The termination of the life of a potential human being is certainly a moral issue, but forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy against her wishes would be a greater one. That's just my opinion, of course, but it is quite a widespread opinion.

That's true, but it's also just an excuse. As our technology has gotten greater, we've killed vastly greater numbers of people: where is the evidence of moral progress, then?

I gave you quite a few examples of how we have made moral progress, but didn't quote or acknowledge them.

That which is vile stays vile, even if society approves of it. A good society condemns all that is vile. And that which is commendable stays commendable, even if society decides to condemn it. The touchstone is not public opinion, but God.

The "vile" thing that you are reluctant to name being homosexuality, right? They are just people, wanting the same things out of life as everyone else. Imagine how it would feel if being a Christian were a crime, and you had to live your life hiding who and what you are. Always in fear of being found out and persecuted. How could you, and why would you, condemn people to having to live like that when they have done you absolutely no harm? And you won't even take responsibility for your own bigotry, but instead hide behind God.

[Atla]

imaginary friend called God

God is real and this life is a test of faith. Those who didn't believe in God, go to Heaven, because they weren't stupid/miserable/weak enough to believe in God when there really was no good reason to. That's what God is always testing, he doesn't want any wimps in Heaven. Spending an eternity with those guys.. ugh.

But God is merciful, so the failures, the theists, don't go to Hell but get to be reborn and can try again.

[Immanuel Can]

But morality is there; my sense of morality exists,...

Those are different claims. I have a sense of the bogeyman, and the bogeyman is there are not equivalent. One is a delusion, and the other is not. And here's another non-equivalent statement: I fear the bogeyman, so it motivates me. That, too is not the same as the bogeyman is there. And another: my society tells me there's a bogeyman, is not the same as the bogeyman is there.

Forget about bogeymen, IC, your attempt to distract me won't work.

I'm not "distracting," H. I'm making a point. And it's very simple. "Having a sense," "being motivated by" or "being told by my society" that something is moral has nothing to do with making that thing real and "existent."

So by subjectivism's lights, morality remains nothing but a delusion, even when described under one of these categories. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

So we're debating what it is you have, not whether or not you have it. Does this "sense" you speak of refer to anything real, or is it just a delusional "sense" of things that do not actually exist? That's what we need to answer.

It refers to my moral values.

Again, that you happen to value X is one thing, that X is worthy to be valued is another thing to have to prove, and that the thing you're valuing is something real is quite another.

Don't you have moral values?

Of course. But I'm an objectivist, so I don't regard those values as mere figments of my imagination, or social imaginings, or happen-to-be motives. Either my values are right, because they correspond to true values, or they are wrong, when they do not. My imagining them doesn't bestow significance on them.

We no longer execute people.

...unless they're children. Those we rip to pieces in utero, and call it a "right." And you see, that's the trick we play on ourselves: we imagine that if we socially-approve something morally reprehensible, then the reprehensibility goes away. But it doesn't. The only thing that goes away is our proper sense of shame. One can kill a conscience, after all, or at least sear it to the point where one takes pride in disgrace or pats oneself on the back for murder.

I doubt that many people pat themselves on the back for terminating a baby.

They do, actually; and you can see that they do. You should follow the Roe v. Wade controversy in North America right now: there are large numbers of people who are insisting that murdering babies is a wonderful freedom from which they are in danger of being deprived if the state doesn't do it for them.

It must be an awful decision to have to make, and I'm sure many people who have an abortion feel absolutely terrible, and make no attempt to come up with a trick to make themselves feel fine about it.

If that were true, there'd be no pro-abortion movement at all. It would be a matter of shame, not of claimed "rights."

But as you see, they do indeed have to do all kinds of mental and linguistic gymnastics to reframe baby murder as a good alternative, at the very least.

There are strict rules regulating when it is permissible to perform an abortion; the law that allows it wasn't just calously thrown together.

That depends on where one lives. In some locales, there are absolutely no such barriers.

The termination of the life of a potential human being is certainly a moral issue, but forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy against her wishes would be a greater one.

Over 99% of the abortions are elective, not medically necessary or the products of rape or incest. That means there are a lot of women who are being promiscious, or even sleeping with people with whom they have no intention to mate, and not taking protective measures, and then remedying their total personal irresponsibility with murder.

So much for moral progress.

That's true, but it's also just an excuse. As our technology has gotten greater, we've killed vastly greater numbers of people: where is the evidence of moral progress, then?

I gave you quite a few examples of how we have made moral progress, but didn't quote or acknowledge them.

What did you want me to say? That if you can find one or two things you like, that the abominations that people also do just disappear, and moral progress becomes certain? Hardly.

That which is vile stays vile, even if society approves of it. A good society condemns all that is vile. And that which is commendable stays commendable, even if society decides to condemn it. The touchstone is not public opinion, but God.

The "vile" thing that you are reluctant to name being homosexuality, right?

I think the correct Biblical term is "abomination." And if God says that's what it is, then you and I can be quite certain that's exactly what it is. These things are objective, you see.

[Harbal]

Those are different claims. I have a sense of the bogeyman, and the bogeyman is there are not equivalent. One is a delusion, and the other is not. And here's another non-equivalent statement: I fear the bogeyman, so it motivates me. That, too is not the same as the bogeyman is there. And another: my society tells me there's a bogeyman, is not the same as the bogeyman is there.

Forget about bogeymen, IC, your attempt to distract me won't work.

I'm not "distracting," H. I'm making a point. And it's very simple. "Having a sense," "being motivated by" or "being told by my society" that something is moral has nothing to do with making that thing real and "existent."

So by subjectivism's lights, morality remains nothing but a delusion, even when described under one of these categories. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

The only thing that is obvious is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything having validity unless it is through God. That's dogma, IC, not rational argument.

It refers to my moral values.

Again, that you happen to value X is one thing, that X is worthy to be valued is another thing to have to prove, and that the thing you're valuing is something real is quite another.

I don't have to prove anything. I am guided by my moral values, but I don't expect you to be guided by them.

Don't you have moral values?

Of course. But I'm an objectivist, so I don't regard those values as mere figments of my imagination, or social imaginings, or happen-to-be motives. Either my values are right, because they correspond to true values, or they are wrong, when they do not. My imagining them doesn't bestow significance on them.

It's quite offensive to be told that your moral values are worthless.

It's a good job I'm not the sensitive type.

I doubt that many people pat themselves on the back for terminating a baby.

They do, actually; and you can see that they do. You should follow the Roe v. Wade controversy in North America right now: there are large numbers of people who are insisting that murdering babies is a wonderful freedom from which they are in danger of being deprived if the state doesn't do it for them.

And here we have yet another dispassionate, unbiased representation of the truth.

It must be an awful decision to have to make, and I'm sure many people who have an abortion feel absolutely terrible, and make no attempt to come up with a trick to make themselves feel fine about it.

If that were true, there'd be no pro-abortion movement at all. It would be a matter of shame, not of claimed "rights."

But as you see, they do indeed have to do all kinds of mental and linguistic gymnastics to reframe baby murder as a good alternative, at the very least.

You are the one doing the reframing. Murder is a form of illegal homicide, and the abortions we are descussing are not illegal. Legal abortion is not murder, ask a lawyer.

There are strict rules regulating when it is permissible to perform an abortion; the law that allows it wasn't just calously thrown together.

That depends on where one lives. In some locales, there are absolutely no such barriers.

Well there most certainly should be, but that's just my moral opinion, and has no validity, as what it is prompted by doesn't exist. So I'm told.

Over 99% of the abortions are elective, not medically necessary or the products of rape or incest. That means there are a lot of women who are being promiscious, or even sleeping with people with whom they have no intention to mate, and not taking protective measures, and then remedying their total personal irresponsibility with murder.

So much for moral progress.

A bit of insight into your attitude towards women there, to add to your one about gays.

I gave you quite a few examples of how we have made moral progress, but didn't quote or acknowledge them.

What did you want me to say? That if you can find one or two things you like, that the abominations that people also do just disappear, and moral progress becomes certain? Hardly.

You are just ignoring the things that have improved, and emphasising the things that haven't, and I honestly believe you think no one will notice.

The "vile" thing that you are reluctant to name being homosexuality, right?

I think the correct Biblical term is "abomination." And if God says that's what it is, then you and I can be quite certain that's exactly what it is. These things are objective, you see.

You are free to believe whatever toxic rubbish you like, IC, but do not try to rope me into it.

[Dontaskme]

I don't know which is the bigger mistake: To imagine he exists or to imagine he is your friend.

EXCELLENT!

The biggest mistake of all time is imagining that pretending God doesn't exist gets you off being accountable to Him, actually.

Does this "sense" of God you speak of refer to anything real, or is it just a delusional "sense" of things that do not actually exist? That's what we need to answer.

Harbal makes real sense. You just immerse yourself with whimsical fancy wishful thoughts like ( I’m ok I’ve got my get out of hell free pass ) because I obey and have got right with the great almighty imaginary master of the universe.

[Harbal]

Harbal makes real sense.

Not only that, he's also very good with his hands.

[Dontaskme]

Harbal makes real sense.

Not only that, he's also very good with his hands.

Hands Down

[Immanuel Can]

Forget about bogeymen, IC, your attempt to distract me won't work.

I'm not "distracting," H. I'm making a point. And it's very simple. "Having a sense," "being motivated by" or "being told by my society" that something is moral has nothing to do with making that thing real and "existent."

So by subjectivism's lights, morality remains nothing but a delusion, even when described under one of these categories. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

The only thing that is obvious is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge anything having validity unless it is through God. That's dogma, IC, not rational argument.

It's interesting...you say that agreeing with God about right and wrong would be capitulation to dogma, but slavishly following one's society beliefs, which really amount to no more than temporary moods, would not be a form of dogmatism?

I can't imagine why. To follow the ephemerial moods of one's own society as if they meant something seems a cut below taking the word of the Supreme Being for what's objectively right. But different strokes...

It refers to my moral values.

Again, that you happen to value X is one thing, that X is worthy to be valued is another thing to have to prove, and that the thing you're valuing is something real is quite another.

I don't have to prove anything.

That's only true so long as you're claiming nothing.

Don't you have moral values?

Of course. But I'm an objectivist, so I don't regard those values as mere figments of my imagination, or social imaginings, or happen-to-be motives. Either my values are right, because they correspond to true values, or they are wrong, when they do not. My imagining them doesn't bestow significance on them.

It's quite offensive to be told that your moral values are worthless.

That depends. Your moral values will be infinitely valuable if they coincide with the truth. But if they don't, there's no great, angelic power vested in any of us that makes something have a certain value just because we want it that way.

I doubt that many people pat themselves on the back for terminating a baby.

They do, actually; and you can see that they do. You should follow the Roe v. Wade controversy in North America right now: there are large numbers of people who are insisting that murdering babies is a wonderful freedom from which they are in danger of being deprived if the state doesn't do it for them.

And here we have yet another dispassionate, unbiased representation of the truth.

Just watch the news reports...even from the Leftist stations. They're not shy about how much they prize their ability to murder babies at will.

Murder is a form of illegal homicide, and the abortions we are descussing are not illegal.

Slavish adherence to a societies shifting permissiveness does not amount to moral clarity or rightness. There are just laws, and unjust laws, as you know...and every society has both.

So are we now going to opt for legal dogmatism, namely the blind trust that whatever the current laws say is "right"? But those same laws once affirmed slavery, and at one time, banned abortion as well. So how do you know which laws are moral?

There are strict rules regulating when it is permissible to perform an abortion; the law that allows it wasn't just calously thrown together.

That depends on where one lives. In some locales, there are absolutely no such barriers.

Well there most certainly should be,[/quote]
Why?

If it's not immoral to kill a pre-born child three months before birth, then why is it suddenly bad to kill her ten seconds before birth? And if it's fine to kill a child ten seconds before birth, why not ten seconds after?

Over 99% of the abortions are elective, not medically necessary or the products of rape or incest. That means there are a lot of women who are being promiscious, or even sleeping with people with whom they have no intention to mate, and not taking protective measures, and then remedying their total personal irresponsibility with murder.

So much for moral progress.

A bit of insight into your attitude towards women there, to add to your one about gays.

It's just a fact, H. Those are the stats.

You are just ignoring the things that have improved, and emphasising the things that haven't, and I honestly believe you think no one will notice.

Not at all.

But you claimed we were making "moral progress." If we were, we ought to find that we are getting morally better, but with no increase in wickedness, should we not? If we are both doing some good deeds and yet inventing new forms of evil, where is the "moral progress"? Even if we were improving, for which there's little enough evidence, then it's clear that both are good and our evil deeds are increasing at least at pace...so there's no "progress" there.

What you'd have to show is that things are actually getting better...not just staying static or declining more slowly than they used to.

[Harbal]

It's interesting...you say that agreeing with God about right and wrong would be capitulation to dogma, but slavishly following one's society beliefs, which really amount to no more than temporary moods, would not be a form of dogmatism?

I share many of my society's values, if that is what you mean by slavishly following. But they are only temporary; unlike you, I don't expect to live for eternity.

I don't have to prove anything.

That's only true so long as you're claiming nothing.

So what's going to happen if I claim something without proving it?

Your moral values will be infinitely valuable if they coincide with the truth. But if they don't, there's no great, angelic power vested in any of us that makes something have a certain value just because we want it that way.

How can a moral value be either true or false, any more than any kind of value? Values don't refer to truth, a value is just something that has worth to those who value it. If, for example, I claim to value friendship, how does one check if it coincides with the truth?

If it's not immoral to kill a pre-born child three months before birth, then why is it suddenly bad to kill her ten seconds before birth? And if it's fine to kill a child ten seconds before birth, why not ten seconds after?

It would be immoral to compel a woman to continue with her pregnancy if it were against her wishes. I don't regard you as being wrong if you think that aborting a baby is immoral, but I would certainly question any right you thought you had to interfere. The stage up to which it is permitted to abort a foetus is arbitrary, but at three months it could hardly be described as a sentient person, whereas just ten seconds before birth, it could. I daresay you will disagree with that justification, but there you are. That doesn't mean that aborting a foetus, however early, isn't regrettable, but the alternative would, in my opinion, be more regrettable. It is a moral choice with an unfortunate consequence either way.

A bit of insight into your attitude towards women there, to add to your one about gays.

It's just a fact, H. Those are the stats.

You know what they say about statistics, especially when they are in the hands of someone like you. Tell me, were the women who those statistics refer to asked to what extent their irresponsible promiscuity contributed to their pregnancy? Or is it something you just kind of know?

You are just ignoring the things that have improved, and emphasising the things that haven't, and I honestly believe you think no one will notice.

Not at all.

What do you mean, not at all? You did it completely.

What you'd have to show is that things are actually getting better...not just staying static or declining more slowly than they used to.

No, I don't think I do.

[Immanuel Can]

It's interesting...you say that agreeing with God about right and wrong would be capitulation to dogma, but slavishly following one's society beliefs, which really amount to no more than temporary moods, would not be a form of dogmatism?

I share many of my society's values, if that is what you mean by slavishly following. But they are only temporary; unlike you, I don't expect to live for eternity.

And yet, one of us is going to be surprised about that.

That's only true so long as you're claiming nothing.

So what's going to happen if I claim something without proving it?

Then nobody's going to have a reason to believe you.

Values don't refer to truth, a value is just something that has worth to those who value it.

That depends on whether the actual value of a thing is determined by me or by God.

If it's not immoral to kill a pre-born child three months before birth, then why is it suddenly bad to kill her ten seconds before birth? And if it's fine to kill a child ten seconds before birth, why not ten seconds after?

It would be immoral to compel a woman to continue with her pregnancy if it were against her wishes. [/quote]
Why? She chose to have sex. She chose to have unprotected sex. She decided she'd rather kill a child than give on up for adoption. Then she killed her own child. Where's the immorality in pointing out to her exactly what she's done?

You are just ignoring the things that have improved, and emphasising the things that haven't, and I honestly believe you think no one will notice.

Not at all.

What do you mean, not at all?

I explained why "moral progress" is not indicated merely with reference to pointing to a few things that seem to go well; they have to be weighted against the things that are going not-so-well.

What you'd have to show is that things are actually getting better...not just staying static or declining more slowly than they used to.

No, I don't think I do.

No, you don't, personally...but if you wanted to be right, that's what you'd have to do to show you were right.

[Harbal]

So what's going to happen if I claim something without proving it?

Then nobody's going to have a reason to believe you.

They don't have to believe me. Most of the commenters on the thread so far seem to already agree with me. I haven't seen much sympathy for your view, however.

Values don't refer to truth, a value is just something that has worth to those who value it.

That depends on whether the actual value of a thing is determined by me or by God.

The value of my values is determined by me, they wouldn't be my values otherwise. I Don't see how you can deny the rationality of that. I can't value something just because you say God has determined it to have value.

Why? She chose to have sex. She chose to have unprotected sex. She decided she'd rather kill a child than give on up for adoption. Then she killed her own child. Where's the immorality in pointing out to her exactly what she's done?

Well if she has anything about her, she could well punch you in the face for pointing that out to her. And from a moral standpoint, I couldn't really criticise her for it.

I explained why "moral progress" is not indicated merely with reference to pointing to a few things that seem to go well; they have to be weighted against the things that are going not-so-well.

But preferably not weighed on rigged scales.

No, I don't think I do.

No, you don't, personally...but if you wanted to be right, that's what you'd have to do to show you were right.

I don't want to be right, I simply am right. I know morality works on an individual level, because I am an individual with my own sense of morality, along with moral values to go with it.

We totally reject each other's point of view, and it is obvious that isn't going to change, but that's just how it goes.