Is morality objective or subjective?

[promethean75]

Um excuse me gentlemen.

"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."

If the objective is 'to not have nonconsensual sexy time with someone' (x), then rape is the wrong thing to do to achieve that end. This is an objective fact. Hypothetical imperatives are real.

But not raping 'just becuz (y)' is nonsense. Not raping becuz god says u shouldn't (z), is nonsense. Categorical imperatives are not real.

And since the vast majority of people don't want to rape or be raped, the objective fact of x is perfectly acceptable and workable in society without the slightest recourse to y or z.

The rapists are overpowered and outnumbered by the nonrapists. That's all that needs to happen.

[Atla]

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.

You say this because you have no conscience. But strictly speaking, the human conscience is the phenomenon of morality itself, and broadly speaking, the rest (subjective morality, objective morality, moral systems) follow from it.

Unless an objective moralist can show otherwise, but so far nothing.

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.

Sophistry 1: no, it's not a contradiction of terms, no it doesn't have to be 'rendered'
Sophistry 2: you are using an objective-only meaning of obligation
Sophistry 3: you are using an objective-only meaning of duty
Sophistry 4: Moral systems based on subjective morality include more than one person. In fact all moral systems are subjectively based, the objectivists simply pretend that theirs aren't. (Unless an objective moralist can show otherwise, but so far nothing.)
Sophistry 5: in fact all systems of justice or codes of law were established by humans who had subjective moralities or were amoral, so yes it can ground them. (Unless an objective moralist can show otherwise, but so far nothing.)

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

Nonsense. For example an objective Karma system doesn't need a God so it's possible for atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

You say this because you have no conscience.

Ad hominen. And untrue.

I know what that means: it means "I've lost the point, and I'm mad about it; so now I'll insult the speaker, instead of offering anything in the way of refutation."

Sophistry 2: you are using an objective-only meaning of obligation
Sophistry 3: you are using an objective-only meaning of duty

Neither. Just the dictionary definitions of each. To be "obliged" means "to have a obligation to," and "duty" means, "an incumbent or necessary responsibility."

Sophistry 4: Moral systems based on subjective morality include more than one person.

Self-contradicting objection. If they are "moral," they do indeed require more than one person to be involved; if they are "subjective" they deny that it has to be so.

Sophistry 5: in fact all systems of justice or codes of law were established by humans who had subjective moralities or were amoral, so yes it can ground them.

You're narrating an imaginary history, which is based on taking your own assumptions as if they were facts.

an objective Karma system doesn't need a God so it's possible for atheists.

First, "karma" is a religious, specifically Hindu / Buddhist idea. Secondly, it requires also belief in reincarnation, since karmic cycles are not in-this-lifetime, but across-multiple-lives. Thirdly, Hinduism has been called "the religion of a million gods," and also a form of Deistic Gnosticism. Both are true. All are religious.

So no, an Atheist, if he truly is an Atheist, can't believe in any of that.

[Dontaskme]

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.

Then demonstrate God's existence to yourself then. You should be able to whip something up very quickly, like printing off a copy of you're own ascertained knowledge that you have found to be absolute truth according to you. It's not as if God can demonstrate it can he? How could he do that when he's not of this world.

So go on, be God's little shoeshine boy and show us all how you and you alone demonstrate God's existence, do it with yourself, as if you were acting as an echo, or a parrot talking with yourself. Go on give that a try why don't you, we're all dying to know how you are able to demonstrate God's existence.

Write down you're demo of God's existence, then share and reveal what you've explained to yourself in words, to us Atheists here, so we can read the evidental proof of God's existence according to you.

Take you're time. We're very patient. If maybe in a thousand years you're explanative demonstration hasn't shown up here on the PNF then I'll remind you again in a few days to pull you're finger out.

[Harbal]

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!

I obviously didn't make myself clear. I am more than happy to comment on what you have to say about objective morality, and I will treat your views with the same respect you gave to mine, but I am not interested in discussing my views on morality with you any longer, as I feel we have exhausted the topic.

Now if you will excuse me, I would like to get back to the Youtube video I was watching about Jesus's partiality for being fucked up the arse. It looks like Judas did more than just kiss him in the Garden of Gethsemane.

[Atla]

Ad hominen. And untrue.

I know what that means: it means "I've lost the point, and I'm mad about it; so now I'll insult the speaker, instead of offering anything in the way of refutation."

It's true, you seem to have some kind of Cluster-B personality disorder. There's like a 99% chance that you will never have a conscience.
(Or you are perfectly roleplaying one, all the time, which would be even worse.)

Neither. Just the dictionary definitions of each. To be "obliged" means "to have a obligation to," and "duty" means, "an incumbent or necessary responsibility."

And that's consistent with subjective morality.

Self-contradicting objection. If they are "moral," they do indeed require more than one person to be involved; if they are "subjective" they deny that it has to be so.

What is a self-contradicting objection is to say "they deny that it has to be so" and equate that with: it can't be so.

You're narrating an imaginary history, which is based on taking your own assumptions as if they were facts.

No, you're narrating an imaginary history, which is based on taking your own assumptions as if they were facts. (Unless an objective moralist can show otherwise, but so far nothing.)

First, "karma" is a religious, specifically Hindu / Buddhist idea. Secondly, it requires also belief in reincarnation, since karmic cycles are not in-this-lifetime, but across-multiple-lives. Thirdly, Hinduism has been called "the religion of a million gods," and also a form of Deistic Gnosticism. Both are true. All are religious.

So no, an Atheist, if he truly is an Atheist, can't believe in any of that.

Some Buddhists believe in Karma, some don't. Belief in God is not required. I think a rational person won't believe in Karma though.

[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.

Then demonstrate God's existence to yourself then.

I no longer need to. But how does what I know manage to help you, if there's nothing I can say or do that you will accept?

[Immanuel Can]

I am more than happy to comment on what you have to say about objective morality, and I will treat your views with the same respect you gave to mine, but I am not interested in discussing my views on morality with you any longer, as I feel we have exhausted the topic.

Okay. What do you want to discuss, then?

[Immanuel Can]

Neither. Just the dictionary definitions of each. To be "obliged" means "to have a obligation to," and "duty" means, "an incumbent or necessary responsibility."

And that's consistent with subjective morality.

It's not. Because subjective morality cannot explain why any of us owes anybody a duty or obligation to be "moral" in any way.

Some Buddhists believe in Karma, some don't.

All believe in the karmic cycles, and all believe that the cycles are governed by some deeper "spiritual" absolute or higher reality. They may not use the word "god," but that's what they're using as a placeholder for it.

But for Atheism, all that's out.

[iambiguous]

I believe Henry's reasoning is based on his feelings [intuitive] and observations plus information on the experiences of slaves.

Ironically enough, as with most "my way or the highway" moral objectivists, henry may well be a slave to his own "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" political prejudices.

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.

Somehow, henry manages to intertwine intuition, logic and the Deist God into the conviction that the government has no right to ban citizens from buying and selling weapons of mass destruction. If he acquired a "dirty bomb" in order to defend his own life, liberty and property, he'd go all the way to Ruby Ridge if necessary if the government tried to take it away from him.

But at least he does bring his "ethical theory" down out of the intellectual clouds.

[Harbal]

I am more than happy to comment on what you have to say about objective morality, and I will treat your views with the same respect you gave to mine, but I am not interested in discussing my views on morality with you any longer, as I feel we have exhausted the topic.

Okay. What do you want to discuss, then?

I don't really think there is any basis for discussion, because as soon as you mention God, I might as well leave the room. I thought I would just stand on the side lines and take random pot shots, if that is acceptable.

[Atla]

It's not. Because subjective morality cannot explain why any of us owes anybody a duty or obligation to be "moral" in any way.

Of course it can explain it. People with subjective moralities establish an agreement that they owe duty or obligation to this thing or that thing, or else. It's ultimately still a subjective construct, but those who don't follow it get punished by the others.

It's how humanity has always done it in fact. Again, there is nothing self-contradictory about subjective morality.

All believe in the karmic cycles, and all believe that the cycles are governed by some deeper "spiritual" absolute or higher reality. They may not use the word "god," but that's what they're using as a placeholder for it.

But for Atheism, all that's out.

There are Buddhists who don't believe in karma and reincarnation, or believe in karma but no spiritual reality, but w/e, off topic. But yes, an atheist will typically reject a karmic system the same way he/she rejects God.

So that leaves us with the possibility (that I can think of) that the universe itself might somehow be inherently moral, without God and karmic system. It would objectively be there in the very fabric of existence somehow. Which doesn't mean that humans wouldn't have consciences, both could be true.
Materialists/atheists/naturalists would have to accept this too. I see no signs of this possibility being true either, though.

[Dontaskme]

Then demonstrate God's existence to yourself then.

I no longer need to. But how does what I know manage to help you, if there's nothing I can say or do that you will accept?

Ok, you might say you do not need to demonstrate it to yourself, I get that, but I just thought if you did, even though you don't need to, then by writing it all down again, rather than just keeping itside you're head as thoughts....then you will be able to share you're thoughts with those who are curious to read them.

I'm personally curious to know how a human being such as yourself can demonstrate the evidence that God exists, that's all. It'll help with my curiosity and will allow me to see how a human being such as yourself can actually demonstrate God's existence.

I'm not interested in accepting it or not, I just want to see what a demonstration/explanation written in words looks like out of curiosity that's all.

Is that ok?

[Dontaskme]

There are Buddhists who don't believe in karma and reincarnation, or believe in karma but no spiritual reality, but w/e, off topic. But yes, an atheist will typically reject a karmic system the same way he/she rejects God.

So that leaves us with the possibility (that I can think of) that the universe itself might somehow be inherently moral, without God and karmic system. It would objectively be there in the very fabric of existence somehow. Which doesn't mean that humans wouldn't have consciences, both could be true.
Materialists/atheists/naturalists would have to accept this too. I see no signs of this possibility being true either, though.

UGK says the following...Unquestioned action is morality. Questioning your actions is destroying the expression of life. A person who lets life act in its own way without the protective movement of thought has no self to defend.
Thought can never capture the movement of life, it is much too slow.

Also, on the subject of Buddhism ...According to ancient Buddhism, all births are births into the world of suffering; hence, coming into existence must be evaluated negatively. If we focus on this aspect, we can say that ancient Buddhism is antinatalist.


And then you have the book....The Childfree Christ: Antinatalism in early Christianity Paperback – 10 Feb. 2021
by Theophile de Giraud (Author)

[iambiguous]

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.

Actually, others see the problem here revolving around, uh, ridiculous arguments like this one?

Out in the real world, for all practical purposes, there are many, many, many moral issues that confound us. Just Google moral issues": https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+i ... s-wiz-serp

And all of us are subjects...

"The distinction between subject and object is a basic idea of philosophy. A subject is a being that exercises agency, undergoes conscious experiences, and is situated in relation to other things that exist outside itself; thus, a subject is any individual, person, or observer." wiki

...who may or may not have personal opinions about them. That's just plain old common sense.

Well, given free will, of course.

It's just that as with True Christians, Mr. Cant insists in turn on conveying his own private True understanding of subjectivism. It's just that [further] he has the Christian God to fall back on in order to convince himself that here he is a True Philosopher as well.

After all, if subjectivism is true, then "moral" = "whatever I want to do."

This is actually problematic, however.

There are of course sociopaths who rationalize doing only what they want to do because they are basically narcissists. And they may or may not broach philosophy in defending themselves.

But others are able to convince themselves that they do what they want to do because [philosophically or otherwise] they are able to think themselves into believing that all rational and virtuous men and women are morally obligated to want it in turn.

Again, it's just that for Mr. Cant, if you don't want what he wants then you are not a True Christian.

And you know what that means, of course: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=5 ... =608&dpr=1