Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

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.

No legal authority has ever approached me for acceptance before introducing a law.

Just as a matter of interest; does God involve himself in the rules of sport?

[Immanuel Can]

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?

"Obsession"? Seriously, dude.

Hey, they're your countrymen. It's your country. You decide what laws should pertain.

No the point is simple: there are different opinions about what morality should be; but the days when an Englishman could sit smugly in his cottage and imagine that these different opinions would stay on their own shores are long gone. Now they come as near as Rotherham, or Birmingham, or Manchester, or Bradford...coming soon to your neighbourhood.

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.

Actually, you're talking about what morality can never be...private, solipsistic and subjective. Whatever that is, it ain't morality.

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?

Objectively.

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.

But you say you can't premise morality on God because "there's no God." If you can't substantiate that defense, then your defense falls.

I think the rapist is wrong, you think the rapist is wrong, but the rapist doesn't think he is wrong.

So what makes us right, and him wrong? If the answer is "nothing," then watch out for your daughter.

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.

God's moral law will be enforced. If you don't think so, just wait and see. I can't convince you against your will to be convinced.

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?

This has never occurred to you? Well, let me help you out, then.

Take a basic precept like, "Thou shalt not steal." Is that just for you? Or just you and the missus? Or is it for your neighbour, too, and for his wife and kids? Is it for your mortgage lender? Is it for your credit card company? Your landlord? The justice system? The housebreaker scoping out your neighbourhood...

Do you see the problem, yet? If its just for you, it doesn't do anything at all, except amount to a gratuitous limitation you're putting on yourself. It won't help establsh a community, inform a justice system, secure your possessions, or even provide protocols for treating each other well. And it will never constitute evidence of you being a "good" person, because there's no common standard that anybody else has to accept in assessing your moral standing. So all you know is that you are self-pleasing. But that's as far as it can go, unless there's some external standard you're actually up to.

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.

Then you cannot ever call your morality "every bit as good" as his. Because it's not comparable by any criteria. He has his view, and you have yours; that's all that can be said. Niether is ever "better" or "worse," or "equal" either -- they're just different. And according to subjectivism, "Thou shalt not rape" is neither better nor worse than "Thou shalt rape thy neighbour."

[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.

No legal authority has ever approached me for acceptance before introducing a law.

Just as a matter of interest; does God involve himself in the rules of sport?

That's not the point I'm making. I'm just pointing out that even when you do something as trivial as wander out on the football pitch, you're submitting yourself to other's rules. And if you don't, they won't let you play. If that's how it is in a matter so trivial as sport, how can you even object when the same is done in far more important matters like justice or business contracts? Of course we need common codes; a civilization simply can't do without them.

[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.

I have a source for that, of course...

Well, I googled those words and again it appears you know something that Google doesn't. What is your source?

...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.

If it is atheism that needs it, then you concede my point that taking responsibility for your actions is not essential to your Christian morality; better to nail someone else to a cross.

[Harbal]

And what is this obsession you have with bloody Rotherham?

"Obsession"? Seriously, dude.

Yes, seriously, you bring it up at every opportunity. You are obviously trying to taunt me with it, but you overestimate my interest in it.

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

Actually, you're talking about what morality can never be...private, solipsistic and subjective. Whatever that is, it ain't morality.

Subjective does not prevent morality from being collective.

Are they right in whose opinion?

Objectively.

I don't know of anyone with an objective moral opinion.

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.

But you say you can't premise morality on God because "there's no God." If you can't substantiate that defense, then your defense falls.

Yet I still don't believe in God, and my view on morality remains unchanged. Which leaves me thinking that whatever I am undefended against isn't much of a threat.

I think the rapist is wrong, you think the rapist is wrong, but the rapist doesn't think he is wrong.

So what makes us right, and him wrong? If the answer is "nothing," then watch out for your daughter.

And how would my thinking differently make my daughter safer?

What on earth are you talking about?

This has never occurred to you? Well, let me help you out, then.

No, I'm good, thanks, as those funny American folks say.

There is no common moral standard if we disagree.

Then you cannot ever call your morality "every bit as good" as his. Because it's not comparable by any criteria.

I set the criteria for making such a comparison.

And according to subjectivism, "Thou shalt not rape" is neither better nor worse than "Thou shalt rape thy neighbour."

Well I subjectively think it is infinitely better, so you got it wrong again.

[Harbal]

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.

God's moral law will be enforced. If you don't think so, just wait and see. I can't convince you against your will to be convinced.

It would be more accurate to say you can't convince me against my common sense. You would make a lousy witch doctor; you can't scare anybody.

[Immanuel Can]

I think you'll find it came from you.

I have a source for that, of course...

Well, I googled those words and again it appears you know something that Google doesn't. What is your source?

I'm an objectivist. The Source is God. If He says, "Take responsibility for yourself," then it's amoral imperative. Even a complete Atheist would have to recognize that IF God existed, that would be enough to make that a reality. He can just comfort himself on that with his conviction that God doesn't exist.

But what does the Atheist himself have as a source for a moral axiom like that? Himself? Nature? Society? Obviouslly, none of these are adequate to rationalize the axiom, "We have to take responsibility for ourselves." And since it can be doubted, he's in a bit of a pickle there.

[Immanuel Can]

...you can't scare anybody.

IC: "Harbal, your house is on fire."

Harbal: "You can't scare me."

[iambiguous]

I'm an objectivist. The Source is God. If He says, "Take responsibility for yourself," then it's amoral imperative. Even a complete Atheist would have to recognize that IF God existed, that would be enough to make that a reality.

Right on.

Though, sure, pursue all of the different ways in which atheists can attack Christianity and religion. Philosophically or otherwise. In fact, start here: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/atheist-d ... on=3392999

One or the best sources I've ever found for going about that.

But it's still all completely futile. Some here have been attempting to parry with IC for years. Exasperated to the point of pulling out their hair no doubt as he either completely ignores their points or endlessly wiggles around them.

Yes, he is an objectivist. And Christianity is his opiate of choice.

And I basically agree with him in regard to morality. It's all about God. No existing God and no objective morality. Just a ton of conflicting secular Humanisms that have resolved absolutely nothing going all the way back to the pre-Socratics in the West.

So, okay, Mr. Objectivist, I agree: we need a God. And you claim that it is the Christian God. And not just any Christian God but the one true Christian God.

Let's start there then.

Now, assuming that is the case, how do you go about demonstrating to others that He does in fact exist? And that's important here because you claim that the evidence is actually there in which to accomplish this. And it's not just embedded in a leap of faith or a "read the Christian Bible" argument.

No, instead, of all places, it's on YouTube.

Somewhere.

But what does the Atheist himself have as a source for a moral axiom like that? Himself? Nature? Society? Obviouslly, none of these are adequate to rationalize the axiom, "We have to take responsibility for ourselves." And since it can be doubted, he's in a bit of a pickle there.

I completely agree. Each of us as himself or herself might have lived very, very different lives. Been indoctrinated as children to believe many different things about God. Had many different experiences as adults predisposing us to embrace many different spiritual paths. Or to reject spirituality altogether.

Same with our understanding of nature and society.

Whereas with the Christian God every single aspect of our life comes back to Him. And it all culminates in Judgment Day.

End of story: Heads you win, tails they lose.

But only if this Christian God does in fact exist.

The part I come back to over and over again: that, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, we need some way in which to grasp that it is the Christian religion and not one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...faiths that will result in a saved soul.



Let's have it then...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter thinks morality in terms of real feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgment - these are subjective.
Because these are not factual [not a matter of fact] thus, morality cannot be objective; morality to Peter can only be subjective or relative; to each their own - even genocide is morally right if accepted as a moral element.

"If accepted"? "Accepted" by whom, is the problem. Who has the authority to make something moral?

The Nazis certainly "accepted" the destruction of the Jews. If your explanation of Peter's view is correct, that's enough to make Peter believe the Holocaust was "moral."

I think that's far too low a bar for most people to agree. I think what you've ended up advocating there is actually immoral, and most people will intuitively grasp that that is the case, even if they struggle to say why they feel it so strongly.

From what PH has posted, it is obvious PH do not personally accept the Holocaust was "moral."

Peter is a moral relativist.
A moral relativist, since subjective, and is not a moral objectivist has to respect diversity in morality and has no universal moral standard for others except his own.
In this case, PH has to let others act whatever they deemed as moral since he has no universal standard to make judgment on the morality of others.
Thus if the Nazi insisted Holocaust was "moral" relative to their moral standard then it is 'moral' for the Nazi as qualified to their moral FSK.

PH will find the act of the Holocaust as abhorrent, but moral wise as a moral relativist, - to each their own - he has nothing morally to say about it.
The only recourse is PH as a moral relativist will rely on whatever laws [Politics] in force to deal with the Holocaust or any future 'moral' genocide.
Politics is independent from morality and ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In every case of Atheism. If you're just an agnostic, then the problem is different, of course.

I am not agnostic.

To me, it is impossible for God to exists as real in anyway as there is an element of contradiction.
This is equivalent to the claim it is impossible for a square-circle to exists.

Then the problem is yours, as it is for anyone who believes in Atheism. There is no grounds for even a single moral precept in a worldview premised on Atheism. And that will turn out to remain true whether, as you insist, God is "impossible to exist," since the problem is inherent to Atheism itself, regardless of all other views.

Re morality, we have to set aside the perspective of Atheism or non-theism but rather focus on what is human nature.

I have argued,

Morality is the elimination of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil are norms i.e. thoughts and acts that are net-negative to the well being of human[s], humanity and the human species.
Example, that "no normal human beings are known to have tortured and killed their babies for pleasure" is a very evident moral norm.
There are other human-nature-moral-norms.

• 1. Human nature is an objective fact [science biological FSK].
  2. Morality is part and parcel of human nature [evidently, common sense].
  3. Morality is an objective fact.

Because human nature is inherent in ALL humans, the moral function [a potential] is represented by neural algorithm in the brain [& body].
The inherent moral function [like intelligence, critical thinking] potential at present is unfolding very slowly - that is why we have a normal distribution of IQ with the mean increasing over the last 5000 years.
There is already a increasing trend in the increase in the average moral quotient [MQ] since the last 5000 years to the present.
What is needed at present is to expedite the average MQ within humanity via Foolproof approaches.

While the average MQ has been slowly increasing, what we have is reliance on the theistic moral FSK as a temporary [better than nothing] measure; I believe the Christianity theistic moral FSK [model] is the most optimally effectively for the present psychological states of the majority.

BUT because the theistic moral model is not foolproof, humanity need to establish secular foolproof moral models to increase the average MQ in the future [not possible now].

[Immanuel Can]

Re morality, we have to set aside the perspective of Atheism...

No, we won't be doing that. It's central.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re morality, we have to set aside the perspective of Atheism...

No, we won't be doing that. It's central.

Based on your psychological state to sustain the consonance to curb the terrible and painful [subliminal] inherent cognitive dissonances, I understand you will insist upon the above and not venture onto something that is more realistic and practical.

[Peter Holmes]

Morality is the elimination of evil to enable its related good.

Why should we or ought we to eliminate evil to enable its related good? Is it a fact that we should, or a matter of opinion?

What is evil are norms i.e. thoughts and acts that are net-negative to the well being of human[s], humanity and the human species.

Why should we or ought we to eliminate or reduce thoughts and acts that are net-negative to the well being of human[s], humanity and the human species'? Is it a fact that we should, or a matter of opinion?

1. Human nature is an objective fact [science biological FSK].

Appeals to 'human nature' - beyond our evolved biology - are notoriously subjective and partisan.

2. Morality is part and parcel of human nature [evidently, common sense].

True, human communities have developed - and are developing - moral values and codes. But there's no reason to conclude that this is a product of 'human nature'.

3. Morality is an objective fact.

False - if even coherent.

[Harbal]

...you can't scare anybody.

IC: "Harbal, your house is on fire."

So are your pants.