Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

when our conscience alerts us, we would be wise to check to see where our moral condition is.

Yet you described it as an illusion two or three posts back.

What I described as an "illusion" was "subjective morality."

A fire alarm has a "subjective" impact: it makes people nervous, and induces them to look for fires. That's subjective. But that doesn't imply that either the fire or the alarm are "subjective." The alarm is really going off, objectively, and is really indicating an objective fire.

Conscience has a subjective impact, sure; but it has an objective referent.

And what is that objective referent?

[Iwannaplato]

They don't, actually.

While it's true that the Theist cannot convince the Atheist on Atheistic suppositions, that's really a problem inherent to Atheism. Atheism has the facts of the case wrong, you see...the universe is NOT what the Atheist thinks it is, a morally gelded plane on which only Atheist-fitting arguments can "work." Rather, it is a stage infused with the moral meanings God has already instituted in the things He created. And man isn't some free-floating monad drifting though meaningless space, trying to impose his own meanings, but a creation of God who could, and should, listen to His Creator's voice...through nature itself, if not through the given Law.

To me you just described the problem you have showing atheists. Everybody blames their opponents for having the problem of not recognizing the right authority (a deduction, a religious leader, the Bible, empirical research results, whatever). And it seems like you even seem to think God's showing has trouble reaching some people.

Further you're ignoring the problem between theists even within one religion. I believe you've said earlier to me that many people who are called Christians aren't Christians, perhaps it was even most. Showing this will also be problematic. Even most theists cannot be shown things, even most theists in the same religions cannot be shown things. The problem runs very deep.

So murdering babies really is wrong, and is an abomination against the Creator. And Atheistic imaginings to the contrary won't change that status, even as Theistic imaginings would change nothing. It is what it is. Objective value is established by God, not in human imagining.

Almost everyone except complete pacificist who are also against abortion have considered abortion in some conditions acceptable. Most conservative religious people were pro-nuke through my first decades. Nukes will abort babies. So, theists seem to have problems showing theists that killing babies is an abomination. And of course even more limited types of technological killing in war will end up killing babies in the womb. And I find it odd to be told that killing babies is an abomination against the creator. I don't need to be told Daddy hates when I hit my sister. If I am bad and it hurts my sister it seems key I am not getting something core if I need to know what Daddy thinks about it and this is the justification. There's something, to me, toxic about how some Christians think. It's like Christians have no empathy so they need to be told that God hates X.

regrettable, but true. However, as I said above, the problem is not in Theism, but rather in the alternative.

Theisms does not give the theist the tools to overcome the gap. To say that the other side has a problem showing as if your side doesn't have this. Everybody blames the other side for their shortcomings, but the problem remains.

If you can't show me the world because I insist on keeping my hands over my eyes, whose fault is that? Likewise, if you insist, prior to all deduction, that there can be no reference to God, I cannot possibly show you what values objectively exist in this world.

Yup, you've got a problem showing. Inter theist showing is problematic also.

But then, if there IS a God, whose fault is that?

It depends on what that God is and has done.

I mean, why put babies in atheist wombs or theist wombs where the theists will have an abortion? What kind of God does that?

Let me ask you this: if someone you knew handed their kids over to someone they knew what a pedophile, would you judge them harshly?

Why are you so forgiving when it comes to God? (who also puts babies into to wombs in pedophile households.

It seems even deities have trouble showing what is moral.

Do you have the courage to actually face what this might mean instead of coming with some kind of mental gymnastics?

Because I am getting tired of talking to people who can't face stuff I had to go through the pain of facing. And I do not mean, agree with me and deal with X forever. I mean to actually sit with cognitive dissonance. Instead of immediately rushing to some explanation because the really fundamentally scary thing simply cannot be true so let's get past it immediately.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet you described it as an illusion two or three posts back.

What I described as an "illusion" was "subjective morality."

A fire alarm has a "subjective" impact: it makes people nervous, and induces them to look for fires. That's subjective. But that doesn't imply that either the fire or the alarm are "subjective." The alarm is really going off, objectively, and is really indicating an objective fire.

Conscience has a subjective impact, sure; but it has an objective referent.

And what is that objective referent?

When did your conscience alert you? Look around, and see what it's making you concerned about. Then check the moral status of that situation.

As I said earlier, your conscience won't be perfect, because we aren't. Sometimes, it will alert you when it shouldn't. Sometimes, it will not be as sensitive as it should be. But most of the time, it will point you to the need for some moral clarity in a given situation.

But there's a missing piece. That is, a person has to involve his/her relationship with God, or moral clarity just won't come. The objective truth is that whatever fits with that relationship is objectively moral. Whatever fails to do so is objectively not moral.

[Immanuel Can]

They don't, actually.

While it's true that the Theist cannot convince the Atheist on Atheistic suppositions, that's really a problem inherent to Atheism. Atheism has the facts of the case wrong, you see...the universe is NOT what the Atheist thinks it is, a morally gelded plane on which only Atheist-fitting arguments can "work." Rather, it is a stage infused with the moral meanings God has already instituted in the things He created. And man isn't some free-floating monad drifting though meaningless space, trying to impose his own meanings, but a creation of God who could, and should, listen to His Creator's voice...through nature itself, if not through the given Law.

To me you just described the problem you have showing atheists.

You can't convince somebody who's already decided the case, and then closed his mind. And Atheists, absent any evidence at all, have done exactly that.

Further you're ignoring the problem between theists even within one religion. I believe you've said earlier to me that many people who are called Christians aren't Christians, perhaps it was even most. Showing this will also be problematic.

It won't be, provided one is willing to be shown. If one insists on the "self-identification' criterion, meaning that everybody who says, "I'm Christian" has to be regarded as such, absent any verification at all, then it will be a problem for such a person. But if one follows the word of God, it actually is very clear.

Even most theists cannot be shown things,

It depends. An indoctrinated Muslim extremist? Sure. But a Western Christian who meets the Biblical criteria? Humans are all fallible, but I have to says that I find them very tractable and reasonable people. They can be persuaded.

So murdering babies really is wrong, and is an abomination against the Creator. And Atheistic imaginings to the contrary won't change that status, even as Theistic imaginings would change nothing. It is what it is. Objective value is established by God, not in human imagining.

Almost everyone except complete pacificist who are also against abortion have considered abortion in some conditions acceptable. [/quote]
that isn't true, actually. I know a lot of people who are quite consistent that babies are not be murdered.

But then, if there IS a God, whose fault is that?

It depends on what that God is and has done.

I mean, why put babies in atheist wombs or theist wombs where the theists will have an abortion? What kind of God does that?

Well, first you'd need to establish that abortion is wrong -- which I think you should, but I'm guessing you probably won't. And if you don't believe abortion is wrong, you've got nothing of which to accuse God here, do you?

But I can only answer from my own perspective, in which abortion is objectively wrong. And you would have a point, a reason to question God, if like me, you believed in a God, and that abortion is wrong. As the case is, human beings have free will; and free will entails the power to do either what God wants, and what He doesn't want for you. Murdering the innocent is exactly what evil does; are you surprised? You won't be, when you realize that a lot of people are using their free will to disobey God. You could go down the whole list of human attrocities, from abortion to genocide, and prove it to yourself easily.

But does this mean that God has failed the innocent? No. As for the babies themselves, the ones harmed thereby, God takes care of those: we don't know their situation, nor can we speculate either way, since we are simply not told. Abortion is not one of the innovations of man dealt with in detail in Scripture. The Bible says a lot of things about the value of life, about the preciousness of a human being, about the right to live and the responsibility not to murder, but nothing about what to do after somebody invents a technology that allows the murder her own baby...just as it has no explicit statements about cotton gins, computers, or motorcycles, though it always has principles that apply. What would we expect, though?

One thing we can be sure of, though; God will do right by all. That's His character. One can believe that, or choose not to. And what one chooses says a whole lot about one's attitude to God.

Because I am getting tired of talking to people who can't face stuff I had to go through the pain of facing.

Should I ask what that was? Do you mean abortion?

[Atla]

"Works subjectively" to do what, though? To point us to nothing objectively true, or to point us to a reality about morality?

It doesn't "point", it "is" subjective moral right and moral wrong.

Then there's nothing it "works" for, nothing outside itself to which it refers. It's a delusion. So it really doesn't "work' at all. It's just a "thing that happens" to silly human beings, who don't realize it has no relation to reality beyond the phenomenon of itself.

Yes, that's what "subjective" means, except calling it a delusion is somewhat misleading.
Are you trying to show that subjectivists are subjectivists? Why would you think that they don't already know that?

In comparison, a much bigger delusion is sticking to objective morality in a world where no objective morality could be found so far.

[Harbal]

What I described as an "illusion" was "subjective morality."

A fire alarm has a "subjective" impact: it makes people nervous, and induces them to look for fires. That's subjective. But that doesn't imply that either the fire or the alarm are "subjective." The alarm is really going off, objectively, and is really indicating an objective fire.

Conscience has a subjective impact, sure; but it has an objective referent.

And what is that objective referent?

When did your conscience alert you? Look around, and see what it's making you concerned about. Then check the moral status of that situation.

As I said earlier, your conscience won't be perfect, because we aren't. Sometimes, it will alert you when it shouldn't. Sometimes, it will not be as sensitive as it should be. But most of the time, it will point you to the need for some moral clarity in a given situation.

Yes, we can agree on all this.

But there's a missing piece. That is, a person has to involve his/her relationship with God, or moral clarity just won't come. The objective truth is that whatever fits with that relationship is objectively moral. Whatever fails to do so is objectively not moral.

I don't have a relationship with God, so I have to look elsewhere, but I don't have to look farther than myself. I acknowledge that I can't always achieve complete moral clarity, but I quite often can. I also acknowledge that my moral views, decisions and actions are not objectively moral; they are only moral or not moral in my eyes. You might say that is a morality based on not much, or even nothing of any significance, and I grant that as a matter of opinion, but it is still morality, and the only kind that I am aware of.

And it is true that I can't form a rational argument as to why stealing and lying are morally wrong; I can only describe why I consider them to be morally wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't "point", it "is" subjective moral right and moral wrong.

Then there's nothing it "works" for, nothing outside itself to which it refers. It's a delusion. So it really doesn't "work' at all. It's just a "thing that happens" to silly human beings, who don't realize it has no relation to reality beyond the phenomenon of itself.

Yes, that's what "subjective" means, except calling it a delusion is very misleading too.

I don't think it is. It just seems the right characterization. It "leads" in the direction of plain-speaking. I think it's those who insist that morality is subjective-but-real who are trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths.

After all, what do you call anything that people think they "see" when it's not actually there? A delusion. That's a good word.

Comparatively, a much bigger delusion is sticking to objective morality in a world where no objective morality is to be found.

But in a subjectivist world, there's nothing objectively "wrong" about being deluded. There's nothing objectively "wrong" with anything at all, from that to rape or genocide.

So you'd have to say it's not "bigger" but "just an alternate delusion." Not much of an indictment, in a subjectivist world.

[Atla]

Then there's nothing it "works" for, nothing outside itself to which it refers. It's a delusion. So it really doesn't "work' at all. It's just a "thing that happens" to silly human beings, who don't realize it has no relation to reality beyond the phenomenon of itself.

Yes, that's what "subjective" means, except calling it a delusion is very misleading too.

I don't think it is. It just seems the right characterization. It "leads" in the direction of plain-speaking. I think it's those who insist that morality is subjective-but-real who are trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths.

After all, what do you call anything that people think they "see" when it's not actually there? A delusion. That's a good word.

Comparatively, a much bigger delusion is sticking to objective morality in a world where no objective morality is to be found.

But in a subjectivist world, there's nothing objectively "wrong" about being deluded. There's nothing objectively "wrong" with anything at all, from that to rape or genocide.

So you'd have to say it's not "bigger" but "just an alternate delusion." Not much of an indictment, in a subjectivist world.

Have you talked to subjectivists before? They don't keep switching to the metric of "objective rightness/wrongness" because they don't think such a thing even exists. They are subjectivists.

[Immanuel Can]

But there's a missing piece. That is, a person has to involve his/her relationship with God, or moral clarity just won't come. The objective truth is that whatever fits with that relationship is objectively moral. Whatever fails to do so is objectively not moral.

I don't have a relationship with God, so I have to look elsewhere, but I don't have to look farther than myself.

If you and I, as contingent, failing, aging, faltering, fallible, transient, sinning, time-bound and not-self-originating beings could provide grounds for morality, then maybe that would be possible to imagine. But you can see all the reasons it can't, listed above.

I acknowledge that I can't always achieve complete moral clarity, but I quite often can.

I agree. Natural moral conscience is crippled by our fallenness, but not entirely destroyed. However, it's a slippery little beggar, and too often lets us down.

I also acknowledge that my moral views, decisions and actions are not objectively moral; they are only moral or not moral in my eyes.

Ironically, (and without any sideways swipe intended) that's exactly the description the Bible gives of man's own moral reasoning. It says, "Every person’s way is right in his own eyes, But the Lord examines the hearts." (Prov. 21:2) Unfortunately, even the most wicked of mankind does exactly the same: make himself right to himself, in his own eyes, and pays no attention to any other assessment. So I don't think we can hold that up as an achievement, can we?

And it is true that I can't form a rational argument as to why stealing and lying are morally wrong; I can only describe why I consider them to be morally wrong.

Well, you're an honest man. That's something. At least you understand the limits of the subjectivist account of morality; others are still trying to say it has objective authority...I don't think they're ever going to be able to show that.

[Immanuel Can]

Have you talked to subjectivists before?

You can see I have.

They don't keep switching to the metric of "objective rightness/wrongness" ...

You can see they do. They want to say, above all, that subjective morality is a real thing...that is, that it's grounded in objective truth. What else can they mean when they say it "is" so? "Is" means, "exists," and "exists as a real thing." That's the core of their issue with me...I point out that they have no objective basis, so subjectivism "is" a delusion.

[Atla]

Have you talked to subjectivists before?

You can see I have.

They don't keep switching to the metric of "objective rightness/wrongness" ...

You can see they do. They want to say, above all, that subjective morality is a real thing...that is, that it's grounded in objective truth. What else can they mean when they say it "is" so? "Is" means, "exists," and "exists as a real thing." That's the core of their issue with me...I point out that they have no objective basis, so subjectivism "is" a delusion.

?!

Can you quote moral subjectivists who claim their moral views have objective moral basis?

[Immanuel Can]

Have you talked to subjectivists before?

You can see I have.

They don't keep switching to the metric of "objective rightness/wrongness" ...

You can see they do. They want to say, above all, that subjective morality is a real thing...that is, that it's grounded in objective truth. What else can they mean when they say it "is" so? "Is" means, "exists," and "exists as a real thing." That's the core of their issue with me...I point out that they have no objective basis, so subjectivism "is" a delusion.

?!

Can you quote moral subjectivists who claim their moral views have objective moral basis?

I just did. They say that subjective thinking IS morality. That means "exists as." And if they don't mean something objective by that, then they're really not saying anything at all, beyond, "delusions are delusions." And I don't know what you want to make of a claim like that.

[Atla]

You can see I have.
You can see they do. They want to say, above all, that subjective morality is a real thing...that is, that it's grounded in objective truth. What else can they mean when they say it "is" so? "Is" means, "exists," and "exists as a real thing." That's the core of their issue with me...I point out that they have no objective basis, so subjectivism "is" a delusion.

?!

Can you quote moral subjectivists who claim their moral views have objective moral basis?

I just did. They say that subjective thinking IS morality. That means "exists as." And if they don't mean something objective by that, then they're really not saying anything at all, beyond, "delusions are delusions." And I don't know what you want to make of a claim like that.

So it's just a delusion that my favourite color is blue, because blue isn't objectively the favourite color?

[FlashDangerpants]

You can see I have.
You can see they do. They want to say, above all, that subjective morality is a real thing...that is, that it's grounded in objective truth. What else can they mean when they say it "is" so? "Is" means, "exists," and "exists as a real thing." That's the core of their issue with me...I point out that they have no objective basis, so subjectivism "is" a delusion.

?!

Can you quote moral subjectivists who claim their moral views have objective moral basis?

I just did. They say that subjective thinking IS morality. That means "exists as." And if they don't mean something objective by that, then they're really not saying anything at all, beyond, "delusions are delusions." And I don't know what you want to make of a claim like that.

That exists as some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.

[Immanuel Can]

?!

Can you quote moral subjectivists who claim their moral views have objective moral basis?

I just did. They say that subjective thinking IS morality. That means "exists as." And if they don't mean something objective by that, then they're really not saying anything at all, beyond, "delusions are delusions." And I don't know what you want to make of a claim like that.

So it's just a delusion that my favourite color is blue, because blue isn't objectively the favourite color?

Not a good analogy. "Blue" is colour that exists in the external world by way of wavelenths of light (regardless of differences in sight, which is only an epistemological not ontological problem). And "favourite" is trivial. Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Subjectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so.