Is morality objective or subjective?

[henry quirk]

Let's recap...

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

Me: We do. We only differ on details.

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

Harbal: 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.

Me: 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.

I'm not gonna go beyond that.

-----

Now, how about you, IWP?

If you're a moral subjectivist: Why is slavery wrong?

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning, please.

[henry quirk]

Have you ever actually seen IC or VA say that Henry's argument about something is correct? I haven't.[/quote]

Neither have. Neither have to.

]They give him belly rubs by saying that his moral intuation is along the right lines. They might as well appreciate his haircut.

Mannie has never said my moral intuition is along the right lines on anything at all about it. In fact, as I recall, he doesn't think much of moral intuitions.

[Gary Childress]

It's detrimental by the standard of everyone who wishes not to be someone else's slave.

And the slaver should give a damn? Gary doesn't wanna be a slave...why?...no reason beyond it sux...boo hoo, put him back to work.

If a slaver doesn't give a damn about having slaves, then he best be careful he doesn't become one. Because no one he is callous toward is going to care when his turn comes.

[henry quirk]

It's detrimental by the standard of everyone who wishes not to be someone else's slave.

And the slaver should give a damn? Gary doesn't wanna be a slave...why?...no reason beyond it sux...boo hoo, put him back to work.

If the slaver lacks moral motivation under Gary's description of morality, he can lack it under yours too. The slaver doesn't give two hoots if you think it's impossible for you not to know that you own yourself when he has you in chains and he owns the key.

True. At the very least, though, I can tell the slaver why he's wrong. Gary, Harbal, Pete, pro, you: all you got is I don't like it or it sux.

Practically, though, you're right it doesn't matter. But, as a moral realist, I'm not a very practical man. I reckon there's more to my objection than opinion and I'm willing to go to bat for it. You, practical guy you are, you'll go with the flow, get one of them cushy house slave positions.

[Harbal]

Me: 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.

I don't think that is quite how IC sees it.

[henry quirk]

It's detrimental by the standard of everyone who wishes not to be someone else's slave.

And the slaver should give a damn? Gary doesn't wanna be a slave...why?...no reason beyond it sux...boo hoo, put him back to work.

If a slaver doesn't give a damn about having slaves, then he best be careful he doesn't become one. Because no one he is callous toward is going to care when his turn comes.

Obviously, if he gave a damn, thought he was acting immorally, he wouldn't slave folks. Things is: as I say, he'll never agree he should be slaved, even as he affixes prices to men for sale.

And obviously, like the rapist, the murderer, the thief, the slaver never believes the table will turn.

Old joke...

Joe: You'd shoot someone who steals your tv? You value your property more than his life?

Stan: Obviously, the guy who steals my tv values my tv more than he values his own life so I see no reason to disagree with him.

[henry quirk]

Me: 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.

I don't think that is quite how IC sees it.

It's how I see it. You're talkin' to me. You want his take, go to him.

[Iwannaplato]

Let's recap...

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

Me: We do. We only differ on details.

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

Harbal: 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.

Me: 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.

I'm not gonna go beyond that.

His God didn't go anywhere, so it can't be the same deity. His gave him a bunch of morals. Yours did not. You seem to have a fundamental different take on morals - given what I quoted in my previous post, even just the idea about rape. Of course, you don't have to 'go beyond that', but I don't see how you're even on the same page as IC. I do see political and some moral overlaps in what you guys react against, but I can't see that you have anything at all like the same source of morality or the same take on morality. So, I added to the half that Harbal pointed out, the other half.

-----

Now, how about you, IWP?

If you're a moral subjectivist: Why is slavery wrong?

I hate slavery.

Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning, please.

You really need to reason your way to a postion on slavery?

[FlashDangerpants]

And the slaver should give a damn? Gary doesn't wanna be a slave...why?...no reason beyond it sux...boo hoo, put him back to work.

If the slaver lacks moral motivation under Gary's description of morality, he can lack it under yours too. The slaver doesn't give two hoots if you think it's impossible for you not to know that you own yourself when he has you in chains and he owns the key.

True. At the very least, though, I can tell the slaver why he's wrong. Gary, Harbal, Pete, pro, you: all you got is I don't like it or it sux.

Practically, though, you're right it doesn't matter. But, as a moral realist, I'm not a very practical man. I reckon there's more to my objection than opinion and I'm willing to go to bat for it. You, practical guy you are, you'll go with the flow, get one of them cushy house slave positions.

You aren't that practical. You don't really understand this issue at all but you keep plugging away making the same mistake over and over.

I've told you before, but here it is again. All the moral categories are available to everyone who speak in moral language. And with it, all the moral rationalising that is part of speaking moral language. We can all use the words for goodness and badness; fairness and unfairness. If you think your theory gives you greater access to them than anybody else has, you are bad at what you do.

The debate between moral realisms and moral skepticisms (there are a great many of each) cover the logical status of propositions which express claims about those moral categories. Status, not meaning. Again, if you think this interferes with the meaning or intent of those statements, you have fucked up and you are bad at what you do.

It makes no difference whether it is Pete saying "Slavery is wrong" or Henry saying it. It is not a different statement coming from one or the other. Your insistence otherwise tells us only that you are not very good at this stuff.

[henry quirk]

If you think your theory gives you greater access to them than anybody else has, you are bad at what you do.

If you wanted to tell me you don't understand my theory, you couldn't have done a better job of it than with the above.

Anyway, thanks for answering my question.

[Gary Childress]

And the slaver should give a damn? Gary doesn't wanna be a slave...why?...no reason beyond it sux...boo hoo, put him back to work.

If a slaver doesn't give a damn about having slaves, then he best be careful he doesn't become one. Because no one he is callous toward is going to care when his turn comes.

Obviously, if he gave a damn, thought he was acting immorally, he wouldn't slave folks. Things is: as I say, he'll never agree he should be slaved, even as he affixes prices to men for sale.

And obviously, like the rapist, the murderer, the thief, the slaver never believes the table will turn.

Rapists, murderers are a bad lot with or without the existence of a God. Theives are a little more gray area in that if a homeless person steals food from a convenience store, then I don't fault him or her or call her evil. Generally that's what we have social programs for, so that small business owners don't have to pick up the slack when times are tough for some people.

The disconnect seems to be the idea that if one cannot come up with a single definition of "wrong" that fits every possible instance of wrongness, then there's no such thing as wrongness at all. There is no logical imperative that something cannot be what it is unless someone knows why it is what it is. Logic only tells us that certain claims can be made with more certainty than others. The idea that one cannot do something wrong unless there is a God is actually equally self-defeating when it comes to certain groups of people claiming to be on special or "chosen" terms with God. It's a way of granting some the ability to do the otherwise indefensible to someone else.

In other words, IC is full of shit when he says all is permissible if there is no God. Don't listen to him when he says that. And he'll use every dishonest ploy in the book to wrench his God into the equation. Perhaps if IC steals from a convenience store God will make a special exception for him just for saying "praise Jesus" afterward. The only real purpose a God plays in the part of morality which I think most of us can agree to some degree on, is that if there is a God and God is a good God, then God will be a divine judge who will punish the otherwise unpunished and reward the otherwise unrewarded if things don't work out in a just way during life on Earth. That I will concede to. As far as it being impossible for an Atheist to agree to moral imperatives, I see nothing any more problematic in that than the idea of Buddhists or Taoists agreeing that there are moral imperatives. Even John Locke believed that humans have the ability to determine right from wrong. When Locke says "endowed by their creator" it's literally tipping his hat to the clergy of his time who would have denounced him had he claimed not to believe in God. Unfortuantely, people like IC are too enamored with the Bible to even entertain that possibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you think your theory gives you greater access to them than anybody else has, you are bad at what you do.

If you wanted to tell me you don't understand my theory, you couldn't have done a better job of it than with the above.

Anyway, thanks for answering my question.

I inderstand moral philosophy and you don't.

[henry quirk]

I hate slavery.

Why?

You really need to reason your way to a postion on slavery?

I hate it, is that really all there is to it? If so: who cares? Those who profit from it like it a lot. Why are they wrong? They're not wrong, folks just don't wanna be slaves. Meh, they're meat, my meat, sez the slaver.

Anyway: if you have no why behind your I hate slavery, thanks for answering my question.

[henry quirk]

The disconnect seems to be the idea that if one cannot come up with a single definition of "wrong" that fits every possible instance of wrongness, then there's no such thing as wrongness at all.

It's not complicated, everyone knows the score: your life, liberty, and property are yours, full stop. The other's guy's life , liberty, and property are his, full stop.

You have absolute say so about yours and no say so at all about his. He has absolute say so about his and no say so at all about yours.

The disconnect, then, is with all the folks who want their natural rights recognized and respected while they ignore and violate the other guy's.

Of course, as I say, if this is an amoral universe, then anything goes. Do as thou will (and can get away with) is the whole of the law.

Anyway, thanks for answering my question.

[Gary Childress]

You have absolute say so about yours and no say so at all about his.

That is not true. Morality entails that a person ought not do something unnecessary that will knowingly, significantly harm others, even if it's to their own personal benefit. That includes what is known as "greed". Morality is also, arguably, different from social laws in that it serves as a guide telling us what laws ought or ought not be imposed.