Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

I've never heard a scientist put it that way.

I have. You should maybe listen to some different ones.

You mean look for a scientist who sees things your way?

I know there is such a thing as subjective morality, because I experience and practice it regularly. How are you in any position to tell me that my subjective sense of morality places no duty or obligation on me?

It can't, logically speaking. Not because I say so, but because subjectivity imposes no duties. When subjectivity shifts, so does "the moral" that is being considered. And according to subjectivism, there's absolutely nothing to stop it from doing that.

Yes, my moral values could change over time, but my feeling of obligation to act in accordance with them probably won't, although it could.

Let's consider an example. Here's a moral issue upon which we both agree: slavery is wrong. Good?

There have been, in times past, and are even today, many people who have believed that slavery is virtuous and right. They have said that "inferior" people deserve to be made slaves, and that a right-thinking person does not elevate "inferior" persons to equality. And there haven't been just one or two such people, but whole nations and civilizations, such as the Mid-East Arabs, tribal Africans, the Hindus, the Southern Democrats and the modern eugenicists who have believed and acted upon this perceived duty.

I say they were objectively wrong to do so. And you, like me, do not approve slavery. But you cannot say, as a subjectivist, that they were actually wrong to do it; nor can you explain to them, even now, why they should surrender their slaves...if subjectivism were true. They meet every standard you have so far suggested for morality: they're acting on a subjective belief, and one that is backed by millions of similar opinions found in their particular groups and civlilizations. So the fact that you reject slavery is merely a matter of chance, if we believe in subjectivism; you were born in a society that scorns slavery, and they were born into societies that approve it. You can say you don't like what they do. You can say you never, yourself would do what they do. You can even say you find their behaviour revolting...

But being as subjectivist, you are not logically entitled actually to say that they are wrong. They, like you, are acting on a subjective moral principle. You would have to accept that you, yourself might be wrong for condemning them, or that neither of you is ever wrong -- "wrong" having no objective meaning in the case.

Yes, that is more or less how it is, but I have never claimed otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

A Nihilist does not believe in moral absolutes at all. Not even in moral contingent claims. Nihilism means "nothing-ism" it means that one doesn't believe in anything. It's all a fix, so far as the Nihilist is concerned.

Again, this nihilist [me] does not exclude his own moral philosophy from his own moral philosophy.

You? What have you got to do with it?

You're clearly not a Nihilist. If you were, you could not say the above. And that's just analytical.

[Immanuel Can]

I've never heard a scientist put it that way.

I have. You should maybe listen to some different ones.

You mean look for a scientist who sees things your way?

Whether a scientist sees things my way or yours, the question is only, "Which is the truth?"

But scientists share in common a willingness to ask questions that are so-far unanswered. If you don't think they're doing the right thing when they're doing that, okay; but you won't be a scientist or a supporter of science yourself, if you choose that belief.

I know there is such a thing as subjective morality, because I experience and practice it regularly. How are you in any position to tell me that my subjective sense of morality places no duty or obligation on me?

It can't, logically speaking. Not because I say so, but because subjectivity imposes no duties. When subjectivity shifts, so does "the moral" that is being considered. And according to subjectivism, there's absolutely nothing to stop it from doing that.

Yes, my moral values could change over time, but my feeling of obligation to act in accordance with them probably won't, although it could.

That's a serious flaw, then: for even you can't apparently be sure that your view won't change in the next three years, or one year, or fifteen seconds. And if what is "moral" depends entirely on your subjective view, then right and wrong swap ends just as quickly.

Which means subjectivism can't tell us even one thing about morality, because even while it tries, it's aiming at a target that, for subjectivists, never stands still long enough for anything to be said.

Let's consider an example. Here's a moral issue upon which we both agree: slavery is wrong. Good?

There have been, in times past, and are even today, many people who have believed that slavery is virtuous and right. They have said that "inferior" people deserve to be made slaves, and that a right-thinking person does not elevate "inferior" persons to equality. And there haven't been just one or two such people, but whole nations and civilizations, such as the Mid-East Arabs, tribal Africans, the Hindus, the Southern Democrats and the modern eugenicists who have believed and acted upon this perceived duty.

I say they were objectively wrong to do so. And you, like me, do not approve slavery. But you cannot say, as a subjectivist, that they were actually wrong to do it; nor can you explain to them, even now, why they should surrender their slaves...if subjectivism were true. They meet every standard you have so far suggested for morality: they're acting on a subjective belief, and one that is backed by millions of similar opinions found in their particular groups and civlilizations. So the fact that you reject slavery is merely a matter of chance, if we believe in subjectivism; you were born in a society that scorns slavery, and they were born into societies that approve it. You can say you don't like what they do. You can say you never, yourself would do what they do. You can even say you find their behaviour revolting...

But being as subjectivist, you are not logically entitled actually to say that they are wrong. They, like you, are acting on a subjective moral principle. You would have to accept that you, yourself might be wrong for condemning them, or that neither of you is ever wrong -- "wrong" having no objective meaning in the case.

Yes, that is more or less how it is, but I have never claimed otherwise.

Then, for you, as a subjectivist, slavery is not actually wrong. Maybe you personally won't do it, but if people want to keep slaves, then they can. And, if your view changes in the next five minutes, you see no reason why you also couldn't also keep slaves.

Is that a good description of a "moral" view? You seem to say it is. But I think a lot of people would have concerns at this point.

[Harbal]

You mean look for a scientist who sees things your way?

Whether a scientist sees things my way or yours, the question is only, "Which is the truth?"

But scientists share in common a willingness to ask questions that are so-far unanswered. If you don't think they're doing the right thing when they're doing that, okay; but you won't be a scientist or a supporter of science yourself, if you choose that belief.

It doesn't matter anyway. This was all to do with the God question, and that's not what the thread is concerned with.

Yes, my moral values could change over time, but my feeling of obligation to act in accordance with them probably won't, although it could.

That's a serious flaw, then: for even you can't apparently be sure that your view won't change in the next three years, or one year, or fifteen seconds. And if what is "moral" depends entirely on your subjective view, then right and wrong swap ends just as quickly.

No, it isn't a flaw, it's just the way it is. I don't know what you mean by right and wrong swapping ends.

Which means subjectivism can't tell us even one thing about morality,

If you want to talk about "subjectivism", please do it with someone else; I'm talking about morality.

Yes, that is more or less how it is, but I have never claimed otherwise.

Then, for you, as a subjectivist,

I'm not a "subjectivist", whatever that is. I simply think that moral values are subjective, which doesn't warrant a title.

slavery is not actually wrong. Maybe you personally won't do it, but if people want to keep slaves, then they can. And, if your view changes in the next five minutes, you see no reason why you also couldn't also keep slaves.

No, it doesn't work like that, as you very well know. You can't possibly know to what extent I am prone to changing my moral views at the drop of a hat.

Is that a good description of a "moral" view? You seem to say it is. But I think a lot of people would have concerns at this point.

[Iwannaplato]

Then, for you, as a subjectivist, slavery is not actually wrong. Maybe you personally won't do it, but if people want to keep slaves, then they can.

And, if your view changes in the next five minutes, you see no reason why you also couldn't also keep slaves.

Is that a good description of a "moral" view? You seem to say it is. But I think a lot of people would have concerns at this point.
[/quote]Right, no one could possibly fight something they dislike or hate unless they think that God is on their side or morals are objective for some other reason. Perhaps you need a deity to tell you what to do, other people may arrive at the same position with having to be told.

Perhaps your views will change. We know as much about you. Perhaps you'll have a vision and go on a killing spree. People in all belief systems can change, some of them, people in all belief systems can have found something that fits them. Speculating that soon Harbal might be proslavery is silly. As silly as thinking you may suddenly convert to another religion or secretly hate women or whatever.

I understand you think you can somehow deduce he is more likely to change than you, but it was a weak attempt at an insult and not even worthy the label 'deduction'.

[Iwannaplato]

Then, for you, as a subjectivist, slavery is not actually wrong. Maybe you personally won't do it, but if people want to keep slaves, then they can. And, if your view changes in the next five minutes, you see no reason why you also couldn't also keep slaves.

Is that a good description of a "moral" view? You seem to say it is. But I think a lot of people would have concerns at this point.

Right, no one could possibly fight something they dislike or hate unless they think that God is on their side or morals are objective for some other reason. Perhaps you need a deity to tell you what to do, other people may arrive at the same position with having to be told.

Perhaps your views will change. We know as much about you. Perhaps you'll have a vision and go on a killing spree. People in all belief systems can change, some of them, people in all belief systems can have found something that fits them. Speculating that soon Harbal might be proslavery is silly. As silly as thinking you may suddenly convert to another religion or secretly hate women or whatever.

I understand you think you can somehow deduce he is more likely to change than you, but it was a weak attempt at an insult and not even worthy the label 'deduction'.
[/quote]

[Iwannaplato]

double

[iambiguous]

A Nihilist does not believe in moral absolutes at all. Not even in moral contingent claims. Nihilism means "nothing-ism" it means that one doesn't believe in anything. It's all a fix, so far as the Nihilist is concerned.

Again, this nihilist [me] does not exclude his own moral philosophy from his own moral philosophy.

He flat-out acknowledges that moral nihilism itself is just the existential embodiment of his own particular life. That, in fact, morality may well be objective. That, further, given a new experience, relationship and/or access to information and knowledge, he may well change his mind and embrace objective morality again..

For example, suppose IC and I do examine those YouTube videos of his one by one and he is able to convince me that they do prove the Christian God does in fact exist.

Or one of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...might be able to convince him that their own One True Path is more reasonable than Christianity.

You? What have you got to do with it?

You're clearly not a Nihilist. If you were, you could not say the above. And that's just analytical.

Okay, back to this...

You choose the context. A context pertaining to a discussion of who either is or is not a Nihilist/nihilist. We'll explore and examine that which we both claim to know about it given this context and make an attempt to demonstrate what we believe all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to know about it in turn.

Or [chuckle, chuckle] you can wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of this and stick with your capital N Nihilist [as with your capital A Atheist] so as to make crystal clear that only the manner in which you construe them counts. It's in the Bible somewhere.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, my moral values could change over time, but my feeling of obligation to act in accordance with them probably won't, although it could.

That's a serious flaw, then: for even you can't apparently be sure that your view won't change in the next three years, or one year, or fifteen seconds. And if what is "moral" depends entirely on your subjective view, then right and wrong swap ends just as quickly.

No, it isn't a flaw, it's just the way it is. I don't know what you mean by right and wrong swapping ends.

Just the same thing I was talking about later: that your commitment to hating slavery wouldn't necessarily have to last five minutes, and then you might have the subjective opposite feeling. So slavery would be a dire negative five minutes earlier, then the greatest good five minutes later.

That doesn't have much of the residual character of what most people recognize as morality. It looks a lot like amorality, or even immorality.

Yes, that is more or less how it is, but I have never claimed otherwise.

Then, for you, as a subjectivist,

I'm not a "subjectivist", whatever that is. I simply think that moral values are subjective, which doesn't warrant a title.

Ummm...youre a subjectivist, but don't want to be called one. That's what you just told everybody.

...slavery is not actually wrong. Maybe you personally won't do it, but if people want to keep slaves, then they can. And, if your view changes in the next five minutes, you see no reason why you also couldn't also keep slaves.

No, it doesn't work like that, as you very well know. You can't possibly know to what extent I am prone to changing my moral views at the drop of a hat.

I didn't say I know you're going to do it. I said that, according to your theory, you could. There's no reason why not. Morality is just dependent on subjective feelings, and whenever they change, be it sooner or later, so does morality.

So you're not telling us anything reliable about morality at all. We can't use your formulation to know what's right and wrong, or to be confident that the wrong won't become right in the next ten seconds. It entails no duty, no commitment...so no morality, either.

[Immanuel Can]

Then, for you, as a subjectivist, slavery is not actually wrong. Maybe you personally won't do it, but if people want to keep slaves, then they can.

And, if your view changes in the next five minutes, you see no reason why you also couldn't also keep slaves.

As an objectivist, if I did that, I would become an evil person. Morality would not change; only my position relative to it would, and I would be condemnable.

But a subjectivist has to believe that morality itself changes. So a new enslaver isn't evil, under subjectivism, but rather good, if that's how things roll. All that sustains his moral condition is his own subjective attitude to it, or the subjective attitude of his society, which can also change anytime. Morality reverses with moods.

But "morality is what I feel like doing at the present moment" is not really anyone's sane definition of morality.

[Immanuel Can]

You? What have you got to do with it?

You're clearly not a Nihilist. If you were, you could not say the above. And that's just analytical.

Okay, back to this...You choose the context. A context pertaining to a discussion of who either is or is not a Nihilist/nihilist.

No, I don't, actually. It's a socially-agreed-upon definition. It's you who's out of step with that. I don't define anything. It's already defined.

"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong; that morality doesn't exist." (Wiki)

"Nihilism comes from the Latin word "nihil" -- which means, nothing. Nihilists assert that there are no moral values, principles, truths." (New York U.)

"Moral Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong. Moral nihilism here is not about what is semantically or metaphysically possible. It is just a substantive, negative, existential claim that there does not exist anything that is morally wrong." (Stanford)

How many ways do you want to be wrong?

[Harbal]

No, it isn't a flaw, it's just the way it is. I don't know what you mean by right and wrong swapping ends.

Just the same thing I was talking about later: that your commitment to hating slavery wouldn't necessarily have to last five minutes, and then you might have the subjective opposite feeling. So slavery would be a dire negative five minutes earlier, then the greatest good five minutes later.

I suppose that's true, theoretically, but your commitment to God could also disappear in five minutes, theoretically.

That doesn't have much of the residual character of what most people recognize as morality. It looks a lot like amorality, or even immorality.

Well most of the participants in this thread seem to recognise it as morality. There only seems to be you and VA who don't.

I'm not a "subjectivist", whatever that is. I simply think that moral values are subjective, which doesn't warrant a title.

Ummm...youre a subjectivist, but don't want to be called one. That's what you just told everybody.

No, I'm not a subjectivist, but you want to call me one for some reason.

No, it doesn't work like that, as you very well know. You can't possibly know to what extent I am prone to changing my moral views at the drop of a hat.

I didn't say I know you're going to do it. I said that, according to your theory,

I don't have a theory. I've told you how morality works for me. I have described my own experience of morality, not a theory.

Morality is just dependent on subjective feelings, and whenever they change, be it sooner or later, so does morality.

Yes, but why should they just change? Most of the moral values I hold now are ones I've held for most of my adult life, and I also feel more strongly about some of them now.

So you're not telling us anything reliable about morality at all.

I'm only telling you about my experience of morality, although I think there is reason to believe that most people experience it similarly to me. I'm not sure I understand how reliablility comes into it.

We can't use your formulation to know what's right and wrong,

What formulation?

or to be confident that the wrong won't become right in the next ten seconds.

I'm confident, but I'm not asking for anyone else's confidence.

It entails no duty, no commitment...so no morality, either.

I do have a certain feeling of duty and commitment to stick to my moral principles, so you got that wrong, and I certainly have a sense of right and wrong, which is, by definition, morality, so you got that wrong as well.

[iambiguous]

You? What have you got to do with it?

You're clearly not a Nihilist. If you were, you could not say the above. And that's just analytical.

You choose the context. A context pertaining to a discussion of who either is or is not a Nihilist/nihilist. We'll explore and examine that which we both claim to know about it given this context and make an attempt to demonstrate what we believe all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to know about it in turn.

Or [chuckle, chuckle] you can wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of this and stick with your capital N Nihilist [as with your capital A Atheist] so as to make crystal clear that only the manner in which you construe them counts. It's in the Bible somewhere.

No, I don't, actually. It's a socially-agreed-upon definition. It's you who's out of step with that. I don't define anything. It's already defined.

"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong; that morality doesn't exist." (Wiki)

"Nihilism comes from the Latin word "nihil" -- which means, nothing. Nihilists assert that there are no moral values, principles, truths." (New York U.)

"Moral Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong. Moral nihilism here is not about what is semantically or metaphysically possible. It is just a substantive, negative, existential claim that there does not exist anything that is morally wrong." (Stanford)

How many ways do you want to be wrong?

Next up: wiki, New York U and Stanford define the Christian God into existence?

Now back to your own bottom line:

1] morality is objective
2] morality is objective because it is derived from the Christian God
3] the Christian God exists because it says so in the Christian Bible

Then the part where you make a complete fool out of yourself by touting those YouTube videos. Videos that you will not examine with me on the Christianity thread even though you claim that, beyond the Christian Bible itself, they are able to save the souls of both your friends and your enemies here by demonstrating that in fact the Christian God does exist.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it isn't a flaw, it's just the way it is. I don't know what you mean by right and wrong swapping ends.

Just the same thing I was talking about later: that your commitment to hating slavery wouldn't necessarily have to last five minutes, and then you might have the subjective opposite feeling. So slavery would be a dire negative five minutes earlier, then the greatest good five minutes later.

I suppose that's true, theoretically, but your commitment to God could also disappear in five minutes, theoretically.

Highly unlikely. Calculations based on the present evidence and historical experience suggest that would be a substantially improbable outcome.

However, a subjectivist changing his mind...that can happen on a whim.

That doesn't have much of the residual character of what most people recognize as morality. It looks a lot like amorality, or even immorality.

Well most of the participants in this thread seem to recognise it as morality.

I don't think any thinking person can. A "morality" which disappears at the whiff of a whim cannot be a very substantial anything. I think that when most people ask, "Is slavery / abortion / genocide right or wrong," they're looking for a more durable decision than a subjectivist can possibly offer.

The reason for punting to subjectivism (and this is all that makes it popular) is just to avoid having to make a moral commitment on an issue at all.

I'm not a "subjectivist", whatever that is. I simply think that moral values are subjective, which doesn't warrant a title.

Ummm...youre a subjectivist, but don't want to be called one. That's what you just told everybody.

No, I'm not a subjectivist, but you want to call me one for some reason.

Only because you fit the definition.

No, it doesn't work like that, as you very well know. You can't possibly know to what extent I am prone to changing my moral views at the drop of a hat.

I didn't say I know you're going to do it. I said that, according to your theory,

I don't have a theory.

One always does. There are only those who know what their theory is, and those who take theirs for granted. But everybody's got one.

Morality is just dependent on subjective feelings, and whenever they change, be it sooner or later, so does morality.

Yes, but why should they just change?

Maybe they won't. Maybe they will. But clearly, they don't describe anything that has assured durabilty of any kind...not even for ten seconds.

So you're not telling us anything reliable about morality at all.

I'm not sure I understand how reliablility comes into it.

If I tell you the definition of, or the answer to something, like a moral question, but then I say, "Of course, by the time I've finished telling you this, the answer may have changed," then I really haven't told you anything. There's nothing you can act on, trust to remain, or find reliable. So I haven't helped you at all.

If somebody asks you what morality is, and you say "subjective," then you haven't told them anything reliable either. That only means that anything that morality involves is untrustworthy and susceptible to change instantly. So they've learned precisely nothing from your response.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think theistic moral objectivism can be summarised, as follows.

1 If my team's god exists, then there are moral facts and morality is objective.

2 If my team's god doesn't exist, then there can be no morality.

These arguments are obviously useless, as are arguments for the existence of any team's god in the first place. The end.

Here is the theists' claim of objective morality;

1. Whatever fact is objective, it is independent of the human mind and conditions.
2. God as a fact is independent to the human mind and conditions.
3. God is the source of theistic moral facts.
4. Therefore theistic morality is objective.

BUT,
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Thus theistic morality is grounded on an illusion,
however, theistic morality despite of low objectivity and illusory is nevertheless the most effective pseudo moral system at present.

No. I've explained why your conclusion that a god cannot exist is false, because your argument is fallacious.

I have countered your explanation, but you did not counter it.
viewtopic.php?p=656338#p656338