Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality.

Ehh, the notion of "problem" doesn't even exist outside of a social setting.

It's not the "notion of problem" we're discussing. We're not at all having a hard time grasping what "moral problem" means, so far as I can tell.

It's the fact of moral problems, which are generated by socialization.

[Skepdick]

But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality.

Ehh, the notion of "problem" doesn't even exist outside of a social setting.

It's not the "notion of problem" we're discussing. We're not at all having a hard time grasping what "moral problem" means, so far as I can tell.

It's the fact of moral problems, which are generated by socialization.

That seems rather one sided... Given that without socialization; or outside of a social context morality is a non-concern.

If I am the only person in my tribe - who cares if I burn down the house?

[Dontaskme]

I don't have total control of my whims; they have more control over me.

What? Like gravity?

Even a non-conceptual / wordless, mute animal like a cat or dog, or even a bird, automatically knows the affects and the innate sense of what gravity has upon their very existence, there is no requirement for these sentient creatures to question the concept of 'gravity'.. why the heck is 'gravity' even relevant ?

[Skepdick]

I don't have total control of my whims; they have more control over me.

What? Like gravity?

Even a non-conceptual / wordless, mute animal like a cat or dog, or even a bird, automatically knows the affects and the innate sense of what gravity has upon their very existence, there is no requirement for these sentient creatures to question the concept of 'gravity'.. why the heck is 'gravity' even relevant ?

Because gravity is in control of you; more than you are in control of gravity.

Exactly like your moral whims.

[Dontaskme]

What? Like gravity?

Even a non-conceptual / wordless, mute animal like a cat or dog, or even a bird, automatically knows the affects and the innate sense of what gravity has upon their very existence, there is no requirement for these sentient creatures to question the concept of 'gravity'.. why the heck is 'gravity' even relevant ?

Because gravity is outside of your sphere of influence/control.

Exactly like your moral whims.

When you say ''your'' moral whims...you can only be talking about something within this illusory reality.

But in real reality, the concept 'your whim' or 'my whim' is totally outside of the 'your' and 'my' sphere of influence/control. The 'Your and My' sense of self has absolutely no knowledge of anything beyond this illusory sense of knowing, or what makes it appear real to us.


Exactly like gravity.

[Harbal]

Maybe you don't want to know that moral subjectivism is absurd.

You have proclaimed that morality is no more and no less than following the wishes of God, so absolutely any account of morality that does not conform to that definition is going to be absurd.

Au contraire, I've been talking only about what subjectivism will rationalize on its own terms...and even were it the only option we knew, we would still find it's irrational and absurd. It's flatly self-contradicting.

The minimum we can ask of any belief is that it be at least consistent and sustainable on its own terms. Subjectivism is not. It can't even clear the first hurdle of rational explanation. That should concern subjectivists: they can know for certain they're wrong, even if they don't consider such alternatives as moral objectivism or moral nihilism at all.

Morality is an emotional phenomenon, and you are treating it as a rational one; hence most of what you have to say about it is meaningless twaddle.

"Imperative" is another word to which you have applied your own rigid definition.

Just a dictionary definition, you mean? You've seen the evidence. Why would you want to deny what your own eyes have seen?

You have selectively quoted me, leaving out a significant part of my point. You are breaking the rules that you took me to task over.

[Immanuel Can]

Ehh, the notion of "problem" doesn't even exist outside of a social setting.

It's not the "notion of problem" we're discussing. We're not at all having a hard time grasping what "moral problem" means, so far as I can tell.

It's the fact of moral problems, which are generated by socialization.

That seems rather one sided... Given that without socialization; or outside of a social context morality is a non-concern.

If I am the only person in my tribe - who cares if I burn down the house?

That's a good thought experiment. And you're right: if (hypothetically) you were the only entity-to-count in the moral situation, there would be no moral situations at all. That's one thought experiment that shows that morality is not a merely-personal, merely-private matter, but has social implications.

But that assumes, of course, that there is no other entity-to-count. You've assumed, then, that lower animals and creation itself are not deserving of moral consideration, and, more importantly, that there's no God to whom you are morally accountable.

It's not an assumption I share, of course. So I would have to say that even when you're all by yourself, and if you were the only human on the planet, you would still have moral duties. And I would say that's right.

[Skepdick]

That's a good thought experiment. And you're right: if (hypothetically) you were the only entity-to-count in the moral situation, there would be no moral situations at all. That's one thought experiment that shows that morality is not a merely-personal, merely-private matter, but has social implications.

But that assumes, of course, that there is no other entity-to-count. You've assumed, then, that lower animals and creation itself are not deserving of moral consideration, and, more importantly, that there's no God to whom you are morally accountable.

It's not an assumption I share, of course. So I would have to say that even when you're all by yourself, and if you were the only human on the planet, you would still have moral duties. And I would say that's right.

OK, but I have a get-out-jail-free card. Jesus died for my sins. Or did he? I am the only human on the planet...

I guess I'll feel bad about acting impulsively and burning down the house but... I'll sort it out tomorrow.

[Immanuel Can]

That's a good thought experiment. And you're right: if (hypothetically) you were the only entity-to-count in the moral situation, there would be no moral situations at all. That's one thought experiment that shows that morality is not a merely-personal, merely-private matter, but has social implications.

But that assumes, of course, that there is no other entity-to-count. You've assumed, then, that lower animals and creation itself are not deserving of moral consideration, and, more importantly, that there's no God to whom you are morally accountable.

It's not an assumption I share, of course. So I would have to say that even when you're all by yourself, and if you were the only human on the planet, you would still have moral duties. And I would say that's right.

OK, but I have a get-out-jail-free card. Jesus died for my sins. Or did he? I am the only human on the planet...

You aren't, of course. But if you were, Jesus Christ would have died for your sins...if that's an exchange you were willing to take. If you disagree with it, then you have what you wish -- His sacrifice is not acceptable, by you, as substitutionary for your sins. God does not force His salvation upon anybody: we all choose whatever it is we get, because to rob you of will, identity and choice is something God does not desire to do, and which would render voluntary friendship with God impossible.

As for "tomorrow," you'll find that's much too late to sort such a question out. By then, you'll have whatever you've decided to have. That's a lot of responsibility -- the right to say what happens to your eternal soul. My only encouragement to you would be to take it seriously and use it wisely.

[Dontaskme]

You should get used to the colorless and soulsucking indifference of moral subjectivism.

Any difference is illusory.
Simply because in reality, colourless is colour. Indifference is difference.

Being a moral person is within the artificial dream of separation, where there is none, it's as real as the person is real as believed subjectively and objectified as knowledge.

[Harbal]

What? Like gravity?

Do you seriously think that what you are implying is something the rest of us are not aware of and haven't taken into account? When people are constantly swapping definitions and changing the context of the terms, "objective and subjective", it is impossible to have a sensible discussion, and you are no less guilty of that than anyone else here. You are not bringing anything to anyone's attention that is not already known about, and the role you are playing here is no more than that of useless irritant.

I am just trying to understand what you mean by the word "subjective" when you are talking about things you can't change on a whim

Rather than swapping definitions and recontextualising terms - I am just doing empiricism... Trying to understand your use of the term.

I am happy to talk about anything with you, but only if you drop the smart arse act. I will respond to you in the same spirit with which I am approached.

[Harbal]

Jesus Christ would have died for your sins..

That must be one of the most stupid and illogical concepts in the whole of religion; it seems that irrationality only offends you when you put your Bible down.

[Dontaskme]

So I would have to say that even when you're all by yourself, and if you were the only human on the planet, you would still have moral duties. And I would say that's right.

No, that's wrong, one could not possibly know one exists if they were the only one existing. That would be impossible. In order to know one exists, one would need to look in the mirror of external objective reality and be made aware in the instance of recognition as it is reflected back as the knowledge of one's existence. And that's the only way the one can exist, as an image of the imageless.

Without some thing objectively to look at, where is the observer exactly? the observer I -EYE) can only exist as it observes, as an object seen, as an image of the imageless. The object seen is the experience of observation BUT can never experience the object seen in and of itself as a direct experience.

Moral duties are within the artificial dream of separation, within the image of the imageless, in other words, no one has any moral duty whatsoever in this reality, except in the artificial conception of I ..within the dream of separation, where there is none.

[Immanuel Can]

...one could not possibly know one exists if they were the only one existing.

I'm sorry...I can't be bothered with this sort of aimless prattle.

Carry on as you are.

[Harbal]

...one could not possibly know one exists if they were the only one existing.

I'm sorry...I can't be bothered with this sort of aimless prattle.

How long ago does "aimless prattle" have to be written before you have time for it?