Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Pornography is not "sex."

It is an overwhelmingly large industry of enslavement and exploitation of women, children and others, and their abuse in the most graphic and vile ways, powered by the unhealthy obsessions of the sexually defective and wicked.

"Sex" is what one has by consent, with an appropriate partner, under appropriate circumstances, and in real life. It is not perverted voyeurism.

[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.

Pornography is not "sex."

It is an overwhelmingly large industry of enslavement and exploitation of women, children and others, and their abuse in the most graphic and vile ways, powered by the unhealthy obsessions of the sexually defective and wicked.

"Sex" is what one has by consent, with an appropriate partner, under appropriate circumstances, and in real life. It is not perverted voyeurism.

Does ALL pornography involve "enslavement" and "exploitation" of others? I mean if an attractive couple wants to film their sex life in exchange for easy money, then what is the harm? There's a lot of pornography out there these days that is consensual in such ways. Sure some of the pornography is hideous exploitation, but then a lot of manufactured goods in the world are also. In response, we can stick with reputable sources or pornography that is inspected and verified to be consensual and non-harmful in the same way that we can seek out non-sweatshop-produced goods and services in the normal market.

[Gary Childress]

Or make prostitution legal and create a regulated industry for it where by sex workers are insured against harm. I mean, there are people out there who get involved in the industry just because they enjoy sex and it's a way for them to make money. There are women out there as well who enjoy sex. Not everyone does and those who don't ought to have the choice not to have to stoop to that level, if that's the case (but of course, that would present the need for social regulation and rules, which I know you don't like).

[Immanuel Can]

Does ALL pornography involve "enslavement" and "exploitation" of others?

All pornography generates the market that results in the brutalization, exploitation and even killing of women, children and other vulnerable persons, and the debauching of the public imagination. And for each participant, it is degrading and unworthy of the dignity of a human being.

But you know this. In your heart, you're quite certain of it, too. And so to have a discussion over something you already know, while you pretend not to know it, is fruitless and disingenuous. You do not need me to tell you what's right and wrong about pornography. You know. And you will go with what you know, or you will not. That's the bottom line.

Next topic.

[Harbal]

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 know it in the same way I know there are no square circles. Morality is the area of human nature that is concerned with how human being treat each other, and behave towards one another. It is based on our likes, dislikes, what offends us and what doesn't, what hurts us and what benefits us, and other stuff that I can't think of right now. Moral right and wrong are completely dependant on human perspective, and therefore cannot be subject to absolute truth. Were it otherwise, morality and ethics would be a branch of science.

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

I've shown that the idea isn't even coherent,

No you haven't. All you have done is come out with a load of spurious nonsense and then crowed about it like a ridiculous little cockerel.

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,

What an utterly stupid remark.

if subjectivism is true.

Don't be idiotic. That makes as much sense as, "if classical music is true", or, "if table manners are true". Completely meaningless drivel.

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.

If you really believe that, then why are you wasting your time discussing morality with me when I cannot possibly know what it is?

"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.

That is a dishonest interpretation, and is more a comment on your low moral standards than anything else.

Another more concise way to say this is, "If everything's moral, then nothing is."

Whose view is that supposed to represent? I certainly does not represent mine.

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.

No, this is not what makes me think there is no objective morality; it is what makes me know there is subjective moral opinion. It says nothing either way about objective morality.

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."

I apologise; it never occurred to me that you might be stupid enough to interpret it that way.

"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.

No I haven't. You have taken the word, "moral", and applied your own definition to it, thus making it impossible for it to mean anything other than precisely what you want it to mean. I am well used to having my intelligence insulted by you, but I sometimes wonder how stupid you think it is possible for a person to be.

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?

I could have a coherent conversation about morality with most other people on this forum, and we would understand each other perfectly well. The only reason it is impossible to have a coherent conversation with you is that you can't (won't) stop pretending not to understand.

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

And it would be impossible for me to overstate what a miserable attempt you have made of it.

[Harbal]

"Sex" is what one has by consent, with an appropriate partner, under appropriate circumstances, and in real life. It is not perverted voyeurism.

And what is your moral opinion of women who go out in public not wearing a bonnet?

[Gary Childress]

"Sex" is what one has by consent, with an appropriate partner, under appropriate circumstances, and in real life. It is not perverted voyeurism.

And what is your moral opinion of women who go out in public not wearing a bonnet?

Or a niqab for that matter.

[Dontaskme]

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

Pornography doesn't murder people.
Axe -murders no doubt will have their moral compass wizzing around in a frenzied circle at a million miles an hour going haywire, not really allowing them to stand still for a minute to think about whether it is moral to chop off someone's head right now. But that's just because those that do have morals, those who do not murder others, are already in a position to say that Axe-murderer's don't have the morals I have, so they mustn't have any. This is why I say only an immoral person can be a moral person, in that they must already know the concept of what an immoral act means. There is no absolute objective truth about morality, it's either moral or immoral based on our subjective views. We judge our actions moral or immoral, based on the knowledge we already have about them, we do not get that knowledge from God. We get it from our own direct experience, which is the source itself, we are that source, there is no other source.

But who knows, maybe the wiring of the Axe-murderer's brain has devolped in such a defective way beyond the brain owners control that there is just no way for the person to act any differently to how they have been wired. Who judges them? We do, that's who, we say something is immoral because it's not moral, and that would be a subjective statement to make, based on our own direct experiences. These experiences are not coming from a made up idea like God, which is just another subjectively made-up conception of God.

In which case, it's how the brain functions, and not the persons fault that they were born with a defective brain, according to those with a non-defective brain.

But pornography hurts everybody,

No it does not. In fact it is of immense use for some people.

Anybody can find such information out, though. Why didn't you?

I personally don't have to know or seek out some written information about the harmful evil effects of a human action that has never been my personal experience. I have no idea how pornography effects others, if I'd wanted to know that, I would pro-actively, not reactively seek out the information. But why would I care about who is being effected badly by pornography, when there is absolutely nothing I can do personally to change the way another person feels about pornography? All I could offer to them, would be to say if it's harming you, or if you think it's evil, then don't watch it then. This is really not too difficult to understand.

And let me tell you this, I do not need a God of morality to inform me of what great sex is. Great sex means a husband and wife focus on each other as ''one flesh'' in that there's no one else present in the minds of these two people having great sex...that's not too difficult to do, well not for me anyway, I'm simply not interested in what's going on with other peoples sexual habits. My pleasure in life comes purely from myself and my focus on the object of my desire, namely, my intimate partner. That's all that matters to me. There is absolutely nothing in this world that could ever distract me from my own personal intimate relationship I have with myself and my lover. Why, because that's where I choose to put my focus 100%. The rest of the world and what it is up to doesn't ever cross my mind in that scenario, in fact no other person in the world even exists during great sex with my partner.

So why would I even care about whether pornography is harmful and evil or not, when I already know the ecstasy of Nirvana is existing right here and now between me and my partner? That's the sign of a true healthy mind.

If people want to let other peoples minds live inside their own then that's their problem not mine, why should I allow anyone else's mind live in my mind..? Err, no thanks.

[Gary Childress]

Does ALL pornography involve "enslavement" and "exploitation" of others?

All pornography generates the market that results in the brutalization, exploitation and even killing of women, children and other vulnerable persons, and the debauching of the public imagination. And for each participant, it is degrading and unworthy of the dignity of a human being.

We'll drop the topic in that case.

What really puts me off are religions that claim I'm going to hell simply because I don't worship Jesus. Can we ban that too?

[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 know it in the same way I know there are no square circles.

No, that's what's called an "oxymoron." One can know it merely by knowing what the words mean.

Morality is the area of human nature that is concerned with how human being treat each other, and behave towards one another.

So far, so good. That's part of what it is, for sure.

But that's like saying, "Health is the area of human nature that is concerned with how human beings eat and exercise." But health is an objective reality, not merely a product of "likes and dislikes." Obesity and unhealth would be the products of mere "likes and dislikes."

Moral right and wrong are completely dependant on human perspective,...

Health isn't. And, if you like, you can see morality is a kind of "value-health."

It means that the person doesn't just hold any values and do any behaviours, but rather the ones that are fit to his/her nature as a human being, and salutary for their wellbeing as well as for the purposes of God.

And back to the key criticism of subjectivism, therefore: subjectivism denies that any behaviour a person can "desire" can be "right" or "wrong." So nothing is immoral, and nothing is moral -- and subjectivism has to say, therefore, that "moral" is a word with no meaning. To tack it into a descriptive phrase adds nothing by way of information. So the phrases "mutilation is immoral" means exactly the same as "mutilation is moral," because what determines it is merely whether the mutilator "likes or dislikes" mutilating. Therefore, there's no use for the word "moral' in that sentence.

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,

What an utterly stupid remark.

I mean we don't know it by way of subjectivism. Subjectivism does not make any sense of the word "moral."

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.

If you really believe that, then why are you wasting your time discussing morality with me when I cannot possibly know what it is?

I DON'T believe it. Because I'm not a subjectivist...and I'm talking only about what subjectivism can tell us about morality...which is, as you can deduce, nothing.

"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.

That is a dishonest interpretation, and is more a comment on your low moral standards than anything else.

Straight to the ad hominem: a sure indication that the argument hits home, I find.

Another more concise way to say this is, "If everything's moral, then nothing is."

Whose view is that supposed to represent? I certainly does not represent mine.

It's the truth. It's the view of any rational person, because reason makes it evident.

It says nothing either way about objective morality.

Then you are allowing that your argument says nothing either way about objective morality? I would have to say, then, that it sounds like you don't "know" there's no such thing as objective morality at all.

"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.

No I haven't. You have taken the word, "moral", and applied your own definition to it,

No, I haven't. The same thing will be true of any word you use in the way you're using "moral."

You could do it with the word "red." If everything in the world were the colour red, there would be no such thing as red. And when you asked somebody to , "Pass me that red thing, please," they could not possibly know to what you were referring. The word "red" would have become utterly uninformative, in that case.

Same with "moral." If "moral" is a word that can be applied to any action or state a human being can have, then it means nothing.

I could have a coherent conversation about morality with most other people on this forum, and we would understand each other perfectly well.

Not if you apply the word "moral" to every state or action a person can do. Then your conversation would become not merely very repetitive, but utterly uninformative of anything about "morality" at all.

I can see you're mad. And I know why. If you actually read my argument carefully and thoughtfully, you'll realize you're down a logical cul-de-sac that no subjectivist can exit.

For that matter, for you even to be angry and call my behaviour "stupid" or "dishonest," is to require your listeners to believe that "stupidity" and "dishonesty" are morally reprehensible qualities...and not just in your own mind, but in mine (as the allegedly chastised thereby) and in the ears of every listener, whom you must assume to have a rational burden conducing them to agree with your assessments.

Again, another criticism of subjectivism is that no human being can practice it in real life. You've just demonstrated that you don't.

And if you simmer down and think coolly, you'll realize that's right.

[Immanuel Can]

What really puts me off are religions that claim I'm going to hell simply because I don't worship Jesus. Can we ban that too?

Would it make you thinner if you banned the practice of dieting? Would it make you safer if you banned the rules of the road? Would it make you wiser if you banned the truth?

[Gary Childress]

Would it make you wiser if you banned the truth?

No. That's why I stay away from the Bible.

[Immanuel Can]

Would it make you wiser if you banned the truth?

No. That's why I stay away from the Bible.

Gary, one day, I'm afraid you're going to regret some of the things you've said, if you don't make that right...and not with me. I would sincerely wish a better outcome for you.

[Gary Childress]

Would it make you wiser if you banned the truth?

No. That's why I stay away from the Bible.

Gary, one day, I'm afraid you're going to regret some of the things you've said, if you don't make that right...and not with me. I would sincerely wish a better outcome for you.

I'll read the Quran, then. I'm sure that will make you happy.

[FlashDangerpants]

I can see you're mad. And I know why. If you actually read my argument carefully and thoughtfully, you'll realize you're down a logical cul-de-sac that no subjectivist can exit.

Your logical work is substandard dogshit for feral morons, but you really do offer the most exquisite masterclasses in gaslighting.