What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Pete, I appreciate your mini-essay. I'd appreciate it even more if you could tell me why you personally think slavery is wrong. Unless my memory fails, you have, multiple times, said slavery is wrong. I just wanna know why you, Peter Holmes, moral subjectivist, think slavery is wrong.

Please, give me your reasoning.

Slavery harms people. And I think we should try to help others, rather than harm them.

Repost, slightly edited...

Harmful by what standard? Certainly not a moral one that argues for individual dignity and sovereignty (becuz if morality is just personal and aggregated cultural opinion then what constitutes dignity and sovereignty is just opinion).

Just stop there, Henry. If our aggregated cultural opinion is that it's morally right to promote individual dignity and sovereignty - and morally wrong to diminish them - then that is our moral standard. And - of course - what constitutes individual dignity and sovereignty is a matter of personal and aggregated cultural opinion as well - as the argument over abortion demonstrates.

Why are you so determined to dis and dismiss collective moral opinions (beliefs, values and judgements) that human communities have evolved and developed over millennia, for good/strong reasons - and therefore rationally? Opinions - individual and collective - need not be irrational.

[henry quirk]

If our aggregated cultural opinion is that it's morally right to promote individual dignity and sovereignty - and morally wrong to diminish them - then that is our moral standard.

As a moral subjectivist that's your take. And as a moral subjectivist If our aggregated cultural opinion is that it's morally right to enslave a portion of the population to service another portion - and morally wrong to oppose this slavery or the standard (race, economic status, genetic fitness, take your pick) by which one man is free and another is not - then that is our moral standard, yes?

Why are you so determined to dis and dismiss collective moral opinions (beliefs, values and judgements) that human communities have evolved and developed over millennia, for good/strong reasons - and therefore rationally? Opinions - individual and collective - need not be irrational.

Simply: I do not believe a person's right to his life, liberty, and property is opinion. I do not believe this right, dare I say, exclusive moral claim, is a matter of, or subject to, opinion. I do not believe your natural rights are gifted to you by law or society. I do not believe your moral claim to yourself, to your self-direction, to that which you create or fairly transact for, ceases becuz others choose not to recognize or respect your claim.

Opinions - I like meat on my pizza, not veggies -- are one thing. Enslaving, murdering, raping, robbing a man is not a matter of opinion. It's violation. It's immorality.

[henry quirk]

No, I've said quite a bit more than nobody wants to be a slave.

Yes you have, but I left all the rubbish out, and just credited you with the bit that makes sense.

No, nobody wants to be a slave is an empty statement. Who cares what you want? The gov sez you'll serve in the military and you will or you'll be jailed. In an amoral universe, how can you object beyond I don't wanna?

Putin and Zelinsky(sic) both conscript. Here there's talk of conscription. Can you object? I can. I can tell you exactly why it's wrong.

But you don't wanna hear all that nonsense, so I leave you to your subjectivism.

And, thanks again for answering my question. It's what I expected it would be (as all of them, so far, have been).

[Harbal]

No, I've said quite a bit more than nobody wants to be a slave.

Yes you have, but I left all the rubbish out, and just credited you with the bit that makes sense.

No, nobody wants to be a slave is an empty statement. Who cares what you want?

I care what I want.

The gov sez you'll serve in the military and you will or you'll be jailed. In an amoral universe, how can you object beyond I don't wanna?

Well the universe wouldn't intervene, would it? so that suggests it is amoral; it doesn't care.

Putin and Zelinsky(sic) both conscript. Here there's talk of conscription. Can you object? I can. I can tell you exactly why it's wrong.

I can tell you why it's wrong, but there isn't a rule, or a law, out there in the universe that's going to back me up.

But you don't wanna hear all that nonsense, so I leave you to your subjectivism.

Realising that morality is subjective does not prevent me from holding moral opinions that are just as strong as any of your moral beliefs. I condemn slavery because I think it is wrong, not because I think the universe or God thinks it is wrong, yet I don't condemn it any less fervently than you do.

[Dontaskme]

Realising that morality is subjective does not prevent me from holding moral opinions that are just as strong as any of your moral beliefs.

Well put H

Human perception is subjective because no one individual can interpret another's perception.
So even the strongly held religious morals claimed by humans to have received those morals from God, are wholly subjective based on their believe in such an entity.

God comes from human belief. Belief does not come from God, God is a belief, and all beliefs are subjective.
A belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case. A subjective attitude is a mental state of having some stance, take, or opinion about something. In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.

Conclusion, moral beliefs can NEVER be a moral objective truth.

[FlashDangerpants]

But you don't wanna hear all that nonsense, so I leave you to your subjectivism.

Realising that morality is subjective does not prevent me from holding moral opinions that are just as strong as any of your moral beliefs. I condemn slavery because I think it is wrong, not because I think the universe or God thinks it is wrong, yet I don't condemn it any less fervently than you do.

It also gives you an advantage. You can absorb new moral arguments and be persuaded to alter your beliefs. Henry and IC have to tell God to change his mind about something before they can do so. Not that this is beyond their powers, God is well known for always believing what Immanuel Can tells him to, I'm sure he extends the same service to Henry.

[iambiguous]

I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.

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.

Slavery -- including wage slavery? -- has been deemed right or wrong down through the ages by men and women who were able to think themselves into believing what they did about it. And still today:

https://www.google.com/search?q=slavery ... s-wiz-serp

"I" think it's wrong "here and now" for reasons embedded in my own accumulation of personal experiences. Political prejudices rooted in dasein I call them. Others rationalize it given their own personal experiences.

And then the sociopaths who engage in "human trafficking" -- including sex slaves -- because as far as they are concerned human morality revolves around their own entirely selfish wants and needs.

Go ahead, henry, see if you can "reason" them out of thinking that way.

Also, there are any number of men and women who want to be slaves. They hook up with others who want to be masters.

[Harbal]

Henry and IC have to tell God to change his mind about something before they can do so. Not that this is beyond their powers, God is well known for always believing what Immanuel Can tells him to, I'm sure he extends the same service to Henry.

Yes, I think we are talking about an old boys network here.

[Harbal]

Realising that morality is subjective does not prevent me from holding moral opinions that are just as strong as any of your moral beliefs.

Well put H

Yes, I thought so, too

[iambiguous]

The gov sez you'll serve in the military and you will or you'll be jailed. In an amoral universe, how can you object beyond I don't wanna?

On the other hand, had those 10 million men not been drafted into the U.S. Army during the Second World War, it's not out of the question that Hitler might have prevailed, and we'd all be speaking German now. Sieg Heil?

Now, I was drafted into the Army to fight the Commies in Vietnam. But that was a considerably more problematic slavery to many.

The irony then being that while over there I met soldiers who reconfigured me from a conservative Christian into a radical left-wing atheist.

The part I root in dasein and those like henry and many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...root in their own God and No God rendition of objectivism.

[Peter Holmes]

If our aggregated cultural opinion is that it's morally right to promote individual dignity and sovereignty - and morally wrong to diminish them - then that is our moral standard.

As a moral subjectivist that's your take. And as a moral subjectivist If our aggregated cultural opinion is that it's morally right to enslave a portion of the population to service another portion - and morally wrong to oppose this slavery or the standard (race, economic status, genetic fitness, take your pick) by which one man is free and another is not - then that is our moral standard, yes?

Yes. But the fact that we have a moral belief/standard doesn't make that belief a fact - which is what you, as a moral objectivist - insist is the case.

Until very recently in human history, such things as slavery, the subjugation of women and the persecution of homosexuals were considered morally acceptable - not morally wrong. But our collective moral standard has changed - though slowly and not in the least uniformly.

It's moral objectivists who believe there can be no moral development - because there are moral facts which have nothing to do with opinion - who feel justified in opposing moral development. 'There are moral facts, and I happen to know what they are'.

Arrogance and egotism disguised as indignant virtue.

[Skepdick]

Yes. But the fact that we have a moral belief/standard doesn't make that belief a fact - which is what you, as a moral objectivist - insist is the case.

So what makes the widely-spread belief that Paris is the capital of France a fact? Which you, as a moral subjectivist - insist is the case.

Perhaps you are claiming that the English sentence "Paris is the capital of France" does NOT express a fact?

Please account for your double standard, otherwise we can't proceed.

[Peter Holmes]

I suggest we need to clarify the use of the words belief and fact. And I apologise for contributing to the confusion. I wrote the following:

'...the fact that we have a moral belief/standard doesn't make that belief a fact - which is what [moral objectivists] insist is the case.'

What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And a factual assertion - typically a linguistic expression - says that a feature of reality is or was the case - which is why it may be (classically) true or false.

By contrast, what we call a belief is the acceptance or agreement that something is or was (or will be) the case, or that a factual assertion is true or false. So, though it need not be, it can be confusing to call a belief true or false, because acceptance and rejection (belief and disbelief) have no truth-value.

So - to untangle what I wrote.

1 It can be a fact that we have a moral belief, such as that X is morally wrong. So the factual assertion 'we believe X is morally wrong' can be true or false. If we do believe it, then the assertion is true, because it asserts a feature of reality that is the case - that we believe something is the case.

2 But the moral assertion 'X is morally wrong' is separate and independent from the factual assertion 'we believe X is morally wrong', just as the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is separate and independent from the factual assertion 'we believe water is H2O'.

3 So. The fact that we believe X is the case does not make it a fact that X is the case. If X is the case, then our belief or disbelief that X is the case is irrelevant. For example, that (one city called) Paris is the capital of France is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case.

4 Moral objectivists claim that an assertion such as 'homosexuality is morally wrong' asserts a fact - a feature of reality that just is the case, regardless of anyone's belief - so that the assertion 'homosexuality is morally wrong' has a (classical) truth-value: true.

5 So, to rewrite: The fact that we have a moral belief does not mean that what we believe is indeed the case. (And I reckon that should be acceptable for everyone - objectivists as well as subjectivists.)

[Harbal]

1 It can be a fact that we have a moral belief, such as that X is morally wrong. So the factual assertion 'we believe X is morally wrong' can be true or false. If we do believe it, then the assertion is true, because it asserts a feature of reality that is the case - that we believe something is the case.

2 But the moral assertion 'X is morally wrong' is separate and independent from the factual assertion 'we believe X is morally wrong', just as the factual assertion 'water is H2O' is separate and independent from the factual assertion 'we believe water is H2O'.

3 So. The fact that we believe X is the case does not make it a fact that X is the case. If X is the case, then our belief or disbelief that X is the case is irrelevant. For example, that (one city called) Paris is the capital of France is a fact - a feature of reality that is the case.

4 Moral objectivists claim that an assertion such as 'homosexuality is morally wrong' asserts a fact - a feature of reality that just is the case, regardless of anyone's belief - so that the assertion 'homosexuality is morally wrong' has a (classical) truth-value: true.

5 So, to rewrite: The fact that we have a moral belief does not mean that what we believe is indeed the case. (And I reckon that should be acceptable for everyone - objectivists as well as subjectivists.)

The fact that you feel it necessary to spell all this out highlights the problem that has persisted all the way through this thread. In order to have any argument at all, those promoting the idea of objective morality are forced to misrepresent and distort what people have said, and apply definitions to words and terms that are different to the ones generally accepted. Dishonesty is obviously not a moral issue in the world of objective morality.

[Peter Holmes]

In order to have any argument at all, those promoting the idea of objective morality are forced to misrepresent and distort what people have said, and apply definitions to words and terms that are different to the ones generally accepted.

Hadn't thought of it as starkly as that - but you have a point.

Dishonesty is obviously not a moral issue in the world of objective morality.