Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dubious]

I can sell you on this -- or at least should be able to do so by now, if you're behaving at all in a rational way -- that subjectivism is definitely not the right answer. It has zero moral information on it, so we can rule it out the most easily of the three options, and we can get on with the others.

Wake me up when you've done with nihilism.

So this is what we're left with: either morality is objective, or there's no such thing as morality at all.

Morality can only be objective in its source, that is, in being derived purely from human motives...which also explains how gods are created. Morality reflects the established norms of behavior of a society or civilization. Morality functions as a portrait and no two portraits are the same. In that sense, morality can be deemed objective but only as a function of that society under whose gods morality is mandated.

Ironically it always requires a god, or some such authority, to force a subjective goal into an objective fact.

[iambiguous]

So this is what we're left with: either morality is objective, or there's no such thing as morality at all.

And, indeed, if Mr. Cant was in fact able to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, what possible arguments could the moral perspectivists/subjectivists/relativists propose?

As I noted above, if he is able to demonstrate His existence to me, in a heartbeat I'm born again.



What he refuses to acknowledge however is that most of these folks...

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

...are entirely in agreement with him. Only it is their own God that is the font for objective morality. He's just another religious subjectivist who fails to grasp this. In fact, from their frame of mind, in regard to their God, he is the Atheist. After all, with immortality and salvation on the line, what does it matter if you believe in God if it's the wrong one?

That's why his BFF henry quirk is going to Hell unless he himself comes here to announce that he is "born again".

[Immanuel Can]

Wake me up when you've done with nihilism.

So this is what we're left with: either morality is objective, or there's no such thing as morality at all.

Morality can only be objective in its source, that is, in being derived purely from human motives...which also explains how gods are created.

That explanation won't work.

"Human motives" are nearly as many as there are, or have been, human beings. So if that were the orientation point of morality, we would not be able to say anything at all about what morality is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

If evil is an inherent potential in humans, eliminating that source would eliminate the knowledge that evil is being commited.
So where do you imagine this 'other' source of evil is going to rear-up from... if and when the human source is eliminated?

From what I read if you proposed we limit the birth of people from a group of people who are evidently evil, e.g. say those who are member of the Nazi Party or perhaps Germans then.

The above approach is not effective and perhaps immoral because within the Nazi members there are inherently good people who had no choice but for optimality sake joined the Nazi party to facilitate their well-being.
Another problem is how do you determine who is evil and who is not to impose birth control on them?

Now even, if you got prevented birth of all Nazi then, it will not work because evil will rear its ugly head elsewhere.
Note ISIS, Pol Pot and genocides from other groups that appeared after the Nazi party was dismembered.

Thus the control of 'birth' is not an effective approach to mitigate evil.

I'll ask you again, and this time do not drag ISIS, Nazi's and the Pol pots into this mess.


If evil is an inherent potential in humans, aka ( the potential source of evil ) surely wouldn't it just be obvious and logical to assume that by eliminating every last drop of that source from the face of the earth ( sorry to be so blunt ) that would be a sure way to eliminate the very knowledge held by humans that the potential for evil is within every human being.

I'm talking about eliminating the source of evil, the knowing/knower of evil. If there was no one to know evil, then would evil ever be an actual event that happens?

Does my cat know evil, does the mouse he caught and tossed around it's jaws until it's slow horrible death know evil? That's what I'm talking about. The knowledge of evil. The knowing / knower of evil.

You wrote earlier,

DAM: The only way to kill the root of the problem of evil is to stop giving birth to entities who will also become subject to the knowledge of evil passed onto them by the people who came before them who told them about it.

I stated, controlling by evil acts or knowledge of evil by controlling birth to the specific people is not effective.

The point is the potential to evil [as defined] is inherently via evolution in ALL humans; as such there is no way we can eliminate the last drop of what you proposed.
E.g. "killing" of living things is a critical necessity for humans, i.e. to kill for non-humans for food and self-defense. This neural program is embedded deep in the neural structure of the human brain which is impossible to eliminate totally.
At present they are kept in check and modulated by inhibitors and the higher brain.
This is where ISIS, Nazi's and the Pol pots are relevant where the modulators are weakened.

The most effective ways to control evil in this case is to strengthen the modulators and the inhibitors of every human being.

Does my cat know evil, does the mouse he caught and tossed around it's jaws until it's slow horrible death know evil? That's what I'm talking about. The knowledge of evil. The knowing / knower of evil.

Getting rid of the knowledge of evil from humans [e.g. let them be like tigers] cannot be effective.
If humans do not know and talk of the knowledge of evil [like tigers], but if for some reason, humans are killing each other [like tigers eating humans] via mass murders and genocides, the human species will be extinct in no time.
What sort of morality is that?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

That is due to your non-reading.
I already responded that Blackburn misread that Kant's ethics is purely and literally deontological with rigid maxims.

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 Berlin's views agreed with Kant's and it counter mine, which specifically?
I am very interested in any views that counter my views.

[FlashDangerpants]

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?

That is due to your non-reading.
I already responded that Blackburn misread that Kant's ethics is purely and literally deontological with rigid maxims.

Where did he write that? I don't see it.

If Berlin's views agreed with Kant's and it counter mine, which specifically?
I am very interested in any views that counter my views.

What I actually said was that any good philosopher writes contrary to your views. Your views are mad. Berlin wrote serious high quality literature and you write bozo bullshit for idiots. That's just the way things are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you ever actually seen IC or VA say that Henry's argument about something is correct? I haven't.
They give him belly rubs by saying that his moral intuition is along the right lines. They might as well appreciate his haircut.

Neither have. Neither have to.

I have stated your morality is based on intuition with reference to "moral intuition" but your is more like Moral Sentiments or Moral Sense.
Thus your views has some reputable backers.
Good thing if you get an idea of these philosophers your can refer to, to back up your moral views.

Moral Intuitionism vs Moral Sentimentalism
viewtopic.php?t=41095

• "Noted Henry's ethical views had been brought up in discussion.
  I had classified Henry's view as Moral Intuitionism, i.e. his views are intuitive, i.e. without verified and justified proofs.
  However, upon deeper reflection that is not the case, rather Henry's view is more to Moral Sentimentalism or Moral Sense which is promoted by Hume, Adam Smith, Hutcheson and the like.
  
  Here's ChatGpt [with reservation] relieving me of a lot of effort in researching and explaining: "

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

That is due to your non-reading.
I already responded that Blackburn misread that Kant's ethics is purely and literally deontological with rigid maxims.

Where did he write that? I don't see it.

If Berlin's views agreed with Kant's and it counter mine, which specifically?
I am very interested in any views that counter my views.

What I actually said was that any good philosopher writes contrary to your views. Your views are mad. Berlin wrote serious high quality literature and you write bozo bullshit for idiots. That's just the way things are.

Cheapo

[Iwannaplato]

rather Henry's view is more to Moral Sentimentalism or Moral Sense which is promoted by Hume, Adam Smith, Hutcheson and the like.

I don't think Henry would go along with Hume's Moral Sentimentalism since he recognized that culturan and convention played a strong role in the formation of morals: that is, he did not see a universal moral code. Henry does not see things this way. It's wrong, period, who cares what another culture thinks. (if I'm mistaken, Henry, let me know)

[Veritas Aequitas]

rather Henry's view is more to Moral Sentimentalism or Moral Sense which is promoted by Hume, Adam Smith, Hutcheson and the like.

I don't think Henry would go along with Hume's Moral Sentimentalism since he recognized that culturan and convention played a strong role in the formation of morals: that is, he did not see a universal moral code. Henry does not see things this way. It's wrong, period, who cares what another culture thinks. (if I'm mistaken, Henry, let me know)

There are significant commonalities up to a point between Henry's moral views with Moral Sentimentalism and Moral Sense as promoted by Hume.
The major difference is Hume did not know fully where these sentiments spring from [thus his skepticism on this aspect]; Henry's view would that they are from his deistic God.

[Dubious]

That explanation won't work.

It works perfectly just not for a theist whose edifice of belief requires an objectivity impossible to obtain and in the process justify itself. Not least, when can belief, whatever its content, ever be qualified as objective except that which is merely "claimed to be" by a thoroughly distorted belief system? That which is truly objective doesn't require, among the thousands of beliefs contained within the inventory of the human psyche, a single instance of it. Therefore, morality can never be claimed to be objective based on the meaning the word actually denotes. The ONLY thing which accords as objective about the bible is the knowledge that it was written, and its contents supervised by humans. That much, at least, is historical fact.

"Human motives" are nearly as many as there are, or have been, human beings. So if that were the orientation point of morality, we would not be able to say anything at all about what morality is.

Exactly! Morality exists only as a consensus within a group however large or small that group may be. The more extensive the society, the more objective its values appear within it causing any conception of an objective morality defaulting to an oxymoron.

An objective morality exists only as an empty set to be filled based on the values, rituals, and customs of the groups in question the study of which can take a lifetime to master.

[Iwannaplato]

There are significant commonalities up to a point between Henry's moral views with Moral Sentimentalism and Moral Sense as promoted by Hume.
The major difference is Hume did not know fully where these sentiments spring from [thus his skepticism on this aspect]; Henry's view would that they are from his deistic God.

What are the commonalities and Hume's take on Moral Sentimentalism?

[Immanuel Can]

That explanation won't work.

It works perfectly...

No, it doesn't work for anybody, regardless of what one believes. It fails to deliver any information about morality.

"Human motives" are nearly as many as there are, or have been, human beings. So if that were the orientation point of morality, we would not be able to say anything at all about what morality is.

Exactly!

Then essentially, you must be a nihilist, whether you know it or not: you don't think any statements can be made about morality at all, since we have no information about what is genuinely moral and what is not. The most you can assume is that they very word "moral" means nothing other than "the combined prejudice of a local group," and for only as long as that "group" (culture, nation, region, whatever) does not change its mind. And such a thing is only enforced by the power of whatever mob backs it, not by any rightness, reasons, or actual moral value.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are significant commonalities up to a point between Henry's moral views with Moral Sentimentalism and Moral Sense as promoted by Hume.
The major difference is Hume did not know fully where these sentiments spring from [thus his skepticism on this aspect]; Henry's view would that they are from his deistic God.

What are the commonalities and Hume's take on Moral Sentimentalism?

Read this
Moral Intuitionism vs Moral Sentimentalism
viewtopic.php?t=41095

[Iwannaplato]

There are significant commonalities up to a point between Henry's moral views with Moral Sentimentalism and Moral Sense as promoted by Hume.
The major difference is Hume did not know fully where these sentiments spring from [thus his skepticism on this aspect]; Henry's view would that they are from his deistic God.

What are the commonalities and Hume's take on Moral Sentimentalism?

Read this
Moral Intuitionism vs Moral Sentimentalism
viewtopic.php?t=41095

I did read that earlier. If you look at it, I don't think you'll find anywhere you explain what Henry's moral views are. You label them, and in a way he doesn't seem to. I'm not saying you're wrong. It's just when I read Hume's Sentimentalism it seemed quite different from the positions Henry has taken, including those in relation to me. So specifically, what are the overlaps. Could be anything. Specific moral beliefs, ideals about the univeralism of morals, the objectivity, how one determines what the morals are. But when I looked at Hume it seemed very different from Henry. Of course, I have found posts of his that seem to deny morals exist at all, so perhaps you and I have interacted with Henry's very different (contradictory?) explanations of his morals.