Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Well they must have sneaked past me while I was putting all my attention into being annoyed. So what was the principle upon which the wrongness of incest was founded, according to the Bible?

It's founded on the nature of God Himself, on the fact that God is a loving, attentive and diligent Father, not an exploiter or betrayer. And there's really no better basis on which for it to be founded.

That's not a principle

Then maybe we need to establish what you mean when you say you want a "principle." For in ordinary language usage, such as I have given would fit the bill; but if you have something different in mind, I should wish to provide it.

It is also dependent on belief in God

Don't be surprised. I have been saying that all along. There is no knowledge of morality unless one first gets one's ontology straight. So says the Bible, as well. (Romans 1) God exists, and He exists as the whole basis of morality; so to reckon without that fact is actually to obscure the entire field of moral philosophy, and to deprive ourselves of the means to say anything at all about it. And this explains why subjective morality is so much more appealing to Atheists; it's all they can conceive, by way of morality. They've cut themselves off from the first premise of moral knowledge.

Unfortunately for them, even on its own terms, subjective morality isn't really a coherent concept, but rather a pseudo-concept, a dodge, a stop-gap measure intended to prevent the inevitable slide into moral nihilism, one which is actually incapable of having that effect except among those that arbitrarily stop following the logic to which a godless universe compels them.

I can say when I think something is morally wrong, and in most cases I can say why I think it is wrong, and that probably disqualifies me from adopting moral nihilism.

It doesn't, actually. And let us make it plain to ourselves why.

One's own subjective opinion is not binding, obligating or relevant to anybody else; and in fact, it is not any of those things even for you -- for you could change your subjective opinion to the opposite, as no more than a result of "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato" in your digestive system (to paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge).

And that's why "There's more of gravy than of grave" about subjectivism: it puts a moral duty of absolutely zero weight on anyone. So moral nihilism becomes logically inevitable, unless we pretend that the stop-gap of belief in subjectivism has some gravitas to which it cannot logically make claim at all.

[Immanuel Can]

The inherent properties behind morality "belong" to God.

What empirical evidence does God test his moral theory against?

*Facepalm*.

Do you understand the word "omniscience"? It's one of the attributes of God.

[henry quirk]

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.

No, all that is wrong.

A person, any person, every person, any where or when, knows his life, liberty, and property are his alone. He isn't taught this. He knows he is his own. He may never codify this intuition as I have, or codify it all and he doesn't have to (unless he's fartin' around in a philosophy forum).

And becuz he knows he is his own, he knows it's wrong he should be used as a commodity. And if it's wrong he should be used, it's wrong he should use the other guy.

It's not about feelings or culture or society or religion or law or education.

The well-treated slave is still a slave, knows he is being used, and bridles at it (even if only in the privacy of his own thoughts). Should he recognize an opportunity to be free of the leash, he'll take it.

[Iwannaplato]

You need an argument to be against slavery?

Seems to me, in a philosophy forum, yeah, you do.

If I am telling other people they should, sure. But I was being questioned about how I arrived at being against slavery. If someone comes along who is pro-slavery, well, I'll join in. But I won't try to convince them to change their minds by saying I don't like it. I will tailor my arguments to that person. I am pretty pragmatic. So the argument used would be based on their values, to as much of a degree as I can. Further I would likely criticise their arguments in favor of slavery.

But my question was to you. I'll change the tense. Did you really need an argument to be against slavery? Did you need to reason your way to that position?

[Dontaskme]

The inherent properties behind morality "belong" to God.

What empirical evidence does God test his moral theory against?

*Facepalm*.

Do you understand the word "omniscience"? It's one of the attributes of God.

You're reply doesn't answer the question, it just repeats what you've already stated in a different way.
So again, what empirical evidence does an all knowing God test his moral theory against? if it's just a THEORY? ..his theory, which would be his own biased subjective opinion, according to what he believes, thinks, and should and ought to be. And what's really weird about this, is why would an all knowing moral God object to immorality when it's all inclusive of his own knowing. He would have had to be an immoral GOD to have known immorality is immoral.

But enough of that nonsense...let me put this to you...

Do you understand what is meant by the concept ''first person singular pronoun'' ? You are a human person aren't you?...you do not know everything do you? you only know what you know based on the knowledge you already have that you have echoed from those who came before you based on what they had, what they were conditioned to believe by the standards and values of their conditionings set down by their culture according to the environment they grew up in, the only thing they knew.

So then, based on that knowledge we already have, we can ascertain that the 'human person' is a temporal knowing being, not an eternal absolute knowing being.Morality must therefore be subjective because human conciousness is subjective according to how they have perceived what they perceiving.

In order for morality to be objective, it must be right or wrong regardless of human perception.
Morality does not exist without human conciousness to perceive and interpret it. Human perception is subjective because no one individual can interpret another's perception.Morality is not absolutely universal, because not all environments and societies and cultures are the same. So I suppose all there is left really, is moral relativism, which is somewhere inbetween the ideas of subjective and objective, and never one nor the other ABSOLUTELY.

That said, there is only the ABSOLUTE, except within the dream of separation, the realm of knower and known...but the ABSOLUTE cannot KNOW the absolute, because you are the knowing that cannot be known. For the absolute to know the absolute, it would have to split in to two ''essences'' into subject and object, knower and known, creator and created. Not happening, sorry.

[henry quirk]

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.

No, that's not true.

You don't have to respect anyone's life, liberty, or property or anyone's moral claim to life, liberty, or property. The wrong comes when you choose to ignore that moral claim and use the other guy as your commodity. Joe can hate Stan's guts all he likes. His sin comes when he steals Stan's car, rapes Stan's wife, kidnaps Stan's kid, or cons Stan's bewildered Grandpop.

Reciprocation -- Justice (or revenge) -- can balance the scales when Stan does (not thinks) wrong. I don't have to smuggle it in: It's common sense.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

No, that's not true.

You don't have to respect anyone's life, liberty, or property or anyone's moral claim to life, liberty, or property. The wrong comes when you choose to ignore that moral claim and use the other guy as your commodity. Joe can hate Stan's guts all he likes. His sin comes when he steals Stan's car, rapes Stan's wife, kidnaps Stan's kid, or cons Stan's bewildered Grandpop.

Reciprocation -- Justice (or revenge) -- can balance the scales when Stan does (not thinks) wrong. I don't have to smuggle it in: It's common sense.

Now you are sneaking in common sense instead. None of this is something you get by simply unpacking the single principle that man owns himself. Nothihng prevents you owning yourself and owning somebody else too until you have snuck in this principle that other peopel own themselves. Just using "common sense" to fill in the holes in your argument begs too many questions.

[henry quirk]

henry may well be a slave to his own "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" political prejudices.

If I gotta be a slave to sumthin' I can't think of anything better than: a person, any person, every person, anywhere or when (includin' you), has an exclusive moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property.

If that makes me "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian", so be it.

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.

Yes.

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

A compliment? From you? On your own sketchy terms? Wow. Hell is gettin' chilly.

[Immanuel Can]

What empirical evidence does God test his moral theory against?

*Facepalm*.

Do you understand the word "omniscience"? It's one of the attributes of God.

So again, what empirical evidence does an all knowing God test his moral theory against?

Ugh.

God doesn't "test" anything. God knows everything (ominiscience). There's no "theory" he has to hold, only knowledge, and no "test," only certainty.

How simple do I have to make this?

[Harbal]

It's founded on the nature of God Himself, on the fact that God is a loving, attentive and diligent Father, not an exploiter or betrayer. And there's really no better basis on which for it to be founded.

That's not a principle

Then maybe we need to establish what you mean when you say you want a "principle." For in ordinary language usage, such as I have given would fit the bill; but if you have something different in mind, I should wish to provide it.

A premise from which it is possible to evaluate any moral dictate. In other words; it is not enough to say X is wrong, we also need to know what, exactly, is wrong with X.

It is also dependent on belief in God

Don't be surprised. I have been saying that all along. There is no knowledge of morality unless one first gets one's ontology straight. So says the Bible, as well.

Why should I care what the Bible says? I don't believe in God, and I recognise no authority in the Bible. That's an end to the matter as far as I am concerned.

God exists, and He exists as the whole basis of morality; so to reckon without that fact is actually to obscure the entire field of moral philosophy,

What kind of dreamt-up-out-of-thin-air statement is that supposed to be? What philosophy is involved in simply obeying a commandment?

I can see why you are constantly trying to steer the conversation towards attacking the viability of subjective morality. As futile as that endeavour is, it is nowhere near a difficult as putting up a convincing argument for objective moral truths. In fact, there is no argument for them; your position merely rests on two assertions; there is a God, and he is the source of morality. Since you don't have the means to establish the truth of those highly contested assertions, you basically have nothing.

[Harbal]

*Facepalm*.

Do you understand the word "omniscience"? It's one of the attributes of God.

So again, what empirical evidence does an all knowing God test his moral theory against?

Ugh.

God doesn't "test" anything. God knows everything (ominiscience). There's no "theory" he has to hold, only knowledge, and no "test," only certainty.

How simple do I have to make this?

Perhaps you have made it too simple. I think some of us were expecting you to have something a bit more sophisticated up your sleeve.

[henry quirk]

Moral subjectivism exists

It does, yes. Opinions about morality, and moral opinion, exist. They exist in the same way opinions about fire exist.

Francis hates fire and gets his sneakers up around his ears at the mere mention of fire. Does his hatred -- his opinion -- change fire? Louis respects fire. He knows its power and he knows how to harness it. Does his respect -- his opinion -- change fire?

Fire is fire. The wood fire in the fireplace does what it does whether Francis hates it or Louis respects it.

Morality (moral fact) is no different. You can bridle at it or align yourself with it and it remains the same. You can violate it or respect it and it changes not one bit.

So, yeah, you can, and do, have your opinion. That's a trivial observation.

[Sculptor]

Moral subjectivism exists

It does, yes. Opinions about morality, and moral opinion, exist. They exist in the same way opinions about fire exist.

Rubbish. Fire is more than just an idea, or set of ideas.

People of limited intelligence might do well the stop and think before they make an arse of themseves.

[henry quirk]

Find a man who believes it right he should be slaved, murdered, raped, robbed or defrauded. Find one and you invalidate moral truth, reveal man as meat only and, at the very least, show God as unworthy of respect or, at most, prove He is a fiction.

If you can't find one amidst the variety of cultures, norms, and out & out differences among all the folks who live and have lived, you'll have to admit to at least the possibility of moral truth, that man is mebbe sumthin' more than meat, and that mebbe Reality isn't just a happenstance.

[FlashDangerpants]

Find a man who believes it right he should be slaved, murdered, raped, robbed or defrauded. Find one and you invalidate moral truth, reveal man as meat only and, at the very least, show God as unworthy of respect or, at most, prove He is a fiction.

If you can't find one amidst the variety of cultures, norms, and out & out differences among all the folks who live and have lived, you'll have to admit to at least the possibility of moral truth, that man is mebbe sumthin' more than meat, and that mebbe Reality isn't just a happenstance.

Not an argument. Not relevant to what I wrote.