Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Then that would just suggest a lot of people are wrong.

It has to be. What objective precept can the worldview premised on Atheism generate?

So is sex, greed, violence...No light is shed on the moral situation by saying "there's a driving force for X in us."

Here's the Atheistic problem, in a nutshell. There are two cultures. One believes that rape is wrong. The other believes that rape a virtuous action that restores the honour of an offended family by giving them vengeance. These two cultures live in the same country -- yours.

To know which one of these cultures is doing evil, and which is doing something virtuous, we will have to judge them with reference to a third code of some kind, a code that transcends both, a universal and objective code.. But Atheism does not allow there to exist such a code: no entity exists capable of grounding a transcendent, universal moral code.

So now, which culture is doing the moral and virtuous thing, and which is doing the wicked thing? They can't both be doing the right thing, since it's the opposite thing. So which one will you pick, and on what basis that cannot immediately be dismissed as you simply being prejudiced in favour of your own culture?

As usual, you leave me not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

I don't even believe that you believe any of that rubbish.

But you know it's true.

Let's call the one culture "Yorkshire culture," and the other "Rotherham culture." To what standard will you now refer, in order to affirm that Yorkshire culture is the right one, and Rotherham culture is wrong?

Now you see it, I'm certain.

There are areas in Rotherham, as there are in many parts of the country, that are mainly populated by asians; mainly Pakistani, I seem to think. The incident in Rotherham that you seem to be very preoccupied with, was perpetrated by some members of these asian communities. I doubt very much that their actions were endorsed by their community in general. So, when you say, "Rotherham culture", you are uttering a pretty meaningless expression.

To what standard will you now refer, in order to affirm that Yorkshire culture is the right one, and Rotherham culture is wrong?

Forget about Yorkshire culture and Rotherham culture; you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I think the behaviour of those involved in the grooming and abusing of young girls in Rotherham was moraly reprehensible, and I referred to my own moral standards to affirm that. If you also think it was morally wrong, I presume it is because you have reason to believe that God says it is so, and not because you have any personal moral sense of your own with which to make a moral assessment.

[Immanuel Can]

As usual, you leave me not knowing whether to laugh or cry.

I don't even believe that you believe any of that rubbish.

But you know it's true.

Let's call the one culture "Yorkshire culture," and the other "Rotherham culture." To what standard will you now refer, in order to affirm that Yorkshire culture is the right one, and Rotherham culture is wrong?

Now you see it, I'm certain.

There are areas in Rotherham, as there are in many parts of the country, that are mainly populated by asians; mainly Pakistani, I seem to think. The incident in Rotherham that you seem to be very preoccupied with, was perpetrated by some members of these asian communities. I doubt very much that their actions were endorsed by their community in general.

And yet, in northern Pakistan, raping of women is a routine punishment levied against those one doesn't like or who have seemed to offend one's family honour. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/w ... 2022-02-08 Whether that was the motive in Rotherham or not, we can well suspect it had something to do with how those men felt about those women. But even if we don't suppose that, we can certainly suppose it for Northern Pakistani culture.

...you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you say the same of India Today? Or is, perhaps, the mistake on somebody else's side?

I think the behaviour of those involved in the grooming and abusing of young girls in Rotherham was moraly reprehensible,

Good. So do I.

...and I referred to my own moral standards to affirm that.

So for you, it's just a preference. You don't happen to personally like the idea of honour rape, but if your neighbour did it, you'd say, "Well, different strokes for different folks," and keep walking?

I suspect you would not. But I'll let you answer for yourself on that. Maybe you really DO believe that morality goes no farther than the tip of your own nose.

[Will Bouwman]

Is it wise to feed his mania?

I can't imagine it going hungry.

[Will Bouwman]

From where do we derive this axiom, "You owe it to the universe to take responsibility for your actions?"

I think you'll find it came from you.

For it must surely be apparent to you that many of us do not at all take responsibility for our various actions.

That Christians pass on responsibility for their various actions is precisely my point.

[Harbal]

There are areas in Rotherham, as there are in many parts of the country, that are mainly populated by asians; mainly Pakistani, I seem to think. The incident in Rotherham that you seem to be very preoccupied with, was perpetrated by some members of these asian communities. I doubt very much that their actions were endorsed by their community in general.

And yet, in northern Pakistan, raping of women is a routine punishment levied against those one doesn't like or who have seemed to offend one's family honour. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/w ... 2022-02-08 Whether that was the motive in Rotherham or not, we can well suspect it had something to do with how those men felt about those women. But even if we don't suppose that, we can certainly suppose it for Northern Pakistani culture.

In my understanding, the Rotherham incident was a case of some men of asian ethnicity grooming a number of young, white, teenage girls for sex. It was opportunism, and nothing to do with punishment or "honour". I'm guessing that girls from their own culture are off-limits, hence their looking further afield.

I don't know anything about punishment and honour rapes in Pakistan, but if those who commit them think it is morally defensible, it goes to show that morality is relative, and that there is no objective right and wrong. If I think it wrong, and they don't, to what absolute moral authority can we look for adjudication? Before you answer that, bear in mind that I don't believe in God, and they believe in a God whose nature seems to be different from the God you believe in. So whose judgement would you, I, and they, all accept?

...you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you say the same of India Today? Or is, perhaps, the mistake on somebody else's side?

I don't understand what you are asking.

...and I referred to my own moral standards to affirm that.

So for you, it's just a preference. You don't happen to personally like the idea of honour rape, but if your neighbour did it, you'd say, "Well, different strokes for different folks," and keep walking?

I would condemn it.

[Immanuel Can]

From where do we derive this axiom, "You owe it to the universe to take responsibility for your actions?"

I think you'll find it came from you.

I have a source for that, of course; but it's Atheism that needs it...if the Atheist is to assert that "you must take responsibility for your actions" is a moral imperative.

What Atheism needs to show, if the Atheist wants to assert that axiom, is that Atheism can warrant it.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm guessing that girls from their own culture are off-limits, hence their looking further afield.

Maybe. But that explanation doesn't help you explain what to do with Northern Pakistani culture, on that point. Clearly, somebody's right, and somebody's wrong: if nothing more, we know that much from the fact that "raping is honourable" and "raping is wrong" are opposite axioms. There's no way they're both right.

...it goes to show that morality is relative, and that there is no objective right and wrong.

No, it just shows that cultures disagree about what right and wrong are. It certainly doesn't tell us there's no objective moral truth to be had.

If I think it wrong, and they don't, to what absolute moral authority can we look for adjudication?

Is that a serious question?

The answer's obvious: God.

Before you answer that, bear in mind that I don't believe in God, and they believe in a God whose nature seems to be different from the God you believe in. So whose judgement would you, I, and they, all accept?

Ah, you've changed the question in midstream.

First, you ask, "to what absolute moral authority can we look for adjudication," then you ask, "what would you, I and they all accept?"

Who said everybody had to accept something in order for it to be right? Does the criminal have to "accept" the sentence of the court, for justice to be done? Or is justice done in spite of him, even if he refuses to agree?

...you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you say the same of India Today? Or is, perhaps, the mistake on somebody else's side?

I don't understand what you are asking.

Too indirect, perhaps.

Let me put it plainly: you're wrong. Northern Pakistani culture does support rape as an "honour" act. India Today disagrees with your guess about that.

...and I referred to my own moral standards to affirm that.

So for you, it's just a preference. You don't happen to personally like the idea of honour rape, but if your neighbour did it, you'd say, "Well, different strokes for different folks," and keep walking?

I would condemn it.

Why? Serious question: it doesn't reconcile with your declared belief that morality is subjective.

If you think morality is subjective and personal, how dare you enforce an opinion about what your neighbour does? Is his subjective morality not every bit as good as yours?

[Harbal]

What Atheism needs to show, if the Atheist wants to assert that axiom, is that Atheism can warrant it.

If a person wants to "assert" an axiom, he might be asked for justification, but why can't he just provide it from his own point of view as a person, rather than in the role of an atheist?

[iambiguous]

You have to take responsibility for your own actions.

From where do we derive this axiom, "You owe it to the universe to take responsibility for your actions?" What gives us reason to believe it?

For it must surely be apparent to you that many of us do not at all take responsibility for our various actions. If you say we owe it (or "ought") to do so, on what basis do you assert that claim? Why must we begin to do what so many of us clearly do not do?

He's right, of course. A God, the God is an absolute requirement here. No God and no omniscient perspective able to grasp everything that you think, feel, say and do. No God and no omnipotent capacity to impose divine justice. After all, what is the Cosmic equivalent of Judgment Day? What is the secular philosopher's equivalent of it? What is the nihilistic equivalent of it?

No, IC nails it here. When it comes to objective morality, immortality and salvation, it's all about God.

After all, why do you suppose I keep coming after him to provide us with that crucial evidence...proof that it is his own God here that encompasses the One True Path to all three?

Even in a philosophy forum, nothing else should really matter. Is morality objective? Of course it is if in fact the Christian God does exist. We just need to be convinced of that. Really, who wouldn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior if IC were able to actually persuade them that He is the real deal?

If you bumped into someone else who claimed the evidence was there...evidence at least that persuaded him that God does in fact exist beyond a leap of faith...wouldn't you keep after him until he noted the most powerful confirmation?

Just saying...

[Harbal]

I'm guessing that girls from their own culture are off-limits, hence their looking further afield.

Maybe. But that explanation doesn't help you explain what to do with Northern Pakistani culture, on that point.

When did it become my responsibility to explain what to do with Northern Pakistani culture?

Clearly, somebody's right, and somebody's wrong: if nothing more, we know that much from the fact that "raping is honourable" and "raping is wrong" are opposite axioms. There's no way they're both right.

Neither is right nor wrong objectively, but both could be either in the eyes of different people.

...it goes to show that morality is relative, and that there is no objective right and wrong.

No, it just shows that cultures disagree about what right and wrong are. It certainly doesn't tell us there's no objective moral truth to be had.

It does not tell us there is no obective moral truth, I admit, but it does show that moral issues are dealt with subjectively. The fact that you think that has no validity is neither here nor there. Different people make different moral judgements on a given issue, so how can you deny that those people are exercising their own subjective morality?

If I think it wrong, and they don't, to what absolute moral authority can we look for adjudication?

Is that a serious question?

The answer's obvious: God.

But there is no God.

Before you answer that, bear in mind that I don't believe in God, and they believe in a God whose nature seems to be different from the God you believe in. So whose judgement would you, I, and they, all accept?

Ah, you've changed the question in midstream.

First, you ask, "to what absolute moral authority can we look for adjudication," then you ask, "what would you, I and they all accept?"

Well, yes, of course it has to be a moral authority that is acceptable to all parties; how could it have any effect otherwise? Why would we feel bound by it if we did not recognise its authority. Where would its warrant be, to put it in your language?

Who said everybody had to accept something in order for it to be right? Does the criminal have to "accept" the sentence of the court, for justice to be done? Or is justice done in spite of him, even if he refuses to agree?

That's a poor analogy. What if the court gets it wrong? And the court has men in uniforms on hand to enforce the sentence, so the criminal can be observed having no say in the matter; whereas no such enforcers are likely to turn up just because you say I have commited a crime against God's moral law.

Let me put it plainly: you're wrong. Northern Pakistani culture does support rape as an "honour" act. India Today disagrees with your guess about that.

This means nothing to me. It's just you saying stuff.

I would condemn it.

Why? Serious question: it doesn't reconcile with your declared belief that morality is subjective.

That does not obligate me to have any sympathy or respect for anyone else's subjective morality.

If you think morality is subjective and personal, how dare you enforce an opinion about what your neighbour does? Is his subjective morality not every bit as good as yours?

I'm not usually in any position to enforce an opinion about what my neighbour does, but if I were, and if I did, I imagine the strength of my conviction would give me the courage. And why would I think his subjective opinion is every bit as good as mine? That would require me to be objective, which I keep telling you I am not.

[Immanuel Can]

What Atheism needs to show, if the Atheist wants to assert that axiom, is that Atheism can warrant it.

If a person wants to "assert" an axiom, he might be asked for justification, but why can't he just provide it from his own point of view as a person, rather than in the role of an atheist?

Well, whomever he is, if he's going to offer it to somebody as an "axiom," then he's going to need to be able to give them reasons they should believe it. Otherwise, it's just a personal viewpoint, not an "axiom" for anyone else.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm guessing that girls from their own culture are off-limits, hence their looking further afield.

Maybe. But that explanation doesn't help you explain what to do with Northern Pakistani culture, on that point.

When did it become my responsibility to explain what to do with Northern Pakistani culture?

It's always our "responsibility" to decide which axioms are right, and which are wrong. The present case only illustrates how vexed and difficult that task can become, when all we have to rely on is our own subjective feelings about things. And now that we are truly a globalizing world, the person who used to live in a faraway culture is now the new kid on your block. Rotherham is not a Pakistani city, in origin. Now, the UK has to make laws for everybody, and we want those laws to be moral. Some laws must protect new cultures, perhaps; but as you can see, some aspects of new cultures need to be challenged or changed by UK laws.

Clearly, somebody's right, and somebody's wrong: if nothing more, we know that much from the fact that "raping is honourable" and "raping is wrong" are opposite axioms. There's no way they're both right.

Neither is right nor wrong objectively, but both could be either in the eyes of different people.

That answer won't work when you are neighbours...as really, you now are. Rotherham's in the UK.

...it goes to show that morality is relative, and that there is no objective right and wrong.

No, it just shows that cultures disagree about what right and wrong are. It certainly doesn't tell us there's no objective moral truth to be had.

It does not tell us there is no obective moral truth, I admit, but it does show that moral issues are dealt with subjectively. [/quote]
Not even that much: it only shows that some people TRY to deal with moral issues subjectively. But since they always fail, that's too low a bar to accept.

Different people make different moral judgements on a given issue, so how can you deny that those people are exercising their own subjective morality?

Some do. I don't deny that they do it. I just say that the fact that they do it, if they do, is trivial. The real question is, "Are they right to do that?"

If I think it wrong, and they don't, to what absolute moral authority can we look for adjudication?

Is that a serious question?

The answer's obvious: God.

But there is no God.

What's your evidence for that?

Well, yes, of course it has to be a moral authority that is acceptable to all parties; how could it have any effect otherwise? Why would we feel bound by it if we did not recognise its authority. Where would its warrant be, to put it in your language?

Morality is something people can obey or disobey. If they disagree with something that's moral (say, "Do not rape.") that doesn't change the morality, just their relation to objective morality. They're immoral, then.

The status of rape doesn't change based on the opinion held by the rapist. And there's every chance he'll never recognize the authority that puts him in prison for it. But what's that to the point? He's still done wrong.

Or am I missing the point of your line of inquiry here?

Who said everybody had to accept something in order for it to be right? Does the criminal have to "accept" the sentence of the court, for justice to be done? Or is justice done in spite of him, even if he refuses to agree?

That's a poor analogy. What if the court gets it wrong? And the court has men in uniforms on hand to enforce the sentence, so the criminal can be observed having no say in the matter; whereas no such enforcers are likely to turn up just because you say I have commited a crime against God's moral law.

We'll see, of course.

I would condemn it.

Why? Serious question: it doesn't reconcile with your declared belief that morality is subjective.

That does not obligate me to have any sympathy or respect for anyone else's subjective morality.[/quote]
Ah. Then analytically speaking, you're not talking about "morality" at all. One of the most fundamental features of morality is that it governs relationships between people: your view stops short of being able to do that.

...why would I think his subjective opinion is every bit as good as mine? That would require me to be objective, which I keep telling you I am not.

Well, because the phrase "every bit as good" is what we call a "comparative." It compares two things, in relation to a common moral standard. In other words, if you don't think his view is both "as good" and "as bad" as yours...in other words, just an indifferent matter...then you're summoning him to a standard...which as a subjectivist, you have to believe is nothing but a figment in your own mind.

But what does he owe you by way of acceptance of your figment? If it's not objective, he owes you no assent, and isn't objectively any the worse of a person if he ignores you.

[Harbal]

What Atheism needs to show, if the Atheist wants to assert that axiom, is that Atheism can warrant it.

If a person wants to "assert" an axiom, he might be asked for justification, but why can't he just provide it from his own point of view as a person, rather than in the role of an atheist?

Well, whomever he is, if he's going to offer it to somebody as an "axiom," then he's going to need to be able to give them reasons they should believe it. Otherwise, it's just a personal viewpoint, not an "axiom" for anyone else.

In my experience, people don't usually go around reciting moral axioms in the hope of convincing others they also need to adopt them, but I will humour you, nonetheless. Yes, it's a personal conviction, but I could still explain why I think it morally right. If that does not appeal to the subject's moral sensibility, there is nothing more that I can do or say to convince him. But you are in the same position. It doesn't matter where you say a moral imperitive comes from, I am free to reject it.

[Immanuel Can]

In my experience, people don't usually go around reciting moral axioms in the hope of convincing others they also need to adopt them,

Then perhaps you haven't thought about laws, or justice, or institutional regulations, or contracts and business agreements, or structuring civilizations, or rules in sports, or even general social protocols. All of them require rules to be applied to more than one person.

That is exactly what we do with moral precepts: we try to convince other people that they should be a general rules for all of us.

[Harbal]

Neither is right nor wrong objectively, but both could be either in the eyes of different people.

That answer won't work when you are neighbours...as really, you now are. Rotherham's in the UK.

What do you mean, it won't work? I am not offering a solution to anything, I'm just saying how it is.

And what is this obsession you have with bloody Rotherham?

It does not tell us there is no obective moral truth, I admit, but it does show that moral issues are dealt with subjectively.

Not even that much: it only shows that some people TRY to deal with moral issues subjectively. But since they always fail, that's too low a bar to accept.

I am saying what I think morality is, and you are talking about what it ideally should be.

Different people make different moral judgements on a given issue, so how can you deny that those people are exercising their own subjective morality?

Some do. I don't deny that they do it. I just say that the fact that they do it, if they do, is trivial. The real question is, "Are they right to do that?"

Are they right in whose opinion?

But there is no God.

What's your evidence for that?

I am not going to be swayed by any moral argument because someone claims it has the backing of God, because I don't believe there is a God. So it isn't my job to provide evidence, it is the job of anyone who wants me to change my mind.

Morality is something people can obey or disobey. If they disagree with something that's moral (say, "Do not rape.") that doesn't change the morality, just their relation to objective morality. They're immoral, then.

The status of rape doesn't change based on the opinion held by the rapist. And there's every chance he'll never recognize the authority that puts him in prison for it. But what's that to the point? He's still done wrong.

Or am I missing the point of your line of inquiry here?

I don't know if you are missing the point. I think the rapist is wrong, you think the rapist is wrong, but the rapist doesn't think he is wrong. That's all I'm saying, and that's all there is to it. What we, or the law, decide to do about it is a different matter.

That's a poor analogy. What if the court gets it wrong? And the court has men in uniforms on hand to enforce the sentence, so the criminal can be observed having no say in the matter; whereas no such enforcers are likely to turn up just because you say I have commited a crime against God's moral law.

We'll see, of course.

What sort of argument is, "We'll see"? In order to accept something I consider to be unbelievable, I'm going to need more than, "We'll see", as persuasion.

Ah. Then analytically speaking, you're not talking about "morality" at all. One of the most fundamental features of morality is that it governs relationships between people: your view stops short of being able to do that.

What on earth are you talking about?

Well, because the phrase "every bit as good" is what we call a "comparative." It compares two things, in relation to a common moral standard. In other words, if you don't think his view is both "as good" and "as bad" as yours...in other words, just an indifferent matter...then you're summoning him to a standard...which as a subjectivist, you have to believe is nothing but a figment in your own mind.

There is no common moral standard if we disagree. If I am summoning him at all, I am summoning him to my standard, which would be a moral conviction, not a figment, and I don't have to believe it is a figment at all.

But what does he owe you by way of acceptance of your figment? If it's not objective, he owes you no assent, and isn't objectively any the worse of a person if he ignores you.

When have I ever said that anyone owes me acceptance of my moral convictions; you know, the convictions you like to call figments? But you are right; he wouldn't be objectively any worse, but only worse in my estimation.