Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, then, presumably you did it for rational reasons.

What were they?

This is the ethics sub.

Perhaps it's time to take the arguments about whether there is a God to the religion sub where the people who care about that shit hang out.

Can't do it, right?

We're in the right sub, alright. I'm just waiting for your subjectivist moral syllogism. I note it is yet to appear...I shall not forget.

Is this based on your complete inability to understand Frege-Geach again?
The syllogism was never a problem for anyone who does understand it.

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

That one works fine for anyone who isn't a non-cognitivist. Anyone who doesn't swap out P1 for "boo killing" has no issue here and they never did...

[Immanuel Can]

It's best to never trust our best judgment about who to empathize with, and it's best to never eat anything ever again.

That's what's called a "reductio" argument...I'm not making it, nor does it follow.

That, too, turns out not to be true. Often, what intelligent people use their intelligence for is merely being more devious or more direct about fulfilling their own desires, rather than for doing good. Serial killers, drug dealers or human traffickers are sometimes so intelligent they keep law enforcement off balance and unable to beat them for years...or even permanently. One might say that what is lacking in them is not intelligence, but...morality.

But this is very obvious, surely.

That's why I said that we need to enhance both IQ and empathy, so that fewer people will turn to criminalism to begin with. And in a smarter world the ones who do, will get caught more often.

The combo won't help, either. All you'll get is smarter psychopaths, even as you create smarter good people.

It's not a lack of wits that makes a person turn criminal, but a deficiency in morality. We should all realize that after the Epstein incident.

[Immanuel Can]

The syllogism was never a problem for anyone who does understand it.

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

Problem: "wrong" has no inherent meaning in subjectivist language. All it means is "what I didn't feel like doing at the time." So you can't use the word "wrong," without resorting to objectivism or else begging the question.

Let's make you explicit, if we can.

Try putting in, for "wrong" whatever dynamic it is that is behind something being "right" or "wrong." If it's not objective morality, and not merely opinion or emotion, say what you think it is.

[FlashDangerpants]

The syllogism was never a problem for anyone who does understand it.

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

Problem: "wrong" has no inherent meaning in subjectivist language. All it means is "what I didn't feel like doing at the time." So you can't use the word "wrong," without resorting to objectivism or else begging the question.

Let's make you explicit, if we can.

Try putting in, for "wrong" whatever dynamic it is that is behind something being "right" or "wrong." If it's not objective morality, and not merely opinion or emotion, say what you think it is.

That's pure nonsense. I can use the word 'wrong' in exactly the normal way. You just don't understand what you are on about.

[CIN]

Problem: "wrong" has no inherent meaning in subjectivist language. All it means is "what I didn't feel like doing at the time

'No inherent meaning' and 'all it means' are mutually contradictory.

As Flash knows, I'm no subjectivist, but he's right on this point. 'Wrong' does have a meaning, even for an error theorist, and you've admitted as much by saying 'all it means is...'

[promethean75]

busted

[Atla]

It's best to never trust our best judgment about who to empathize with, and it's best to never eat anything ever again.

That's what's called a "reductio" argument...I'm not making it, nor does it follow.

That, too, turns out not to be true. Often, what intelligent people use their intelligence for is merely being more devious or more direct about fulfilling their own desires, rather than for doing good. Serial killers, drug dealers or human traffickers are sometimes so intelligent they keep law enforcement off balance and unable to beat them for years...or even permanently. One might say that what is lacking in them is not intelligence, but...morality.

But this is very obvious, surely.

That's why I said that we need to enhance both IQ and empathy, so that fewer people will turn to criminalism to begin with. And in a smarter world the ones who do, will get caught more often.

The combo won't help, either. All you'll get is smarter psychopaths, even as you create smarter good people.

It's not a lack of wits that makes a person turn criminal, but a deficiency in morality. We should all realize that after the Epstein incident.

And now you're just ignoring the empathy part again. I guess we're done here

[Atla]

The syllogism was never a problem for anyone who does understand it.

P1: Killing is wrong.
P2: If killing is wrong, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.

Problem: "wrong" has no inherent meaning in subjectivist language. All it means is "what I didn't feel like doing at the time." So you can't use the word "wrong," without resorting to objectivism or else begging the question.

Let's make you explicit, if we can.

Try putting in, for "wrong" whatever dynamic it is that is behind something being "right" or "wrong." If it's not objective morality, and not merely opinion or emotion, say what you think it is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then what's the use of "gene engineering" to fix the problem of morality? If the values are not there, in the genes, you can't fix them that way, can you?

As for empathy, I recommend Paul Bloom's book, "Against Empathy." He points out pretty well why it's a bad source of orientation for morality. He doesn't catch all the problems, but he catches a good many of them. Bottom line: empathy is too often misguided.

Note Aristotle on emotion [anger as an example].

• “ANYBODY can become angry, that is easy;
  but to be angry
  with the right person, and
  to the right degree, and
  at the right time, and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way,
  that is not within everybody's power, that is not easy.”

The above one must have a effective competence to do things right and morally.

Emotions exist as potential in all humans and had been adapted via evolution since the emotions emerged in animals which we subsequently inherited and refined.
Emotions are a double-edged-sword which has its pros and cons.
Thus as Aristotle advised long ago, we have to 'do it right' optimally with emotions.

Empathy is an emotion and for Paul Bloom to brush empathy off as significant for morality is very immature.
There are many who criticized Bloom view for being too short-sighted.

One of Bloom 'beef' with empathy is that it can be biased towards kin or in-group.
This is a very narrow view.
The primary reason for being biased to once kin or group is due to the primal impulse of tribalism which is different from the empathy circuit.
As such one of the element of the human-based moral FSK is addressing to manage the primal tribalistic 'us vs them' impulse.

I have my own reservations re empathy, especially blind-empathy without further guidance from other critical moral elements, which end up with more sufferings.
Bloom's preference is for 'compassion' which can also end up with blind-compassion.

Within the human-based moral FSR-FSK there are critical managements strategies to ensure empathy [an double-edged sword] (& all moral related potentials are)is directed effectively to the moral goals.

[Harbal]

But it's only a "tend." That's probabilistic, not certain.

And "implausiblity" depends on evidence, because unless you know what evidence you should expect to find, it's impossible to say that it's missing. What evidence for God would an Atheist have good reason to expect, that he fails to find and thus judges the existence of God "implausible"?

You are determined to convince me I have a problem, aren't you?

I don't know...are you one of those Atheists?

Call me "Dr. IC." All I do is diagnose the disease the patient brings in with him. I don't give him the disease.

If you weren't bringing God into this discussion about morality, no thought of him would have entered my head, and that is how it is in my life in general; if no one mentions God, I never think about God. I think that is also the case with a good many folks who do believe in God. You, on the other hand, seem to be constantly thinking about God to the point of obsession, which isn't at all healthy. I think you need a doctor more than I do.

...one bit of solid evidence has never been produced,

I would say that was obviously not so. But I suspect the Atheist would simply refuse to accept anything offered to him as evidence. One cannot beat that sort of strategy.

For example, just look around at the world...that's the very first and most obvious place to start to gather data.

I don't see anything in the world that suggests God to me.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with anyone believing in God; it's what they do with that believe that often becomes a matter of concern.

It will entirely depend on what kind of God they believe in. But put them all together, and none of the religionists of any stripe whatsoever have done anything near the damage done by Atheists...in terms of sheer corpses, if by no other metric.

I have seen you express and promote quite a few unpalatable views in representation of your particular God. I just don't think the influence religion can have on people is a good thing.

When I reached the age of being able to think about things with some degree of rationality, believing there was such a thing as God was just one of many beliefs I left behind.

Well, then, presumably you did it for rational reasons.

What were they?

I don't remember the transtition from being a child who believes whatever the grown-ups say, to being one old enough to be aware that not everything we are told is true, and we need to use our own judgement in the light of our own experience. I don't think ceasing to believe there was such a thing as God was an event, it just faded away gradually as I became old enough to know better, I suppose.

[Harbal]

It is the aspect of empathy that allows us to see something happening to someone else and be able to comprehend how that would feel if it were to happen to us that is relevant and necessary to morality. I don't see what there is about that to corrupt anybody.

If that ability causes us to feel a buzz when we imagine what it must be like to be a mass murderer, there was obviously something very wrong with us to start with.

"Obviously," you say...and "something wrong..." Interesting language for a subjectivist to resort to.

But in a subjectivist world, there's nothing "obvious" or "wrong" about that, so long as they feel the empathy. Let it be with a sick puppy, or Adolph Hitler, it's just a feeling...unless we have objective grounds for knowing beforehand that one kind of "empathy" is good, and the other is...what's your wording?..."something wrong."

Stop talking rubbish, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Problem: "wrong" has no inherent meaning in subjectivist language. All it means is "what I didn't feel like doing at the time

'No inherent meaning' and 'all it means' are mutually contradictory.

As Flash knows, I'm no subjectivist, but he's right on this point. 'Wrong' does have a meaning, even for an error theorist, and you've admitted as much by saying 'all it means is...'

I see why you've jumped to that conclusion.

However, the problem or contradiction you think you perceive there is not authentic.

It seems you missed, or I failed to make clear enough, the import of the phrase, "in subjectivist language." It changes everything, with regard to that objection.

What it means is that this problem is not being declared universally, as your objection would assume; nor is it even being attributed to moral objectivism. Nor am I saying that I think the word "wrong" itself has no meaning -- because under objectivism, it certainly does, and I've said already what meaning I believe we should want to associate with it. I'm saying IF ONE THINKS AS A SUBJECTIVIST then one cannot simply invoke the word "wrong" and run away as if one has said something. One has not.

Given subjectivism, and thinking as if one were a subjectivist only, there is no objective meaning to the word "wrong," --- and that's by definition of "subjectivism," so that has to be the case for any subjectivist. In subjectivist parlance, the word "wrong" then becomes nothing but a placeholder, and "X." It has no known or justified content.

Consequently, if one predicates "wrong" of "killing," one is (according to subjectivism), saying nothing more than "killing is X." In other words, one has said nothing specific at all.

What I simply would like to know from Flash is, what is the "X" is that Flash is wanting to predicate. His/her usage of "wrong" as if it means something is denied by subjectivism itself. It means "X." No more. (That is, it means "X" to subjectivists.)

But one can't say, "I don't want you to kill because of X." One can say, "I don't want you to kill because it causes pain," or "I don't want you to kill because it makes me feel bad." (People may not have sufficient reason to agree, but at least they know what you're trying to say.) But as a subjectivist, you can't just say, "Killing is wrong," because "wrong" does not have any specific meaning.

All I want Flash to do is to fill out "X," to say what it is actually supposed (by Flash) to convey to us. Because right now, by way of subjectivism, it means nothing at all.

[Harbal]

But one can't say, "I don't want you to kill because of X." One can say, "I don't want you to kill because it causes pain," or "I don't want you to kill because it makes me feel bad." (People may not have sufficient reason to agree, but at least they know what you're trying to say.) But as a subjectivist, you can't just say, "Killing is wrong," because "wrong" does not have any specific meaning.

What's wrong with not wanting to kill because it causes pain and it make me feel bad? I think those are excellent reasons for not killing, and I think most people would agree with me. What better reasons can you come up with?

[FlashDangerpants]

Problem: "wrong" has no inherent meaning in subjectivist language. All it means is "what I didn't feel like doing at the time

'No inherent meaning' and 'all it means' are mutually contradictory.

As Flash knows, I'm no subjectivist, but he's right on this point. 'Wrong' does have a meaning, even for an error theorist, and you've admitted as much by saying 'all it means is...'

What it means is that this problem is not being declared universally, as your objection would assume; nor is it even being attributed to moral objectivism. Nor am I saying that I think the word "wrong" itself has no meaning -- because under objectivism, it certainly does, and I've said already what meaning I believe we should want to associate with it. I'm saying IF ONE THINKS AS A SUBJECTIVIST then one cannot simply invoke the word "wrong" and run away as if one has said something. One has not.

Unless you are still so confused as to think I am a non-cognitivist, in which case you would have elevated wilful ignorance to the level of learning disability, you are making no sense at all with that rubbish.

[CIN]

Nor am I saying that I think the word "wrong" itself has no meaning -- because under objectivism, it certainly does, and I've said already what meaning I believe we should want to associate with it.

I've only just joined this discussion. Could you repeat what meaning you said 'wrong' has, or link to where you said it?

I'm saying IF ONE THINKS AS A SUBJECTIVIST then one cannot simply invoke the word "wrong" and run away as if one has said something. One has not.

Given subjectivism, and thinking as if one were a subjectivist only, there is no objective meaning to the word "wrong," --- and that's by definition of "subjectivism," so that has to be the case for any subjectivist. In subjectivist parlance, the word "wrong" then becomes nothing but a placeholder, and "X." It has no known or justified content.

Consequently, if one predicates "wrong" of "killing," one is (according to subjectivism), saying nothing more than "killing is X." In other words, one has said nothing specific at all.

What I simply would like to know from Flash is, what is the "X" is that Flash is wanting to predicate. His/her usage of "wrong" as if it means something is denied by subjectivism itself. It means "X." No more. (That is, it means "X" to subjectivists.)

But one can't say, "I don't want you to kill because of X." One can say, "I don't want you to kill because it causes pain," or "I don't want you to kill because it makes me feel bad." (People may not have sufficient reason to agree, but at least they know what you're trying to say.) But as a subjectivist, you can't just say, "Killing is wrong," because "wrong" does not have any specific meaning.

All I want Flash to do is to fill out "X," to say what it is actually supposed (by Flash) to convey to us. Because right now, by way of subjectivism, it means nothing at all.

As I think Flash keeps telling you, none of this is true of an error theorist, and since an error theorist is a subjectivist, you should stop implying that this is true of all subjectivists. I don't know what meaning you think should be given to 'wrong' — I'm hoping you will tell me — but whatever it is, an error theorist can say that it has exactly that meaning, he just doesn't think there is anything actual to which it applies.

But in any case, even a non-cognitivist would have a view about the meaning of 'wrong'. Non-cognitivism is not the belief that 'wrong' is just a meaningless noise.