Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

This seems to be your absolute favourite question, and you never tire of asking it,

Indeed! I love questions which expose double standards.

but it illustrates nothing other than your failure to grasp the point. Or, more accurately, your refusal to grasp it.

Oh great, then you will educate me. Won't you? Mr Point Grasper.

No, I am content to just point out your folly; I have no wish to discuss anything with you.

Great! So when will you start? Pointing out my "folly" that is...

All you've pointed out so far is that I am pointing out Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's folly.

Color has no physical/objective existence so what makes stop signs factually red?

[Harbal]

Indeed! I love questions which expose double standards.


Oh great, then you will educate me. Won't you? Mr Point Grasper.

No, I am content to just point out your folly; I have no wish to discuss anything with you.

Great! So when will you start? Pointing out my "folly" that is...

I've said all I have to say on the matter.

[Skepdick]

No, I am content to just point out your folly; I have no wish to discuss anything with you.

Great! So when will you start? Pointing out my "folly" that is...

I've said all I have to say on the matter.

Your words were as useful as silence.

[Harbal]

Great! So when will you start? Pointing out my "folly" that is...

I've said all I have to say on the matter.

Your words were as useful as silence.

[Skepdick]

I've said all I have to say on the matter.

Your words were as useful as silence.

Couldn't you just shut up instead of symbolically representing shutting up?

[Immanuel Can]

'Moral subjectivism entails moral relativism'. False.

Prove it.

Give us just one moral precept -- just one, any one -- that moral subjectivists must all necessarily affirm.

If you can't give one, then clearly, it's not false at all. Well, except that it's "moral relativism." What it is, instead, is complete absence of morals, or moral nihilism, in other words.

Go for it. Let's see what you've got.

...it's morally right to force a raped child to give birth.'

All that means to a subjectivist is, "Peter doesn't like raped children giving birth." For as a subjectivist, Peter must insist that there is absolutely nothing more than that behind his revulsion to the idea. And if somebody doesn't feel that revulsion, Peter has to concede that they are every bit as right as he is, and as wrong as he is, because nothing is objectively right or wrong.

Happy with that?

[Peter Holmes]

I've said all I have to say on the matter.

Your words were as useful as silence.

It's an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking and self-confessed troll. Ignore it. (Note to self!)

[Skepdick]

It's an unpleasant, intellectually-challenged, attention-seeking and self-confessed troll. Ignore it. (Note to self!)

I ask unpleasant questions and provide empirical evidence which undermines your entire religion. Therefore ignore me

Typical Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes.

Lets leave the question right at the idiot's doorstep anyway: Since colors have no physical existence what makes the statement "This color is red" a fact?

square-xxl.png

[Immanuel Can]

Silence.

All Peter has is dead silence. For there is not even one single moral precept that a moral subjectivist must necessarily believe. Not even one.

The obvious conclusion: whatever "morality" is, subjectivism knows nothing whatsoever about it. It cannot make even one statement in defense of a single precept of what anybody would recognize as morality.

It cannot even forbid the things that Peter himself finds viscerally objectionable, but to which he assigns no objective basis in truth.

What a gelding moral subjectivism is! No wonder it collapses so easily at the first gesture of any moral skepticism, and for those who take it seriously, reduces to nothing but moral nihilism.

So: either morality is objective, or it is nothing at all. Peter can pick his poison. Either way, it sure isn't "subjective."

[FlashDangerpants]

Silence.

All Peter has is dead silence. For there is not even one single moral precept that a moral subjectivist must necessarily believe. Not even one.

That would be an objective precept, making your demand self defeating.


For about the 90th time, it is not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort. All that this line of argument demonstrates is your lack of talent.

[Skepdick]

Silence.

All Peter has is dead silence. For there is not even one single moral precept that a moral subjectivist must necessarily believe. Not even one.

That would be an objective precept, making your demand self defeating.


For about the 90th time, it is not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort. All that this line of argument demonstrates is your lack of talent.

Yet somehow your criterion for viability is sturdy enough to let you bash his strategy

And while we are doing a reveal on the usual philosophical sleight of hands.... we say "self-defeating" when we are attacking other people's tautologies, but we say "self-affirming" when we are defending our tautologies against attack.

[iambiguous]

'Moral subjectivism entails moral relativism'. False.

Prove it.

Give us just one moral precept -- just one, any one -- that moral subjectivists must all necessarily affirm.

If you can't give one, then clearly, it's not false at all. Well, except that it's "moral relativism." What it is, instead, is complete absence of morals, or moral nihilism, in other words.

Go for it. Let's see what you've got.

...it's morally right to force a raped child to give birth.'

All that means to a subjectivist is, "Peter doesn't like raped children giving birth." For as a subjectivist, Peter must insist that there is absolutely nothing more than that behind his revulsion to the idea. And if somebody doesn't feel that revulsion, Peter has to concede that they are every bit as right as he is, and as wrong as he is, because nothing is objectively right or wrong.

Happy with that?

All I can do here is once again remind you that Immanual Cant really does have the Subjectivists and the Atheists by the balls. If, in fact, the Christian God does exist.

Like he said, note one issue that morally the Subjectivists and the Atheists can all agree on in regard to Good and Evil. You can't. Not without God. Instead, you get one or another hopelessly conflicted One True Path rendition from these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...folks.

Also, with No Christian God around to catch and punish them, the sociopaths are able to justify any and all behaviors. No God and, philosophically or otherwise, all things really are permitted.

That's not just bullshit.



Here's the thing though. The thing I bring up to him. Where's the beef?

Where is the substantive and substantial evidence that the Christian God does exist?

On those YouTube videos? Well, I just posted my reaction to the 7th one here: viewtopic.php?t=33261&start=16710

Nothing even remotely substantive [let alone substantial] so far. On the other hand, there are still 10 more to go. So, for those like me and henry, our souls on the line, there is still hope.

[CIN]

But feelings are part of the mix that goes into the formation of moral values, judgements and opinions. For example, revulsion at the spectacle of a person being roasted alive on a fire, or tortured and murdered on a cross, or enslaved - things of which one team's primitive desert god approves - a visceral response to cruelty can be an important element in morality.

(No one wants to recognise or admit the moral egotism this requires - or to acknowledge the more than evident scope for righteous cruelty: 'Because (it's a fact that) terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong, it's morally right to force a raped child to give birth.'

So you have one group of people who have a 'visceral response' which leads them to think that it's wrong to kill an unborn foetus, and another group of people (which includes you) who have a 'visceral response' that leads them to think that it's wrong to force the raped child to give birth.

Why is your group right and the other group wrong?

There is no factual answer independent from opinion - and that's the whole point. That's why moral objectivism is a delusion.

Understood. So you accept that Immanuel Can was 100% right when he wrote this:

For a subjectivist, "morally wrong" has to mean no more than "Peter's belief, opinion or feeling" (it can't really be a "judgment," in the true sense of that word, because that might imply an objective set of criteria for guilt, which Peter insist cannot be had. And Peter cannot make himself a "judge" of anybody else on a purely subjective basis. But let that be. For now, it can be any of the other three.)

So we must read 2 as "Peter has a belief, opinion or feeling that he doesn't like forcing raped girls to give birth." But that would also have to mean that if Tom, Dick or Harry does like forcing raped girls to give birth, then that is not objectively wrong for them to do. They are not responsible to answer to what Peter likes, or his opinions, or his beliefs about things that are not objectively so.

those who advocate or do it are monsters.

The most this can mean is "Tom, Dick and Harry feel like 'monsters' to Peter." It cannot mean they are monsters, objectively, or even metaphorically. It can only mean that Peter doesn't happen to like them. Peter subjectively assesses them as 'monsters,' but they are not that objectively. Peter is therefore confused in his assessment, since nothing in reality corresponds to it ...according to moral subjectivism.

See how amoral that ends up being?

So why is a moral subjectivist even trying to talk about morality? On his own terms, he knows nothing at all about any such thing. All he knows is his own feelings.

[Immanuel Can]

Silence.

All Peter has is dead silence. For there is not even one single moral precept that a moral subjectivist must necessarily believe. Not even one.

That would be an objective precept, making your demand self defeating.

The demand isn't "self-defeating." The inability of subjectivism to make even one cogent claim about morality would be subjectivism-defeating.

You can't salvage a viewpoint that cannot even say one thing...on measely thing...about the subject upon which it claims to speak. Moral subjectivism fails dismally....but it's nobody's fault but subjectivism's.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Once again. The 'that's-how-we-use-these-words' argument for moral objectivity doesn't work.

By way of agreement on the use of words, we may call a feature of reality a red square.
But the thing we call a red square is what it is, whatever we call it, and even if we don't call it anything.
In philosophy-speak, we may say that redness and squareness are properties of that thing. But this is always 'given the way we use those words in context'.

I have challenged you a '1000' times how do you prove that supposedly mind-independent specific 'thing' you called a feature of reality is real or even exists as real?

This 'thing' i.e. your what is fact is what Kant called a mind-independent 'thing-in-itself' which you insist exists even if we do not call it at all.
According to Kant, this thing-in-itself is an illusion which is impossible to be real at all.

See this:
Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?
PO: viewtopic.php?t=40154
Post: viewtopic.php?p=661527#p661527

In reality there is no thing-in-itself or thing-by-itself.
Whatever is real emerged and is realized within a specific human-based FSK.

Thus, however we realized and described that 'red square' [or whatever] it must be qualified to a specific human-based FSK, be common sense, scientific, etc. and whatever its reality, it cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

But what we call moral rightness and wrongness are not properties in the way that redness and squareness are properties. And that's why people can and do call one and the same action - say, abortion - both 'morally right' and 'morally wrong' - even given complete agreement on the use of all of the relevant words.

Morality is not about rightness and wrongness; that is pseudo-morality.

Moral objectivists just can't handle this fact. Is capital punishment morally right or morally wrong? Can either answer be true or false - and on what grounds? What could make it a fact that capital punishment is morally wrong, or not morally wrong? Nothing can. We're driven back to an opinion.

As I had pointed out, your basis of what is fact is based on an illusion, thus you do not have any credibility to refute moral objectivists based on your illusory what is fact.

In morality-proper, capital punishment is immoral since it does not align with the objective moral fact of 'the ought-not-ness-not-to-kill-humans'.
But this "ought-not-ness" should not be imposed or enforced upon the individual[s] as a command by external parties.
Rather this "ought-not-ness" need to be developed so that it spontaneously manifest from the individual[s].