Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

The theistic approach to morality starts with the theist deciding what he wants God to tell him to believe, then he believes that, then he thanks God for making this all so very true.

Harbal just drops a couple of the redundant steps.

[Harbal]

I doubt that my moral principles are vastly different to those of the average person brought up in a similar culture to mine.

So you mean you simply absorbed your moral principles from your cultural tradition?

For the most part, yes.

Did you ever question them?

I think society questions its moral principles from time to time, and we, as members of it, change our views along with it. I don't suppose it is unusual for an individual to develop a moral attitude that is, to some extent, not completely in step with that of his social environment. But yes, as I have got older I have questioned my moral views, and even changed some as a result.

Do you really know which priniciples are right and which would be merely traditional?

I assume you mean "right" in my opinion, according to my own sense of morality. I often know which ones seem right to me, and which don't, but these things a very often not so clear cut.

How did you go about sorting all that out?

Is it my job to sort it out? I sometimes don't know what the "right" moral position is, and when the issue does not affect me directly, or I have no influence over the matter, I probably don't sort it out.

That is more or less correct, in principle, although you have done your best to make it sound as trivial and worthless as possible. In practice, there is much more to it than you suggest, but you do actually know that.

I actually don't. All I've done, above, is to strip away the trappings of language that hide how the thing actually works, in down-to-earth terms. And if that makes it look a little naked, I can't be blamed for that.

I could accept that, but it wouldn't change the fact that you got it wrong. The wording you used to describe the situation totally misrepresents how I experience it.

Not much moral guidance is provided by such a system. None at all, in fact.

I don't find that to be the case.

Well, it would have to be -- if, as you say, I essentially got the description above right (even if a little blunt).

So when I say I don't find it to be the case, you are saying I do find it to be the case, but am unaware of it, or something like that?

They are. But a great many refuse the evidence, just as you do.

No, I don't accept that.

That's exactly how it goes. The Theist says, "There's evidence," and the Atheist says, "There's none." And the Theist cannot beat the Atheist's strategy, because how can you argue with somebody who simply refuses the evidence before him?

If the atheist is me, he says: "what you are presenting to me as evidence is so weak as not to strictly qualify as evidence". It isn't that I refuse to be convinced by it, it is that it isn't remotely convincing. Most of it necessitates the suppression of laughter, actually.

And you think that makes sense, do you? Or that if it were true, there would actually be a point to it?

It's the only thing that makes sense, especially if one believes that people have "will" at all. God could not give people free will, and then prevent them from making bad or evil choices. That would be to give them no actual choice at all, since they could only do good. So what would be the point in giving them volition at all, since they couldn't use it for the purposes they chose? It would be self-contradictory.

So God creates us, and gives us free will so that we can demonstrate whether we are ultimately deserving of punishment or reward? So I ask again; what is the point of that; where is the sense in it?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really know which priniciples are right and which would be merely traditional?

I assume you mean "right" in my opinion, according to my own sense of morality. I often know which ones seem right to me, and which don't, but these things a very often not so clear cut.

I mean a little more. I mean the sort of thing when a society once treated racism as common or even as morally positive, and somebody goes, "Hey, y'know, this isn't actually right, and we shouldn't do it."

Have you ever done that about some value your tradition delivered to you?

How did you go about sorting all that out?

Is it my job to sort it out?

There's no choice about whether or not you have to. Because you're either going to go along with the tradition, or you're going to cross it in some way, if not outright defy it, even.

We do have the choice not to think about our actions and choices; we don't have any choice about whether we choose and act.

That is more or less correct, in principle, although you have done your best to make it sound as trivial and worthless as possible. In practice, there is much more to it than you suggest, but you do actually know that.

I actually don't. All I've done, above, is to strip away the trappings of language that hide how the thing actually works, in down-to-earth terms. And if that makes it look a little naked, I can't be blamed for that.

I could accept that, but it wouldn't change the fact that you got it wrong. The wording you used to describe the situation totally misrepresents how I experience it.

And yet...the phenomenon is exactly the same. The words are just decorations to hide the facts, then.

It's like when an Atheist insists, "I'm a moral person," and at the same time, that "moral" has no meaning, no objective referent, no reality outside of his own subjectivity. He's really saying no more than, "I approve myself." He's not saying he's objectively a good person at all...even though THAT is the very thing he wants to believe, and wants you to take for granted, too.

I'm just calling things as they are. When they're seen, sometimes they're not as pretty as people want them to be.

I don't find that to be the case.

Well, it would have to be -- if, as you say, I essentially got the description above right (even if a little blunt).

So when I say I don't find it to be the case, you are saying I do find it to be the case, but am unaware of it, or something like that?

I would say simply that you're "uncomfortable with the bluntness of the characterization," but realize it's not wrong.

And you think that makes sense, do you? Or that if it were true, there would actually be a point to it?

It's the only thing that makes sense, especially if one believes that people have "will" at all. God could not give people free will, and then prevent them from making bad or evil choices. That would be to give them no actual choice at all, since they could only do good. So what would be the point in giving them volition at all, since they couldn't use it for the purposes they chose? It would be self-contradictory.

So God creates us, and gives us free will so that we can demonstrate whether we are ultimately deserving of punishment or reward?

No. The "punishment-reward" perception is bad theology.

There are punishments and rewards, for sure; but they're not the point. They're merely the outcome of a much more important project: the establishing of relationships between God and people that are free, genuine and just. In other words, the creation of the conditions under which human beings can freely love God, and God can justly love free human beings. In other words, relationship.

That's the sense in it. And that's the larger project.

The "free and genuine" part cannot be had without giving mankind free will. The "just" part cannot be had without what you call "rewards" and "punishments," but which are really nothing more than the free agent has freely chosen. Those who want to know God get what they choose; those who do not want to know God get what they choose...and both get all that their choices naturally entail.

[Harbal]

Do you really know which priniciples are right and which would be merely traditional?

I assume you mean "right" in my opinion, according to my own sense of morality. I often know which ones seem right to me, and which don't, but these things a very often not so clear cut.

I mean a little more. I mean the sort of thing when a society once treated racism as common or even as morally positive, and somebody goes, "Hey, y'know, this isn't actually right, and we shouldn't do it."

Have you ever done that about some value your tradition delivered to you?

When social attitude changes, it brings the matter to your attention and causes you to think about the issue in question. That very often leads to a change in one's own attitude.

The wording you used to describe the situation totally misrepresents how I experience it.

And yet...the phenomenon is exactly the same. The words are just decorations to hide the facts, then.

So are you suggesting I reject my own experience of morality and accept it for the worthless thing you say it is? I think not.

It's like when an Atheist insists, "I'm a moral person," and at the same time, that "moral" has no meaning, no objective referent, no reality outside of his own subjectivity.

The fact that it is subjective doesn't prevent it from having meaning. It may not have meaning to you, just as your assertion that morality comes from God has no meaning to me, but who are we to say what has meaning to each other?

I'm just calling things as they are. When they're seen, sometimes they're not as pretty as people want them to be.

I am being open and honest, and making absolutely no attempt to make anything look pretty.

So when I say I don't find it to be the case, you are saying I do find it to be the case, but am unaware of it, or something like that?

I would say simply that you're "uncomfortable with the bluntness of the characterization," but realize it's not wrong.

That is tantamount to claiming to be a mind reader, which shouldn't surprise me in the light of all the other outlandish claims you make.

So God creates us, and gives us free will so that we can demonstrate whether we are ultimately deserving of punishment or reward?

No. The "punishment-reward" perception is bad theology.

There are punishments and rewards, for sure; but they're not the point. They're merely the outcome of a much more important project: the establishing of relationships between God and people that are free, genuine and just. In other words, the creation of the conditions under which human beings can freely love God, and God can justly love free human beings. In other words, relationship.

That's the sense in it. And that's the larger project.

The "free and genuine" part cannot be had without giving mankind free will. The "just" part cannot be had without what you call "rewards" and "punishments," but which are really nothing more than the free agent has freely chosen. Those who want to know God get what they choose; those who do not want to know God get what they choose...and both get all that their choices naturally entail.

And God embarked on this seemingly pointless "project" for what reason, I wonder. What amazes me is that you see legitimate purpose in all that senseless process.

[Immanuel Can]

When social attitude changes, it brings the matter to your attention and causes you to think about the issue in question. That very often leads to a change in one's own attitude.

So it isn't really tradition of cultural baggage that forms your morality; it's something beyond it, something to which you refer that's capable of informing you of ways your tradition has gone (objectively) wrong?

It's like when an Atheist insists, "I'm a moral person," and at the same time, that "moral" has no meaning, no objective referent, no reality outside of his own subjectivity.

The fact that it is subjective doesn't prevent it from having meaning.

It prevents any supposed "meaning" it has from being anything more than "what it means to the individual." That entails that nobody else needs to believe it at all. There's certainly nothing common and objective that compels agreement.

It's a privately-held delusion, by one man, then.

And God embarked on this seemingly pointless "project" for what reason, I wonder.

"Pointless?" Far from it. The securing of an eternal, free-will-based, friendship and alliance between the creature and the Creator is hardly "pointless." And it's analytically necessary that things should go this way: man must freely choose to invest in that relationship. There's no way he can, unlessfor at least some period of time, he can also choose the wretched alternative; he must be allowed genuine choice, both of the good and of evil.

We have been gifted our freedom. But it is ours to use wisely. And no choice is ever free from the natural consequences of it.

[Harbal]

When social attitude changes, it brings the matter to your attention and causes you to think about the issue in question. That very often leads to a change in one's own attitude.

So it isn't really tradition of cultural baggage that forms your morality; it's something beyond it, something to which you refer that's capable of informing you of ways your tradition has gone (objectively) wrong?

I don't think that is the case. We learn about morality and moral values from our social group. Where else could it come from? We don't come into the world instinctively knowing that stealing is wrong, homosexuality is a "sin", or adultery is a bad thing. Every species of animal that lives socially has to have some system that modifies the behaviour of its group members towards each another, so each individual has to have the biological mechanism that induces it to cooperate within that system. We come with the software already installed, but the settings and preferences have to be set up by our environment before it can start functioning.

The fact that it is subjective doesn't prevent it from having meaning.

It prevents any supposed "meaning" it has from being anything more than "what it means to the individual." That entails that nobody else needs to believe it at all. There's certainly nothing common and objective that compels agreement.

Have you noticed how people from any particular country all tend to have more or less the same diet? They all eat according to their individual taste, but each individual tends to have a very similar taste to all the others. Morality is a bit like that, I would say.

It's a privately-held delusion, by one man, then.

I think it tends to be more of a communal delusion, consisting of similar individual delusions.

And God embarked on this seemingly pointless "project" for what reason, I wonder.

"Pointless?" Far from it. The securing of an eternal, free-will-based, friendship and alliance between the creature and the Creator is hardly "pointless." And it's analytically necessary that things should go this way: man must freely choose to invest in that relationship. There's no way he can, unlessfor at least some period of time, he can also choose the wretched alternative; he must be allowed genuine choice, both of the good and of evil.

We have been gifted our freedom. But it is ours to use wisely. And no choice is ever free from the natural consequences of it.

Well I certainly can't see what point God had in mind when he created us just so we could behave in various ways with various consequences.

[Immanuel Can]

When social attitude changes, it brings the matter to your attention and causes you to think about the issue in question. That very often leads to a change in one's own attitude.

So it isn't really tradition of cultural baggage that forms your morality; it's something beyond it, something to which you refer that's capable of informing you of ways your tradition has gone (objectively) wrong?

I don't think that is the case. We learn about morality and moral values from our social group. Where else could it come from? We don't come into the world instinctively knowing that stealing is wrong, homosexuality is a "sin", or adultery is a bad thing. Every species of animal that lives socially has to have some system that modifies the behaviour of its group members towards each another, so each individual has to have the biological mechanism that induces it to cooperate within that system. We come with the software already installed, but the settings and preferences have to be set up by our environment before it can start functioning.

If that were the whole story, then it would be inconceivable...impossible, even...for you to ever have or adopt a moral stance that was different from that of your own social ethos. You would have no other place from which to launch any criticism of what your society does, or wants to do. You could never indict your own society as "unjust" in any way; and whatever they do, that's what you'd have to believe in.

Is that how it is? Clearly not. So again, from where do you get your basis for critiquing your own society, if your morals are already nothing but the deliverances from your society?

The fact that it is subjective doesn't prevent it from having meaning.

It prevents any supposed "meaning" it has from being anything more than "what it means to the individual." That entails that nobody else needs to believe it at all. There's certainly nothing common and objective that compels agreement.

Have you noticed how people from any particular country all tend to have more or less the same diet? They all eat according to their individual taste, but each individual tends to have a very similar taste to all the others. Morality is a bit like that, I would say.

People eat similar things primarily because that's the food they have available, primarily. But we know that some diets are very bad, starchy, fatty, full of refined carbs or sugars. But we can see that because some things are objectively good to eat, healthy for the human body, and energizing to body tissue, and some are not.

To carry the analogy, then, you'd have to say the same was true of morality: some moralities are bad for us. And like diet, that would have nothing to do with what the culture approves, but rather with what is objectively good for us. Is that, in fact, what you would say?

It's a privately-held delusion, by one man, then.

I think it tends to be more of a communal delusion, consisting of similar individual delusions.

But delusions. That's the point.

Well I certainly can't see what point God had in mind when he created us just so we could behave in various ways with various consequences.

Genuine personhood. Genuine volition. Genuine freedom. Genuine identity as an individual.

Without the power to make our own decision, we can never make a free decision to love God or not. We would be utterly incapable of genuine relationship, in fact. We'd be mere automata, robots, slaves, drones -- programmed entities that had no choices, no special identity, and no possibility of giving or receiving love, since they can never freely enter into any relationship at all.

If, as I suggest, God's endgame is genuine relationship, then the sine qua non of that is giving human beings their own volition...choice...freedom...individual identity and will. And for that to be genuine, each person must have a choice that counts, that makes a difference, and which is respected as to its result...even when that result is not what a loving God would choose. In the matter of relationships, both persons must freely engage. (We do have names for compelled "relationships," but none of them are savoury.)

[Peter Holmes]

IC's team's 'loving' god.

'You are completely free to believe in and love me or not. But if you don't, you will suffer either annihilation (the loss of eternal life), or eternal torture in hell, after you die.'

And IC claims this malicious demon is the source of objective morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

IC's team's 'loving' god.

'You are completely free to believe in and love me or not. But if you don't, you will suffer either annihilation (the loss of eternal life), or eternal torture in hell, after you die.'

And IC claims this malicious demon is the source of objective morality.

IC's 'loving' God is an illusion reified as 'real'.

1. It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Your critique of IC's morality is dubious because there are,
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism sense - Illusory
2. FSK-ed sense - objective in the empirical-rational in degrees

Since yours is grounded in the philosophical realism sense, i.e. illusory, you do not have any credibility to critique IC's theistic claim of Objective Morality.

However, from the FSK perspective, IC's theistic-FSK morality is granted to be objective, but because of "1. It is Impossible for God to be Real" the theistic morality as objective has ZERO [0.00001] degrees of objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of science-FSK as the standard.

[Peter Holmes]

IC's team's 'loving' god.

'You are completely free to believe in and love me or not. But if you don't, you will suffer either annihilation (the loss of eternal life), or eternal torture in hell, after you die.'

And IC claims this malicious demon is the source of objective morality.

IC's 'loving' God is an illusion reified as 'real'.

1. It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Your critique of IC's morality is dubious because there are,
Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism sense - Illusory
2. FSK-ed sense - objective in the empirical-rational in degrees

Since yours is grounded in the philosophical realism sense, i.e. illusory, you do not have any credibility to critique IC's theistic claim of Objective Morality.

However, from the FSK perspective, IC's theistic-FSK morality is granted to be objective, but because of "1. It is Impossible for God to be Real" the theistic morality as objective has ZERO [0.00001] degrees of objectivity in contrast to the objectivity of science-FSK as the standard.

By all means, keep straw-manning philosophical realism - because all your arguments for philosophical antirealism are fallacious - so you have no choice. But none of this gets you anywhere near moral objectivism.

[Skepdick]

But none of this gets you anywhere near moral objectivism.

Could you tell us more about your distance metric?

What gets us “nearer” to moral objectivism?
What gets us “further” away from moral objectivism?

We have the Mathematical language to talk about distances and measurement thereof.

Surely Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes can elaborate on what he means?

[Harbal]

So it isn't really tradition of cultural baggage that forms your morality; it's something beyond it, something to which you refer that's capable of informing you of ways your tradition has gone (objectively) wrong?

I don't think that is the case. We learn about morality and moral values from our social group. Where else could it come from? We don't come into the world instinctively knowing that stealing is wrong, homosexuality is a "sin", or adultery is a bad thing. Every species of animal that lives socially has to have some system that modifies the behaviour of its group members towards each another, so each individual has to have the biological mechanism that induces it to cooperate within that system. We come with the software already installed, but the settings and preferences have to be set up by our environment before it can start functioning.

If that were the whole story, then it would be inconceivable...impossible, even...for you to ever have or adopt a moral stance that was different from that of your own social ethos. You would have no other place from which to launch any criticism of what your society does, or wants to do. You could never indict your own society as "unjust" in any way; and whatever they do, that's what you'd have to believe in.

Well I don't suppose it is the whole story; it is just the basic outline of how things seem to me. I don't feel compelled to believe in whatever my own society considers just, so I have not explained very well, or you have misinterpreted.

So again, from where do you get your basis for critiquing your own society, if your morals are already nothing but the deliverances from your society?

I may absorb the general moral attitudes of my own society, but there is nothing at all to prevent me from questioning them, or deviating from them.

Have you noticed how people from any particular country all tend to have more or less the same diet? They all eat according to their individual taste, but each individual tends to have a very similar taste to all the others. Morality is a bit like that, I would say.

People eat similar things primarily because that's the food they have available, primarily. But we know that some diets are very bad, starchy, fatty, full of refined carbs or sugars. But we can see that because some things are objectively good to eat, healthy for the human body, and energizing to body tissue, and some are not.

To carry the analogy, then, you'd have to say the same was true of morality: some moralities are bad for us. And like diet, that would have nothing to do with what the culture approves, but rather with what is objectively good for us. Is that, in fact, what you would say?

What do you mean by, "some moralities are bad for us"? Bad in what way?

I think it tends to be more of a communal delusion, consisting of similar individual delusions.

But delusions. That's the point.

If you say it is a delusion, then my fondness for cigars is also a delusion, and my preference for sunny days over rainy ones is also a delusion, as is your preference for Christianity over Buddhism.

Well I certainly can't see what point God had in mind when he created us just so we could behave in various ways with various consequences.

Genuine personhood. Genuine volition. Genuine freedom. Genuine identity as an individual.

Without the power to make our own decision, we can never make a free decision to love God or not. We would be utterly incapable of genuine relationship, in fact. We'd be mere automata, robots, slaves, drones -- programmed entities that had no choices, no special identity, and no possibility of giving or receiving love, since they can never freely enter into any relationship at all.

If, as I suggest, God's endgame is genuine relationship, then the sine qua non of that is giving human beings their own volition...choice...freedom...individual identity and will. And for that to be genuine, each person must have a choice that counts, that makes a difference, and which is respected as to its result...even when that result is not what a loving God would choose. In the matter of relationships, both persons must freely engage. (We do have names for compelled "relationships," but none of them are savoury.)

That story must appeal to you, but I don't find it either inspiring or interesting. It leaves me wondering what the point of it all was, but not with enough curiosity to bother trying to figure it out. Think about it:

If God created us in order to have a relationship with him, it must have been purely for his own benefit, because if we had never been created, it would not have been here nor there to us whether there was a relationship, would it? Did he create us just to see what choices we would make? A lot of us were obviously created with the potential for getting it wrong, and will regret it for the rest of eternity, so it would have been far better for us not to have been created in the first place, but we were never given that option.

[Harbal]

But none of this gets you anywhere near moral objectivism.

Could you tell us more about your distance metric?

What gets us “nearer” to moral objectivism?
What gets us “further” away from moral objectivism?

We have the Mathematical language to talk about distances and measurement thereof.

Surely Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes can elaborate on what he means?

I didn't find it difficult to understand what he means.

[Skepdick]

But none of this gets you anywhere near moral objectivism.

Could you tell us more about your distance metric?

What gets us “nearer” to moral objectivism?
What gets us “further” away from moral objectivism?

We have the Mathematical language to talk about distances and measurement thereof.

Surely Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes can elaborate on what he means?

I didn't find it difficult to understand what he means.

You understand what he means by “nearer” and “further” in context of the goal?

Ok. You tell us how he is measuring distance.

[Harbal]

Could you tell us more about your distance metric?

What gets us “nearer” to moral objectivism?
What gets us “further” away from moral objectivism?

We have the Mathematical language to talk about distances and measurement thereof.

Surely Peter “Dumb Cunt” Holmes can elaborate on what he means?

I didn't find it difficult to understand what he means.

You understand what he means by “nearer” and “further” in context of the goal?

Ok. You tell us how he is measuring distance.

With his metaphoric ruler.