Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

The consideration of morality is specific only to chattel-slavery and not other moral elements.
Henry do not believe 'no killing of humans' is an absolute or categorical imperative.

That Henry believes 'slavery is wrong - period' is based on some strong feelings [intuitive] that slaves [chattel] are sufferings from being chattel-slaves when they are owned as a property by another human.
These strong feelings are what Hume had identified as sentiments.
On this basis, sense and only pertaining to chattel slavery, Henry moral view is common with Hume's.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

The consideration of morality is specific only to chattel-slavery and not other moral elements.
Henry do not believe 'no killing of humans' is an absolute or categorical imperative.

That Henry believes 'slavery is wrong - period' is based on some strong feelings [intuitive] that slaves [chattel] are sufferings from being chattel-slaves when they are owned as a property by another human.
These strong feelings are what Hume had identified as sentiments.
On this basis, sense and only pertaining to chattel slavery, Henry moral view is common with Hume's.

Except Henry thinks it's universal and Hume did not. Further, when I told Henry why I am against slavery - that I hate it based on feelings of empathy for the slaves - he wanted reasoning. That was not reason enough for him - and I kept asking him if he needed to reason his way to being against slavery. IOW sentiment, in the Humean sense, was not enough for Henry.

[Harbal]

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. But we've dispensed with the possibility that it can be "subjective," and you're not entertaining "nihilism" either, so that means that some form of objectivism is the only possible answer.

I know there is no such thing as absolute moral truth, so we have dispensed with the possibility of that as far as I am concerned, but I'm not infallible, I could be wrong. On the other hand, the existence of subjective morality cannot credibly be denied. I have given you some of my own subjective moral opinions -one of which you found reprehensible- so you have witnessed the phenomenon at first hand, yourself. So please stop this stupidity of refusing to acknowledge things that are beyond any doubt. You are behaving like a child who is determined to have his own way, no matter what.

Generally speaking, people have personal (subjective) opinions on, and attitudes towards, moral issues. This is undeniable. Just pick a moral issue, say abortion, and randomly ask a bunch of people if they have an opinion on it. Most, if not all, will have an opinion on it, and that is what a moral opinion is; an opinion about a moral issue. "Moral opinion" does not mean morally good opinion, it just means an opinion about a moral issue.

If you are refusing to acknowledge that this is the case, then there is no point in discussing the subject of morality with you at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

The consideration of morality is specific only to chattel-slavery and not other moral elements.
Henry do not believe 'no killing of humans' is an absolute or categorical imperative.

That Henry believes 'slavery is wrong - period' is based on some strong feelings [intuitive] that slaves [chattel] are sufferings from being chattel-slaves when they are owned as a property by another human.
These strong feelings are what Hume had identified as sentiments.
On this basis, sense and only pertaining to chattel slavery, Henry moral view is common with Hume's.

Except Henry thinks it's universal and Hume did not. Further, when I told Henry why I am against slavery - that I hate it based on feelings of empathy for the slaves - he wanted reasoning. That was not reason enough for him - and I kept asking him if he needed to reason his way to being against slavery. IOW sentiment, in the Humean sense, was not enough for Henry.

I believe Henry's reasoning is based on his feelings [intuitive] and observations plus information on the experiences of slaves.
No matter how Henry reasoned it has to be based or related to his feelings [intuitively] and sentiments, definitely NOT on a matter of fact nor empirical proofs.
If he cannot produce empirical proofs re science [which not likely], his reasoning must fall back on his intuitions, feelings and sentiments.
If not the case, I will have to revise my views.

[Dontaskme]

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.

The over harvesting of anything living and growing on planet earth, including trees, weeds, animals, fish, birds and humans is the root cause of habitat loss,overcrowding living conditions,and depleting resources for humans and animals alike. Naturally, the weaker of the animal species including humans will force upon them a possible slow extinction due to the competition for survival dominance. And then there is the effect of climate changes and wild weather patterns to add to the struggles that already exist for living creatures.

What sort of morality is that?

A significant reducing of the human population is a moral thing to do where human suffering and pain is concerned. The animals just eat each other to keep their populations down, and it seems that's the way humanity is heading too, unless it reduces the urge to reproduce.
Human have an advantage, they know that less is more without resorting to eating each other like the animals do. That's because humans know what morality means.


.

[Dontaskme]

For most ordinary people, the moral issues that arise in their daily lives are usually things like, is it okay to watch pornography online while the wife is out shopping

I'm thinking maybe in IC's personal internal world of subjectiving thinking, he's probably petitioning right now as we speak for all pornographic magazines like ''Playboy, Penthouse or Mayfair'' to name but a few, to come with a serious warning message that they could potentially be harmful, like the warnings shown on cigarette packets. I mean come on, pornograpghy must be having a harmful effect on the watcher / reader, surely?

[FlashDangerpants]

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

Blackburn didn't write that, and you lied about reading Blackburn. That's the truth of the matter. Now just admit it.

[FlashDangerpants]

The consideration of morality is specific only to chattel-slavery and not other moral elements.
Henry do not believe 'no killing of humans' is an absolute or categorical imperative.

That Henry believes 'slavery is wrong - period' is based on some strong feelings [intuitive] that slaves [chattel] are sufferings from being chattel-slaves when they are owned as a property by another human.
These strong feelings are what Hume had identified as sentiments.
On this basis, sense and only pertaining to chattel slavery, Henry moral view is common with Hume's.

Except Henry thinks it's universal and Hume did not. Further, when I told Henry why I am against slavery - that I hate it based on feelings of empathy for the slaves - he wanted reasoning. That was not reason enough for him - and I kept asking him if he needed to reason his way to being against slavery. IOW sentiment, in the Humean sense, was not enough for Henry.

I believe Henry's reasoning is based on his feelings [intuitive] and observations plus information on the experiences of slaves.
No matter how Henry reasoned it has to be based or related to his feelings [intuitively] and sentiments, definitely NOT on a matter of fact nor empirical proofs.
If he cannot produce empirical proofs re science [which not likely], his reasoning must fall back on his intuitions, feelings and sentiments.
If not the case, I will have to revise my views.

Henry makes it more than clear that he holds that morality derives (unpacks in his term) from the single principle that a man owns himself as his first property (which is Locke not Hume). That is his fact claim. On that he layers one claim of principle: That no may be properly relieved of his property unless he has harmed the property of another, forgetting not that property includes the person. He smuggles at least one more in the form of a neo-Kantian maxim along thse lines: If you aren't respecting the property of others you aren't respecting the idea of property itself and thus there is a duty of reciprocation. Arguably there are many more of theses undocumented extras, but you would need to pay enough attention to his philosophy to find out what those are.

I'm surprised you had less respect for Henry than I credited you with.

[Dontaskme]

So subjectivism can't tell us about pornography, you say? (By the way, the "harm" it does is actually immense

What immense harm has pornography caused you personally IC? ...please share, can you describe what that immense harm is without getting you're own subjective personal feelings or opinions about it involved ?

[Immanuel Can]

I know there is no such thing as absolute moral truth,

Let's start there.

You say you "know" it. That's your word. So it's only fair I ask you how you know it? What premises, observations or facts lead you to that "knowledge"?

I could be wrong.

Is "know" the right word, then? If you mean less than "I know," then what would be a more precise way of stating your starting position?

On the other hand, the existence of subjective morality cannot credibly be denied.

I've shown that the idea isn't even coherent, isn't consistent or practical, and fails to render us any knowledge at all of what "morality" could possibly be. I would say not only can it be "credibly denied," but that anybody who wishes to make a "credible" claim HAS to reject it. And I've already showed various reasons why that's so. Can I provide more? Perhaps. But is that not enough?

Why not?

Generally speaking, people have personal (subjective) opinions on, and attitudes towards, moral issues.

Problem: we don't even know that there ARE any such things as "moral" issues, if subjectivism is true. We know that people may use the word, but we have no coherent explanation of why they do or whether they're using it in any telling way at all.

After all, if subjectivism is true, then "moral" = "whatever I want to do." And if "moral" means "whatever I want to do," then adding the word "moral" to the explanation adds no special information at all. We may as well never refer to the word, because it refers to everything.

Another more concise way to say this is, "If everything's moral, then nothing is." "Moral" has ceased to be a word that has any information for us in it at all.

Just pick a moral issue, say abortion, and randomly ask a bunch of people if they have an opinion on it.

Is this, then, what makes you think you "know" that there is no absolute/objective morality? But it's an non-sequitur, as I have already pointed out. But let me make it clear why, yet again.

Your argument then requires us to believe the following:

"A bunch of people have opinions," therefore "I know there is no such thing as absolute moral truth."

The basic rules of logic show us that something is missing: a second premise that ties the observation to the conclusion in a rational way. But it's not clear what would do that, so let me try my best to represent to you what you'd need.

Premise 1: "A bunch of people have opinions,"
Premise 2: "When a bunch of people have opinions, all must be equally right and wrong."
Conclusion: Therefore "I know there is no such thing as absolute moral truth."

It is not undeniable, as you say, that "a bunch of people have opinions." But they may well all have contradicting and different opinions....and often, they have mutually-exclusive opinions as well. So if the mere fact that people "have opinions" meant they were all "moral" merely because they were "about moral matters," then it's not clear, again, that the word "moral" refers to anything at all.

They have opinions. That's an observation from which, then, no conclusion about the morality of those opinions follows.

"Moral opinion" does not mean morally good opinion, it just means an opinion about a moral issue.

But again, there's no sense in your claim that it's a "moral" issue at all, since you've effectively voided "moral" of any specific meaning at all.

You've rendered all opinions equal, and none at all specifically "moral." Is that reasonable, if your goal is to say what morality is? Is it even sensible, in that a hearer could understand something coherent from it?

That's perhaps as clear as I can make just one of the fundamental problems with "subjective morality" (as you've described it) clear.

[Immanuel Can]

So subjectivism can't tell us about pornography, you say? (By the way, the "harm" it does is actually immense

What immense harm has pornography caused you personally IC?

Is your claim going to be "if it doesn't hurt you personally, then it cannot be evil?"

Well, I haven't been "personally hurt" by axe-murder either. That won't save the moral credentials of axe-murder.

But pornography hurts everybody, though in different ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography. Anybody can find such information out, though. Why didn't you?

[Gary Childress]

So subjectivism can't tell us about pornography, you say? (By the way, the "harm" it does is actually immense

What immense harm has pornography caused you personally IC?

Is your claim going to be "if it doesn't hurt you personally, then it cannot be evil?"

Well, I haven't been "personally hurt" by axe-murder either. That won't save the moral credentials of axe-murder.

But pornography hurts everybody, though in different ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography. Anybody can find such information out, though. Why didn't you?

To be fair, this is the first passage in the article you are citing.

The effects of pornography on individuals or their intimate relationships depend on the type of pornography used and differ from person to person. Consumption of pornographic material is associated with negative and positive impacts. It has been studied particularly for associations with addiction[1] as well as effects on the brain over time. Some literature reviews suggest that pornographic images and films can be addictive,[2][3] particularly when combined with masturbation,[4] while others maintain that data remains inconclusive.[5][6][7][8][9] Other research has looked at pornographic material's relation to acts of sexual violence, with varying results.[10][11]

[Gary Childress]

I mean, sex is a fact of life. It's pleasurable and makes people feel good. Ideally if it can be relegated to harmless pleasure, then it would be a great source of pleasure.

[Immanuel Can]

What immense harm has pornography caused you personally IC?

Is your claim going to be "if it doesn't hurt you personally, then it cannot be evil?"

Well, I haven't been "personally hurt" by axe-murder either. That won't save the moral credentials of axe-murder.

But pornography hurts everybody, though in different ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography. Anybody can find such information out, though. Why didn't you?

To be fair, this is the first passage in the article you are citing.

The effects of pornography on individuals or their intimate relationships depend on the type of pornography used and differ from person to person. Consumption of pornographic material is associated with negative and positive impacts. It has been studied particularly for associations with addiction[1] as well as effects on the brain over time. Some literature reviews suggest that pornographic images and films can be addictive,[2][3] particularly when combined with masturbation,[4] while others maintain that data remains inconclusive.[5][6][7][8][9] Other research has looked at pornographic material's relation to acts of sexual violence, with varying results.[10][11]

Keep reading, Gary.

[Gary Childress]

Is your claim going to be "if it doesn't hurt you personally, then it cannot be evil?"

Well, I haven't been "personally hurt" by axe-murder either. That won't save the moral credentials of axe-murder.

But pornography hurts everybody, though in different ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography. Anybody can find such information out, though. Why didn't you?

To be fair, this is the first passage in the article you are citing.

The effects of pornography on individuals or their intimate relationships depend on the type of pornography used and differ from person to person. Consumption of pornographic material is associated with negative and positive impacts. It has been studied particularly for associations with addiction[1] as well as effects on the brain over time. Some literature reviews suggest that pornographic images and films can be addictive,[2][3] particularly when combined with masturbation,[4] while others maintain that data remains inconclusive.[5][6][7][8][9] Other research has looked at pornographic material's relation to acts of sexual violence, with varying results.[10][11]

Keep reading, Gary.

Why? Does the rest of the article contradict the synopsis? Why would someone write the above and then contradict what is written? I'll proceed, though.