Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Still nothing

Then we're done. You've learned as much as you're going to.

Still nothing

Yes, nothing.

[Atla]

Then we're done. You've learned as much as you're going to.

Still nothing

Yes, nothing.

Still nothing

maybe the forum needs to implement a little counter that will count how many times IC didn't post the argument that he wants me to respond to

[Harbal]

Ready when you are, IC.

This is the right thread, isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

Ready when you are, IC.

This is the right thread, isn't it?

Yessir.

Okay. Here's what you last wrote, verbatim:

Morality is the set of standards that dictate what is right and wrong in terms of behaviour and beliefs. Not my words, I found them online, but I broadly agree with the definition. People do have such standards, and I think standards are crucial in enabling society to function, so there is undeniably such a thing as morality, and it is, in my opinion, legitimate.

But here we have to make a very important distinction. Bear with me as I parse it out carefully.

You're accidentally mixing two different claims. One is:

1. "Morality" is the sociological phenomenon of people believing in their own subjective feelings, that they call "morality."

2. The "morality" that they think they are experiencing is, itself, legitimate.

Right now, you're saying that both 1 and 2 are true. But 1 was never in doubt, either for you or for me: we both know there is a thing people choose to believe in, that they choose to call "morality." But 2 is the real issue, and the point upon which we have to find agreement.

But 1 contradicts 2, if 1 is a complete definition of "morality." If it's only their subjective feelings that people are responding to, then that fact does nothing to show that those feelings are legitimate, or that they refer to anything that anybody needs to take seriously. It could be nothing more than a total delusion, a "feeling" without any objective referent. It could be a delusion like the belief that a crocodile will eat one if one goes swimming in an indoor swimming pool...nothing real behind it.

And if such feelings are purely "subjective," and there is absolutely no objective referent behind those feelings, then it's very clear there can be no legitimate reason for anybody to expect anybody else to come to share their feelings. So there is no "morality" that is real-world stuff: there are just unaccountable "feelings" or "moralizing by people."

Have I been clear? Do you grasp the problem? Or do I need to find another way to make it more clear?

Another way of saying this is to say that it's one thing to say, "Some people believe stealing is wrong," and to say, "Stealing is actually wrong."

If you say only the former, you aren't declaring the latter. You're only saying that some people "subjectively" think something, that still may or may not be true at all.

That's "moral nihilism." Given the consequences of subjectivism, it seems the obvious next step for a moral skeptic.

Well I am not going to put up an argument in favour of moral nihilism.

Okay, that's fine.

But we should ask, "Why not?" It seems an obvious deduction from the claim, " Moralizing is only subjective." A person who believes he understands that there is nothing behind any moral claims except the feelings of the speaker should certainly be drawn to moral nihilism. If you aren't, why not?

[promethean75]

"Another way of saying this is to say that it's one thing to say, "Some people believe stealing is wrong," and to say, "Stealing is actually wrong."

If you say only the former, you aren't declaring the latter. You're only saying that some people "subjectively" think something, that still may or may not be true at all." (my italics)

If i may, gentlemen. Whether or not 'stealing is wrong' is true has nothing to do with whether or not joe likes or dislikes (approves of or disapproves of) stealing. Joe doesn't need to show that stealing is wrong to justify his not liking it.

Now I'd like to say that IC knows this and is just tryna be slick.

[promethean75]

"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" - Stirner, Max

He'll take your shit, but also not feel the slightest bit offended if u take his. What can a moral objectivist do here but stare in bewilderment?

[Harbal]

Ready when you are, IC.

This is the right thread, isn't it?

Yessir.

Okay. Here's what you last wrote, verbatim:

Morality is the set of standards that dictate what is right and wrong in terms of behaviour and beliefs. Not my words, I found them online, but I broadly agree with the definition. People do have such standards, and I think standards are crucial in enabling society to function, so there is undeniably such a thing as morality, and it is, in my opinion, legitimate.

But here we have to make a very important distinction. Bear with me as I parse it out carefully.

You're accidentally mixing two different claims. One is:

1. "Morality" is the sociological phenomenon of people believing in their own subjective feelings, that they call "morality."

2. The "morality" that they think they are experiencing is, itself, legitimate.

Right now, you're saying that both 1 and 2 are true. But 1 was never in doubt, either for you or for me: we both know there is a thing people choose to believe in, that they choose to call "morality." But 2 is the real issue, and the point upon which we have to find agreement.

But 1 contradicts 2, if 1 is a complete definition of "morality." If it's only their subjective feelings that people are responding to, then that fact does nothing to show that those feelings are legitimate, or that they refer to anything that anybody needs to take seriously. It could be nothing more than a total delusion, a "feeling" without any objective referent. It could be a delusion like the belief that a crocodile will eat one if one goes swimming in an indoor swimming pool...nothing real behind it.

And if such feelings are purely "subjective," and there is absolutely no objective referent behind those feelings, then it's very clear there can be no legitimate reason for anybody to expect anybody else to come to share their feelings. So there is no "morality" that is real-world stuff: there are just unaccountable "feelings" or "moralizing by people."

Have I been clear? Do you grasp the problem? Or do I need to find another way to make it more clear?

Another way of saying this is to say that it's one thing to say, "Some people believe stealing is wrong," and to say, "Stealing is actually wrong."

If you say only the former, you aren't declaring the latter. You're only saying that some people "subjectively" think something, that still may or may not be true at all.

Yes, I understand that is you position on what you call moral subjectivism.

Well I am not going to put up an argument in favour of moral nihilism.

Okay, that's fine.

But we should ask, "Why not?" It seems an obvious deduction from the claim, " Moralizing is only subjective." A person who believes he understands that there is nothing behind any moral claims except the feelings of the speaker should certainly be drawn to moral nihilism. If you aren't, why not?

I have already posted hundreds of words trying to explain my view of what morality is, and you have rejected most of what I have said, but you must know what my views are by now. There is nothing I can usefully add, so we now need to move on to your justification for your assertion that morality is based on objectively true fact. So could we do that now, please?

[Immanuel Can]

Ready when you are, IC.

This is the right thread, isn't it?

Yessir.

Okay. Here's what you last wrote, verbatim:

Morality is the set of standards that dictate what is right and wrong in terms of behaviour and beliefs. Not my words, I found them online, but I broadly agree with the definition. People do have such standards, and I think standards are crucial in enabling society to function, so there is undeniably such a thing as morality, and it is, in my opinion, legitimate.

But here we have to make a very important distinction. Bear with me as I parse it out carefully.

You're accidentally mixing two different claims. One is:

1. "Morality" is the sociological phenomenon of people believing in their own subjective feelings, that they call "morality."

2. The "morality" that they think they are experiencing is, itself, legitimate.

Right now, you're saying that both 1 and 2 are true. But 1 was never in doubt, either for you or for me: we both know there is a thing people choose to believe in, that they choose to call "morality." But 2 is the real issue, and the point upon which we have to find agreement.

But 1 contradicts 2, if 1 is a complete definition of "morality." If it's only their subjective feelings that people are responding to, then that fact does nothing to show that those feelings are legitimate, or that they refer to anything that anybody needs to take seriously. It could be nothing more than a total delusion, a "feeling" without any objective referent. It could be a delusion like the belief that a crocodile will eat one if one goes swimming in an indoor swimming pool...nothing real behind it.

And if such feelings are purely "subjective," and there is absolutely no objective referent behind those feelings, then it's very clear there can be no legitimate reason for anybody to expect anybody else to come to share their feelings. So there is no "morality" that is real-world stuff: there are just unaccountable "feelings" or "moralizing by people."

Have I been clear? Do you grasp the problem? Or do I need to find another way to make it more clear?

Another way of saying this is to say that it's one thing to say, "Some people believe stealing is wrong," and to say, "Stealing is actually wrong."

If you say only the former, you aren't declaring the latter. You're only saying that some people "subjectively" think something, that still may or may not be true at all.

Yes, I understand that is you position on what you call moral subjectivism.

Okay. But do you see why it's also the rational, logical and necessary realization vis a vis subjectivism? Or are you still clinging to subjectivism? Because until we get clear on that, we've still got work to do.

...so we now need to move on to your justification for your assertion that morality is based on objectively true fact. So could we do that now, please?

Once we know what the only realistic options are, we can. So long as either of us doesn't know how utterly impossible subjectivism is as an option, we need to fix that first.

[Immanuel Can]

"Another way of saying this is to say that it's one thing to say, "Some people believe stealing is wrong," and to say, "Stealing is actually wrong."

If you say only the former, you aren't declaring the latter. You're only saying that some people "subjectively" think something, that still may or may not be true at all." (my italics)

If i may, gentlemen. Whether or not 'stealing is wrong' is true has nothing to do with whether or not joe likes or dislikes (approves of or disapproves of) stealing. Joe doesn't need to show that stealing is wrong to justify his not liking it.

You're right! He does not. He can feel as many idiosyncratic feelings, untied to any objective facts, as he wishes.

But nobody needs to care that Joe feels stealing is wrong. By Joe's own testimony, it's only a subjective assertion, so it's just him talking about his personal feelings...devoid of facts.

So yeah, I know that. Do you?

[promethean75]

"But nobody needs to care that Joe feels stealing is wrong."

Hence your bewilderment at saint Max.

What if joe doesn't care if u don't care if Joe doesn't approve of stealing or not?

Where, and how, is Joe bothered with this matter u believe is a problem?

Are u saying that the big problem with moral subjectivity is that 'someone might not care what u think, joe'?

Joe doesn't seem to think this is a problem tho. So now what?

[promethean75]

Lemme beat u to the punch. You'll ask 'then why does joe become furious when his car is stolen if he doesn't think stealing is wrong'?

Becuz the thief is a danger, an opposition, to him and his property, not becuz the thief is being immoral.

[Harbal]

Yes, I understand that is you position on what you call moral subjectivism.

Okay. But do you see why it's also the rational, logical and necessary realization vis a vis subjectivism? Or are you still clinging to subjectivism? Because until we get clear on that, we've still got work to do.

Let me just see if I understand the situation. I have put my argument in front of you, and you have given me your assessment of it, which amounted to a total rejection of it. Okay, fair enough. Now I am asking you to give me the opportunity to question your take on morality, in return. You have critiqued my argument, and now I am asking to critique yours, which kind of seems pretty reasonable to me. However, it seems that a rule that I was hitherto unaware of has popped up out of nowhere, requiring me to renounce everything I believe to be true about morality, and declare that I was wrong all along, before I am allowed to hear your argument. But there is more. It seems I also have to acknowledge that the only other alternative to your argument is also invalid. In short, I have to admit that your presentation of morality is the only possible correct one before I have even heard it. I don't want to be difficult about this, but something doesn't seem quite right here.

...so we now need to move on to your justification for your assertion that morality is based on objectively true fact. So could we do that now, please?

Once we know what the only realistic options are, we can.

Yes that's what I thought; I have to concede that you must be right before we even start. Can I just ask you what satisfaction you get out of entering into discussion with someone as stupid as you obviously think I am.

[iambiguous]

Once we know what the only realistic options are, we can. So long as either of us doesn't know how utterly impossible subjectivism is as an option, we need to fix that first.

No one -- going all the way back to the Big Bang? -- is more disgraceful when it comes to wiggling out of actually responding to the arguments that others make in regard to objective morality than IC.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Seriously though, IC is a True Christian. And as a True Christian not only does he believe that human morality revolves around 1] the Christian God's moral Commandments and 2] in asking yourself "what would Jesus do?", he has proof of this. Proof beyond a leap of faith and "because the Bible says so." Those 17 YouTube videos in which he claims both scientists and historians provide ample evidence that the Christian God does exist, that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the grave, and that only in accepting Christ as your personal savior will you go up instead of down.

And yet instead of coming here and attempting to demonstrate why Christianity is in fact the only path to objective morality, immortality and salvation, he engages in these endless "philosophical" discussions about subjective morality. And 'theoretically" to boot. When, in fact, he is a human subject himself who happened subjectively to come upon Christianity given the life he lived.

He even notes that those living in the Gaza Strip are not Christians themselves because those born and raised there are indoctrinated to believe in Allah instead. Or the religious fanatics in Israel who are still patiently awaiting their own Messiah.

The same God that he worships but given an entirely different spin.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I understand that is you position on what you call moral subjectivism.

Okay. But do you see why it's also the rational, logical and necessary realization vis a vis subjectivism? Or are you still clinging to subjectivism? Because until we get clear on that, we've still got work to do.

Let me just see if I understand the situation. I have put my argument in front of you, and you have given me your assessment of it, which amounted to a total rejection of it. Okay, fair enough.

Not quite. Since it's been made evident that moral subjectivism isn't even coherent, and cannot tell us anything about morality, do you now see that it's simply not an option?

If "yes," we can go forward. If "no, I still believe in it," then we can't. I need to make it clear why that is so.

Now I am asking you to give me the opportunity to question your take on morality, in return. You have critiqued my argument, and now I am asking to critique yours, which kind of seems pretty reasonable to me.

It would be...on the assumption that we are both committed to behaving rationally, and only to believing things that can be made coherent and intelligible. Are we there, yet?

...so we now need to move on to your justification for your assertion that morality is based on objectively true fact. So could we do that now, please?

Once we know what the only realistic options are, we can.

Yes that's what I thought; I have to concede that you must be right before we even start.

No, you don't. But I think you'll find that to be reasonable, you will need to recognize that appealing to subjectivism is impossible. And that's just because it fails the test of it's own rationalizations, and cannot be rendered intelligible...not because of what I believe. You could still be completely dubious of moral objectivism, and still realize that subjectivism won't work as some alternative.

That's why moral nihilism is the next logical stop on the train. If one were still doubting moral objectivism, but realized that subjectivism was not plausible, then moral nihilism would be the natural conclusion one would go to next. I don't think there's a fourth alternative.

Can I just ask you what satisfaction you get out of entering into discussion with someone as stupid as you obviously think I am.

Quite the opposite: if I thought you were stupid, would I be spending the amount of time I am trying to explain why subjectivism is irrational? I'm still operating under the assumption that you're quite capable of seeing the reasons for that. Am I wrong?

I don't think so. I think you can see it. I don't think, maybe, you like seeing it very much, but I'm pretty sure it should be clear by now that subjectivism can't explain morality.

And next, we can eliminate its ultimate implication, moral nihilism. Then we can build a case for moral objectivism. That seems a reasonable procedure, to me.

[Harbal]

Okay. But do you see why it's also the rational, logical and necessary realization vis a vis subjectivism? Or are you still clinging to subjectivism? Because until we get clear on that, we've still got work to do.

Let me just see if I understand the situation. I have put my argument in front of you, and you have given me your assessment of it, which amounted to a total rejection of it. Okay, fair enough.

Not quite. Since it's been made evident that moral subjectivism isn't even coherent, and cannot tell us anything about morality, do you now see that it's simply not an option?

If "yes," we can go forward. If "no, I still believe in it," then we can't. I need to make it clear why that is so.

Now I am asking you to give me the opportunity to question your take on morality, in return. You have critiqued my argument, and now I am asking to critique yours, which kind of seems pretty reasonable to me.

It would be...on the assumption that we are both committed to behaving rationally, and only to believing things that can be made coherent and intelligible. Are we there, yet?

Once we know what the only realistic options are, we can.

Yes that's what I thought; I have to concede that you must be right before we even start.

No, you don't. But I think you'll find that to be reasonable, you will need to recognize that appealing to subjectivism is impossible. And that's just because it fails the test of it's own rationalizations, and cannot be rendered intelligible...not because of what I believe. You could still be completely dubious of moral objectivism, and still realize that subjectivism won't work as some alternative.

That's why moral nihilism is the next logical stop on the train. If one were still doubting moral objectivism, but realized that subjectivism was not plausible, then moral nihilism would be the natural conclusion one would go to next. I don't think there's a fourth alternative.

Can I just ask you what satisfaction you get out of entering into discussion with someone as stupid as you obviously think I am.

Quite the opposite: if I thought you were stupid, would I be spending the amount of time I am trying to explain why subjectivism is irrational? I'm still operating under the assumption that you're quite capable of seeing the reasons for that. Am I wrong?

I don't think so. I think you can see it. I don't think, maybe, you like seeing it very much, but I'm pretty sure it should be clear by now that subjectivism can't explain morality.

And next, we can eliminate its ultimate implication, moral nihilism. Then we can build a case for moral objectivism. That seems a reasonable procedure, to me.

No, no, and thrice no!

I didn't ask you to reject all your own claims before I gave you my account of what morality is and how I think it works, and it is not reasonable for you to demand that of me. Please, just give your account of how there could be such a thing as objective moral truth, and the reasons why anyone should actually believe it.