Is morality objective or subjective?

[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'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

Far from it. I see your claim about empathy. I'm just pointing out that empathy cuts both ways, and doesn't just automatically end up leading us to good or to morality. It's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I think you're right.

Because more people say that they, in theory "believe in God" than actually do. What they mean is that they see it as only a detached fact, devoid of any actual claim on their lives and actions. For them, it changes nothing, perhaps.

...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.

Interesting. I recognize the evidence on all sides. And if I don't want to look at, say, the implausiblity of the order in nature appearing through accident, I only have to look at things like consciousness, morality, and the efficacy of reason and science to know that there's more than chance at work in this world.

Why isn't it obvious to you, then? I don't know. Perhaps you've never really observed it in that light. But there's far too much complexity -- much of it irreducible and unreproduceable -- for the "accident" explanation to have any traction, I would say.

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.[/quote]
Well, if you look at the statistics, you'll see you're quite wrong about that. Most charities, schools, hospitals, universities, penal reform efforts, welfare programs, addiction programs, and so forth owe their genesis to but one source...and it's not Atheism.

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.[/quote]
What "experience" or sequence of "experiences" eventually convinced you there is no God? Or have you ever thought about that?

[Atla]

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


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

Far from it. I see your claim about empathy. I'm just pointing out that empathy cuts both ways, and doesn't just automatically end up leading us to good or to morality. It's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

Only someone who has no idea about empathy would claim that it's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Simple question: do you think there is such a thing as morality, other than a sort of sociological delusion held subjectively? Yes, or no.

Then, if you say "yes," do you think you can justify a single moral precept by the method of your theory?

If you can, let's see you do it.

[Immanuel Can]

Only someone who has no idea about empathy would claim that it's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

That's an unkind thing to say about scholar Paul Bloom. I'm sure he would be offended. And since it's in his area of speciality, I'm certain you'd be wrong to suppose he "had no idea."

But he's also evidently right. And I've given you examples already of people who empathize with evil things. So you do know you're just plain wrong if you suppose empathy always helps us to become good, right? The empirical data against that theory is just far, far too strong to ignore.

[Atla]

Only someone who has no idea about empathy would claim that it's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

That's an unkind thing to say about scholar Paul Bloom. I'm sure he would be offended. And since it's in his area of speciality, I'm certain you'd be wrong to suppose he "had no idea."

But he's also evidently right. And I've given you examples already of people who empathize with evil things. So you do know you're just plain wrong if you suppose empathy always helps us to become good, right? The empirical data against that theory is just far, far too strong to ignore.

You aren't even trying to keep up even the illusion of intellectual honesty anymore. Well that was to be expected. No one said that empathy always helps us to become good.

[Harbal]

Far from it. I see your claim about empathy. I'm just pointing out that empathy cuts both ways, and doesn't just automatically end up leading us to good or to morality. It's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

Empathy is just the ability to understand what someone else is feeling, the quality of any moral behaviour in response is irrelevant to the principle. I keep saying this but you don't seem interested; the thread is asking what the nature of morality is, not what it should ideally be.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Sure.

To catch you up a bit, I'm an objectivist, myself. And I'm a Christian. That means I ground morality in the nature, character and revealed will of God, who is the Supreme Being and the grounds of reality of all things. So that's the short answer to your question. That's what makes things "right" or "wrong."

Now, perhaps you get that, and perhaps you have a different view. But this you would have to recognize rationally, either way: that IF what I was saying WERE true, then I would have adequate grounds for objective morality. You may, of course, reserve the right to insist that I am simply wrong about the existence of God; but if I were right, I would be grounding morality in the only Source adequate to the task. That's obvious, I'm sure; because what would be a higher referent than that?

Clear enough?

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.

Well, Flash would then be wrong.

Flash would, once again, be mistaking epistemology for ontology...or in this case, for morality...if Flash appealed to error theory. For what people know about what exists (epistemology) does not change what acutally does exist (ontology). Gravity existed before people ever thought of it. America existed even before its discovery by aboriginals migrating across the alleged land bridge. Early man's errors about the edge of the world didn't make the world flat.

In short, things that exist do not depend for their existence on the fallible judgments of mankind. And if morality exists as an ontological reality, which I insist it does, then Flash's resort to noting errors, Mackie style, doesn't add any light to the question at all. Flash has simply misunderstood the problem, not answered it.

And Flash also cannot provide a single syllogism rationalizing any moral precept, apparently, without resorting to taking objectivism for granted by gratuitiously pulling in a term from objectivism, like "wrong."

What Flash is going to have to say is that morality's not worth thinking about because it's a delusion, or to put it more awkwardly, merely a sociological phenomenon that is utterly uncorresponding to any values inhering in reality. But this is a gratuitious assumption that Flash has not demonstrated in any way at all.

In appealing to error theory, therefore, Flash is making yet another erroneous assumption.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Simple question: do you think there is such a thing as morality, other than a sort of sociological delusion held subjectively? Yes, or no.

Then, if you say "yes," do you think you can justify a single moral precept by the method of your theory?

If you can, let's see you do it.

What has that got to do with whether I can use the word 'wrong' in exactly the same way as everyone else does (which I can and do)?

[Immanuel Can]

Far from it. I see your claim about empathy. I'm just pointing out that empathy cuts both ways, and doesn't just automatically end up leading us to good or to morality. It's equally capable of inducing immoral behaviour.

Empathy is just the ability to understand what someone else is feeling, the quality of any moral behaviour in response is irrelevant to the principle.

It's worse than that.

Empathy is no more than the sensation that what I am feeling is the same or equivalent to what somebody else is experiencing. It's projection of my feelings onto another, feelings that may or may not be warranted, and may or may not even be directed to something that's moral to empathize with.

We've all had the experience of speaking to somebody about a struggle or situation we're having, and hearing them say, "I know exactly how you feel..." and then go on to describe their own experience as if it were ours...and getting it entirely wrong. We know they are imagining themselves to be "empathizing" with us, but we realize they are not. They are not in our situation, do not understand the experiences and emotions involved, and are actually using their "empathetic" explanation as a way of preening themselves as "compassionate" by way of dismissing and denigrating the specialness of our experience.

That sort of happening with "empathetic" people is common enough, as I'm sure you'll realize. Empathy can be a very phony quality, especially among those who profess to have the most of it.

A genuinely sympathetic person will sit down, shut up, and listen to your story. And at the end, she will say, "Dear me, Harbal; I have to admit I cannot imagine fully how you are feeling or what you are going through; but I can see how distressing it is. All I can tell you is that I'm here to help if I can, and I feel on your behalf."

Now, that's genuine...not when somebody claims to know what you're going through, and so claims phony "empathy," but when they're caring enough to know they DON'T know what you're experiencing, and thus forbear to project their own solipsistic experiences onto you. It's when they refuse to diminish the uniqueness of your situation and experiences, not when they conflate such experiences with their own feelings.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Simple question: do you think there is such a thing as morality, other than a sort of sociological delusion held subjectively? Yes, or no.

Then, if you say "yes," do you think you can justify a single moral precept by the method of your theory?

If you can, let's see you do it.

What has that got to do with whether I can use the word 'wrong' in exactly the same way as everyone else does (which I can and do)?

I didn't ask you about the word "wrong." I already know you have no subjectivist (or error theory) basis for using it. That's not the question. The question is as above: yes or no?

[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.

[Harbal]

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

Interesting. I recognize the evidence on all sides. And if I don't want to look at, say, the implausiblity of the order in nature appearing through accident, I only have to look at things like consciousness, morality, and the efficacy of reason and science to know that there's more than chance at work in this world.

Why isn't it obvious to you, then? I don't know. Perhaps you've never really observed it in that light. But there's far too much complexity -- much of it irreducible and unreproduceable -- for the "accident" explanation to have any traction, I would say.

People often speak about the order in nature, but it doesn't seem particularly ordered to me; it seems rather chaotic, actually. But say there is order, and we can't account for it, why does that mean God; why couldn't there be some other explanation that we are unaware of? I don't doubt there is much in nature that science can't explain, but there are always things that science can't explain but will explain in the future.

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.

Well, if you look at the statistics, you'll see you're quite wrong about that. Most charities, schools, hospitals, universities, penal reform efforts, welfare programs, addiction programs, and so forth owe their genesis to but one source...and it's not Atheism.

I agree that good things can come from religion, but so can bad things.

What "experience" or sequence of "experiences" eventually convinced you there is no God? Or have you ever thought about that

I can't remember the transition from assuming there was God because some people said there was, to realising it was a completely implausible proposition.

[Harbal]

Empathy is just the ability to understand what someone else is feeling, the quality of any moral behaviour in response is irrelevant to the principle.

It's worse than that.

Empathy is no more than the sensation that what I am feeling is the same or equivalent to what somebody else is experiencing. It's projection of my feelings onto another, feelings that may or may not be warranted, and may or may not even be directed to something that's moral to empathize with.

We've all had the experience of speaking to somebody about a struggle or situation we're having, and hearing them say, "I know exactly how you feel..." and then go on to describe their own experience as if it were ours...and getting it entirely wrong. We know they are imagining themselves to be "empathizing" with us, but we realize they are not. They are not in our situation, do not understand the experiences and emotions involved, and are actually using their "empathetic" explanation as a way of preening themselves as "compassionate" by way of dismissing and denigrating the specialness of our experience.

That sort of happening with "empathetic" people is common enough, as I'm sure you'll realize. Empathy can be a very phony quality, especially among those who profess to have the most of it.

A genuinely sympathetic person will sit down, shut up, and listen to your story. And at the end, she will say, "Dear me, Harbal; I have to admit I cannot imagine fully how you are feeling or what you are going through; but I can see how distressing it is. All I can tell you is that I'm here to help if I can, and I feel on your behalf."

Now, that's genuine...not when somebody claims to know what you're going through, and so claims phony "empathy," but when they're caring enough to know they DON'T know what you're experiencing, and thus forbear to project their own solipsistic experiences onto you. It's when they refuse to diminish the uniqueness of your situation and experiences, not when they conflate such experiences with their own feelings.

Yes, I broadly agree with that, but I still think that empathy is what morality is mainly based on. Whether or not that is a good base is not what we are questioning.

[Immanuel Can]

I can use the word 'wrong' in exactly the normal way.

You're using it objectively, then, whether you know it or not.

If you were using it subjectively, you'd be able to substitute a synonym, like "pain reduction" or "pleasure increase" or "emotion" or "categorical imperative," or whatever it is you're thinking constitutes "wrongness."

If you can't, it means you're using "wrong" as an "X," and refusing to define the value of "X."

That means any moral prohibition, anything you call "wrong," isn't really objectively "wrong" at all. You're bluffing, in that case. You don't know what you're talking about, then, and we can't get any moral information out of your theory.

Why is killing wrong? You don't know. You just say, "It's wrong, and I have the right to say 'wrong.'" So you're not saying anything at all.