Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

If the Christian God does exist and wants humanity to unite under Christianity instead of nuking itself into oblivion, then the Christian God needs to reveal himself beyond reasonable doubt. It's that simple.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it's that. I think it's deliberate. People choose themselves over God. And their various "gods" offer them something they're afraid the real God will take away...like cultural solidarity, pride, the opportunity to indulge, the freedom to do as they please, their resources...it can be a lot of things. It's easier to stay with the "gods" they have self-chosen, or which they are rewarded by their culture for hanging onto: especially when their chosen "god" is themselves. So they just refuse to investigate further. They're happy with what they've got.

And that's, once again, what believers in other "the Supreme Being"s think about you. Hence why objective morality can't work for humanity.

It's point is not to "work for humanity," for something humanity desires. Humanity's goals are all suspect, best; a lot of what we desire is actually quite evil. Its point is that it's the truth. And its' the only thing that "works" to bring people closer to the truth. That's why it's so important, no matter how many skeptics and scoffers may line up to denigrate it.

That seems contradictory. Why would people be "smart" to adopt a subjective morality, when they know for certain it bears no correspondence to objective truth? Rather, the opposite seems obvious: that only a fool would agree to follow a morality that was either purely of his own fantasy, or a morality made for him by other people.

Objective morality is pure fantasy,

That's not a given. I could simply dismiss moral subjectivism in the same off-handed way. But I don't. I look at what subjectivism entails, and ask people if that is what they understand by morality, and if that's what they think is the right way to go. The problems with subjectivism are in its own implications, not merely in the fact that it fails to be objective. So I think the case against subjectivism makes itself.

Oddly enough, it's a shame people on this board usually don't even read PN. In the last issue, I found at least three articles that cover the same problems with subjectivism or relativism that I try to point out here. It seems I'm not the only one who knows subjectivism is flawed so badly.

And Peter Holmes knows it, too. I don't doubt that by now, he's tried to create a moral syllogism, if only in his head, and found out exactly what I'm saying: that subjectivism can't even do it once, let alone for a whole range of moral prohibitions and endorsements that would be necessary to generate an actual code of ethics.

And I think you must know that, too, at least in the back of your thinking. Because you've opted for authoritarian solutions to the problem of moral agreement, whether you know it or not. In asking to "engineer" the answer by reprogramming human beings, you've implied that an imposed, artificial and unwarranted consensus would be better than none. But that's hard to see as, in any conventional sense, "moral,' since it amounts to the control of the masses by a narrow elite with a different agenda, without their wills.

Not only that, but how it would be "better," and for what it would be "better" remains a matter of serious concern. Whose moral vision would it serve...who would decide it was "better"? And since you and I are not the engineers, and are, in fact, among the ones allegedly needing the reprogramming, we can be sure it's not our own.

At least subjective morality is only partially fantasy.

I would argue that it's completely a fantasy. No such thing exists, analytically. For one of the features of "morality," as we normally think about it, is that it has to apply to more than one person and situation. The whole value of a moral rule is if we can use it to arrange agreements on what is appropriate behaviour in a given situation, or what projects we should launch on in common, or how we ought to treat each other in certain circumstances so as to produce justice. We even need it to structure a society as a whole, or to forge international agreements. That's why ethics are so crucial in every one of those areas.

If a view of morality does none of that work, in what sense is it a view of morality at all? But pure subjectivism fails to perform in every one of those cases -- hence, your suggestion that we engineer it artificially, right? You realize we need it, and can't think of a rational way to produce it. So technology has to step in, you suppose, and force compliance without consensus.

[Immanuel Can]

If the Christian God does exist and wants humanity to unite under Christianity instead of nuking itself into oblivion, then the Christian God needs to reveal himself beyond reasonable doubt. It's that simple.

He has. I don't think you could ask anything more than the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. That's the plainest demonstration of God's nature, intentions and will that you could ever have.

But human beings are individuals. And the same reason they refuse to agree on ethics is the reason they refuse to listen to God. Short of what you were suggesting the engineers should do -- to forcibly overcome our individual wills and compel consensus -- even God cannot make consensus happen; because He has made us free individuals. We can listen, or we can rebel. And that individuality, He will not take from us, even if we use it badly.

[Atla]

I don't think it's that. I think it's deliberate. People choose themselves over God. And their various "gods" offer them something they're afraid the real God will take away...like cultural solidarity, pride, the opportunity to indulge, the freedom to do as they please, their resources...it can be a lot of things. It's easier to stay with the "gods" they have self-chosen, or which they are rewarded by their culture for hanging onto: especially when their chosen "god" is themselves. So they just refuse to investigate further. They're happy with what they've got.

And that's, once again, what believers in other "the Supreme Being"s think about you. Hence why objective morality can't work for humanity.

It's point is not to "work for humanity," for something humanity desires. Humanity's goals are all suspect, best; a lot of what we desire is actually quite evil. Its point is that it's the truth. And its' the only thing that "works" to bring people closer to the truth. That's why it's so important, no matter how many skeptics and scoffers may line up to denigrate it.

That seems contradictory. Why would people be "smart" to adopt a subjective morality, when they know for certain it bears no correspondence to objective truth? Rather, the opposite seems obvious: that only a fool would agree to follow a morality that was either purely of his own fantasy, or a morality made for him by other people.

Objective morality is pure fantasy,

That's not a given. I could simply dismiss moral subjectivism in the same off-handed way. But I don't. I look at what subjectivism entails, and ask people if that is what they understand by morality, and if that's what they think is the right way to go. The problems with subjectivism are in its own implications, not merely in the fact that it fails to be objective. So I think the case against subjectivism makes itself.

Oddly enough, it's a shame people on this board usually don't even read PN. In the last issue, I found at least three articles that cover the same problems with subjectivism or relativism that I try to point out here. It seems I'm not the only one who knows subjectivism is flawed so badly.

And Peter Holmes knows it, too. I don't doubt that by now, he's tried to create a moral syllogism, if only in his head, and found out exactly what I'm saying: that subjectivism can't even do it once, let alone for a whole range of moral prohibitions and endorsements that would be necessary to generate an actual code of ethics.

And I think you must know that, too, at least in the back of your thinking. Because you've opted for authoritarian solutions to the problem of moral agreement, whether you know it or not. In asking to "engineer" the answer by reprogramming human beings, you've implied that an imposed, artificial and unwarranted consensus would be better than none. But that's hard to see as, in any conventional sense, "moral,' since it amounts to the control of the masses by a narrow elite with a different agenda, without their wills.

Not only that, but how it would be "better," and for what it would be "better" remains a matter of serious concern. Whose moral vision would it serve...who would decide it was "better"? And since you and I are not the engineers, and are, in fact, among the ones allegedly needing the reprogramming, we can be sure it's not our own.

At least subjective morality is only partially fantasy.

I would argue that it's completely a fantasy. No such thing exists, analytically. For one of the features of "morality," as we normally think about it, is that it has to apply to more than one person and situation. The whole value of a moral rule is if we can use it to arrange agreements on what is appropriate behaviour in a given situation, or what projects we should launch on in common, or how we ought to treat each other in certain circumstances so as to produce justice. We even need it to structure a society as a whole, or to forge international agreements. That's why ethics are so crucial in every one of those areas.

If a view of morality does none of that work, in what sense is it a view of morality at all? But pure subjectivism fails to perform in every one of those cases -- hence, your suggestion that we engineer it artificially, right? You realize we need it, and can't think of a rational way to produce it. So technology has to step in, you suppose, and force compliance without consensus.

Yeah at this point you're just producing long posts even though you know very well that they lack any substance. I'm more puzzled by the fact that you can spend so much time on this?

[Atla]

And that's, once again, what believers in other "the Supreme Being"s think about you. Hence why objective morality can't work for humanity.

It's point is not to "work for humanity,"

...

If morality isn't about the welfare of humans, humanity, then morality is just some random quirk that no one needs to be concerned with.

[Iwannaplato]

Edit: I just realized that you probably thought I was someone else. My guess IC. My response might have been less cranky if I realized this. I still disagree with how you characterize theists, so I didn't change what I wrote below.

I'm not generalising from online characters. I'm speaking from many years of talking to theists in many different contexts. For example, do you entertain the possibility that your team's god may be a fiction?

That they go through periods when they doubt God's existence, sure. That any team's God might be a fiction, sure.

But I might have misunderstood your sentence:

I've never met a theist who spent a moment worrying about whether they'd picked the wrong invented god.

I thought you meant they wondered if they had chosen the wrong deity, the wrong religion. And that the 'invented' part of the sentence was your added commentary. I am not sure how to make sense of that sentence otherwise. That they would think that no God is real AND they worry if they have chosen the wrong invented one. Well, no. I've never met anyone who had that fear and it would be a very strange one. But I've known people to convert and that the process was a struggle, and I've known people who doubted whether there was a God. Certainly in situations where a loved one is dying, for example, but even in non-crisis times. And quite a few have written about this and there is even a category 'the dark night of the soul' for similar type experiences when they reach catastrophic emotional levels. So, doubting that their religion is the right one, yes. Doubting that God is real, yes. I mean, it's a personal discussion. Maybe you never got to a place with a theist where they were open with you.

You said something to effect of 'If you're wrong, there will be a consequence'. And this is often offered as some kind of reason why I should believe in the invented god being peddled by a theist - as though the choice is between believing in their god, or damnation.

Could you quote where I said that? I don't know what you're talking about.

The conviction that their team's is the right god - the real one - is, and has to be, absolute.

No, that's not true. There are plenty of theists who do not hold that position and assume that everyone must convert or be damned. That other religions are false. There are plenty of theists who have some kind of public presence who have said this clearly. I almost never got that impression with Jewish communities I was connected to, though I am sure some Jewish people think the way you are describing. In India I regularly met Hindu religious leaders who specifically talked about Jesus and had great respect for him and Christianity. With Christians themselves, well, they've been all over the place. Some as you describe, others not, but yes many denominations in Christianity have this tendency. Islam is the closest to what you describe but given the Koran's confusing messsages about how Christians and Jews should be looked at, there are Muslims who think that other people of the Book can get into Heaven. The Bahai faith...well, look that one up. The whole religion does not accept the position you assign as a must to theists. Not some members....or some people are exceptions, but it's a core principle of the whole thing. There are other religions and other subgroups of theists who do not fit your characterization. Theists amongst Unitarians, many modern pagans/wiccans/theists not categorizing themselves in a specific religion/new age spiritual types/indigenous theist religions where the religions themselves or individual beliefs tend NOT to have what you are saying, and if anything is the rule it is not what you are saying but the opposite.

Ironically Veritas Aequitas has been asserting what you are asserting here for a long time, that all theists must believe their god is absolutely perfect and better than other Gods.

Despite this being not the case in practice, nor in theory for many theisms, let alone the way many theists then interpret their religions.

But you both tell us theists must have this attitude and belief.

And that's a corruption of the intellect. It's kissing away your brains, which goes with kissing away your moral conscience.

And, btw, there's no substantial difference whatsoever between divine nature, emanation and command theories of morality. The premise 'my team's god is good' is as uselessly unevidenced as the premise 'what my team's god says is true'.

That's peachy, but it's not relevant to what I wrote. It does fit the thread, so perhaps you thought I was somehow justifying objective morality,

but I quoted this....

I've never met a theist who spent a moment worrying about whether they'd picked the wrong invented god. The required intellectual corruption is necessary. It's the ultimate Us and Them delusion.

And fine, you never met one, but it seems from your anecdotal evidence to yourself - with nary a thought to what might be your confirmation bias, or perhaps how your attitude towards theists might have some effect on what you learn about theists and what they share - you have, indeed assumed your experience allows you to claim a universal attitude in theists, what theism must entail.

There's Immanuel Cant on one side saying ALL ATHEISTS and telling us the psychology of all atheists - I called him out on this as I'm sure others have - and we have you and VA being the mirror image on this issue. Let's move all the people that we disagree with into a simple box and hate it. It's neat. I understand the appeal but it's
as you would say

a corruption of the intellect.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah at this point you're just producing long posts even though you know very well that they lack any substance. I'm more puzzled by the fact that you can spend so much time on this?

I'm always quite entertained when somebody claims to tell somebody else what they "know very well." Often, it means, "Please don't push me any further on this; just give me the 'win' and go."

But I don't see conversation as win-loss, and I hope you don't. I think it's something we do in order to learn from each other, by subjecting our beliefs to the perspectives and arguments of others...hopefully, so that both conversation partners emerge wiser from the discussion.

Why do I spend so much time on this? Because I'm considering your own contributions, and giving you an appropriate and honest response. Take it as a sign of respect.

[Immanuel Can]

If morality isn't about the welfare of humans, humanity, then morality is just some random quirk that no one needs to be concerned with.

It's not an either-or actually. Undoubtedly, morality is also about the welfare of humans; but that's not all it's about, nor primarily what it's about. What it's primarily about is the will of God being done, and his character reflected, among the creatures He has made to come to know Him. So God, not man is the primary focus of why morality exists...though it certainly stands to do mankind good, as well.

[Atla]

If morality isn't about the welfare of humans, humanity, then morality is just some random quirk that no one needs to be concerned with.

It's not an either-or actually. Undoubtedly, morality is also about the welfare of humans; but that's not all it's about, nor primarily what it's about. What it's primarily about is the will of God being done, and his character reflected, among the creatures He has made to come to know Him. So God, not man is the primary focus of why morality exists...though it certainly stands to do mankind good, as well.

I don't recognize that as morality, and luckily, nor does the justice system. It is immoral to make "morality" primarily about a non-existent God. You have nothing to offer other than your fantasies, and yet you somehow seem to be thinking that you might be "pushing" others.

[Immanuel Can]

If morality isn't about the welfare of humans, humanity, then morality is just some random quirk that no one needs to be concerned with.

It's not an either-or actually. Undoubtedly, morality is also about the welfare of humans; but that's not all it's about, nor primarily what it's about. What it's primarily about is the will of God being done, and his character reflected, among the creatures He has made to come to know Him. So God, not man is the primary focus of why morality exists...though it certainly stands to do mankind good, as well.

I don't recognize that as morality,...

That's a shame. Because that's what morality is.

But it also explains why you suppose it cannot possibly be objective, because we can both then see that without God, it cannot. And if I disbelieved in God, maybe I would believe something closer to what you do...but I think I'd be even more consistent than you're being, and I'd realize that subjectivism means there's no real morality at all...it's all a delusion. And I can't help but wonder if that realization wouldn't make me act rather differently than I do now.

I wonder if any of us would have the courage to live as if we really believed that. I can see right now that even hardcore subjectivists are afraid to live the logic of their creed. If we did, I'm pretty certain it would make for one ugly world, though.

[Atla]

It's not an either-or actually. Undoubtedly, morality is also about the welfare of humans; but that's not all it's about, nor primarily what it's about. What it's primarily about is the will of God being done, and his character reflected, among the creatures He has made to come to know Him. So God, not man is the primary focus of why morality exists...though it certainly stands to do mankind good, as well.

I don't recognize that as morality,...

That's a shame. Because that's what morality is.

But it also explains why you suppose it cannot possibly be objective, because we can both then see that without God, it cannot. And if I disbelieved in God, maybe I would believe something closer to what you do...but I think I'd be even more consistent than you're being, and I'd realize that subjectivism means there's no real morality at all...it's all a delusion. And I can't help but wonder if that realization wouldn't make me act rather differently than I do now.

I wonder if any of us would have the courage to live as if we really believed that. I can see right now that even hardcore subjectivists are afraid to live the logic of their creed. If we did, I'm pretty certain it would make for one ugly world, though.

I'll repeat again: all these gods are probably just fantasies / psychological illusions, so they are a non-starter. Actual morality in the real world is based on the human conscience, except you don't have one. In the past, Christianity was a fairly good way to control people without conscience, as it forced an artificial "conscience" on them. However it also had the side effect that by now, most of the world has completely forgotten that people without conscience even exist, which partially explains why the world is going downhill. And belief in God is also becoming untenable, so we need a new morality.

So although you think that morality without God would be a delusion, you're simply wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not going to solve your problem for you. I don't think you're genuinely interested, and I know for certain that if you do your own research, you'll find out you've been wrong all along. But it would be a waste of my time to fight with you over it, only to have you return to your earlier stance.

So I'll forgo the pleasure, if you don't mind. You can find out.

Again, that is handwaving,

No, it's just refusal to play with somebody who hasn't got the equipment, apparently. But if you do, you'll figure it out. And if you don't, you won't. So the matter will be settled without my help.

You accused me of not understanding Hume's is-ought [NOFI] dichotomy.
When I asked you to explain the serious idea behind Hume's is-ought dichotomy [even an outline], you became a coward chicken.

Your shameless resorting to Hume's NOFI to defend whatever position re morality is like kicking your own backside.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning,
and establishes the being of a God, ... .... ....;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
... and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature

[Immanuel Can]

I don't recognize that as morality,...

That's a shame. Because that's what morality is.

But it also explains why you suppose it cannot possibly be objective, because we can both then see that without God, it cannot. And if I disbelieved in God, maybe I would believe something closer to what you do...but I think I'd be even more consistent than you're being, and I'd realize that subjectivism means there's no real morality at all...it's all a delusion. And I can't help but wonder if that realization wouldn't make me act rather differently than I do now.

I wonder if any of us would have the courage to live as if we really believed that. I can see right now that even hardcore subjectivists are afraid to live the logic of their creed. If we did, I'm pretty certain it would make for one ugly world, though.

I'll repeat again: all these gods are probably just fantasies / psychological illusions,

If you are confident of that, you must have a reason. So what is that reason?

...we need a new morality.

Everybody agrees on that. But just because we want one and know we need one doesn't mean we're going to be able to get one. Even you have recognized that it won't be had on subjectivist terms, because nobody can be made to agree on subjectivist terms. So you're even willing to resort to a pseudo-objective one...

In other words, you're now so determined to get a new morality that you're prepared to allow or encourage something inherently immoral...pseudo-morality, indoctrinated or installed in people though techonology. But I think many people would see the undermining of individual free choice and personhood as the ultimate immoral act. It's programming, not morality. And it's arbitrary and totalitarian.

And I'd have to agree. Whatever the need is, that can't be our strategy, because it undermines the very thing we're looking for...morality.

[Immanuel Can]

You accused me of not understanding Hume's is-ought dichotomy.

I noted it as evident. I didn't have to "accuse," because it wasn't personal. It was just a fact to be noted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You accused me of not understanding Hume's is-ought dichotomy.

I noted it as evident. I didn't have to "accuse," because it wasn't personal. It was just a fact to be noted.

Note my full post;

You accused me of not understanding Hume's is-ought [NOFI] dichotomy.
When I asked you to explain the serious idea [your "a fact to be noted"] behind Hume's is-ought dichotomy [even an outline], you became a coward chicken.

Your shameless resorting to Hume's NOFI to defend whatever position re morality is like kicking your own backside.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning,
and establishes the being of a God, ... .... ....;
when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
... and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature