Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

morality is objective, but many people are wrong about what it is.

What happens if all people are wrong about it?

How would society self-correct?

[Immanuel Can]

I think morality is just a biological/mental function...

How? How does something that's merely a "biological" phenomenon suddenly convert to a "moral" one? Eating, sleeping, reproducing...these are things that all animals do, from dogs to fish to paramecia; on what basis would you be willing to argue that, in man alone, any of it becomes "moral"?

[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...

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.

But the German's collective sense of morality didn't. The Italians' didn't. The Japaneses' didn't. And then the Russians, sense of morality told them to impose and even worse dictatorship, as did the sense of morality of the Chinese, the North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cambodians, Zimbabweans, The Romanians, Albanians, Yugoslavians, Cubans, Venezuelans...

The upshot is that most of the world didn't share our "sense of morality" at all. They all opted for regimes more like Hitler's than anything like ours.

What makes them defective, and us right?

[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...

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.

That's why it's very important to drill down into the question beyond the mere level of broad Theism, and get to what kind of Theism, and what particular beliefs, each group had.

For while Atheist ideologues killed far more people than all religions combined, some religions did kill some...half, by Islam, and the other half by a variety of others, ranging from polytheists to pantheists to some monotheists. On the other hand, some Theist groups never killed any. So not all Theisms are equal, just as Theism and Atheism aren't.

Talking about Hitler. Antisemitism was rampant in the Germany at that time. The vast majority of Christians were German.

That's factually false, actually. The majority of Christians were in various other nations. Germany was Lutheran-Catholic in their theology. I'm not going to defend either.

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

You don't know your history.

At first, Stalin had a concordat with Hitler, and the two dictators were carving up Eastern Europe between them. Then Hitler turned on his ally, who was later to end up killing far more of his own people than Hitler ever killed, second only to the Communist Mao, who killed more than any human who has ever lived.

So Communism is not any kind of refuge, in that regard.

[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.

If your supposedly "more plausible" alternative option was correct, there would be consensus with a few outliers,

No, that's not correct. There have been many cases throughout human history when the consensus -- even of all the people on earth -- was plain wrong. At one time, everybody believed the earth was flat, and that diseases were caused by curses. It didn't make them right.

[Harbal]

I think morality is just a biological/mental function...

How? How does something that's merely a "biological" phenomenon suddenly convert to a "moral" one? Eating, sleeping, reproducing...these are things that all animals do, from dogs to fish to paramecia; on what basis would you be willing to argue that, in man alone, any of it becomes "moral"?

Are you suggesting that human beings are no different to any other animal?

Well what a turn up.

[Immanuel Can]

morality is objective, but many people are wrong about what it is.

What happens if all people are wrong about it?

Once, all people were wrong about the earth being flat. What happened then?

[Immanuel Can]

I think morality is just a biological/mental function...

How? How does something that's merely a "biological" phenomenon suddenly convert to a "moral" one? Eating, sleeping, reproducing...these are things that all animals do, from dogs to fish to paramecia; on what basis would you be willing to argue that, in man alone, any of it becomes "moral"?

Are you suggesting that human beings are no different to any other animal?

Is that not exactly what you assume? For do you not believe that humans are just a kind of animal that has evolved from the muck by time and chance? On what basis, then, would we regard his "biological" processes to be "moral," and others not?

Of course, I don't agree: I don't think the universe is indifferent, or that man is just an animal. But I'm asking about what you said, not about something I said. You said that morality was a "biological phenomenon." I just want to see how that argument plays out, and whether or not it can be believed.

What a turnip?

[Harbal]

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.

But the German's collective sense of morality didn't. The Italians' didn't. The Japaneses' didn't. And then the Russians, sense of morality told them to impose and even worse dictatorship, as did the sense of morality of the Chinese, the North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Cambodians, Zimbabweans, The Romanians, Albanians, Yugoslavians, Cubans, Venezuelans...

The upshot is that most of the world didn't share our "sense of morality" at all. They all opted for regimes more like Hitler's than anything like ours.

What makes them defective, and us right?

I could only try to tell you why I, personally, think they were morally wrong, in relation to my sense of morality.

But I am not willing to make the effort, so don't ask.

[Immanuel Can]

I could only try to tell you why I, personally, think they were morally wrong, in relation to my sense of morality.

Then "morality" for you means only "Harbal doesn't like..."

Well, at least you consistently come back to the same thing...even if it means morality is essentially nothing to anybody.

[Skepdick]

morality is objective, but many people are wrong about what it is.

What happens if all people are wrong about it?

Once, all people were wrong about the earth being flat. What happened then?

They observed that Earth isn't flat and self-corrected.

So...

What would have to be observed by a society where all people are wrong about morality in order for self-correction to happen?

[Harbal]

How? How does something that's merely a "biological" phenomenon suddenly convert to a "moral" one? Eating, sleeping, reproducing...these are things that all animals do, from dogs to fish to paramecia; on what basis would you be willing to argue that, in man alone, any of it becomes "moral"?

Are you suggesting that human beings are no different to any other animal?

Is that not exactly what you assume? For do you not believe that humans are just a kind of animal that has evolved from the muck by time and chance? On what basis, then, would we regard his "biological" processes to be "moral," and others not?

Perhaps some other animals do have a sense of morality of some sort, who knows? I don't find it incredible that we have developed the faculty of morality along our evolutionary journey. We developed a level of intelligence far exceeding that of any other earthly creature, so it does not seem strange that we also developed behavioural modifiers that are more sophisticated.

Of course, I don't agree: I don't think the universe is indifferent, or that man is just an animal. But I'm asking about what you said, not about something I said. You said that morality was a "biological phenomenon." I just want to see how that argument plays out, and whether or not it can be believed.

There's quite a chasm between us, isn't there? and I know that nothing I could say to you would go any way towards bridging it, so why should I bother trying?

[Harbal]

I could only try to tell you why I, personally, think they were morally wrong, in relation to my sense of morality.

Then "morality" for you means only "Harbal doesn't like..."

Well, at least you consistently come back to the same thing...even if it means morality is essentially nothing to anybody.

[Iwannaplato]

That's why it's very important to drill down into the question beyond the mere level of broad Theism, and get to what kind of Theism, and what particular beliefs, each group had.

Then it's very important to drill down beyond the mere level of broad Atheism.

Is Harbal a communist, for example?

Given that you know from your perspective that the type of theist matters, why didn't you think of this in relation to posters here? I don't think anyone here has been advocating for autocratic rule/communism.

Talking about Hitler. Antisemitism was rampant in the Germany at that time. The vast majority of Christians were German.

That's factually false, actually. The majority of Christians were in various other nations. Germany was Lutheran-Catholic in their theology. I'm not going to defend either.

If one gets to cherry pick the theists, the atheists and agnostics should be able to also. So you pick people who are generally always moral from the theists and the atheists pick people who are always moral on their team and you'll both confirm...well nothing at all.

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

You don't know your history.

At first, Stalin had a concordat with Hitler, and the two dictators were carving up Eastern Europe between them. Then Hitler turned on his ally, who was later to end up killing far more of his own people than Hitler ever killed, second only to the Communist Mao, who killed more than any human who has ever lived.

So Communism is not any kind of refuge, in that regard.
[/quote]
I wasn't talking about foreign communists, foreign to Germany. I was talking about German communists. I had been describing internal make up Germany. It's find you didn't understand, but there was no reason to talk to me like that.

You don't know your history.

One can disagree without making blanket statements about the other person.

And I'm well aware of the crimes of communist regimes, thanks.

[Skepdick]

Perhaps some other animals do have a sense of morality of some sort, who knows? I don't find it incredible that we have developed the faculty of morality along our evolutionary journey. We developed a level of intelligence far exceeding that of any other earthly creature, so it does not seem strange that we also developed behavioural modifiers that are more sophisticated.

Yeah... the evolutionary advantage argument.

It's absolutely an evolutionary advantage to be able to empathise, collaborate and interact with other human beings, form communities, develop shared bonds and values, develop skills, craft - evolve shared goals and collectively work towards achieving them.

It's an even greater evolutionary advantage to use all of those faculties to master scientific, technological and military might - raid neighbouring countries and take all of their resources; and subjugate their citizens to economic slavery.