Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

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

What a self-deluded way of thinking!

Given that colors have no physical existence (they are only in our heads) why is there a factual answer independent from opinion to the question "What color is this?"

square-xxl.png

[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.

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.

It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

[Skepdick]

It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

Why not? Is it your God or your feelings which forbids it from being viable?

Subjectivism hasn't failed so much as it has never succeeded at making the case that anybody is doing anything right. Or wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

That's not the argument. The argument is that subjectivism can't say a single thing about morality without defeating itself. It has zero to do with anybody's "comfort," including mine and your own. It has to do with logical coherence. That which is not logically coherent is false. Moral subjectivism is incapable of logical coherence.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

That's not the argument. The argument is that subjectivism can't say a single thing about morality without defeating itself. It has zero to do with anybody's "comfort," including mine and your own. It has to do with logical coherence. That which is not logically coherent is false. Moral subjectivism is incapable of logical coherence.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective. Your demand wasn't for it to just "say something" though, was it? Your demand was for an objective, timeless and universally true precept that (presumably all?) "subjectivists" must believe. That was never a legitimate demand.

[Immanuel Can]

It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.

That's not the argument. The argument is that subjectivism can't say a single thing about morality without defeating itself. It has zero to do with anybody's "comfort," including mine and your own. It has to do with logical coherence. That which is not logically coherent is false. Moral subjectivism is incapable of logical coherence.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

Is that objectively true? And is one objectively obligated to believe moral subjectivism? Is one objectively 'bad' if one insists on moral objectivism?

If that's just your subjective opinion, and one has no objective obligation to it, and one is not objectively 'bad' for disbelieving subjectivism, then what's your point?

Do you see how absurd and incoherent that claim really is?

You can't possibly miss it. But you can refuse to acknowledge it, of course.

[Skepdick]

That was never a legitimate demand.

What authority legitimizes demands for subjectivists? Your God or your feelings?

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not the argument. The argument is that subjectivism can't say a single thing about morality without defeating itself. It has zero to do with anybody's "comfort," including mine and your own. It has to do with logical coherence. That which is not logically coherent is false. Moral subjectivism is incapable of logical coherence.

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

Is that objectively true? And is one objectively obligated to believe moral subjectivism? Is one objectively 'bad' if one insists on moral objectivism?

If that's just your subjective opinion, and one has no objective obligation to it, and one is not objectively 'bad' for disbelieving subjectivism, then what's your point?

Do you see how absurd and incoherent that claim really is?

You can't possibly miss it. But you can refuse to acknowledge it, of course.

Are you able to tell the difference between the claim "green cars are nicer than red cars" and "green cars are faster than red cars"?
Objectively, the first is subjective and cannot be true or false, while the second is objectively untrue.

Do you see how absurd and incoherent your nonsense is?
You can't possibly miss it. But you can refuse to acknowledge it, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Subjectivism can say something about morality, namely it says that it is not objective.

Is that objectively true? And is one objectively obligated to believe moral subjectivism? Is one objectively 'bad' if one insists on moral objectivism?

If that's just your subjective opinion, and one has no objective obligation to it, and one is not objectively 'bad' for disbelieving subjectivism, then what's your point?

Do you see how absurd and incoherent that claim really is?

You can't possibly miss it. But you can refuse to acknowledge it, of course.

Are you able to tell the difference between the claim "green cars are nicer than red cars" and "green cars are faster than red cars"?
Objectively, the first is subjective and cannot be true or false, while the second is objectively untrue.

Of course. But the second is not "objectively untrue" unless you add that the cars are all equal mechanically. If the greens are Skodas, and the reds are Ferraris, then red cars are indeed faster than green ones.

But that's all an obfuscation on your part, anyway.

Just give me one moral precept that moral subjectivists are morally obligated to assent to, and you'll have proved subjectivism knows something about morality. And if you can't...well, the conclusion becomes very obvious, then.

[LuckyR]

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

What a self-deluded way of thinking!

Given that colors have no physical existence (they are only in our heads) why is there a factual answer independent from opinion to the question "What color is this?"

square-xxl.png

Uummm... not so much. If you ask 100 people your question, you will not get a single answer repeated 100 times ie, it's not as "factual" as you're proposing

[FlashDangerpants]

Is that objectively true? And is one objectively obligated to believe moral subjectivism? Is one objectively 'bad' if one insists on moral objectivism?

If that's just your subjective opinion, and one has no objective obligation to it, and one is not objectively 'bad' for disbelieving subjectivism, then what's your point?

Do you see how absurd and incoherent that claim really is?

You can't possibly miss it. But you can refuse to acknowledge it, of course.

Are you able to tell the difference between the claim "green cars are nicer than red cars" and "green cars are faster than red cars"?
Objectively, the first is subjective and cannot be true or false, while the second is objectively untrue.

Of course. But the second is not "objectively untrue" unless you add that the cars are all equal mechanically. If the greens are Skodas, and the reds are Ferraris, then red cars are indeed faster than green ones.

But that's all an obfuscation on your part, anyway.

Just give me one moral precept that moral subjectivists are morally obligated to assent to, and you'll have proved subjectivism knows something about morality. And if you can't...well, the conclusion becomes very obvious, then.

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

[Skepdick]

Uummm... not so much. If you ask 100 people your question, you will not get a single answer repeated 100 times ie, it's not as "factual" as you're proposing

If you weigh an apple on 100 different scales you will not get the 100 scales to agree on the weight either.

There's a standard error margin on all such measurements. What's your point?

This is why we have the majority rule in engineering and why ships have three compasses.

If 1 out of 1 is broken - you don't know which way is North.
If 1 out of 2 is broken - you don't know which way is North.

But if you have three...

[Immanuel Can]

Are you able to tell the difference between the claim "green cars are nicer than red cars" and "green cars are faster than red cars"?
Objectively, the first is subjective and cannot be true or false, while the second is objectively untrue.

Of course. But the second is not "objectively untrue" unless you add that the cars are all equal mechanically. If the greens are Skodas, and the reds are Ferraris, then red cars are indeed faster than green ones.

But that's all an obfuscation on your part, anyway.

Just give me one moral precept that moral subjectivists are morally obligated to assent to, and you'll have proved subjectivism knows something about morality. And if you can't...well, the conclusion becomes very obvious, then.

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

No, making my question subjectivism-defeating. That's the difference. But I'm well past believing you'll ever acknowledge that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Of course. But the second is not "objectively untrue" unless you add that the cars are all equal mechanically. If the greens are Skodas, and the reds are Ferraris, then red cars are indeed faster than green ones.

But that's all an obfuscation on your part, anyway.

Just give me one moral precept that moral subjectivists are morally obligated to assent to, and you'll have proved subjectivism knows something about morality. And if you can't...well, the conclusion becomes very obvious, then.

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

No, making my question subjectivism-defeating. That's the difference. But I'm well past believing you'll ever acknowledge that.

It is still not a viable strategy to argue that subjectivism fails because is isn't objective enough for your comfort.
But I'm well past believing you'll ever acknowledge that.

[LuckyR]

Uummm... not so much. If you ask 100 people your question, you will not get a single answer repeated 100 times ie, it's not as "factual" as you're proposing

If you weigh an apple on 100 different scales you will not get the 100 scales to agree on the weight either.

There's a standard error margin on all such measurements. What's your point?

This is why we have the majority rule in engineering and why ships have three compasses.

If 1 out of 1 is broken - you don't know which way is North.
If 1 out of 2 is broken - you don't know which way is North.

But if you have three...

You are conflating the measurement of objective traits with the inherent nature of the traits themselves.