Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Morality as I understand it is subject to change, which is what seems to be your main criticism, but I see as a good thing, because it means it can change for the better.

If you can rank any two moral systems as "better" or "worse" then you can rank them all to assert the "best" and "worst" morality.

So morality is objective.

I can only rank them as better or worse according to my own subjective opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

Empathy is just one element that goes into forming a moral judgement, and the fact that it can be unreliable is neither here nor there, as morality is just a facet of human behaviour that enables us to function socially, not a system for determining ultimate truth. That is only my opinion, and I have arrived at it through my own experience. Even so, my view of what morality is seems to conform to most dictionary definitions:

a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong

the moral beliefs and practices of a culture, community, or religion or a code or system of moral rules, principles, or values.

Morality is a code of behavior usually based on religious tenets, which often inform our ethical decisions.

the urge or predisposition to judge human actions as either right or wrong in terms of their consequences for other human beings.

If God did exist, and he decreed what is right and wrong, and we were all expected to abide by his word, I suggest that would be something other than morality.

Your definitions don't agree, H.

Take a look.

• The first one just says morality is "a system," without saying what creates or authorizes the system at all.

• The second says it's just a "belief," and doesn't ask whether it's a true or false "belief" (but would anybody say that morality is a "false belief system"? ).

• The third says that morality is what a "culture, community or religion" invents to be a "code, etc.", so it tries to back morality with the authority of the collective.

• The next one says that so long as there are "religious tenets" that "inform ethical decisions," then that's a moral tenet. But what about "community," or "belief" or personal "predispositions to judge"? That seems to give "religions" an awful lot of moral authority, without concern for the rightness or wrongness of the religion itself, or for those who, like yourself, claim to have no "religion."

• The last one turns it into a verb, an action word equivalent to "to judge," or even just the "predisposition" of one person to do so -- no mention of culture, community, system, or code.

So which of the above definitions, in your view, gets it right? Or do any of them? Because they're all fundamentally at odds with each other. If morality is just a "predispositon to judge," for example, then it's personal and individual; but if it's what a "culture, community or religion" invents as a "code," then it's no longer merely an individual matter, but requires the consensus of the community, culture or religion. Or if a morality is a "set of practices," then in what sense is it merely a "belief" or a "code"?

I am only describing what morality is in my opinion, and what it means to me.

But there are five different "opinions" here, five contradictory descriptions of what "morality" is. We don't know which one you think is right, or if any are: because one thing is certain, and that's that contradicting claims cannot all be true. Just basic rules like the Law of Non-Contradiction show us that.

Our discussion on the subject has convinced me that we each must be left to ourselves to determine what morality is, because there seems to be no prospect of agreement between the differing views.

Okay. So you back the view that it's individual, made up by each person, determined by him or her himself or herself: is that right?

So it's not communal, then. The individual doesn't have to listen to the "community, culture or religion" from which any ethical claim comes? And it's not a "predisposition," but a decision made by each person? It doesn't require a "code," since it's purely personal? And it's not backed by any authority at all, save the private inclinations of the individual?

Is all that right? We can accept that is you view. But then, your definitions are mostly not what you are saying "morality" actually is. It's your last statement that finally gives us the truth about your view, not the definitions. Or is your last statement a misspeaking, and one of the definitions a more precise statement of your view?

What I'd have to guess, if I can say it without offense, is that you're less than certain on that question. And that relegating morality to something purely individual and subjective seems the only thing you could do. But then, if your morality-view is only your own, and does not have to correspond to anybody else's, is there even any sense in saying a sentence like, "Harbal is a moral person," since "moral person" only means "does what he wants to do"?

[Harbal]

But there are five different "opinions" here, five contradictory descriptions of what "morality" is. We don't know which one you think is right, or if any are: because one thing is certain, and that's that contradicting claims cannot all be true. Just basic rules like the Law of Non-Contradiction show us that.

I didn't see any contradictions. Perhaps I wasn't looking with enough determination to find them.

Our discussion on the subject has convinced me that we each must be left to ourselves to determine what morality is, because there seems to be no prospect of agreement between the differing views.

Okay. So you back the view that it's individual, made up by each person, determined by him or her himself or herself: is that right?

So it's not communal, then. The individual doesn't have to listen to the "community, culture or religion" from which any ethical claim comes? And it's not a "predisposition," but a decision made by each person? It doesn't require a "code," since it's purely personal? And it's not backed by any authority at all, save the private inclinations of the individual?

Is all that right? We can accept that is you view. But then, your definitions are mostly not what you are saying "morality" actually is. It's your last statement that finally gives us the truth about your view, not the definitions. Or is your last statement a misspeaking, and one of the definitions a more precise statement of your view?

What I'd have to guess, if I can say it without offense, is that you're less than certain on that question. And that relegating morality to something purely individual and subjective seems the only thing you could do. But then, if your morality-view is only your own, and does not have to correspond to anybody else's, is there even any sense in saying a sentence like, "Harbal is a moral person," since "moral person" only means "does what he wants to do"?

You see what I mean? Not only is there no prospect of our agreeing about what morality is, there also seems no prospect of your interpreting anything I say accurately or honestly. Therefore, our discussing the matter further would be futile, and I have already been accused of being a masochist once today,

[Immanuel Can]

But there are five different "opinions" here, five contradictory descriptions of what "morality" is. We don't know which one you think is right, or if any are: because one thing is certain, and that's that contradicting claims cannot all be true. Just basic rules like the Law of Non-Contradiction show us that.

I didn't see any contradictions. Perhaps I wasn't looking with enough determination to find them.

Our discussion on the subject has convinced me that we each must be left to ourselves to determine what morality is, because there seems to be no prospect of agreement between the differing views.

Okay. So you back the view that it's individual, made up by each person, determined by him or her himself or herself: is that right?

So it's not communal, then. The individual doesn't have to listen to the "community, culture or religion" from which any ethical claim comes? And it's not a "predisposition," but a decision made by each person? It doesn't require a "code," since it's purely personal? And it's not backed by any authority at all, save the private inclinations of the individual?

Is all that right? We can accept that is you view. But then, your definitions are mostly not what you are saying "morality" actually is. It's your last statement that finally gives us the truth about your view, not the definitions. Or is your last statement a misspeaking, and one of the definitions a more precise statement of your view?

What I'd have to guess, if I can say it without offense, is that you're less than certain on that question. And that relegating morality to something purely individual and subjective seems the only thing you could do. But then, if your morality-view is only your own, and does not have to correspond to anybody else's, is there even any sense in saying a sentence like, "Harbal is a moral person," since "moral person" only means "does what he wants to do"?

You see what I mean? Not only is there no prospect of our agreeing about what morality is, there also seems no prospect of your interpreting anything I say accurately or honestly.

What part of what I said wasn't "honest"? I quoted directly from each definition, and from your own summary of your view. That they don't reconcile is obvious, but certainly no fault of mine.

This is a philosophy site, after all. Here, we're supposed to do logic.

However, I can't stop you from "taking your ball and going home." So you can do that, I guess. Still, you were the one who so self-confidently floated a half dozen contradictory definitions as if they were somehow illuminating. You can blame me for all that, but all I did was point out that they're contradictory.

[Harbal]

What part of what I said wasn't "honest"? I quoted directly from each definition, and from your own summary of your view. That they don't reconcile is obvious, but certainly no fault of mine.

This is a philosophy site, after all. Here, we're supposed to do logic.

However, I can't stop you from "taking your ball and going home." So you can do that, I guess. Still, you were the one who so self-confidently floated a half dozen contradictory definitions as if they were somehow illuminating. You can blame me for all that, but all I did was point out that they're contradictory.

Come on, IC, surely you can't want to go through it all again; I know I certainly don't. I'm not the only one here with a ball, I'm sure someone else will give you a game, and if not, you could always bring your own and kick it against a wall.

[Immanuel Can]

What part of what I said wasn't "honest"? I quoted directly from each definition, and from your own summary of your view. That they don't reconcile is obvious, but certainly no fault of mine.

This is a philosophy site, after all. Here, we're supposed to do logic.

However, I can't stop you from "taking your ball and going home." So you can do that, I guess. Still, you were the one who so self-confidently floated a half dozen contradictory definitions as if they were somehow illuminating. You can blame me for all that, but all I did was point out that they're contradictory.

Come on, IC, surely you can't want to go through it all again; I know I certainly don't. I'm not the only one here with a ball, I'm sure someone else will give you a game, and if not, you could always bring your own and kick it against a wall.

Hey, if you lob your ball onto playing field, don't blame players for booting it around. Welcome to Old Trafford.

[Harbal]

What part of what I said wasn't "honest"? I quoted directly from each definition, and from your own summary of your view. That they don't reconcile is obvious, but certainly no fault of mine.

This is a philosophy site, after all. Here, we're supposed to do logic.

However, I can't stop you from "taking your ball and going home." So you can do that, I guess. Still, you were the one who so self-confidently floated a half dozen contradictory definitions as if they were somehow illuminating. You can blame me for all that, but all I did was point out that they're contradictory.

Come on, IC, surely you can't want to go through it all again; I know I certainly don't. I'm not the only one here with a ball, I'm sure someone else will give you a game, and if not, you could always bring your own and kick it against a wall.

Hey, if you lob your ball onto playing field, don't blame players for booting it around. Welcome to Old Trafford.

I'm not blaming anybody for anything; I just decided to play according to my own rules for a while.

[Skepdick]

I can only rank them as better or worse according to my own subjective opinion.

Are you implying that your ranking system would've been better if it weren't your own subjective opinion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your above is a strawman and off tangent to Bloom's view.

It's his thesis, quoted from his book, page 4, in his own words. It literally cannot be a "strawman." Bloom's not made of "straw."

And you don't know what "strawman fallacy" is, apparently. But that's not to the present point.

Thus for Bloom, it is better off if we can do away with empathy for the purpose of morality.

"For purposes of morality." Yes. Bloom's only worried about when we let the phony feeling we know what others are feeling (i.e. empathy) guide moral decision making. In other contexts, he's not worried about it. And he's right to point out that it's wrong-headed to let that happen.

If empathy is treacherous and inauthentic, as Bloom shows it so often is, then empathy CANNOT be the captain we use to steer the ship of moral decision making. It's neither reliable nor accurate when it comes to showing us what is genuinely moral in a given situation.

The original point we were arguing, several pages ago now, is whether empathy can be what morality is about. Now, it's apparent what Bloom is saying: no, empathy is not that. It's not the steering virtue of morality. We don't get off the moral hook if we just claim, "Well, I was being empathetic."

That's it. Empathy's not a moral faculty. Nor is it a reliable or truthful one. It's just an emotional experience, had by the emoter but not shared by the person he thinks he's being "empathetic" with.

The point is whenever the term 'empathy' is mentioned with morality, you will be quick to throw in Bloom's "Against Empathy".
Then you think Bloom still have some room for empathy within Morality.
Worst you suspected I have not read Bloom's book.

I insisted, according to Bloom, he wants ZERO empathy within the subject of morality, given the pros of empathy if any in morality is so insignificant against the terrible evils that can result from empathy being considered in moral decisions.

The propose the basis of morality is moral decisions is not morality-proper.
There is no way, one can make effective decisions in any moral situations. It has to be spontaneous without conscious deliberation of making moral decisions.

Do you [& the majority] make a moral decision to kill humans or torture & kill babies for pleasure?
Why it is inherent & natural in the majority that they don't kill other humans or torture & kill babies for pleasure is contributed by the inherent empathy function [as an element of a complex set of moral functions] in relation to morality.
It is only when there is a defect in the above moral functions that people commit the above and other evil acts.

I insist Bloom is very ignorant of how empathy [represented by its neural correlates] is critical to morality-proper.
If we are to get rid of the empathy function in the brain [say in 2024], there will be an increase in humans killed and babies tortured and kill for pleasure, but all the other range of evil acts.

God is an illusion, albeit a useful illusion.
That God commands Christians not to kill [supposedly humans] [Gospels compiled by humans] is intuitively driven by the empathy function humans have evolved with. It is a sort of moral intuitionism.

[Immanuel Can]

...you think Bloom still have some room for empathy within Morality.

I've said the dead opposite several times.

Bloom leaves rooms for empathy as an experience, or as a feeling, if people want to have it, or if it's understood as something like "kindness" or compassion." You read that in his thesis (And how I wish you could read!).

But no...no place for the stupid false belief that one's own feelings are matched with somebody else's, especially when you then employ it as a guide, and especially when it's suggested as being the touchstone in regard to morality.

Got it yet?

[Veritas Aequitas]

...you think Bloom still have some room for empathy within Morality.

I've said the dead opposite several times.

Bloom leaves rooms for empathy as an experience, or as a feeling, if people want to have it, or if it's understood as something like "kindness" or compassion." You read that in his thesis (And how I wish you could read!).

But no...no place for the stupid false belief that one's own feelings are matched with somebody else's, especially when you then employ it as a guide, and especially when it's suggested as being the touchstone in regard to morality.

Got it yet?

I don't think you have read the whole book to grasp Bloom's main view re Empathy.

(And how I wish you could read!).
That is only insulting your own intelligence especially when Bloom's book is not that difficult book to read at 20% [within philosophy] compared to Kant's CPR at 100%.

After so many people condemned and complained he is going too far [he mentioned that in his book], he conceded his initial views, but fundamentally, Bloom's view is ZERO empathy within morality [better without it] as an ideology.

[Harbal]

I can only rank them as better or worse according to my own subjective opinion.

Are you implying that your ranking system would've been better if it weren't your own subjective opinion?

No, I am saying that subjective opinion is all that is available to me for the purpose of such ranking, whether it be my own opinion, or that of someone else.

[Skepdick]

I can only rank them as better or worse according to my own subjective opinion.

Are you implying that your ranking system would've been better if it weren't your own subjective opinion?

No, I am saying that subjective opinion is all that is available to me for the purpose of such ranking, whether it be my own opinion, or that of someone else.

Fine.

So in your subjective view is objective morality better; or worse than subjective morality?

[Harbal]

Are you implying that your ranking system would've been better if it weren't your own subjective opinion?

No, I am saying that subjective opinion is all that is available to me for the purpose of such ranking, whether it be my own opinion, or that of someone else.

Fine.

So in your subjective view is objective morality better; or worse than subjective morality?

As far as I'm aware, all morality is subjective. I don't even know what objective morality could possibly be.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think you have read the whole book to grasp Bloom's main view re Empathy.

Do you know what a "thesis" is? It's the cardinal statement of the entire book, the summary of the author's intended point, in his own words. You can't find anything in the book more central and definitive than the thesis. That's how books work.

I've given you what Bloom identifies as his thesis. And I've read the whole book (unlike you, as you admit), so I can say for sure that that is the thesis he plays out.

But I've made the point in a way that should be very clear. And if you can't grasp it, I can't help you further. So it's time to move on. I'm beginning to feel that I'm wasting the effort.