Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dontaskme]

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.

Whatever is happening in Pornography, it is a human thriving business, like any other, like sweat-shop businesses, and anyone who seeks to employ people who are only trying to find a job that pays the rent and food bill, just so they can survive in this world.

I think you'll find that where-ever there is humanity, there will be a market for something to distract them away from the reality that is the hopelessness, meaningless, purposeless, and utter sheer empty boredom of having absolutely nothing to do all day and night long for the rest of their lives. Life for humanity is the business of surviving, and doing what-ever it takes to get through each day. Even wars become a form of entertainment and distraction for some people.

Pornograpghy might not be colloquially known as ''Sex'' in general everyday parlance... but it is used as a sex aid by consenting sexual adults, who are not being forced to use it by anyone else but by their own consent. Also used by very healthy curious young adults who are reaching puberty. It's like a sex toy, but it's a visual sex toy, a sex aid that doesn't involve a gadet, although this sex aid does involve humans, and their mutual participation. No one forces anyone else to participate in the business of pornography against their will and consent to do so.

If it's vile in you're opinion, then stop eating meat. Spare a thought for those poor farm animals who just don't deserve to be caged, enslaved by people, until it's their turn to stare on in despair while they are forced to join the queue to meet their doom of bloody slaughter until dead, all for you're own pleasure of tucking into a tasty irresistable delicious bacon sandwich.

[Gary Childress]

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.

I don't know. According to IC if there's no God, then he can commit whatever crime he wants. Maybe it's actually in humanity's best interest that we humor him on the God thing? Who knows what the guy is capable of.

Thoughts?

[promethean75]

"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"

Don't u threaten gary with a good time!

Gary's goin to hell with me, buster. And when we get there we're gonna fuck with satan just like we fuck with god. The two of em need to get a room or sumthin cuz we ain't tryna hear it no more. C'mon gary. Stay close to me and watch my six. I got the rest.

[Harbal]

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.

Yes, I know what the word, "morality", means, whereas you do not seem to.

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."

False comparison.

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."

No, I don't accept the comparison between health and morality. Health determines how well the body functions, morality only modifies behaviour. The relationship between health and body is completely different to the relationship between morality and behaviour.

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.

I have no idea what," fit to his/her nature as a human being", means, but any point you make that presupposes the existence of God is invalid, unless you can demonstrate that God actually does exist, which you obviously can't.

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

This is one of your favourite tricks; you label a particular mindset you don't like with something ending in "ism", and label the holder of it with something ending in "ist", after which you seem to think you can attribute any damn thing you like to the person or what he believes and thinks.

Recognising that morality is a subjective value system does not prevent it from functioning as a value system. I am just as capable of determining moral good and bad as you say God is. And I would even say my moral opinion is more valid, because I actually exist.

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.

I have told you several times that I do not believe there is such a thing as objective moral truth, but I have made no attempt to construct an argument that disproves its existence. How you see that as an indication that I might believe it exists after all is a mystery to me.

You have taken the word, "moral", and applied your own definition to it,

No, I haven't.

Yes you have.

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

I wouldn't call stupidity in itself a moral issue, but to attempt to exploit perceived stupidity in order to dishonestly achieve your own objectives certainly is. And although I do object to your dishonesty on moral grounds, I also have a practical objection to it. Discussing anything with someone who feels not the slightest reluctance to abandon all standards of honesty is a waste of time and effort, and having my time wasted does, I have to admit, make me angry.

[Immanuel Can]

Health determines how well the body functions, morality only modifies behaviour.

You will find that's not true. Rather, bad health destroys the body; and bad morality destroys the mind.

...unless you can demonstrate that God actually does exist, which you obviously can't.

What will you accept as evidence of God? If you can't specify that, then you know very well why I can't "demonstrate" God's existence to you: you've decided not to make it possible.

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

This is one of your favourite tricks; you label a particular mindset you don't like with something ending in "ism", and label the holder of it with something ending in "ist", after which you seem to think you can attribute any damn thing you like to the person or what he believes and thinks.

Non-responsive, H.

You can see the problem. One doesn't solve this problem by deflecting to what even you have to recognize is quite a different problem. How I talk has nothing to do with the logical implications of your own claims. And that's what we're talking about here.

Recognising that morality is a subjective value system does not prevent it from functioning as a value system.

It does prevent "moral" from meaning anything. So yeah, it also prevents it functioning that way.

I have told you several times that I do not believe there is such a thing as objective moral truth, but I have made no attempt to construct an argument that disproves its existence. How you see that as an indication that I might believe it exists after all is a mystery to me.

Here's a greater mystery: Harbal can't say what "moral" means in a sentence, because he thinks it's a word that can mean everything, and hence nothing specific; yet thinks he's making sense when he says "morality can be subjective."

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

I wouldn't call stupidity in itself a moral issue,

How about "dishonesty," then?

but to attempt to exploit perceived stupidity in order to dishonestly achieve your own objectives certainly is.

"Certainly"? Dishonesty is "certainly" morally reprehensible?

So that, at least, you regard as objective. It's certainly not the only thing I can tell you regard as objectively moral. But it's the first you'll admit. That's a start.

At least we know that in truth, you're not a moral subjectivist anymore.

[Harbal]

...unless you can demonstrate that God actually does exist, which you obviously can't.

What will you accept as evidence of God? If you can't specify that, then you know very well why I can't "demonstrate" God's existence to you: you've decided not to make it possible.

In that case, there's not really any more to be said about objective morality, is there?

[Immanuel Can]

What will you accept as evidence of God? If you can't specify that, then you know very well why I can't "demonstrate" God's existence to you: you've decided not to make it possible.

In that case, there's not really any more to be said about objective morality, is there?

Without God? Yes, there's no more that can be said about ANY "morality," analytically speaking. We're at nihilism, then.

[Harbal]

What will you accept as evidence of God? If you can't specify that, then you know very well why I can't "demonstrate" God's existence to you: you've decided not to make it possible.

In that case, there's not really any more to be said about objective morality, is there?

Without God? Yes, there's no more that can be said about ANY "morality," analytically speaking. We're at nihilism, then.

Well enjoy your stay, and don't forget to send us a postcard.

[Atla]

So a reminder that morality means at least 4 things:

- The human conscience, in other words the human moral sense. Some people don't have one, they are amoral.
- Subjective morality
- Objective morality
- Moral systems

The two threads have like 1000 pages together, but looks like some people still haven't managed to acknowledge all 4.

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, there's not really any more to be said about objective morality, is there?

Without God? Yes, there's no more that can be said about ANY "morality," analytically speaking. We're at nihilism, then.

Well enjoy your stay, and don't forget to send us a postcard.

Well, you're there...because you believe in an account of so-called "morality" that nobody needs to take seriously at all. You can SAY "rape is wrong," but your subjectivism tells you that rape isn't more wrong than anything else a person can want to do. So you're effectively at nihilism, as Nietzsche pointed out so well, about a century-and-some ago: the difference between you and me, in that regard, is that I can see you're there, and you're still in denial of the conclusion to which your own subjectivism compels you.

But that's where you really are.

[Harbal]

So a reminder that morality means at least 4 things:

- The human conscience, in other words the human moral sense. Some people don't have one, they are amoral.
- Subjective morality
- Objective morality
- Moral systems

The two threads have like 1000 pages together, but looks like some people still haven't managed to acknowledge all 4.

I am more than willing to listen to any theory of objective morality with an open mind, but if the theory relies on the existence of God, then my interest in it can only be academic.

[Atla]

So a reminder that morality means at least 4 things:

- The human conscience, in other words the human moral sense. Some people don't have one, they are amoral.
- Subjective morality
- Objective morality
- Moral systems

The two threads have like 1000 pages together, but looks like some people still haven't managed to acknowledge all 4.

I am more than willing to listen to any theory of objective morality with an open mind, but if the theory relies on the existence of God, then my interest in it can only be academic.

It's pretty hopeless imo as there's no sign of an omnipotent God who writes the rules. I think the best hope for objectivism wouldn't even be God or some kind of hidden objective Karmic system.

Instead the best hope would maybe be if morality, a moral dimension would be inherent to the entire natural world itself. If the entire world would (also) have a moral nature. But I haven't seen signs of this either.

[Harbal]

Without God? Yes, there's no more that can be said about ANY "morality," analytically speaking. We're at nihilism, then.

Well enjoy your stay, and don't forget to send us a postcard.

Well, you're there...because you believe in an account of so-called "morality" that nobody needs to take seriously at all. You can SAY "rape is wrong," but your subjectivism tells you that rape isn't more wrong than anything else a person can want to do. So you're effectively at nihilism, as Nietzsche pointed out so well, about a century-and-some ago: the difference between you and me, in that regard, is that I can see you're there, and you're still in denial of the conclusion to which your own subjectivism compels you.

But that's where you really are.

I already know exactly what my position is regarding morality that is subjectively human, and I am getting very bored with going on about it, especially to someone as unreceptive as you. If you think you can get anywhere with your God based moral truth with an audience that consists mainly of atheists, then I admire your optimism, and I will do my best to treat everything you say with the same open mindedness and fairness that you have extended to me.

[Immanuel Can]

So a reminder that morality means at least 4 things:

- The human conscience, in other words the human moral sense. Some people don't have one, they are amoral.

Human conscience is not morality...rather, it's the sense of the moral.

It's like that a thermometer is not the ambient temperature. It's the indicator of the ambient temperature. There's no relationship of identity between temperature and mercury-in-glass-tubes. And thermometers do not make the temperature go up and down.

Conscience is the thermometer of a person's moral condition. Some people have better thermometers, and others have thermometers they've damaged or broken, or which were not rightly-calibrated in the first place. But regardless of the situation, conscience ≠ morality.

- Subjective morality

Is a contradiction in terms. Is incapable of producing a moral obligation or duty. Fails to include anybody else but the egocentric "self," and so fails to inform anyone else. Cannot possibly ground a system of justice or a code of law. Cannot be rendered in any way that makes sense.

- Objective morality

Possible, under certain assumptions. Not possible under subjectivism, Materialism, Atheism, Naturalism, etc.

- Moral systems

I'm not sure what you mean here: a justice system? A system of laws? A theory of morality? The term's ambiguous. You'd have to explain what you mean by it.

[Immanuel Can]

Well enjoy your stay, and don't forget to send us a postcard.

Well, you're there...because you believe in an account of so-called "morality" that nobody needs to take seriously at all. You can SAY "rape is wrong," but your subjectivism tells you that rape isn't more wrong than anything else a person can want to do. So you're effectively at nihilism, as Nietzsche pointed out so well, about a century-and-some ago: the difference between you and me, in that regard, is that I can see you're there, and you're still in denial of the conclusion to which your own subjectivism compels you.

But that's where you really are.

I already know exactly what my position is regarding morality that is subjectively human, and I am getting very bored with going on about it, especially to someone as unreceptive as you.

Funny. I was feeling quite the same.

You don't want to believe in God, but you don't want to specify what it would take to prove His existence to you. You want to believe morality is "subjective," even when that cannot make one lick of sense. And when cornered on the inconsistencies, you just spit anger and go off in a different direction, ignoring the problem completely.

That's pretty much the sum of it. I don't know how to get you out of that cycle. You seem to think now that all that's at stake is who gets to say, "I won," and that "winning" will be determined not by who makes the cogent arguments, but by who speaks last. But reason's left the building, it seems.

If you think you can get anywhere with your God based moral truth with an audience that consists mainly of atheists, then I admire your optimism,

You've got it!

Their problem, and the reason they can't describe morality, is that they're Atheists. They can only use such language in irrational and arbitrary ways, since their worldview tells them there can be no objective facts that can inform us about what morality might actually genuinely be. That's the reason they lapse back into pleading about a social consensus that empirical facts would reveal to them doesn't even exist, or to the incoherent strategy of saying that everybody is his own "morality."

They're lost. And that's where the Bible tells them they are: lost.

Would that they were not!