Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

...as for the case for objective morality, I'm fine presenting one.

On the other hand...

He has been presenting the case for Christianity now for years here:

A Christian can...

1] take a subjective/subjunctive "leap of faith" to Jesus Christ or, in the end, place a bet on Him
2] simply accept that the Bible is the word of God and that this is indisputably true because it says so in the Bible itself
3] watch these videos -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- and grasp that both scientifically and historically Christianity has already been proven to be the one and the only One True Path to immortality and salvation

[Harbal]

You have told us that you know the truth about morality, and you can either tell us what that truth is, or you can refuse to tell us. It's as simple as that.

Well, I started showing you why I'm not a subjectivist, and you got mad. Then I said we might consider nihilism, and you didn't even want to hear about it.

Now, we're at objectivism. What do you want to know?

You have said that a/the major problem with subjective morality is that no one has to agree with any particular moral principle, and I readily agree that it is absolutely true that no one need agree with someone else's moral opinion. But an "objective moral truth", or at least the claim of one, is subject to the same failing. You may tell me that something is a moral truth, and even if I believed there were such a thing as objective moral truth, I may well disagree that you had it.

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Well, I started showing you why I'm not a subjectivist, and you got mad.

I do remember losing my temper, but I can no longer remember why.

[Immanuel Can]

You have said that a/the major problem with subjective morality is that no one has to agree with any particular moral principle, and I readily agree that it is absolutely true that no one need agree with someone else's moral opinion.

Right. So appealing to moral subjectivism gives absolutely no moral guidance to anybody. We don't know what actions or values are right or wrong, we have no basis for arbitration of disputes or differences, we have no basis for designing any laws, we have no justification for system of justice, no basis for human rights...not even a definite answer about what to do if our own feelings-at-the-moment about a particular thing change in the next five minutes.

So let's not underplay the importance of that. It wipes out any delusion that subjectivism is an explanation of anything about morality.

But an "objective moral truth", or at least the claim of one, is subject to the same failing.

It's not.

IF (note the hypothetical here, in deference to your view) morality is objective, then it's obligatory for everybody. A justice system can be oriented to respond to it. Disputes can be arbitrated with reference to it. We can design laws from it....and so on. Moreover, our changing feelings do not disturb or destroy such a code: it's independent of feelings.

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Only one issue. The first one. The second one is not a fault of morality at all. It's a fault with human nature or human behavior or human choice, if your prefer. Objective morality doesn't mean that everybody becomes suddenly moral, anymore than any other moral theory does. It just means that if they don't, they're doing wrong -- objective wrong -- and we can know it.

IF there is an objective truth about morality (Such as, "Murder is wrong," for example) then it is wrong to murder whether or not people agree that it is wrong to murder. In fact, if they disagree with the objective moral truth, then they will be in the wrong themselves; and we shall have an objective basis for indicting them for murder and putting them in jail.

[Lacewing]

Okay, so why don't you present what is reasonable so that you and Harbal can reason together?

Because (in case you didn't notice) it's an invitation to TWO, not a unilateral offer. Both sides of the discussion have to be willing to let reason decide the case.

Do you imagine that Jesus approached this as you are doing, or did he just speak the truth generously and openly without expecting/asking anything of anyone?

So...you haven't ever read any of the Gospels, I'm taking it. It's obvious from your comment. You're going on what somebody told you, or what you imagined? You'd best go read at least John 3. It'll take you about ten minutes.

Yes, I have. Can you not answer the question from your own perspective?

I did. You didn't like the answer.

No, you pointed me elsewhere. Apparently you're saying that John 3 is the definitive and only description of Jesus, and that you have no other personal thoughts than that about him? Strange, considering your past interpretations of God... but maybe the challenges you received here on the forum in response to doing that, have made you hesitant to say more.

That means you know you were wrong in your characterization of Jesus, and I don't see that you have a question anymore.

I was asking you about your view of Jesus' character, and whether you thought he would insist on laying out discussion the way you do. I guess you think he only spoke to people of like-mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently you're saying that John 3 is the definitive and only description of Jesus,

"Definitive and only?" Those are your words, not mine: and they're obviously wrong, since there are four gospels, not one, plus the whole text of Scripture. About John, I'm saying it's Scripture, and you can trust its account.

If you have some different idea, then where are you getting your "data" about Jesus Christ from?

[Harbal]

But an "objective moral truth", or at least the claim of one, is subject to the same failing.

It's not.

IF (note the hypothetical here, in deference to your view) morality is objective, then it's obligatory for everybody. A justice system can be oriented to respond to it. Disputes can be arbitrated with reference to it. We can design laws from it....and so on. Moreover, our changing feelings do not disturb or destroy such a code: it's independent of feelings.

I can see how this might be hypothetically the case, but I am not well enough informed to be able to know if it is the case. Could you give some examples of justice systems that are oriented to respond to objective moral facts, arbitration services that reference them, and laws that are designed from them, and so on, in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of objective morality in action? And given that these objective moral truths never change, how do we account for the fact that laws often do?

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Only one issue. The first one. The second one is not a fault of morality at all. It's a fault with human nature or human behavior or human choice, if your prefer.

So this morality that was designed and created by God, specifically for human beings to follow, is not actually suitable for human beings, because it doesn't allow for the nature of human beings. I'm sure that is not what you mean, but it is the unavoidable conclusion that immediately jumps out at me.

Objective morality doesn't mean that everybody becomes suddenly moral, anymore than any other moral theory does. It just means that if they don't, they're doing wrong -- objective wrong -- and we can know it.

But we can only know it for sure if we are sure that the morality in question is, indeed, of the objectively true variety. And it is the problem of discerning what is genuine moral truth, rather than false moral truth, that concerns me.

IF there is an objective truth about morality (Such as, "Murder is wrong," for example) then it is wrong to murder whether or not people agree that it is wrong to murder. In fact, if they disagree with the objective moral truth, then they will be in the wrong themselves; and we shall have an objective basis for indicting them for murder and putting them in jail.

I'm not sure that murder is a good example for the purposes of clarity. "Murder" is a legal term, and by definition is legally wrong, but is it also God's term for the same thing? That is, an act of homicide that meets certain criteria. I think it would be better to choose an example that doesn't have wrongness -either legal or moral- as part of its definition. Perhaps an example a little less weighty than murder, and one that most people would not consider intuitively wrong, so as not to contaminate our objective morals with subjectivity.

[Immanuel Can]

But an "objective moral truth", or at least the claim of one, is subject to the same failing.

It's not.

IF (note the hypothetical here, in deference to your view) morality is objective, then it's obligatory for everybody. A justice system can be oriented to respond to it. Disputes can be arbitrated with reference to it. We can design laws from it....and so on. Moreover, our changing feelings do not disturb or destroy such a code: it's independent of feelings.

I can see how this might be hypothetically the case, but I am not well enough informed to be able to know if it is the case.

Oh, come on...just think about it. You're a smart guy, and it's dead simple.

If somebody says, "The reason you shouldn't murder is that murder is intrinsically, objectively, always wrong," that's one kind of statement. But subjectivism requires any honest subjectivist to say only this: "Murder feels wrong to me...for the moment. So I'm hoping it feels wrong to you. But if it doesn't, I'm not more right than you are, and have no business condemning your murders."

Would any subjectivist articulate his view so frankly? Of course not; because if it he did, it would expose subjectivism for the wimpy, useless kind of thing it actually is. So what he has to do instead is imaginatively invest his subjectivism with the authority of an objective truth. Otherwise, it's just powerless to address any situation, no matter how reprehensible or laudable, at all.

Could you give some examples of justice systems that are oriented to respond to objective moral facts,

Originally, all of them.

If you go back to the most ancient sources, such as the the Justinian Code, or the Laws of Hammurabi, or the Torah, you see this in abundance. Objective morality is always tied to the authority and sacredness of the gods or God. If you even go to more recent codes, such as the English Common Law or the Declaration of Independence, you find the same thing: the reasoning behind the laws is tied to reverence for the Creator.

And today's codes, while they have purged that language from their texts, in some cases, such as (for example) the United Nations declaration of human rights, retain the conclusions of those codes, even while undercutting the whole reason that made those codes possible in the first place.

And given that these objective moral truths never change, how do we account for the fact that laws often do?

That's easy. That's because human laws, at their best, are attempts to reflect the objective moral principles in code form. At their worst, they turn out to be merely subjective and arbitrary dictates of men who wish to represent their will as objective, whereas they are only asserting their subjective wills. But the whole reason we can judge such forgeries at all is with reference to the standards they ought to have reflected, and have failed to do; that is, by reference to the concept of an objective, universal, ideal code of moral truth.

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Only one issue. The first one. The second one is not a fault of morality at all. It's a fault with human nature or human behavior or human choice, if your prefer.

So this morality that was designed and created by God, specifically for human beings to follow, is not actually suitable for human beings,

It's ideal for human beings. It instructs them when they go wrong, and when they go right.

But again, you're misunderstanding what morality is: it's not something that forces people to do things; it's the "thermometer" that lets them know when they do or don't do the right thing.

Objective morality doesn't mean that everybody becomes suddenly moral, anymore than any other moral theory does. It just means that if they don't, they're doing wrong -- objective wrong -- and we can know it.

But we can only know it for sure if we are sure that the morality in question is, indeed, of the objectively true variety. And it is the problem of discerning what is genuine moral truth, rather than false moral truth, that concerns me.

It concerns us all...and rightfully so.

IF there is an objective truth about morality (Such as, "Murder is wrong," for example) then it is wrong to murder whether or not people agree that it is wrong to murder. In fact, if they disagree with the objective moral truth, then they will be in the wrong themselves; and we shall have an objective basis for indicting them for murder and putting them in jail.

I'm not sure that murder is a good example for the purposes of clarity.

It's excellent. Because regarless of the sophistry with which we may try to evade it in vexed cases, everybody realizes that if something is genuinely "murder," then it's evil. But we can switch to "rape," "torture" or "slavery," if you prefer: though you'll have to remember that subjectively, people have sometimes liked to rape, enslave, torture and even murder.

So pick your favourite gross evil. Slot it in. The case is the same.

[Harbal]

Could you give some examples of justice systems that are oriented to respond to objective moral facts,

Originally, all of them.

If you go back to the most ancient sources, such as the the Justinian Code, or the Laws of Hammurabi, or the Torah, you see this in abundance. Objective morality is always tied to the authority and sacredness of the gods or God. If you even go to more recent codes, such as the English Common Law or the Declaration of Independence, you find the same thing: the reasoning behind the laws is tied to reverence for the Creator.

I was under the misapprehension that our modern law was more to do with fairness and justice in respect to the citizen, rather than reverence for the Creator, but without researching the individual laws of a particular legal system to discover the thought behind them, I can't confirm that. I do find it hard to imagine God being mentioned much in our modern law making processes, though. Still, I can't say he isn't.

And given that these objective moral truths never change, how do we account for the fact that laws often do?

That's easy. That's because human laws, at their best, are attempts to reflect the objective moral principles in code form. At their worst, they turn out to be merely subjective and arbitrary dictates of men who wish to represent their will as objective, whereas they are only asserting their subjective wills. But the whole reason we can judge such forgeries at all is with reference to the standards they ought to have reflected, and have failed to do; that is, by reference to the concept of an objective, universal, ideal code of moral truth.

Ah, so it isn't that society can't function on law that is formulated on subjective and arbitrary dictates of men, it's just that you don't like the way it functions when that is the case.

So this morality that was designed and created by God, specifically for human beings to follow, is not actually suitable for human beings,

It's ideal for human beings. It instructs them when they go wrong, and when they go right.

But again, you're misunderstanding what morality is: it's not something that forces people to do things; it's the "thermometer" that lets them know when they do or don't do the right thing.

Okay, that's fine for now. We can look at how ideal it is for human beings when we get into the details of objective morality.

So let's start at the beginning: How can we human beings know what is genuinely objective moral truth when it is presented to us as such?

[Gary Childress]

And given that these objective moral truths never change, how do we account for the fact that laws often do?

That's easy. That's because human laws, at their best, are attempts to reflect the objective moral principles in code form. At their worst, they turn out to be merely subjective and arbitrary dictates of men who wish to represent their will as objective, whereas they are only asserting their subjective wills. But the whole reason we can judge such forgeries at all is with reference to the standards they ought to have reflected, and have failed to do; that is, by reference to the concept of an objective, universal, ideal code of moral truth.

Strange how laws and rules seem to fluctuate and change in religious societies as well. Are you sure human beings can perfectly know "objective" morality?

[FlashDangerpants]

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Those reflect a single issue: If there is moral truth, what reliable method exists find out about it?

If you want to find out the wight of a ceasium atom, there is a method for that. If you wish to know the square root ot 12, there's a method for that too. If you want to exactly what makes it wrong to steal and which precise circumstances of poverty or need obviates that, the method to investigate appears to involve 7 lucky guesses in a row so that you can ask the correct man about the correct book about the correct deity. At which point it's mostly a question of whether you are asking after you already did the stealing or before.

If moral truth exists (if there actual moral properties inherent to sutations, events, outcomes rules or something like that) but there is no reliable way to directly investigate it (if said moral properties happen to exist in wome heavenly realm we are unable to access for instance), then all the moral claims we might make are directed at an unknowable truth, and any correct answers we give are just lucky guesses, then the majority or all of our moral statements are erroneous and our moral logics are baseless.

[Dubious]

What will you accept as evidence of God?

Some evidence if you please or at least a high probability of there being such. But what has the world experienced in terms of these? Absolutely nothing which causes your beliefs to be structured on a purely nihilistic foundation as something never having existed and never changing. In that sense theism itself translates to being the most outstanding example of nihilism.

What better example of belief in the unbelievable can there be without reducing belief to absurdity which you never cease to do.

[Walker]

Do you imagine that Jesus approached this as you are doing, or did he just speak the truth generously and openly without expecting/asking anything of anyone?

So...you haven't ever read any of the Gospels, I'm taking it. It's obvious from your comment. You're going on what somebody told you, or what you imagined? You'd best go read at least John 3. It'll take you about ten minutes.

I read it. I've heard some of the verses before but I've never studied the chapter, never thought about it until your suggestion.

This verse appears to be central to the chapter.

13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Comment:
Jesus came from heaven, so he was the heaven authority. Right? Has anyone else on earth ever come from heaven?

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Those reflect a single issue: If there is moral truth, what reliable method exists find out about it?

If you want to find out the wight of a ceasium atom, there is a method for that. If you wish to know the square root ot 12, there's a method for that too. If you want to exactly what makes it wrong to steal and which precise circumstances of poverty or need obviates that, the method to investigate appears to involve 7 lucky guesses in a row so that you can ask the correct man about the correct book about the correct deity. At which point it's mostly a question of whether you are asking after you already did the stealing or before.

If moral truth exists (if there actual moral properties inherent to sutations, events, outcomes rules or something like that) but there is no reliable way to directly investigate it (if said moral properties happen to exist in wome heavenly realm we are unable to access for instance), then all the moral claims we might make are directed at an unknowable truth, and any correct answers we give are just lucky guesses, then the majority or all of our moral statements are erroneous and our moral logics are baseless.

That is where your dogmatic fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independence reality lies.

Morality-proper is never or should ever be about the rightness or wrongness of an act of evil [as defined].
The question of rightness and wrongness is based on very subjective opinions, beliefs and judgment, and by definitions can never be objective nor factual by themselves.

As Hume as argued, what is the oughtness of rightness or wrongness [merely relationship of ideas] is not from a matter of fact specifically, Hume's 'what is fact', not PH's illusory sort of [what is fact'].
Hume's morality is grounded on sensations which are empirical.
Based on his time, Hume was ignorant of the neurosciences and other advanced sciences and he admitted he did not know the root sources of where sensations arise from.

Hume claimed his morality is grounded on sympathy [empathy].
Currently, neuroscientists has traced empathy's roots to physical facts, i.e. certain aspects of mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are objective in the scientific FSK sense. [note scientific antirealism not the scientific realism].
In this case, moral elements within the moral-FSK are objective as grounded on objective scientific facts [i.e. in this case, physical mirror neurons].

The above is a clue to the claim that all other moral elements, e.g. killing of humans by humans, mass murder, rapes, slavery, and the like have physical grounds, i.e. as scientific facts which can be transposed as objective moral facts within a human-based morality-proper FSK.

[Lacewing]

Apparently you're saying that John 3 is the definitive and only description of Jesus,

"Definitive and only?" Those are your words, not mine: and they're obviously wrong, since there are four gospels, not one, plus the whole text of Scripture. About John, I'm saying it's Scripture, and you can trust its account.

That's what I'm pointing out to you: you pointed to John 3 as if it is the only account to consider since you are unwilling to answer more broadly in your own words. I've not seen anything that suggests that Jesus demanded conditions and belief (as you do) from people before he would answer their questions. Such evasive nonsense is all yours.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are two issues here: The first is that of being able to establish that something is a moral truth, and the second is the problem of it not being universally accepted as such.

Those reflect a single issue: If there is moral truth, what reliable method exists find out about it?

If you want to find out the wight of a ceasium atom, there is a method for that. If you wish to know the square root ot 12, there's a method for that too. If you want to exactly what makes it wrong to steal and which precise circumstances of poverty or need obviates that, the method to investigate appears to involve 7 lucky guesses in a row so that you can ask the correct man about the correct book about the correct deity. At which point it's mostly a question of whether you are asking after you already did the stealing or before.

If moral truth exists (if there actual moral properties inherent to sutations, events, outcomes rules or something like that) but there is no reliable way to directly investigate it (if said moral properties happen to exist in wome heavenly realm we are unable to access for instance), then all the moral claims we might make are directed at an unknowable truth, and any correct answers we give are just lucky guesses, then the majority or all of our moral statements are erroneous and our moral logics are baseless.

That is where your dogmatic fundamentalistic ideology of mind-independence reality lies.

Morality-proper is never or should ever be about the rightness or wrongness of an act of evil [as defined].
The question of rightness and wrongness is based on very subjective opinions, beliefs and judgment, and by definitions can never be objective nor factual by themselves.

As Hume as argued, what is the oughtness of rightness or wrongness [merely relationship of ideas] is not from a matter of fact specifically, Hume's 'what is fact', not PH's illusory sort of [what is fact'].
Hume's morality is grounded on sensations which are empirical.
Based on his time, Hume was ignorant of the neurosciences and other advanced sciences and he admitted he did not know the root sources of where sensations arise from.

Hume claimed his morality is grounded on sympathy [empathy].
Currently, neuroscientists has traced empathy's roots to physical facts, i.e. certain aspects of mirror neurons.
Mirror neurons are objective in the scientific FSK sense. [note scientific antirealism not the scientific realism].
In this case, moral elements within the moral-FSK are objective as grounded on objective scientific facts [i.e. in this case, physical mirror neurons].

The above is a clue to the claim that all other moral elements, e.g. killing of humans by humans, mass murder, rapes, slavery, and the like have physical grounds, i.e. as scientific facts which can be transposed as objective moral facts within a human-based morality-proper FSK.

Note how my response to Harbal was directly about what he had written. Yours to me was irrelevant.

You gotta learn to read better.