Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Some wise questions for you IC

What wisdom says, is "Don't bother answering her."

Seems like a reasonably straightforward intelligent question to ask you Mr Dodge Y

Sorry: it's conceptually absurd. It doesn't even recognize what, analytically, a Supreme Being or First Cause must necessarily consist in.

What it demonstrates is that you don't even understand the most basic things about the concept "God," really. Now, I could go back to Sunday School basics, and explain even the first things about the concept to you, but it's clear you've been lazy about that, and I'm disinclined to put more effort into a conversation than you've put into formulating your question.

So you might do some basic research on your own, and figure out a question worthy of this forum...or don't, as you please.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course different people have different emotions over the same situation, that's the point.

Then it's obvious: we can't learn anything reliable about the moral status of an action, person or situation out of mere emotions. They don't remain constant or hold still long enough for us to know anything from them.

Harbal hates cold-blooded murder. Hamas loves it. What is the moral status of cold-blooded murder?

[Immanuel Can]

As a moral subjectivist: he has no reason not to outside of personal preference and fear of reprisal.

So if he supposes he can get away with it, and he wants to, then it's not immoral. And afterward, nobody can explain why they would have any right to incarcerate him either, since he will have done nothing immoral.

Maybe the kind of thinking that it takes to make somebody a Hamas terrorist isn't so hard to find after all.

If you two guys could only agree on where objective morality comes from, you would make a very formidable team.

We might not be as far apart on that as you might at first imagine. And that fact would account for our similar conclusions about various moral situations, wouldn't it?

[henry quirk]

Do you slit the throats of people you find obnoxious?

As a moral subjectivist: he has no reason not to outside of personal preference and fear of reprisal.

*So if he supposes he can get away with it, and he wants to, then it's not immoral. And afterward, nobody can explain why they would have any right to incarcerate him either, since he will have done nothing immoral.

Maybe the kind of thinking that it takes to make somebody a **Hamas terrorist isn't so hard to find after all.

*Well, it's not moral or immoral. If his opinion, and fear of reprisal, is all there is to his, or anyone's, morality, then, literally, anything goes. Like pro, H can't say slavery is wrong. He can only say in my opinion slavery is wrong or I don't like it or it sux. Now, the slaver may not be moved by my argument a person's life, liberty, and property belong solely to that person so it's wrong to slave him but he won't even notice H's or pro's don't slave me bro! I don't like it!

**While I certainly have an opinion on all that (and a moral position too) I can't see any profit in voicing it here. It wouid be just one more thing everyone would disagree with me on.

[Harbal]

Of course different people have different emotions over the same situation, that's the point.

Then it's obvious: we can't learn anything reliable about the moral status of an action, person or situation out of mere emotions. They don't remain constant or hold still long enough for us to know anything from them.

Harbal hates cold-blooded murder. Hamas loves it. What is the moral status of cold-blooded murder?

For most ordinary people, the moral issues that arise in their daily lives are usually things like, should I declare all my income to the tax man; is it okay to watch pornography online while the wife is out shopping or is it wrong to eat meat; that sort of stuff, so why do you keep going on about the throats of babies being cut? You keep saying it because it has an emotional impact, and I find it extremely ironic that you resort to making an emotional appeal to our moral sensibility as a persuasive tactic thinking it somehow gives weight to your argument that emotions are irrelevant to morality. You are undermining yourself.

[henry quirk]

"Good to know where you stand."

I'm dismissed then? Nice! This reminds me of one of those half days at school where u get there in the morning and pretend to do your work when you're really only watchin the clock ready to get da fuk outta there.

I didn't dismiss you. I asked a question. You answered (using, I think, far more words than necessary). Transaction complete.

[Harbal]

So if he supposes he can get away with it, and he wants to, then it's not immoral. And afterward, nobody can explain why they would have any right to incarcerate him either, since he will have done nothing immoral.

Maybe the kind of thinking that it takes to make somebody a Hamas terrorist isn't so hard to find after all.

If you two guys could only agree on where objective morality comes from, you would make a very formidable team.

We might not be as far apart on that as you might at first imagine. And that fact would account for our similar conclusions about various moral situations, wouldn't it?

What henry believes is going to land him in Hell, when you will be in eternal paradise. How much further apart can you get?

[henry quirk]

If you two guys could only agree on where objective morality comes from, you would make a very formidable team.

We do. We only differ on details.

[henry quirk]

And then what it is. They have some tendencies to the same side of the spectrum, but what do they do on issues they disagree on?

Mannie is Christian, I'm a deist. That sums up the differences.

[Harbal]

Now, the slaver may not be moved by my argument a person's life, liberty, and property belong solely to that person so it's wrong to slave him

That isn't an argument, henry, it is merely an assertion.

[FlashDangerpants]

I had a quick review of where Isaiah Berlin stand re Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/

It's all just books you haven't read at this moment isn't it? You didn't read those chapters of Blackburn either, did you?

I had converted Blackburn's two book 'Ruling Passion' and Essays to Words and formatted them nicely for speed reading.
It would a waste of my effort if I had not read what is relevant [at present] from the two Blackburn book.
As mentioned I have read Ruling Passion's Preface, Introduction Chapter 7&8 and 9:5.
As for Essay I have read the Intro and 'Moral Realism'.
Generally, one can get a quick idea of the theme of what is read, but I would not claim I am an expert in this case.
If you have strong counter I will read the relevant or the whole book.

This speed reading technique of yours... is it why you are so bad at reading?

You are unable to say anything specific about what Blackburn wrote that is wrong. Why is that?

Should I presume that when your bring 'Isaiah Berlin' to my attention, that there is something in his writing that would counter my claims re Morality is Objective?

Every good philosoher who covers ethics even tangentially writes something that is counter to your claims. Berlin was an excellent philosopher.

I have 60+ files in my "Critiques of CPR" files.

Id didn't say they counter Kant's claims, I said they counter yours. Which is relevant to you asking if Berlin counters YOU. You need to comprehend what people write. Or at least stop forgetting what it is that you wrote and they answered.

If there is nothing significant that will counter my claims, then it is not worthwhile for me to read up Berlin's book.

That you would supopose it a waste of your valuable time to read him does you little credit. You must be remarkably conceited to think you are too important for one of the greats.

As stated, I have 60+ files in my "Critiques of CPR" files which would cover those very serious counter of Kant's CPR.
Berlin had not come within my radar from my survey.

Nor did I say that Berlin argues AGAINST Kant... he was very much a Kantian. Please read at a speed that lets you take in other people's words.

If Berlin has very significant counters, he would have been referred by the other Critiques or countered by pro-Kantian.
It is noted Berlin's focus is on the Neo-Kantians where many had bastardized Kant's philosophy; they are those who are dragged into the whirlpool of illusions as warned by Kant in;

Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. CPR B397

I'm smart enough to see good in things I don't agree with. Value Pluralism is a very good theory, I can maybe go with it, or with some form of it. But I did actually mention Berlin because of his great many call backs to Kant.

Since you mentioned Berlin, I have given him some attention since I am always focused on looking out for strong critiques of Kant's philosophy.
But I noted there are no serious and significant counters from Berlin.

I, as an educated reader of philosophy am telling you, as a self taught monster, to just read some good philosophy books. This is good advice and you should follow it, although you should take your time, speed reading is evidently harmful for you. You don't need to know whether the author is on your side or not because none of them is. You just need to get better at the subject. Berlin would be an excellent place for you to start. Balckburn is fine too.

From ChatGpt [with reservations];



If the above is true, then based on the first para above
"instead, he embraced the idea that there are irreducible and conflicting values, and different individuals or cultures may legitimately hold different and irreconcilable values"
then, Berlin's philosophical view is a FSK-ed view based on different individuals' or cultural FSKs.

A little bit, yes. Imagine if that FSK theory was proposed by a sane person who didn't want to proceed to a megalomaniacal project to create one FSK to rule them all. Somebody who sees the incommensurable nature of conflicting moral desires and rather than saying "I shall dominate them with my perfect one size eats all moral FSK", instead just observes how things actually are.

There's an awful lot there for you to learn from if you read books and learn from them. But what you are going to do is declare Berlin one of your greatest fans because you think he FSKs aren't you?

You understand what is "system theory" which in inherent in reality.
Even Blackburn mentioned 'inputs and outputs' which implied "system."

Systems theory is the transdisciplinary[1] study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent components that can be natural or human-made. Every system has causal boundaries, is influenced by its context, defined by its structure, function and role, and expressed through its relations with other systems. A system is "more than the sum of its parts" by expressing synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Thus my proposed of a Framework and System to cover [not rule] all of reality is not invalid nor unsound, i.e. Framework and System of Realization [emergence of reality] and Knowledge.
Note the mentioned of 'emergence' in the above quote.

Your denier of my FSK approach in the light of 'System Theory' indicate your ignorance of reality from this perspective.

Either you reject "system theory" or you counter my FSK has nothing to do with "system theory".
"Framework" is critical to identify what type of 'system' and sub-system is involved.

Your FSK theory is a mess. That's just the way things are.

[Harbal]

If you two guys could only agree on where objective morality comes from, you would make a very formidable team.

We do. We only differ on details.

The God of the Bible is basic and essential to IC's view of morality, so if you don't believe in that particular God, you're not on the same page at all.

[henry quirk]

Now, the slaver may not be moved by my argument a person's life, liberty, and property belong solely to that person so it's wrong to slave him

That isn't an argument, henry, it is merely an assertion.

One I've backed up with evidences, multiple times. I could have restated them all. Why bother? This is a throwaway conversation. I'm not gonna put myself out on a throwaway.

[Dontaskme]

What wisdom says, is "Don't bother answering her."

Seems like a reasonably straightforward intelligent question to ask you Mr Dodge Y

Sorry: it's conceptually absurd. It doesn't even recognize what, analytically, a Supreme Being or First Cause must necessarily consist in.

What it demonstrates is that you don't even understand the most basic things about the concept "God," really. Now, I could go back to Sunday School basics, and explain even the first things about the concept to you, but it's clear you've been lazy about that, and I'm disinclined to put more effort into a conversation than you've put into formulating your question.

So you might do some basic research on your own, and figure out a question worthy of this forum...or don't, as you please.

You're the one who insists there is a God, not me.

I'm simply pointing out that you must explain what you're idea of God is to everyone, which you obviously can't. I've tried to prize it out of you, but you back off everytime I approach you on the subject, and then you have the audacity to blame me for a lazy lack of knowledge of a God I have only heard of as a concept with meaning as I found it to be written in a dictionary, and yet that very said God has NEVER been my actual experience, just as the concept of Leprechaun has never been my experience.


So yeah, just more deflection from you, as always, you are the jack of all deflections, but sadly, the master of none.

I understand the conceptual meaning of the man-made word God...it's in the damn dictionary, any fool knows that.

According to human understanding of the concept...God is a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

That's all that is known about the concept of God. But so what, so are we just obliged to go along with that definition, and that's the end of it...
Ok then, it's fine, we'll all just agree that reality is possible, because God did it.. that's all folks, what a lovely story.

The story goes on to say, you're allowed to know you are a child of God, and that God is you're Father, but under no circumstances are you allowed to know you're original biological Father, and you know why that is, it's because it's a secret that only IC knows about, and he has promised not to spill the secret to anyone else. He just says to you go and find out for yourself you lazy fuckers.

But, we all know IC doesn't really know who the very first original biological Father to all earthly being is, if he did know, he would be able to explain it in words, which he can't. This Poor Can really is just a really really poor Can't.

[henry quirk]

If you two guys could only agree on where objective morality comes from, you would make a very formidable team.

We do. We only differ on details.

The God of the Bible is basic and essential to IC's view of morality, so if you don't believe in that particular God, you're not on the same page at all.

I reckon God is God no matter what particular take any of us have on Him. Mannie's got his take, I got mine: God stays the same no matter what we think or how we differ.

But you don't believe God exists, so it ain't your concern now, is it?