Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Bandwagon fallacy.

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.

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security. Racial supremacists value "purity of the race": and I doubt you want to say that that proves that racism is "valuable."

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.

Pointing out what she knows already, or should know? She might. It won't make her a moral person, but she might opt for that. It would actually make her very foolish. But there would be very few women who, on sight, would be willing to take a swing at me, I assure you...and it would not be very effective if they did.

I don't want to be right, I simply am right.

How objectivist of you.

[Dontaskme]

Bandwagon fallacy.

And you of all people would know all about that wouldn't you.
You are absolutely terrified, so scared to death of falling off the back of your rickerty bandwagon that your fingernails are worn down to the quick, as you in vain try to cling on for dear life. And that's the dilemma you have gotten yourself stuck in, for all eternity, you poor thing.

[Harbal]

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.

Bandwagon fallacy.

How was it a fallacy? You said no one would have any reason to believe me, and I said that most already seem to agree with me. I didn't claim that that makes me right.

The value of my values is determined by me, they wouldn't be my values otherwise.

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security. Racial supremacists value "purity of the race": and I doubt you want to say that that proves that racism is "valuable."

That's ridiculous. If I find value in something then that thing obviously has value to me, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it is worthy of value. Some of the values that you say come from God are not worthy of value in my opinion, that's how it works. Absolutely anything that even just one person finds value in, automatically acquires value, but nothing has absolute value; things can only have relative value, according to whether or not someone values them. The Bible has high value to you, but none to me.

When it comes to morality, we are dealing with our beliefs about what is right and wrong, but they are not the same kind of beliefs as the ones we have about, say, physical facts about the world. If I believe it is raining, I can look out of my window for evidence to confirm my belief is true, but if I believe that stealing is wrong, I know that it cannot be proven to be factually true. It can only be conditionally true, based on what I consider to be desireable or unacceptable.

But there would be very few women who, on sight, would be willing to take a swing at me,

Are you in a wheelchair?

I don't want to be right, I simply am right.

How objectivist of you.

I'm not saying you are wrong, even though I can't avoid thinking it; I am just saying that I have moral values and they influence the way I behave. The values themselves are subjective, but it is an objective fact that I have them.

[Dontaskme]

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security.

That's not for you to say what is worthless and therefore not valuable to a hoarder of garbage. It's not your prerogative to make that judgement call about what is valuable or not valuable for a hoader, it is the hoarder itself that decides what is valuable to it's world.

It's not for to say hoarders of garabge imagine wrongly that their possession of garbage indicates a kind of security for them. It's the hoarder who makes that decision as to whether the garbage indicates security. Your opinion is not actually the reality of the hoarders situation, the reality of the situation is always with the hoarder, not with you.

It's the same for people like you who value God's word, because it is of value to you. But not everyone would agree with you that God's word is of any value.

Harbal is right to say '' The value of my values is determined by me, they wouldn't be my values otherwise. ''

Just as you yourself have determined for yourself, that your values are with God's word, and that those words are of valuable to you.

Does the value you hold in God's words indicate security for you?

Do you wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage that is God's word indicate security for you?

[Harbal]

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security.

That's not for you to say what is worthless and therefore not valuable to a hoarder of garbage. It's not your prerogative to make that judgement call about what is valuable or not valuable for a hoader, it is the hoarder itself that decides what is valuable to it's world.

It's not for to say hoarders of garabge imagine wrongly that their possession of garbage indicates a kind of security for them. It's the hoarder who makes that decision as to whether the garbage indicates security. Your opinion is not actually the reality of the hoarders situation, the reality of the situation is always with the hoarder, not with you.

It's the same for people like you who value God's word, because it is of value to you. But not everyone would agree with you that God's word is of any value.

Harbal is right to say '' The value of my values is determined by me, they wouldn't be my values otherwise. ''

Just as you yourself have determined for yourself, that your values are with God's word, and that those words are of valuable to you.

Does the value you hold in God's words indicate security for you?

Do you wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage that is God's word indicate security for you?

I suppose if you want a false sense of security, it makes more sense to get it from something that exists, even if it is garbage, rather than from something that doesn't, like God. On the other hand, God doesn't make your house look as untidy. IC probably just values tidiness.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks for this discussion about value, which has focused nicely on the issue

I think the expression objective value is incoherent - because a value can't be objective - a matter of fact independent from opinion.

And, of course, morality is about values, which are necessarily subjective.

(The assertion 'This is morally right/wrong because my team's god says it is' has no place in a rational discussion of morality. It's actually a moral abomination, because believers have to suspend their moral judgement - which is why some of the faithful cheerfully commit moral atrocities, such as forcing raped children to give birth.)

[Dontaskme]

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.

Love it!

[Dontaskme]

I suppose if you want a false sense of security, it makes more sense to get it from something that exists, even if it is gargage, rather than from something that doesn't, like God. On the other hand, God doesn't make your house look as untidy. IC probably just values tidiness.

Love it!

[Harbal]

Thanks for this discussion about value, which has focused nicely on the issue

I think the expression objective value is incoherent - because a value can't be objective - a matter of fact independent from opinion.

And, of course, morality is about values, which are necessarily subjective.

(The assertion 'This is morally right/wrong because my team's god says it is' has no place in a rational discussion of morality. It's actually a moral abomination, because believers have to suspend their moral judgement - which is why some of the faithful cheerfully commit moral atrocities, such as forcing raped children to give birth.)

That just about sums it up in a nutshell. It is so self evident that it's hard to see why it is so controversial.

[Harbal]

I suppose if you want a false sense of security, it makes more sense to get it from something that exists, even if it is gargage, rather than from something that doesn't, like God. On the other hand, God doesn't make your house look as untidy. IC probably just values tidiness.

Love it!

Thank you, but I wish you had corrected "gargage" for me before you submitted my quote.

[Dontaskme]

Thanks for this discussion about value, which has focused nicely on the issue

I think the expression objective value is incoherent - because a value can't be objective - a matter of fact independent from opinion.

I agree, value can't be objective.

And, of course, morality is about values, which are necessarily subjective.

That's all they can be, as there is no value holder that remotely looks like an object.

(The assertion 'This is morally right/wrong because my team's god says it is' has no place in a rational discussion of morality. It's actually a moral abomination, because believers have to suspend their moral judgement - which is why some of the faithful cheerfully commit moral atrocities, such as forcing raped children to give birth.)

Excellent, well said.

There is no room here in my individual mind/headspace for two masters, I can only live by what I directly know through my own direct experience. Only I am the director of my life, through immediate direct experience. Only I am the official original author authorising what I know to be right and wrong, real and unreal, false or true, as to what my values are, and that knowing, is all I can know, because they have been my peronal experience...and not Gods, not my cats, and not joe blogs from down the road.

[Dontaskme]

I suppose if you want a false sense of security, it makes more sense to get it from something that exists, even if it is gargage, rather than from something that doesn't, like God. On the other hand, God doesn't make your house look as untidy. IC probably just values tidiness.

Love it!

Thank you, but I wish you had corrected "gargage" for me before you submitted my quote.

Ok Harby, I'll chuck it away for you, I'll store it in my garage. One mans rubbish is another womans treasure.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Bandwagon fallacy.

How was it a fallacy?

Bandwagon fallacy is when a person imagines that if more people share their opinion, they must be more right.

The value of my values is determined by me, they wouldn't be my values otherwise.

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security. Racial supremacists value "purity of the race": and I doubt you want to say that that proves that racism is "valuable."

That's ridiculous.

It's consistent with the suggestion that a thing becomes objectively valuable if a person decides to value it. The truth is that there are both things worthy of value, and things that people sometimes happen to value but are not worthy.

It exposes the problem with this claim:

Absolutely anything that even just one person finds value in, automatically acquires value,

If that were right, then junk collecting and maintaining 'racial purity' would "acquire value" objectively from nothing more than the fact that some foolish or wicked person happened to think they had value.

That's obviously not sensible, right?

When it comes to morality, we are dealing with our beliefs about what is right and wrong, but they are not the same kind of beliefs as the ones we have about, say, physical facts about the world. If I believe it is raining, I can look out of my window for evidence to confirm my belief is true, but if I believe that stealing is wrong, I know that it cannot be proven to be factually true. It can only be conditionally true, based on what I consider to be desireable or unacceptable.

Or, you can consult God's opinion on the subject, and know whether the thing you're considering "valuable" is actually worthy of the "value" you're thinking of placing on it.

But there would be very few women who, on sight, would be willing to take a swing at me,

Are you in a wheelchair?

No indeed.

I don't want to be right, I simply am right.

How objectivist of you.

I'm not saying you are wrong, even though I can't avoid thinking it;

You mean that you can't avoid thinking like an objectivist? You can't avoid thinking, "No matter what IC does not value, he's just plain wrong, because the thing he's not valuing is worthy of value?"

How interesting. You insist that valuing itself imparts value to a thing, and then don't believe my valuations reflect the truth you deny exists in association with moral questions.

I am just saying that I have moral values and they influence the way I behave. The values themselves are subjective, but it is an objective fact that I have them.

Well, a little thinking shows that all three are irrelevant to the question of what is genuinely valuable, unfortunately. 'Racial purity' influenced the way Nazis behaved. Their values were objectively wrong, but were still undeniably subjective, since they failed to be objectively right -- so what else could they be? And it was an objective fact that Nazis valued 'racial purity.'

So all you said is true, and yet none of it made 'racial purity' into a correct value. If the valuing process magically tranformed worthless things into valuable things, then 'racial purity' was made valuable by the fact of the Nazis valuing it.

Defending subjectivism becomes quite a morally and logically vertiginous experience, does it not?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security.

That's not for you to say what is worthless and therefore not valuable to a hoarder of garbage....

How convenient! You skipped the other example.

So let me raise it to you: does the fact that the Nazis valued 'racial purity' mean that "that's not for you" to criticize?

[Dontaskme]

Well, a person can "value" whatever he wants. But not everything is actually valuable, actually worthy of the esteem a person devotes to it. Some people value worthless things. Hoarders do. They wrongly imagine the possession of a large amount of garbage indicates security.

That's not for you to say what is worthless and therefore not valuable to a hoarder of garbage....

How convenient! You skipped the other example.

So let me raise it to you: does the fact that the Nazis valued 'racial purity' mean that "that's not for you" to criticize?

How convenient of you to skip to what the Nazis valued.. which is not the issue here, the issue here is.. That's not for you to say what is worthless and therefore not valuable to a hoarder of garbage.

Then instead of dealing with that point, you then deflect it by raising a completely different example.

If Nazis value 'racial purity' then so what, that's what they value, just as you value God's word, so I don't know what your point is.