Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 4:28 pm
In my experience most people believe some things are just wrong, period. Not a matter of preference, taste, empathy or desire, but there is write and wrong.
Yes. As I say...
henry quirk wrote: Mon Sep 18, 2023 4:58 pmA person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons. This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded.

Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding. Where these individuals fail, where they act *immorally, is in refusing to recognize and respect others' moral claim to their own lives, liberties and properties. [*And, of course, the slaveries, murders, rapes, thefts, and frauds they commit.]

And becuz this sense of being one's own is universal, I surmise it isn't genetic or cultural. And that brings us to my deism (which currently falls outside this thread).

Anyway: as I say, morality is fact or morality is opinion. There's no other choices available.
*
There are sociopaths and psychopaths who don't believe and there is a small percentage of people who do not believe in objective morals but who are not psychopaths. IOW they have empathy for other people but are nto moral realists. The vast majority of people, in my experience, are moral realists.
As I say...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2023 1:36 am...the subjectivist is as much a moral realist as the avowed moral realist. I say his aversion to murder, slavery, theft, fraud, rape is becuz he knows in his bones, like anyone, like everyone, such acts violate a person's natural, moral, exclusive claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. Why he denies moral reality while living as a moral realist is akin to why necessitarians deny they're free wills while living as free wills.
So, I amend myself, correct myself: Hitler was a moral realist, a bad one, a hypocritical one. Where these individuals fail, where they act immorally, is in refusing to recognize and respect others' moral claim to their own lives, liberties and properties.

*
The leaders of the Third Reich propagated a particularistic morality that was to replace the universalistic tradition of Christian and Enlightenment ethics and compassion to Aryan Germans, the Volksgemeinschaft. The Nazi regime saw empathy, pity, and mercy towards ‘racial aliens’, especially Jews, to ‘community aliens’, and other individuals and groups as a threat to or burden on the Volksgemeinschaft and denounced them as immoral. This morality built upon pre-Nazi ideologies, social Darwinism and racial hygiene, the code of honour, the ideal of emotional hardness, and the priority of the community over individualism. While motivating the deeds of many Nazi perpetrators, it also affected larger parts of Nazi society as it challenged the old moral standards.
If I may...The leaders of the Third Reich propagated a particularistic ideology that was to replace the universalistic tradition of Christian and Enlightenment ethics and compassion to Aryan Germans, the Volksgemeinschaft. The Nazi regime saw empathy, pity, and mercy towards ‘racial aliens’, especially Jews, to ‘community aliens’, and other individuals and groups as a threat to or burden on the Volksgemeinschaft and denounced them as immoral. This philosophy built upon pre-Nazi ideologies, social Darwinism and racial hygiene, the code of honour, the ideal of emotional hardness, and the priority of the community over individualism. While motivating the deeds of many Nazi perpetrators, it also affected larger parts of Nazi society as it challenged the old moral standards.

Now it's accurate.

*
Moral realism varies.
I translate this as Moral Fact varies.

No, It doesn't. The standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. CS Lewis

What varies is how one aligns himself with what is true. Lewis asserted, as I do, there are moral universals that appear in every culture, no matter when or where. This universal morality or Natural Law is True North. But, as I say...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2023 11:14 amA compass is worthless if you ignore the needle. And no one is forced to mind the needle.
Key here is one has to choose to ignore the needle. You say I do believe (Hitler) thought he was doing good in the world. Mebbe he did. That road is paved with good intentions, however. And his intentions led him to willfully ignore the needle.

*
Your morality includes the idea that everyone should have certain rights - you didn't use that word but I think it fits.
Indeed. That's what my morality is called: Natural Rights Libertarianism.

*
Other peoples morals do not have this idea.
They do. A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons. This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded.

Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar (and Hitler, and Chairman Mao)recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding. Where these individuals fail, where they act immorally, is in refusing to recognize and respect others' moral claim to their own lives, liberties and properties.

The slaver knows the man he leashes is not his, knows the woman he sells is not his, knows the child he works is not his. He doesn't care or has completed complex moral gymnastics to self-delude that man, woman, and child are other than him or less than him. He de-personalizes them. They become commodities to be used. He, the slaver, must choose to commodify them.

*
they dislike, for example, capitalism because they see it as being unfair, and thus wrong/immoral.
Capitalism, as it is only about capital, inevitably leads to immorality, yes (unlike Free Enterprise which about the transacting individuals and cannot, by definition, lead to immorality).

*
They are great moralizers. They just have a different set of morals.
Yes, some are great users of moral sounding language. I say they've chosen to ignore the needle.
most moral realists will make means to ends compromises also.
If they ignore the needle of course they will.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:34 pm Of course. Any moral assertion has 'in/my opinion' has a prefix. It's precisely the denial that that's the case that undergirds moral objectivism. "It's just a fact that homosexuality/abortion/capital punishment/eating animals/X is morally right/wrong'.

Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
For me, morality-proper is not about what is right or wrong.

However, you do not have any credibility to make statements there are no moral facts [re right or wrong or whatever] because 'what is fact' to you is grounded on an illusion re mind-independence, i.e. within the ideology of philosophical realism.

Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
PH's Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39992

You have not countered the above.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:34 pm Of course. Any moral assertion has 'in/my opinion' has a prefix. It's precisely the denial that that's the case that undergirds moral objectivism. "It's just a fact that homosexuality/abortion/capital punishment/eating animals/X is morally right/wrong'.

Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
Well, I guess the author didn't remove his post after all.

My mistake.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 4134
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm
*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
I think rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

I also think capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone. But other people disagree. Now, what fact - what feature of reality - can we point out to settle the disagreement?

Answer: none. And that's because 'capital punishment is morally right/wrong' is not a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion.

Now, what makes 'rape is morally wrong' different? What makes it a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion?

Any offers from a moral objectivist here? Or will it be the usual bluster, evasion and sophistry? I wonder.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8534
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm
*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
I think rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.
So, you're not just saying you really don't like it or you want a world where this doesn't happen and is prevented. What is 'morally wrong' adding to those preferences?
Skepdick
Posts: 16022
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 am Now, what fact - what feature of reality - can we point out to settle the disagreement?
It is an error in presupposition that facts settle disagreements.

Point to the fact which settles the disagreement without pointing to shared meaning.

You say it's red.
I say it's blue.

Every time you side-step this landmine you are ensuring that this debate remains circular. Eternally, and on purpose.
You don't want resolution - you want conflict.
You don't want knowledge - you want ignorance.
You don't want truth - you want eternal doubt even when the answer is obvious.

You are a skeptic. And skepticism is a self-defeating position.


Image
Peter Holmes
Posts: 4134
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm

And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
I think rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.
So, you're not just saying you really don't like it or you want a world where this doesn't happen and is prevented. What is 'morally wrong' adding to those preferences?
Obviously interesting questions. But can I ask what they're designed to elicit - or what conclusions come from trying to answer them?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8534
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 7:53 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 am
I think rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.
So, you're not just saying you really don't like it or you want a world where this doesn't happen and is prevented. What is 'morally wrong' adding to those preferences?
Obviously interesting questions. But can I ask what they're designed to elicit - or what conclusions come from trying to answer them?
I don't really know yet. It sounded like a moral realist statement. And rather than getting you to explain that you are not a moral realist, which I've seen you explain many times -so you don't need to, - my question is after what it does in fact mean to you. I can't know what conclusions this will lead to since they depend on your answer. I am probing.

Just as a side note: I just asked a couple of posters, you and Skepdick, questions. It seems like both of you assumed that I was aiming at a specific point and/or was through this question asserting a specific postion. There was a big difference in the degree of politeness in the responses, but it seemed like there was a common assumption that questions are rhetorical. Rhetorical in the sense that they and moving toward a specific goals, steps in an intended set of steps.

For everyone's info: I often ask questions without knowing what is coming and without having a specific goal.

I understand how in the harsh-toned/battle-oriented world of philosophical forums this may seem hard to believe, but curiosity is often my main drive.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 15722
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:22 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm
*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
I think rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

I also think capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone. But other people disagree.
If you think 'rape' and 'capital punishment' are morally wrong, there must be some sort of moral standards [internalized and shared by others] that you are relying upon to judge they are wrong.

That the majority take it that 'rape' [my guess >90%], capital punishment [guess >80%] take it that both are morally unacceptable, this must be grounded on some sort of norms as conditioned an implied moral FSK.

Not everyone [>50% of people are Abrahamic theists ] accept scientific facts [e.g. Big Bang or evolution] as a fact, but they are nevertheless scientific facts conditioned upon a human-based scientific FSK.

Just as scientific truths are scientific facts are grounded on the intersubjective agreement of a group of people,
"that the majority take it that 'rape' [my guess >90%], capital punishment [guess >80%] take it that both are morally unacceptable, this must be grounded on some sort of norms as conditioned an implied moral FSK" is a moral fact in continuum with scientific facts albeit of different objectivity.

Therefore there are moral facts as implied and morality is thus objectivity which is implied with your acceptance that rape and capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

So you cannot deny there are moral facts and morality is objective.
Now, what fact - what feature of reality - can we point out to settle the disagreement?
As I had argued, your 'what is fact' in this case is grounded on an illusion via the ideology of philosophical realism.
As such you cannot use your illusory basis of 'what is fact' to deny morality is objective.

Rather you should rely on your own moral intuition as agreed by the majority on earth as a norm to ground that is an FSK fact that 'rape' and 'capital punishment' are FSK-ed moral facts [not your kind of philosophical realist facts].
Answer: none. And that's because 'capital punishment is morally right/wrong' is not a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion.

Now, what makes 'rape is morally wrong' different? What makes it a factual assertion with a truth-value independent from opinion?

Any offers from a moral objectivist here? Or will it be the usual bluster, evasion and sophistry? I wonder.
Note my explanation above.
There are FSK-ed moral facts that is based on your moral intuition that you agree that rape and capital punishment is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone.

For me, I am going one step further "that rape and capital punishment are morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone" are moral-FSK-ed facts in alignment with biological facts via the science-biology FSK.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8815
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm
*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
You are both clumsy idiots.

1. By defintion, rape is a wrongful act of sexual aggression (and similarly by definition murder is a wrongful act of killing).
2. In order to say "John raped Jane", or "Fred murdered Mary" one must first judge that John and Fred were commiting wrongful deeds, after which John's sex act is counted as rape and Fred's act of killing is counted as murder.
3. It is therefore redundant to argue that rape is wrong in the same way that nobody needs to argue that below is down or that left is not right. Rape and murder, being wrongful by definition are tautologically wrong. It is meaningless to doubt that they are wrong and equally meaningless to try to prove that they are wrong.

In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people disagree about which sex acts are rape (and then which of those are "rape rape"), just as there is regular disagreement about which killings are murders.

This can happen becuase the sex act that isn't wrongful isn't rape, not because some rapes are right and some rapes are wrong.
Skepdick
Posts: 16022
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:25 am You are both clumsy idiots.

1. By defintion, rape is a wrongful act of sexual aggression (and similarly by definition murder is a wrongful act of killing).
You are the biggest retards of all.

Why is it defined that way and not some other way? Fine. The past is the past. here we are.
Why can't we change the definition to make it a rightful act? Of course we can. The future is up for us to decide.

If morality is subjective - we can re-define words AND the law however the fuck we want!

So if you are a moral skeptic why aren't you rejecting the existing definition? That's absolutely free of consequences on a dumpster philosophy forum.
So if you are a moral skeptic why aren't you doing any work to alter the legislature, or re-define the word? Don't you disagree with the definition?
So if you are a moral skeptic why aren't you making any arguments for a new definition? This is what you are good at, right? Arguing.

All the evidence in the world (you doing NOTHING to change anything) tells me all I need to know.

You accept the definition. Why?

I have a really short answer, smart answer. Cliche answer. The-buck-stops-here kind of answer.
A thought-terminating answer (so that I never have to return to the abyss ever again).
A scientific, evidence-based answer.

An irreducible answer. Morality is objective.

Your lack of action speaks louder than any of your words.

Moral fucking skeptic my ass.

Go and hide your lies somewhere else. Your mind is no longer a safe place.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 4134
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:25 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:13 pm
*Anyone who says/thinks it's a fact that X is morally right/wrong is a moral egotist and a fuckwit. The end.
And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name
You are both clumsy idiots.

1. By defintion, rape is a wrongful act of sexual aggression (and similarly by definition murder is a wrongful act of killing).
2. In order to say "John raped Jane", or "Fred murdered Mary" one must first judge that John and Fred were commiting wrongful deeds, after which John's sex act is counted as rape and Fred's act of killing is counted as murder.
3. It is therefore redundant to argue that rape is wrong in the same way that nobody needs to argue that below is down or that left is not right. Rape and murder, being wrongful by definition are tautologically wrong. It is meaningless to doubt that they are wrong and equally meaningless to try to prove that they are wrong.

In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people disagree about which sex acts are rape (and then which of those are "rape rape"), just as there is regular disagreement about which killings are murders.

This can happen because the sex act that isn't wrongful isn't rape, not because some rapes are right and some rapes are wrong.
Here's a clumsily idiotic point. Lawfulness and moral rightness/wrongness are completely and utterly different issues. For example, the fact that capital punishment may be legal doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment may be morally right. And the Nazi slaughter of the jews was 'legal'. Iow, wtf?
Skepdick
Posts: 16022
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 12:59 pm Here's a clumsily idiotic point. Lawfulness and moral rightness/wrongness are completely and utterly different issues. For example, the fact that capital punishment may be legal doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment may be morally right. And the Nazi slaughter of the jews was 'legal'. Iow, wtf?
Fuck of troll.

Everything in the universe's history is fact.

We recognize error. We self-correct error. Hopefully we remember error. Sometimes we forget.
If we don't recognize error. We don't self-correct error.

If you don't recognize trolling is an error I can help you remember.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Sep 21, 2023 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 4134
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's an ejaculation from an intellectual retard, who's shtick is nothing but the subjectivity and re-definability of all identities and categories.

'If morality is subjective - we can re-define words AND the law however the fuck we want!'

Deny the consequent: we can't re-define words and the law - therefore: morality is objective.

Fucking moron.
Post Reply