Is morality objective or subjective?

[Iwannaplato]

Look at any young child, and you'll find a person capable of all kinds of rage, selfishness and lashing out, who far from being a paragon of "no harm" virtue, needs to be socialized out of being both narcissistic and volatile. That's pretty much the standard description of the famed "terrible twos," in fact.

Socialized need not include the presentation of objective morality. You get socialized because other people are important to you. It's sad or scary or painful when mom or dad gets angry because you poked him or her in the eye. The child is not evil, the child has been in a womb, sort of alone, sort of merged with mother. The child doesn't really understand what other people are, but yearns for them and longs for intimacy, play, comfort, collaboration, exploration with them. And doing things that harm others leads to them doing things like pulling back or getting angry or getting sad and intimacy, play, connection, etc, get lost.

You don't need to make up some horrible belief that we all have this orginal sin and some deity had to sacrifice himself to sort of wipe away this sin and we have to have these rules to control us and there will always be this beast inside us unless we jail and control it.

I'd suggest it runs quite the other way: that it takes a fair bit of maturation, socialization and self-control to learn how not to harm others. A child devoid of moral instruction and restraint is not a particularly charming character, I think you'll find.

I have children and have taught and otherwise been in professional relations with children, thanks.

Even the idea of original sin can lead to people harming others.

I don't think it can. It's actually just a realistic assessment of human nature. And, on the flip side, to fail to provide for a child the necessary experiences and socialization to learn not to be self-centered, irresponsible or immature is a form of abuse, and one that harms not only society but the child him or herself.

And note your assumptions about what the process of entering the social world must include.

Once the objective morality is seen as something like the correctional system...

That's no model I ever suggested.

I know, but it is what happens.

I don't think anyone will find that the function of the so-called "correctional" system is really to "correct" anybody, far less to rehabilitate them. It's unbelievably unsuccessful, if that's its goal, as the recidivism rates clearly attest.

Sure, just like all the original sin and moral objectivism hasn't led to some paradise either.

I would guess your not really seeing yourself.

Oh, I see myself very well, I must say. And I do not regard myself as some kind of special moral case. I am as capable of doing harm as anybody, by nature. It's only the grace of God that has made any difference in my life.

I assumed precisely that. That you saw yourself as needing this. I did not interpret your position as saying you were without sin or a special case.

But let us go on. Are we to suppose, then, that the real problem is that human beings are receiving too much moral instruction?

Yes. I think that's a poor way to socialize. Though the term could cover all sorts of things and might include many things that I have done and also appreciated when it came towards me both as a child and as an adult. But, I sure well want to know the effects of my behavior. I don't expect people to shut down their own needs and reactions around me. I wish, in some ways, my parents could have been clearer about what they felt and reacted to. I wouldn't call that moral instruction, but other might watch some of that and say it is. I don't think they needed to give me more moral rules and anything that smacked of telling me that I and others have original sin, to be born in sin, that's just abuse.

That the reason some have moral problems is that they haven't been left alone enough? Are they taking morality too seriously? That if we simply let them bloom like flowers in fertilizer, that all would become sweetness and light?

And see your assumptions. You assume that if we don't tell people they have orginal sin and we don't frame everything in moral terms and objective moral terms at that, then the only thing that is left is we let them do whatever they want all the time. For you not moralizing means shutting down your own needs and reactions. Or for example, not reacting when Jimmy smacks his little sister on the head with a toy truck.

You are so immersed in the memes of objective morality and original sin that without it you assume people become empty ciphers. Their child can stick a fork in their eyes and they will not react.

I can only hope you will mull this over, instead of thinking of a good or true correction to my misunderstandings or the naivte you assume I must have.

There were so many assumptions about what it must mean to not have objective morals and not believe in original sin in your response, that it just reminds me how far apart we are. I have no misconcpetion that I have convinced you I am right. What I can only hope is that you might just get a flicker of a sense that perhaps you assume things about what must be because your beliefs have colored things such that X must always have Y. It must. It's either Y or you can't have X. That's it. So, you are shocked by the idea (not by someone putting it forward) that it could be any other way. That your model of the world could possibly include unfounded assumptions.

I get it. You think what you support reduces human suffering. And hey, I am on board with that goal. I don't like human suffering. I just think you have a lot of assumptions that not only make you rule out things on weak grounds, but also assume things are necessary that are not. Even more important that your solution actually causes many of the problems you want to alleviate.

And I am going to back off here. Because there is a wide paradigmatic gap. I don't think that gap gets reasoned through and certainly not in a short period of time. Mull what I've written if you feel like it and perhaps experiences will come to you that will help you question some of these assumptiosn. Perhaps not, of course. Filters are strong.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialized need not include the presentation of objective morality.

Let's see how that would run: "Son, you don't have to do any of this, because it's just my personal opinion, and nobody else's...but..."

You get socialized because other people are important to you.

Right. And they reward or punish you for doing certain things. But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality. If you were socialized by Hamas, what is your moral standing? How about if you were socialized into the Nazi Party, or the Red Brigade? How about if your socialization took place in North Korea?

And this brings us to a deeper question, too: if mankind is naturally good, from where come all these evil systems of socialization? I mean, if mankind is basically good, they shouldn't even be possible. But somehow, they're not only possible but very common. What would be your explanation for that obvious fact?

I'd suggest it runs quite the other way: that it takes a fair bit of maturation, socialization and self-control to learn how not to harm others. A child devoid of moral instruction and restraint is not a particularly charming character, I think you'll find.

I have children and have taught and otherwise been in professional relations with children, thanks.

Then you know how true what I'm saying is.

Let the teacher go out of the room, and do the children behave better or worse to each other?

Once the objective morality is seen as something like the correctional system...

That's no model I ever suggested.

I know, but it is what happens.

Well, again, let's imagine how the scenario would play out with only subjective morality: "Mr. Iwannaplato, you have been found guilty of the crime of murder...however, that's just my subjective feelings talking...and though it's just my subjective feelings, I sentence you to life without parole."

Any questions?

...moral objectivism hasn't led to some paradise either.

That's not because of moral objectivism, but because of human nature. What objective morality does is to provide the fixed measurement of where we are morally...it doesn't "lead to" anything beyond that. Nor should it be expected to.

A moral code is like a thermometer, in that sense, or a measuring stick, or a graduated cylinder. It's there to measure the quantity or quality of something, so we can judge it correctly. It's not a cure. That still remains our problem -- but with objective standards, we can at least agree we have a problem, and that it needs addressing.

You can't make the weather warmer by throwing out the thermometer. You can't make yourself taller by breaking the measuring stick. You can't make a litre of fluid into two litres by smashing the graduated cylinder. All you can do, that way, is deprive us of a means of knowing the measure of anything.

But let us go on. Are we to suppose, then, that the real problem is that human beings are receiving too much moral instruction?

Yes. I think that's a poor way to socialize. [/quogte]
Really? I find that quite astonishing. And I think you'll find that most people think it's quite the opposite: that people are not receiving enough moral instruction, or the correct moral instructions, and that a lot of problems are proceeding from that. But do continue...

I wish, in some ways, my parents could have been clearer about what they felt and reacted to.

Wouldn't it have been terribly helpful if they could have, say, told you a list of things that other people would find offensive, or that would damage you, or that would cause trouble for your society, and thus they might have spared you finding all these things out by painful experience?

... telling me that I and others have original sin, to be born in sin, that's just abuse.

You'd better explain to me what you mean by "original sin," I think. I have a feeling it's not what the Biblical account says, nor what I would say about that. But I'll wait for your answer before responding.

You assume that if we don't tell people they have orginal sin and we don't frame everything in moral terms and objective moral terms at that, then the only thing that is left is we let them do whatever they want all the time.

Well, let's leave the "original sin" bit aside until I know what you mean by your use of the term. But moral subjectivism immediately issues in one of two things: 1. Irrational hypocrisy, or 2. Moral Nihilism. For there is no explanation that runs from "I feel X," to "You are obligated to respect my feeling about X." If the recipient of that information does not care what you feel, and sees advantage in not responding to your subjective preferences, then he need not: and you have no ground of complaint beyond the fact that you don't like what he did.

Needless to say, no kind of society can be run that way, let alone any kind of justice system within it. In fact, even the subjective-experience-feeling person cannot know whether or not his present subjective feeling means anything, or is just a symptom of momentary whims or bad digestion.

For you not moralizing means shutting down your own needs and reactions.

No, I haven't said that.

Or for example, not reacting when Jimmy smacks his little sister on the head with a toy truck.

I do not say that. In fact, I would say the opposite: that it's obligatory to correct Jimmy.

But let's work on that one, using subjectivism: if Jimmy did that, on what basis would you "react"? And what would you say to him?

I get it. You think what you support reduces human suffering.

Actually, I also don't think that. Sometimes, being right gets you MORE suffering.

But it's still right.

[Harbal]

The only resources I have are a few disorganised principles and a desire not to do any harm. Well, perhaps a little bit of harm, but nothing that's going to do anybody any significant damage.

Okay, well, let's try to work with that: let's say you have the axiom, "Do no (serious) harm."

Where did you get the axiom,

I suppose the idea that doing harm is a bad thing was passed on to me through social influence. Parents and teachers give you that message, and it's quite a prevalent theme in fiction; particularly in children's stories. When this has been going on since your earliest childhood, it becomes embedded in your psyche. It becomes a belief, in effect.

and what makes you responsible to adhere to it?

I can't tell you the psychological process that controls our behaviour in respect of such conditioned beliefs, but at the conscious level, it is not so much that I feel a responsibility to adhere to the axiom, but more that I do not want the responsibility of being the cause of harm to anyone. I realise that, when looked at in this way, moral behaviour does not seem quite so praiseworthy, and even starts to look like a selfish exercise, in fact.

[Harbal]

But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality. If you were socialized by Hamas, what is your moral standing? How about if you were socialized into the Nazi Party, or the Red Brigade? How about if your socialization took place in North Korea?

You make this point quite frequently, and it definitely is a point, but it is the way the world -the human world- works. I can see why you call it a problem, and I can see why convincing people there is actually objective moral truth could be looked on as a possible solution, but none of this makes an argument that there actually is such a thing as objective moral truth.

Could it be, I wonder, that you not so much believe in objective moral truth, but just think the world would be a better place if everyone else believed in it? This is not a new thought; it is something that occurred to me some time back, and I'm not saying it to have a dig at you, or to try to undermine you, but I can't help wondering.

[Iwannaplato]

Let's see how that would run: "Son, you don't have to do any of this, because it's just my personal opinion, and nobody else's...but..."

Really? That's the best you could come up with? The person has to explain their metaethical position to the child? I know you don't mean to be uncharitable but I have to wonder when reading this how stupid you think I am?

Right. And they reward or punish you for doing certain things. But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality. If you were socialized by Hamas, what is your moral standing? How about if you were socialized into the Nazi Party, or the Red Brigade? How about if your socialization took place in North Korea?

You just mentioned three groups with objective morals. Who believe in objective morals. Is this supposed to make me think objective morals are better and necessary? I can't see how.

I mean, I really think this needs time. Just imagine for a second that you are so immersed in your position that you make a lot of assumptions about what someone who is not an objective moralist MUST DO and CAN'T DO and so on.

The gap is huge here. I can only hope you will think for a while about how you immediately jump to conclusions like: the child will just be allowed to do whatever it wants.

That's what you did in the last post. When I point out this is not the case. No real acknowledgement of the fact that you made a really rather huge assumption, but we jump to a new assumption about how people have to communicate when they don't believe in objective morals.

If you reach a place where you can actually rest in the possibility that you have a lot of groundless assumptions about the only possible alternative to what you think, then we could perhaps have a conversation on this topic. And then, also, probably some important challenging life experiences.

I mean, for a bit, just mull over how you used people with objective moralities to somehow make a point about the problem with people who don't believe in them.

Let that just simmer for a month.

I don't mean that any of this demonstrates that you are wrong. But the oddity of the jumps and the assumptions...I think these are glaring. You could still be right, of course, and make a lot of false assumptions about what subjective morality entails. But if you can't see these jumps and assumptions and oddities, me personally I don't think there's a change we can take a step towards getting somewhere in the conversation.

[Skepdick]

Really? That's the best you could come up with? The person has to explain their metaethical position to the child? I know you don't mean to be uncharitable but I have to wonder when reading this how stupid you think I am?

Are you stupid enough to think that the metaethical position alters the outcome of the education?

If moral conclusions are stable under meta-ethical fluctuations it sure sounds to me the the meta-ethical (subjective) element is not significant.

Call it "the result of the Evolutionary process of sociolization" if you want. The emergent behaviour resulting from "subjective" or "objective" moral indoctrination is objective.

The reduction of the impact of our primal insticts post-socialization (e.g education!) is objective and measurable.

The trouble at hand, is that rather than actually having a constructive dialogue about this objective/emergent behaviour we always get stuck arguing over whose vocabulary is "correct". Language wars instead of thinking.

Even though both vocabularies are confluent.

[Skepdick]

<snip>

None of this is to say that IC is "right". He's an idiot - for attempting to resurrect a vocabulary that has been dead/dying for a few centuries; instead of adopting the contemporary vocabularies.

But on that one damn thing (that morality is objective) he's right. Too bad he doesn't know how to ground his moral intuitions in the equivalent/contemporary scientific lexicon/vocabularies; so he peddles the Bible.

Christianity (and its commitment to the Logos/reason/logic) is a distant ancestor to modern science, but the distance is problematic in 2023.

[Iwannaplato]

Are you stupid enough to think that the metaethical position alters the outcome of the education?

No, he's the one making that assumption,in general. I think the concept of orginal sin has some bad effects....I think his view of the self and humans have some bad effects.....

or is it too much to expect4 that when you enter a conversation in an insulting way you would at least take a fucking moment before that to understand the god damn context, you bilious curmugdeon

or are you too fucking stupid to think that context matters in the least or that there might be a chance that hurling insults out of an ignorant take on something is NOT THE FUCKING WAY TO BRIDGE PEOPLE'S DIFFERENT LINGUISTICS

YOU POMPOUS LITTLE PERSON ASS.

It's rare you meet someone with such a contrast between their stated goals and behavior. Maybe you're a bot.

[Skepdick]

Are you stupid enough to think that the metaethical position alters the outcome of the education?

No, he's the one making that assumption,in general. I think the concept of orginal sin has some bad effects....I think his view of the self and humans have some bad effects.....

or is it too much to expect4 that when you enter a conversation in an insulting way you would at least take a fucking moment before that to understand the god damn context, you bilious curmugdeon

or are you too fucking stupid to think that context matters in the least or that there might be a chance that hurling insults out of an ignorant take on something is NOT THE FUCKING WAY TO BRIDGE PEOPLE'S DIFFERENT LINGUISTICS

YOU POMPOUS LITTLE PERSON ASS.

It's rare you meet someone with such a contrast between their stated goals and behavior. Maybe you're a bot.

Context doesn't matter.

Not when we deal with defined/invented stuff. Like morality.

Catch up. You dumb pragmatist.

Your profound inability to bridge my stated goals and my behaviour is a you-problem, not a me-problem. You don't understand anything.

Not the least of all why in the broader context the language doesn't matter. The necessary concepts/language will be invented/negotiated as needed, ONCE you stop bickering over fucking language.

[Skepdick]

I think the concept of orginal sin has some bad effects....

Allow me to fucking demonstrate.

What Christians call "original sin" is what contemporary evolutionary biologists call "Evolved traits".

You aren't wired/evolved to exist in a modern society circa 2023.
You are wired to exist/survive in nature. You are wired for combat/conflict/survival - hence the perpetual conflict permeating all of philosophy. It's fight, not flight.

LESS original sin. It's not that the concept has bad effect. Original sin/evolved traits have bad effects!

Your evolved traits are the fucking problem, you dumb ape. Socialization/religious indoctrination/education is the process of programming you to be LESS of an animal. To me MORE human. To train you to use reason instead of defaulting to instinct.

It's metaphor! All the way down.

Bridge the fucking divide, instead of constantly fueling the fire.

[Iwannaplato]

Context doesn't matter.

Clearly not to you. Though oddly you posted quoting me with your response and not someone else, thinking, oddly that it somehow applied, or rather, that it doesn't matter. But ok, cool, it doesn't matter if what you read means what you think it does. Good to know. You want to express what you want to express, so it doesn't matter if your response has anything to do with what I wrote or the, well, context, and it's helpful to know this. In the future I'll just see you as triggered.

Your profound inability to bridge my stated goals and my behaviour is a you-problem, not a me-problem.

I don't have a problem with it. But, right, the context doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I didn't say I had a problem with that. I find it remarkable. I think if you go back you can figure out what was a me-problem given my reactions.

You don't understand anything.

You make interesting choices of whom to communicate with.

Not the least of all why in the broader context the language doesn't matter. The necessary concepts/language will be invented/negotiated as needed, ONCE you stop bickering over fucking language.

I wasn't bickering over language, but you'd know that if you cared about context. I appreciate the heads up.

As a short hand I'll think of you as lazy and in a lot of pain.

That's generous and likely false, but I think it makes for a good predictor heuristic.

[Skepdick]

Context doesn't matter.

Clearly not to you. Though oddly you posted quoting me with your response and not someone else, thinking, oddly that it somehow applied, or rather, that it doesn't matter. But ok, cool, it doesn't matter if what you read means what you think it does. Good to know. You want to express what you want to express, so it doesn't matter if your response has anything to do with what I wrote or the, well, context, and it's helpful to know this. In the future I'll just see you as triggered.

It doesn't matter to you either. I've never seen somebody with such massive disconnect between their words and their actions.

You think concepts can have bad effects? Gee wiz!

Here we are. Conducting discourse in the exact context in which the concept of original sin has bad effects.
Not the context in which "original sin has good effects"
Not the context in which "original sin has neither good nor bad effects"
Not the context in which "original sin is not even a moral percept".

We are exactly in context in which "original sin has bad effects.". Why do you keep pretending that other contexts matter?

I don't have a problem with it. But, right, the context doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I didn't say I had a problem with that.

Precisely the fucking point.

It's remarcable how you proceed to establish/determine the context (original sin has bad effects)
And then you continue to pretend that any other context except the one you've already determined is somehow relevant.

The only context (or maybe plural - contexts) that matters (to you) are ONLY the contexts in which "original sin has bad effects".
If any other context mattered you would've phrased "original sin has bad effects" differently.

So, no - context (in general) doesn't matter (to you). All that matters is the particular context in which original sin has bad effects.

Now, do you want me to fight you for framing and reject your context; or are we on the same page?

I wasn't bickering over language, but you'd know that if you cared about context. I appreciate the heads up.

I don't care about context. And neither do you. Stop pretending as if you are entertaining any other context except the context in which "original sin has bad effects".

If context actually mattered you would've contextualized/qualified "original sin has bad effects" with alternative framing than just moral badness.

As a short hand I'll think of you as lazy and in a lot of pain.

That's generous and likely false, but I think it makes for a good predictor heuristic.

If I am your baseline/zero for laziness; how far in the negative are you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Context doesn't matter.

Clearly not to you. Though oddly you posted quoting me with your response and not someone else, thinking, oddly that it somehow applied, or rather, that it doesn't matter. But ok, cool, it doesn't matter if what you read means what you think it does. Good to know. You want to express what you want to express, so it doesn't matter if your response has anything to do with what I wrote or the, well, context, and it's helpful to know this. In the future I'll just see you as triggered.

It doesn't matter to you either. I've never seen somebody with such massive disconnect between their words and their actions.

You think concepts can have bad effects? Gee wiz!

Here we are. Conducting discourse in the exact context in which the concept of original sin has bad effects.
Not the context in which "original sin has good effects"
Not the context in which "original sin has neither good nor bad effects"
Not the context in which "original sin is not even a moral percept".

We are exactly in context in which "original sin has bad effects.". Why do you keep pretending that other contexts matter?

I don't have a problem with it. But, right, the context doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I didn't say I had a problem with that.

Precisely the fucking point.

It's remarcable how you proceed to establish/determine the context (original sin has bad effects)
And then you continue to pretend that any other context except the one you've already determined is somehow relevant.

The only context (or maybe plural - contexts) that matters (to you) are ONLY the contexts in which "original sin has bad effects".
If any other context mattered you would've phrased "original sin has bad effects" differently.

So, no - context (in general) doesn't matter (to you). All that matters is the particular context in which original sin has bad effects.

Now, do you want me to fight you for framing and reject your context; or are we on the same page?

I wasn't bickering over language, but you'd know that if you cared about context. I appreciate the heads up.

I don't care about context. And neither do you. Stop pretending as if you are entertaining any other context except the context in which "original sin has bad effects".

As a short hand I'll think of you as lazy and in a lot of pain.

That's generous and likely false, but I think it makes for a good predictor heuristic.

If I am your baseline/zero for laziness; how far in the negative are you?

Heh.. heh..

Whilst sometimes IWP do have relevant questions, overall he has this very annoying ignorance and off-key thingy with arrogance and Ultracrepidarian superiority complex.

[Iwannaplato]

Yeah, triggered, lazy and in a lot of pain...it's a good placeholder heuristic.
Thus, not in the Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus sense.
But in the 'likely repetition of behavior sense'.

And since context doesn't matter...quit raping people.

Yeah, I can see how that might be a pick me up.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, triggered, lazy and in a lot of pain...it's a good placeholder heuristic.
Thus, not in the Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus sense.
But in the 'likely repetition of behavior sense'.

And since context doesn't matter...quit raping people.

Yeah, I can see how that might be a pick me up.

So many ironies - I don't know where to begin to respond.

"Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus" IS the cause of repetitive behaviour. The insanity of philosophy. The perpetual re-mannufacturing of equivalent understandings.

There's clearly a step missing in the process. The part where you unify equivalent understandings - such as "original sin" with "evolved traits".

It sounds like praise and not an admonition for attempting to break the cycle.