Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

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.

Yes, I know, but I wasn't imagining that, so it doesn't apply. I told you that, but you didn't include it when you quoted me, did you have a reason for that? Here is my complete comment:

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.

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,

I don't see the problem. How can you assess if something has value other than by knowing if at least one person values it. If nobody values a thing, then it does not have value, but if someone does value it, it has value to someone. What's wrong with you? the logic is as simple as it gets.

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.

Those things would have value to whoever valued them. That's it; there's nothing more to it.

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.

I don't accept that God exists, so I obviously can't consult him. Lot's of people don't believe he exists, and they can't consult him either. Lot's of people who do believe he exists make moral judgements without any reference to what he might think. I suspect the majority of people don't stop to think, now what would God do, before they make their moral decisions, but that's just my intuition; I don't have the statistics to hand, but I'm sure you can dig some up to prove me wrong.

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'm not any kind of ist; I don't fit into any of your off-the-shelf categories. What I insist is that a thing only has value when it is valuable to somebody, but that only makes it valuable to them. Your valuations only reflect the truth about what is or isn't of value to you. If I believe that something is valuable to you, I accept it is true that you value it; what other truth is there to accept about 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.

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.'

I think the Nazis and their racial purity ideology was morally wrong, and I imagine that most other people think it was morally wrong. I am sure, however, that there are people who don't think they were morally wrong. Now I would not describe that as making the Nazis objectively wrong, I would just say they were wrong in the opinion of most people. If you want to say they were objectively wrong, I don't have a problem with it, but anyone who insisted on sticking to proper philosophical principles probably would.

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.

Yes, the idea or racial purity acquired value for the Nazis once they had seen value in it. The actual idea of racial purity itself remained unchanged, though; the fact that the Nazis put a value on it made no difference to any qualities it may or may not have had before they bestowed value on it. I don't know what you mean by a "correct value", but the correctness, or lack of it, would have been unaffected by whatever attitude the Nazis had towards it.

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

I have no idea, I haven't really thought about it.

[Immanuel Can]

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,

It WAS the issue, before you ducked it. And now, I just made it the issue again.

If you can't forbid racism, you can't forbid slavery, or rape, or genocide, or pedophilia either. All those things, people have "valued." So answer the question, if you dare...

[Immanuel Can]

How was it a fallacy?

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

Yes, I know, but I wasn't imagining that, so it doesn't apply. I told you that, but you didn't include it when you quoted me, did you have a reason for that? Here is my complete comment:

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.

Then you'll need to explain to me why you decided to throw in an observation that, by what we both know about bandwagon fallacy, has absolutely no relevance here. Did you not expect me to conclude something based on it? If so, what was it you were trying to get me to conclude from your mention of it?

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,

I don't see the problem.

Yeah, I think you do. It's pretty obvious when you consider how highly eugenicists and Nazis have "valued" 'racial purity.'

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.

Those things would have value to whoever valued them. That's it; there's nothing more to it.

Then you're admitting you think there's no grounds for condemning anything any person, of any character, might happen to "value"?

And what if somebody de-values something? Are they also never wrong about that? So if somebody de-values your human rights, then all they're doing is expressing a different preference than your own, and you have no objective basis upon which to protest?

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.

I don't accept that God exists, so I obviously can't consult him.

You could. But you won't. Granted.

I don't have the statistics to hand, but I'm sure you can dig some up to prove me wrong.

Of course. But I'm not going to do that unless you want me to. I suspect you don't.

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.'

I think the Nazis and their racial purity ideology was morally wrong,

Sorry...you can't, by your own lights. Not and be sensible. What you need to believe is that they valued 'racial purity,' and they were as "right" as anybody can be about that, because valuability derives solely from the fact that somebody values a thing. And there's no gainsaying that.

But that's a reality I see you concede:

Now I would not describe that as making the Nazis objectively wrong, I would just say they were wrong in the opinion of most people. If you want to say they were objectively wrong, I don't have a problem with it, but anyone who insisted on sticking to proper philosophical principles probably would.

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.

Yes, the idea or racial purity acquired value for the Nazis once they had seen value in it.

I see what your problem is. You imagine that "value" is only a verb. But if it is, then it cannot be any source of the predication of value. It reduces to an empty tautology, like, "A thing is being valued because somebody is valuing it."

That gets you away from having to say anything at all about the value-status of the thing in question: but it does so only at the price of making your claim incapable of conveying any information at all.

That's the price of subjectivism. Hitler gets a free hand. What he values, he values; and if he values it, it's "valuable"; and if he finds ways to make others value it, then it becomes even more "valuable." No more can be said for him, and no more against him, then. Morally, he's in as strong a position any anybody.

No thanks. I don't believe that's anything close to true. And what's more, I'll bet you don't either. For you immediately change your tune:

The actual idea of racial purity itself remained unchanged, though; the fact that the Nazis put a value on it made no difference to any qualities it may or may not have had before they bestowed value on it.

Then the actual value or worthiness-of-value of a thing is not established merely by the fact of valuing. For you say, "it made no difference to any of [its] qualities." But adding value is a qualitative change; so that's not true, either.

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

I have no idea, I haven't really thought about it.

Ah. Well, that's exactly what we're doing right now, whether self-consciously or not.

[Harbal]

God this, blah, blah, God that, blah, blah.........

What on earth are we doing, IC; why are we taking part in this pointless exercise? We both think we are talking about morality, but morality in a universe where God exists is a different thing to morality in a universe where he doesn't. We are not talking about the same subject at all. Fish Pie jumped straight on my back when I once said that atheists and theists should have separate forums for philosophy, but it is obviously true. The inclusion of God into just about any philosophical issue completely changes the nature of it, and the two perspectives have absolutely no chance of reconciling. Theists and atheists can legitimately argue about whether God exists, but little else, it seems to me. At least not in any sensible way. What makes sense to you sounds absolutely crackers to me, and that is inevitable, and will ever be so.

Just remember: It's never too late, you can switch teams any time.

[Immanuel Can]

God this, blah, blah, God that, blah, blah.........

What on earth are we doing, IC; why are we taking part in this pointless exercise? We both think we are talking about morality, but morality in a universe where God exists is a different thing to morality in a universe where he doesn't.

More than that. In the subjectivist universe, morality doesn't actually exist at all.

Instead, it becomes just a weird thing people do, in which some undefined quality called "value" is bestowed on any object any entity can "value." It's a delusion, and no more.

We are not talking about the same subject at all.

That is true.

I am talking about things that are actually worthy of value, or worthy of not being valued. What you're talking about is no more than the empirical fact that some poor fools happen go around trying to "value" things that, in and of themselves, actually have no "value." That's quite a different task.

But you're right: it comes from the fact that you believe you inhabit one kind of world, and I believe we inhabit another. In yours, there is no God, no objective morality, and no way of arbitrating which things are "worthy of value" at all. If some idiot or psycho "values" garbage or genocide, then that thing gets "value," in that universe.

But to be frank, I don't think you actually believe in the world you claim you inhabit. You seem to lapse constantly into moral language to which that world does not entitle you.

Fish Pie jumped straight on my back when I once said that atheists and theists should have separate forums for philosophy, but it is obviously true.

I think that if Atheism can't survive the challenge, then yes, maybe it needs its own special preserve. But as for me, I'm here on a secular forum, unapologetically as a Christian...and have been, for years. So I don't feel the need of such segregation.

The inclusion of God into just about any philosophical issue completely changes the nature of it,

Now you've got it!

That's absolutely right. So the all-important question becomes, "Does God exist, or not?" Really, that's the first question of all philosophy. Everything else is truly a footnote.

Just remember: It's never too late, you can switch teams any time.

Well, at times, I'm partial to an underdog, but in this case, I think I'll stay with the inevitably-winning team. The costs of switching are not attractive.

[Harbal]

So the all-important question becomes, "Does God exist, or not?"

You still don't get it; I'm not interested in talking about God.

[iambiguous]

So the all-important question becomes, "Does God exist, or not?" Really, that's the first question of all philosophy. Everything else is truly a footnote.

I agree. If a God, the God does in fact exist.

Now, suppose you had stumbled on proof -- at YouTube of all places!!! -- that the Christian God does in fact exist. Wouldn't everything you post here become a mere footnote to your impassioned attempt to provide that proof to all who still do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior?



OF COURSE IT WOULD!!!

[Immanuel Can]

So the all-important question becomes, "Does God exist, or not?"

You still don't get it; I'm not interested in talking about God.

I know. But you said it. It's the first question, the one that changes everything.

You wonder why moral subjectivism is so incoherent that you have to appeal to its allegedly inherently irrational, emotive nature? It's because the world moral subjectivism assumes is incapable of any coherent understanding of morality at all. No wonder, then, that moral discussions with subjectivists go nowhere: they deny the existence of an arbiter of truth in such cases...and for their decision, they inherit an incoherent world.

So maybe it's not me who needs to switch teams, right?

[Harbal]

I know. But you said it. It's the first question, the one that changes everything.

Yes it does, it turns everything into nonesense. It's like two people trying to communicate in different languages, it just deosn't make sense to carry on. And it is immensley annoying and frustrating when somebody keeps bringing up God. Trying to reason with you is like trying to run through three feet of treacle. We have to stop before I snap and tell you what I really think about you and your God, which will leave me feeling bad, even if it has no effect on you.

[Immanuel Can]

I know. But you said it. It's the first question, the one that changes everything.

Yes it does, it turns everything into nonesense.

Quite the opposite, in the case of morality, as you can see. It's the subjectivist who can't make sense, who can't fill out a basic moral syllogism, and who ends up making excuses for things like 'racial purity,' because he's afraid to say that something is objectively wrong.

We have to stop before I snap and tell you what I really think about you and your God, which will leave me feeling bad, even if it has no effect on you.

Then we should stop. The last thing I want you to do, or you should want you to do, is to say something for which you will be answering to your Creator.

Or hit pause, if you want, to give yourself the time to think through what you really might want to say...or not say. If you do, I wouldn't blame you.

[Harbal]

Then we should stop.

At last, we agree on something.

[Peter Holmes]

Here's IC's clincher:

'The last thing I want you to do, or you should want you to do, is to say something for which you will be answering to your Creator.'

And here's the utter moral degradation of this strain of theistic moral objectivism. It demonstrates an abjectly immoral abandonment of conscience.

IC's team's invented, primitive, tribal god supposedly thinks homosexuality is wrong, and that homosexuals should be killed. And IC is fine with that, imagines this invented god will welcome him into their invented heaven because IC thinks and says the same about homosexuals, and is smugly content with the imagined punishment this invented god will deal out to anyone who objects to this morally disgusting attitude.

I have no worries about speaking the truth. Christianity is a vicious, immoral religion, with a supposed god of love whose symbol is an instrument of torture and execution - a god who was supposedly appeased by a human sacrifice. And this is why so many Christians have for centuries cheerfully committed moral atrocities.

[Advocate]

Morality is a personal understanding of best practices. Ethics is formalized, usually shared, morality. Ethics is meaningful to the extent people share priorities. Here are some moral universals:

a) survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals
b) sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals
c) truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals
d) reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization

[Harbal]

c) truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals

IC's goals must all be arbitrary, then.

[Dontaskme]

It WAS the issue, before you ducked it. And now, I just made it the issue again.

I can unduck it if you want me to?

If you can't forbid racism, you can't forbid slavery, or rape, or genocide, or pedophilia either. All those things, people have "valued." So answer the question, if you dare...

1. Racism does not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing racism.

2. Slavery does not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing slavery.

3. Rape does not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing rape.

4. Genocide and Pedophilia do not exist for me. I wouldn't dream of committing them either.

I am not a perpetrator of immoral acts because I hold very dear to moral standards, which to me, is a valuable asset to hold to, it would rest-assured me some peace of mind and a clear conscience. I know by direct experience that harming others is bad, because I have been harmed by others, so I know what it feels like, so I would never dream of perpetrating harmful, illegal, and immoral acts on others, as I wouldn't dream of harming myself. So why would I even think that might be a good idea to carry out immoral acts on others?...I simply would not. Any such an action would be of no value to me whatsoever, I'd probably get thrown in prison for life if that sort of action was of value to me, but the thought of life in prison is not of any value to me, and is why I wouldn't dream of seeking any value in being a perpetrator of immoral acts. Only a fool would seek value in committing immoral acts. If fools exist in the world, then what the heck can I do about that, except be a fool back as I seek to take revenge, and where would that get me, what good would that do, it would certainly be of no value to me personally.

I do not find any value in any of that list numbered 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 ...So I'm still not really sure as what is your point is, that you are making to me personally?