What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

And words like "value" typically have more than one definition that is actively in use.

So the multiple definitions of "value" are NOT valuable ?!?!

Values are valuable.
Anything that is valued is valuable.

You are literally admitting that they have utility-value.

"Value" has at least 4 different meanings maybe more, do you think your head would explode if suddenly something clicked and you could process meaning/context for a few seconds?

[Skepdick]

"Value" has at least 4 different meanings maybe more, do you think your head would explode if suddenly something clicked and you could process meaning/context for a few seconds?

Suppose "value" has an infinite number of meanings.

Do you think any of the meanings of "value" are not valuable?
Do you think meaning is valuable?
Do you think meaning is meaningful?
In what context is meaning neither meaningful nor valuable?

Eventually something will click in your head and you'll catch on that both contextual and context-free languages are valuable.

Who knows, maybe you could even come to process them concurrently.

[Skepdick]

As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.

So you think thousands of years of evolving ethics reduces down to a dictionary definition? Wow... reductionists. So naive.

Morality is a historical phenomenon. History is neither subjective nor objective.

History just is.

Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.

Well, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?

Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.

OK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.

Are you telling me that in such a historical setting nothing is "improving" or "getting worse" for the human race?

2023 AD is different to 2023BC but it's neither worse nor better. Lots of changes - no difference.

Is that your claim? That's nihilism.

I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.

But you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.

The immediate logical implication of your claim is that there is NO objective difference between True and False in logic.
NO difference between True and False necessarily means equivalence: Truth is the same as Falsehood.

1 = 0

In what system of logic is that true?

[Harbal]

As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.

So you think thousands of years of evolving ethics reduces down to a dictionary definition? Wow... reductionists. So naive.

Morality is a historical phenomenon. History is neither subjective nor objective.

History just is.

What a strange response.

Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.

Well, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?

I don't know, and I don't know why you are asking about historical context.

Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.

OK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.

Are you telling me that in such a historical setting nothing is "improving" or "getting worse" for the human race?

2023 AD is different to 2023BC but it's neither worse nor better. Lots of changes - no difference.

Is that your claim? That's nihilism.

I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.

I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.

But you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.

The immediate logical implication of your claim is that there is NO objective difference between True and False in logic.

How you have arrived at that conclusion is a mystery to me.

[Skepdick]

As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.

So you think thousands of years of evolving ethics reduces down to a dictionary definition? Wow... reductionists. So naive.

Morality is a historical phenomenon. History is neither subjective nor objective.

History just is.

What a strange response.

Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.

Well, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?

I don't know, and I don't know why you are asking about historical context.

Because morality exists. Does it not?

If morality exists then it is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.

Where in the history of The Universe starting with The Big Bang 13.8 million years ago do you think morality is?

If you say “nowhere” then… it doesn’t exist.

Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.

OK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.

That’s fine I am not asking you to confirm anything I am asking you to disconfirm.

Science/falsification.

What would we observe about morality (a temporal phenomenon) if your hypotheses of it was wrong?

Are you telling me that in such a historical setting nothing is "improving" or "getting worse" for the human race?

2023 AD is different to 2023BC but it's neither worse nor better. Lots of changes - no difference.

Is that your claim? That's nihilism.

I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.

I am not asking about your reference for “better” or “worse”.

I am asking for your reference about your opinions on “subjective” and “objective”.

I understand “subjective” is your current hypothesis; what evidence would convince you otherwise?

What would convince you that you are wrong?

If nothing - then you are guilty of confirmation bias, not me.

I'm not aware of having a strategy. All I am doing is defending logic -as I see it- for its own sake, and, unlike you, have no vested interest in convincing anyone for any other reason. You are the one with a strategy, not I.

But you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.

The immediate logical implication of your claim is that there is NO objective difference between True and False in logic.

How you have arrived at that conclusion is a mystery to me.

I explained the how.

Why is it still a mystery to you?

NO objective morality means NO objective difference between Truth and Falsehood.

NO difference implies identity.

NO objective morality means Truth is identical to Falsehood

There is no objective standard for Truth

[Harbal]

So you think thousands of years of evolving ethics reduces down to a dictionary definition? Wow... reductionists. So naive.

Morality is a historical phenomenon. History is neither subjective nor objective.

History just is.

What a strange response.

Well, what would "wrong" look like in a historical context to an impartial observer?

I don't know, and I don't know why you are asking about historical context.

Because morality exists. Does it not?

If morality exists then it is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.

Where in the history of The Universe starting with The Big Bang 13.8 million years ago do you think morality is?

If you say “nowhere” then… it doesn’t exist.

OK, but that's just confirmation bias. Even matters of opinion have historical consequences. Observable trends and changes in behaviour.

That’s fine I am not asking you to confirm anything I am asking you to disconfirm.

Science/falsification.

What would we observe about morality (a temporal phenomenon) if your hypotheses of it was wrong?

Are you telling me that in such a historical setting nothing is "improving" or "getting worse" for the human race?

2023 AD is different to 2023BC but it's neither worse nor better. Lots of changes - no difference.

Is that your claim? That's nihilism.

I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.

I am not asking about your reference for “better” or “worse”.

I am asking for your reference about your opinions on “subjective” and “objective”.

I understand “subjective” is your current hypothesis; what evidence would convince you otherwise?

What would convince you that you are wrong?

If nothing - then you are guilty of confirmation bias, not me.

But you aren't defending logic you are undermining it. You are claiming that morality is subjective.

The immediate logical implication of your claim is that there is NO objective difference between True and False in logic.

How you have arrived at that conclusion is a mystery to me.

I explained the how.

Why is it still a mystery to you?

NO objective morality means NO objective difference between Truth and Falsehood.

NO difference implies identity.

NO objective morality means Truth is identical to Falsehood

There is no objective standard for Truth

It seems to me that we each speak in a language the other does not understand.

[Skepdick]

What a strange response.

I don't know, and I don't know why you are asking about historical context.

Because morality exists. Does it not?

If morality exists then it is necessarily a temporal phenomenon.

Where in the history of The Universe starting with The Big Bang 13.8 million years ago do you think morality is?

If you say “nowhere” then… it doesn’t exist.

That’s fine I am not asking you to confirm anything I am asking you to disconfirm.

Science/falsification.

What would we observe about morality (a temporal phenomenon) if your hypotheses of it was wrong?


I have my opinions about what is better or worse for the human race, but if you want me to state objective facts about what is better or worse, you will need to tell me what reference you want me to measure them against.

I am not asking about your reference for “better” or “worse”.

I am asking for your reference about your opinions on “subjective” and “objective”.

I understand “subjective” is your current hypothesis; what evidence would convince you otherwise?

What would convince you that you are wrong?

If nothing - then you are guilty of confirmation bias, not me.

How you have arrived at that conclusion is a mystery to me.

I explained the how.

Why is it still a mystery to you?

NO objective morality means NO objective difference between Truth and Falsehood.

NO difference implies identity.

NO objective morality means Truth is identical to Falsehood

There is no objective standard for Truth

It seems to me that we each speak in a language the other does not understand.

I understand your language perfectly.

At some point in your life you had to make the decision on whether morality is objective or subjective.

A crossroad.

Either morality was objective or subjective.

50/50

Neither here nor there.

What evidence swayed you to the position you currently hold?

Is it merely your opinion that morality is subjective?

[Harbal]

Is it merely your opinion that morality is subjective?

It is my opinion that moral values are subjective.

[Skepdick]

Is it merely your opinion that morality is subjective?

It is my opinion that moral values are subjective.

So at some point in your life you faced the choice?

Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.

What evidence swayed you?

Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?

[Immanuel Can]

I would respond by saying that the subjectivity of morality is in its definition,

Except it's not. Historically, people have thought in moral objectivist terms. Subjectivism is a conceit of the modern and postmodern eras, and one that can't be sustained.

As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.

I'm certain that's not the case, and if you think carefully about it, you'll be bound to realize it isn't.

You were Anglican, no? Well, when you went to church, did the pastor or priest say to you, "These commandments I'm going to read to you are the word of men?" And when you were told that things like stealing was wrong, did your parents tell you it was because it's antisocial, or because it's outright wrong, no matter what you wanted to do? Or has anybody explained to you that slavery was "wrong" in a sense that transcended the personal feelings of the Atlantic slave traders? Or did they tell you that slavery was good, so long as the enslavers had a culture of slavery?

Normal moral talk is objectivist, in fact. And all societies, back to the outright pagan, have associated morality with the sacred and the profane, not merely with the socially unapproved.

However, you are right about this much: today's dictionaries certainly tend toward the politically-correct, and as such, are certainly reticent about pointing out that fact. It's a curious case of historical amnesia, to be sure.

Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.

I think you're still mixing up two questions: they are, "what is the actual nature of things," and the second is, "how much do the people I know know about the nature of things?" What human beings know, at any given time, is never the limit of the real or the true. It cannot be a surprise, therefore, if there are moral facts of which some people are oblivious.

Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.

I don't see that it is. Is not rape, which you cite, a very good example of that? Sexual behaviour is certainly fraught with serious moral concerns. But it's not the only one, as you also rightly point out. Murder does indeed "feel wrong" to most of us.

But what does it do so? "Murder" is not something lions know about, though they kill many gazelles. Nor do wolves or sharks debate the virtues of what they do to prey. Death is quite routine, in nature; and if you and I are mere products of that same nature, that same natural realm, it's surely a very curious fact that we are the lone 'animal' that has a faculty of conscience about that. One would wonder why Nature, in her great providence, had deigned to give us such an illusory faculty, and yet had spared all other animals from any necessity of having it.

[Harbal]

Is it merely your opinion that morality is subjective?

It is my opinion that moral values are subjective.

So at some point in your life you faced the choice?

Maybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.

Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.

What evidence swayed you?

My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.

Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?

It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.

[Skepdick]

It is my opinion that moral values are subjective.

So at some point in your life you faced the choice?

Maybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.

Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.

What evidence swayed you?

My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.

Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?

It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.

But you believe your opinion about the subjectivity of moral values is true; and not false.

If you believed your opinion was false - surely you wouldn’t hold it?

So I am asking you a simple question in the exact same language we are both speaking: why do you believe your opinion is true?

[Harbal]

Except it's not. Historically, people have thought in moral objectivist terms. Subjectivism is a conceit of the modern and postmodern eras, and one that can't be sustained.

As far as I've always been aware, morality is about what people think is right and wrong, and no dictionary definition I've ever seen has suggested otherwise.

I'm certain that's not the case, and if you think carefully about it, you'll be bound to realize it isn't.

You were Anglican, no? Well, when you went to church, did the pastor or priest say to you, "These commandments I'm going to read to you are the word of men?" And when you were told that things like stealing was wrong, did your parents tell you it was because it's antisocial, or because it's outright wrong, no matter what you wanted to do? Or has anybody explained to you that slavery was "wrong" in a sense that transcended the personal feelings of the Atlantic slave traders? Or did they tell you that slavery was good, so long as the enslavers had a culture of slavery?

Normal moral talk is objectivist, in fact. And all societies, back to the outright pagan, have associated morality with the sacred and the profane, not merely with the socially unapproved.

However, you are right about this much: today's dictionaries certainly tend toward the politically-correct, and as such, are certainly reticent about pointing out that fact. It's a curious case of historical amnesia, to be sure.

Even if absolutely every human being was born believing -and maintaining throughout his life- that X was morally wrong, I still don't see how that would make X objectively wrong, because there is nowhere outside of human opinion to look for confirmation or proof of it.

I think you're still mixing up two questions: they are, "what is the actual nature of things," and the second is, "how much do the people I know know about the nature of things?" What human beings know, at any given time, is never the limit of the real or the true. It cannot be a surprise, therefore, if there are moral facts of which some people are oblivious.

Things like murder and rape certainly feel objectively wrong to most of us, which is no doubt responsible for the misconception about there being moral facts, but when we look at more trivial moral issues, such as sexual behaviour, it is easier to see that morals are a matter of opinion.

I don't see that it is. Is not rape, which you cite, a very good example of that? Sexual behaviour is certainly fraught with serious moral concerns. But it's not the only one, as you also rightly point out. Murder does indeed "feel wrong" to most of us.

But what does it do so? "Murder" is not something lions know about, though they kill many gazelles. Nor do wolves or sharks debate the virtues of what they do to prey. Death is quite routine, in nature; and if you and I are mere products of that same nature, that same natural realm, it's surely a very curious fact that we are the lone 'animal' that has a faculty of conscience about that. One would wonder why Nature, in her great providence, had deigned to give us such an illusory faculty, and yet had spared all other animals from any necessity of having it.

I don't see any of this as being relevant. It has always been my understanding that morality is the subjective human sense of right and wrong. When I hear morality being spoken of, that is what I think of. I absolutely know that I have my own subjective sense of morality, as do most people, and that is the only sort of morality I have any experience of, or awareness of.

I have denied the existence of objective morality, which was perhaps wrong of me, because all I am really entitled to say about it is that I don't understand how such a thing could exist, or what it could be like if it does exist. So, to reiterate; to me, "morality" relates to the purely human sense of right and wrong, and that is the only way in which I am able to think about, or discuss, morality.

[Harbal]

So at some point in your life you faced the choice?

Maybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.

Either moral values are objective or they are subjective.

What evidence swayed you?

My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.

Is it merely your opinion that moral values are subjective; or is it true?

It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.

But you believe your opinion about the subjectivity of moral values is true; and not false.

If you believed your opinion was false - surely you wouldn’t hold it?

So I am asking you a simple question in the exact same language we are both speaking: why do you believe your opinion is true?

I am only able to experience my own moral feelings that come about because of my own moral values; I am not able to experience yours, or anyone else's. This is why I believe moral values and the experience of morality to be subjective.

[Skepdick]

Maybe I have always assumed that my moral values are just my subjective opinion, I really can't remember, and neither can I remember facing or making a choice.

My moral values only exist in my own mind, and if that is not the main qualifying criterion for subjectivity, I don't know what is.

It is what I believe to be true in the context of what I understand you to mean by the word, subjective. You could mean something completely different by it, of course, but unless you describe exactly what you do mean by it, I can only answer in accordance with my assumption of what you mean by it.

But you believe your opinion about the subjectivity of moral values is true; and not false.

If you believed your opinion was false - surely you wouldn’t hold it?

So I am asking you a simple question in the exact same language we are both speaking: why do you believe your opinion is true?

I am only able to experience my own moral feelings that come about because of my own moral values; I am not able to experience yours, or anyone else's. This is why I believe moral values and the experience of morality to be subjective.

Why are you trying to drag other people into your opinions?

You are the one holding your opinions.

Why do you believe your opinions to be true; and not false?