Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Controlling root cause of evil via restricting birth of 'supposed evil' sources is not effective.
Evil is an inherent potential in all humans [deviated from evolutionary defaults].
As such, evil can rear its ugly head from other sources when one source is eliminated.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

That's a good sign; it means your brain is functioning normally.

[Dontaskme]

Controlling root cause of evil via restricting birth of 'supposed evil' sources is not effective.
Evil is an inherent potential in all humans [deviated from evolutionary defaults].
As such, evil can rear its ugly head from other sources when one source is eliminated.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

That's a good sign; it means your brain is functioning normally.

LOL golly gosh Harbal, I thought it was just me.

[Immanuel Can]

But not realizing that subjectivism is at fault, not me.

Sooner or later, you're probably going to have to subject subjectivism to some sort of scrutiny. And when you do, it will dissolve faster than tissue paper in water. It cannot ground a society, cannot provide information about right and wrong, and can only throw you at the mercy of whatever momentary feeling or sensation strikes you. It's time to relinquish it.

When you see sense about that, consider nihilism. It's at least a rational possibility. Subjectivism is not.

Moral Relativism is self-refuting.

One can claim Moral Nihilism, but that is insulting one's intelligence when morality as generally accept is so ubiquitous [almost universal].

Well, that's true...but not terribly helpful to know.

It really doesn't matter a whit how many people believe a thing: that doesn't mean it's automatically true. So while I agree with you that it's problematic to explain (by way of subjectivism or nihilism) why we have any such instincts at all, the fact of those instincts don't tell us whether those instincts are oriented to something real or illusory. A nihilist could argue that we have an instinct we have not yet "evolved out of," and that it refers to old, widely-believed, hard-to-shake but errant ideas. That's how Nietzsche argued, for example.

So we'd have to go at the question another way than counting the number of people who believe it.

[Immanuel Can]

It is quite clear you have no intention of making an attempt.

Actually, I most certainly do. But I'm doing the easy work first: showing that subjectivism is absurd, so we can eliminate that as a possibility.

But you can't show that it is absurd, so you will never get any farther.

I've showed it repeatedly, actually: I can see that at present, however, you just refuse to accept any such evidence.

And to be frank, that's not a strategy anybody can beat. A person who is bound-and-determined to cling to an irrational idea by irrational means -- like clinging to subjectivism by appealing to the alleged authority of "feelings," as you have insisted upon doing -- cannot be pried away from that belief.

One would have to be committed to rationality first. But once we claim that rationality isn't good enough, then really, anything at all may be believed.

[Immanuel Can]

...is the God of Islam any different to the Christian God of the Bible...?

Read the Koran, and read the Bible. Then you'll know. There's no other way you will know.

It's Quran not Koran.

It depends on who you ask: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

I have a copy of both books. So I already know they are of no difference.

That just tells me for sure you haven't read them. Even after a cursory reading, you'd know for sure that was obviously not the case. Have you even looked at a single page?

[Dontaskme]

It depends on who you ask: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xp ... story.html

Byebell / Bible …who cares.

That just tells me for sure you haven't read them. Even after a cursory reading, you'd know for sure that was obviously not the case. Have you even looked at a single page?

Well you would say something like that wouldn’t you, you’re responses are becoming so predictable typical IC, you’re always in this for the one-up approach.

Have you got a degree in Theology?

[Immanuel Can]

That just tells me for sure you haven't read them. Even after a cursory reading, you'd know for sure that was obviously not the case. Have you even looked at a single page?

Well you would say something like that wouldn’t you...

Not a relevant response. No matter what I "say," you could open the covers of both books, and within ten seconds you'd know I was telling you the truth, at least superficially. If you had actually read any of either, you'd be embarassed to have said anything so verifiably untrue as "there's no difference."

Have you got a degree in Theology?

You might be very surprised what I have. But that, too, would have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of what I'm telling you right now.

[Harbal]

Actually, I most certainly do. But I'm doing the easy work first: showing that subjectivism is absurd, so we can eliminate that as a possibility.

But you can't show that it is absurd, so you will never get any farther.

I've showed it repeatedly, actually: I can see that at present, however, you just refuse to accept any such evidence.

And to be frank, that's not a strategy anybody can beat. A person who is bound-and-determined to cling to an irrational idea by irrational means -- like clinging to subjectivism by appealing to the alleged authority of "feelings," as you have insisted upon doing -- cannot be pried away from that belief.

One would have to be committed to rationality first. But once we claim that rationality isn't good enough, then really, anything at all may be believed.

Okay, if you are determined to make a fool of yourself, I am going to do the decent thing and assist you. If you will list all my claims relating to subjective morality that you think are absurd and irrational, and explain why each one is absurd and irrational, I will go through them with you.

[Dontaskme]

That just tells me for sure you haven't read them. Even after a cursory reading, you'd know for sure that was obviously not the case. Have you even looked at a single page?

Well you would say something like that wouldn’t you...

Not a relevant response. No matter what I "say," you could open the covers of both books, and within ten seconds you'd know I was telling you the truth, at least superficially. If you had actually read any of either, you'd be embarassed to have said anything so verifiably untrue as "there's no difference."

Have you got a degree in Theology?

You might be very surprised what I have. But that, too, would have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of what I'm telling you right now.

You’re multiple shots of one- upping techniques and tactics are not convincing me of any surprising haves or have nots you may or may not have.

Not one jot.

[Immanuel Can]

If you will list all my claims relating to subjective morality that you think are absurd and irrational, and explain why each one is absurd and irrational, I will go through them with you.

Well, okay.

Let's start with this one, since it's so basic to your view: that "morality" is the same as "feeling."

[FlashDangerpants]

You might be very surprised what I have.

I want to play first. I reckon the most surpirisng things you have are probably:

One incurable case of sexually transmitted diarrhoea
Three German Shepherd's, all called "Bunting"
A signed first edition of 50 Shades of Grey with the particularly dirty bits doodled in all the margins.
Fifteen sister wives.

I am confident at least two of those are spot on, but I'm much less certain about the dogs' name.

[Immanuel Can]

Well you would say something like that wouldn’t you...

Not a relevant response. No matter what I "say," you could open the covers of both books, and within ten seconds you'd know I was telling you the truth, at least superficially. If you had actually read any of either, you'd be embarassed to have said anything so verifiably untrue as "there's no difference."

Have you got a degree in Theology?

You might be very surprised what I have. But that, too, would have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of what I'm telling you right now.

You’re multiple shots of one- upping techniques and tactics are not convincing me of any surprising haves or have nots you may or may not have.

Not one jot.

I'm convinced myself of one thing...you're not prepared to be convinced of any contrary view, under any circumstances. So, I think I'd be wise to, as one old lady I knew used to say, "save my breath to cool my porridge."

[FlashDangerpants]

If you will list all my claims relating to subjective morality that you think are absurd and irrational, and explain why each one is absurd and irrational, I will go through them with you.

Well, okay.

Let's start with this one, since it's so basic to your view: that "morality" is the same as "feeling."

Did that sneaky HArbal run off and become a non-cognitivist when I wasn't looking?
Harbal you rotter.

[Dontaskme]

If you had actually read any of either, you'd be embarassed to have said anything so verifiably untrue as "there's no difference."

Hey everyone can you spot the difference between these two Gods?


1: GOD

2: GOD




Careful not to embarrass yourselves now.

[Harbal]

If you will list all my claims relating to subjective morality that you think are absurd and irrational, and explain why each one is absurd and irrational, I will go through them with you.

Well, okay.

Let's start with this one, since it's so basic to your view: that "morality" is the same as "feeling."

My view is that our moral judgements (judgements about moral issues) are arrived at emotionally, or through sentiment.

For example: if we witness a sweet old lady being punched to the ground and having her purse ripped from her hand by some scruffy young thug, most of us would feel moral outrage, probably even you. That reaction would be instant; we wouldn't run and find a Bible to tell us what our response should be before we came to a decision on the moral status of the situation. We wouldn't have an internal debate with ourselves on the rationality of our feelings about the incident. Unless you are a sociopath, you must have experienced this yourself (not necessarily an incident involving old ladies).

We all have a sense of right and wrong, but we don't all have the same sense of what is right and wrong.

Please explain why you find the above absurd and irrational. I would also be very interested in the opinion of anyone else who reads this, and if it turns out there is a consensus that I am being absurd and irrational, I will seriously re-examine my views.