Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Yes, of course I admit that morality governs relations; it is too obvious not to admit it.

Well, I agree. But since people don't always think carefully about ethics, one of the biases in our society suggests that morality is merely a private, personal or individual concern. So it was worth sticking a pin in that balloon, was it not?

Moral opinions differ, and we can respect the opinions of others, or we can dismiss them.

And they can be wrong. I assume you found the discussion about Hitler's "morals" relevant to that thought.

Hitler probably thought he was morally right, but most people think he was morally wrong. Isn't that what it amounts to?

What if all parties claim to be objectively right, and are able to point to their "objective" source of preference?

Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction rules that out. It's not possible they're right. We could all be wrong about what the objective truth of morality is -- the "law" does not eliminate that possibility -- but it certainly shows that the vast majority of these contradicting "parties" are mostly wrong.

I'm sure that Aristotle would agree that you can't point to something that isn't there.

[Harbal]

Well, explain your source then.

Why is following orders excusable, but following your moral obligations inexcusable?

Following is following is following.

It isn’t leading.

Why the double standard.

You obviously missed my point, and now you've gone off in a direction to who knows where.

Your point was understood.

Your double standard isn’t.

Why is following orders different to following your perceived moral obligations ?

I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to untangle your confusion.

[Skepdick]

You obviously missed my point, and now you've gone off in a direction to who knows where.

Your point was understood.

Your double standard isn’t.

Why is following orders different to following your perceived moral obligations ?

I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to untangle your confusion.

You don’t have to.

I am untangling yours.

[Harbal]

Your point was understood.

Your double standard isn’t.

Why is following orders different to following your perceived moral obligations ?

I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to untangle your confusion.

You don’t have to.

I am untangling yours.

Fine, but please do it without involving my participation. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[Skepdick]

I'm sorry, I don't have the patience to untangle your confusion.

You don’t have to.

I am untangling yours.

Fine, but please do it without involving my participation. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Then we leave it all tangled up

A double standard. Unexplained.

[Harbal]

You don’t have to.

I am untangling yours.

Fine, but please do it without involving my participation. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Then we leave it all tangled up

A double standard. Unexplained.

[LuckyR]

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.

Well the order follower may not have come up with the idea of the order but the order, if followed, must be compatible with the follower's moral code, so no ducking (moral) responsibility.

Problem: Hitler's reasoning for the Holocaust was to end a "conspiracy" by Jews, and to eliminate the "plague" of Jewishness from Germany, and eventually from the world. His was a "sanitizing" mission, in his mind, in other words, a "purifying" of the human race from its various contagions and "diseases". So what he was doing was fully "compatible with the follower's moral code," to use your term.

It didn't make him "moral," did it?

Well since morality is subjective, opinions vary.

[Skepdick]

Fine, but please do it without involving my participation. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Then we leave it all tangled up

A double standard. Unexplained.

Moral opiion here. Moral opinion there. Moral opinion everywhere.

But the strength with which they are held seems to vary greatly.

[Immanuel Can]

...most of what we do is for subjective reasons.

Not a very telling observation. All it means is that most of the time, people are self-centered, and do what feels good to them, rather than what's moral.

What that has to do with morality would be anyone's guess -- it looks more like the opposite.

[Immanuel Can]

Hitler probably thought he was morally right, but most people think he was morally wrong. Isn't that what it amounts to?

If that's right, then we'd still not know whether we ought to oppose Hitler or not. If we feel like it, maybe; but if we don't...

[Immanuel Can]

Well since morality is subjective, opinions vary.

Well, there, you've just assumed the conclusion you were intending to defend...you haven't provided any defense for it.

The alternate interpretation is at least just a plausible, and perhaps more plausible: that morality is objective, but many people are wrong about what it is.

[Harbal]

...most of what we do is for subjective reasons.

Not a very telling observation. All it means is that most of the time, people are self-centered, and do what feels good to them, rather than what's moral.

What that has to do with morality would be anyone's guess -- it looks more like the opposite.

I think morality is just a biological/mental function, you think it's something devine; we are never going to agree, are we?

[Harbal]

Hitler probably thought he was morally right, but most people think he was morally wrong. Isn't that what it amounts to?

If that's right, then we'd still not know whether we ought to oppose Hitler or not. If we feel like it, maybe; but if we don't...

If our collective sense of morality tells us we should oppose him, then that is probably what we should do, and is what we in fact did.

[Iwannaplato]

Hitler probably thought he was morally right, but most people think he was morally wrong. Isn't that what it amounts to?

If that's right, then we'd still not know whether we ought to oppose Hitler or not. If we feel like it, maybe; but if we don't...

That's certainly true, but belief in God doesn't eliminate that problem. Theists have felt things and found justification for the position they want in their scriptures. Theists have justified killing other theists or calling them evil based on their beliefs. Theists have stopped being theists. Theists have converted and believed very different things about society. Theists have become religious leaders that created schisms in religions that led to wars. Theists have sinned in their religions, despite or because of their religions - depending on perspectives. There's no lack of theists who commit crimes that are proscribed or commit what we now think of as crimes but were not proscribed by their religions. Theists....well, you get the idea.

You keep criticizing non-theists for potentially changing their minds. Or being driven by feelings. Well, they are human. Humans change their minds. Theists are humans. They change their minds. Sometimes en masses. Sometimes as individuals.

Talking about Hitler. Antisemitism was rampant in the Germany at that time. The vast majority of Christians were German. They didn't really have to change their minds to support Hitler. Their theism was no protection against this. If only they had managed to feel and change their minds.

If only the natural recognition of the human in others had not been clouded by propaganda.

In the US there were a number of right wing Christians who were pro-Hitler.

The people who first really opposed Hitler in Germany...commies.

[LuckyR]

Well since morality is subjective, opinions vary.

Well, there, you've just assumed the conclusion you were intending to defend...you haven't provided any defense for it.

The alternate interpretation is at least just a plausible, and perhaps more plausible: that morality is objective, but many people are wrong about what it is.

If your supposedly "more plausible" alternative option was correct, there would be consensus with a few outliers, when in reality (especially from a historical perspective) moral codes run the gamut, that is, there is no consensus (even if morality was objective), what that morality would be.