Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

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.

Then it's settled. Henry, just like many, many others here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...embraces his own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of life, liberty and property as the One True Path.

It's just that, for the religious folks, they don't quite trust themselves as mere mortals to get them right. So, one way or another, they fall back on a God, the God to "confirm" it.

Of course, some, like Mr. Cant, need more than a Supreme Being who doesn't even bother to stick around to see how the flocks of sheep turn out. He needs to connect his own arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian rendition of life, liberty and property to immortality and salvation.

In other words, he's still going up and Mr. Quack is still going down if he doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior.*

Thus...

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.

And, of course, "in his head" "here and now" he really, really means it. Hell [if you'll pardon the pun], he doesn't even grasp the extent to which he is just one more run-of-the-mill, "my way or the highway" fiercely fanatical objectivist.

On the other hand, if it's any comfort to him, none of them here do.



*Mr. Cant to Mr. Quack:

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

[henry quirk]

Not an argument. Not relevant to what I wrote

You asked: If there is moral truth, what reliable method exists find out about it?

I gave you a means, not an argument. And, yeah, it's relevant.

[henry quirk]

We can observe the fire to see if our opinions affect it, but we can't do that with morality, because morality consists of our opinions; morality is our opinions.

Well, I say morality is as real as fire, but, of course, it's not fire, so, no, we can't observe it directly. But we can observe that which it is fundamental to: persons. The test I suggested to flash might, roundaboutly, let us observe morality or test its reality.

edit: punctuation correction

[henry quirk]

Then it's settled. Henry, just like many, many others here embraces his own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of life, liberty and property as the One True Path.

That's been your assessment from the start. You keep repeatin' it to -- what? -- convince someone of your assessment? Yourself?

Mr. Quack

You just gotta get mean and demeaning: is that part of the rhetorician's toolbox?

[Sculptor]

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

And so is morality.

Nope.
Fire is a physcal phenomenon; quantifiable. measurable, visible. Morality is NONE of those things'

[henry quirk]

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

And so is morality.

Nope.
Fire is a physcal phenomenon; quantifiable. measurable, visible. Morality is NONE of those things'

The earth's core is, itself, not measurable, not visible, and not quantifiable. We know it's there. How?

[Harbal]

...it is useless to me, because I don't believe any of it.

That is absolutely true. And that's why it's so important to get the metaethics, the ontology, sorted out. Otherwise, no ethical theory leads you anywhere but nihilism, which is a place you're determined not to go.

Call me an impetuous fool if you like, but I'm going to take the risk.

As the one living in the shack, I feel I am far better placed to judge whether or not it is on fire.

Rationality shows it is. You're living in a theory that has no metaethical basis, no ontological warrant at all.

Oh my God!
I didn't realise the seriousness of the situation.

What can I say other than I reject all that?

Well, if I'm right about subjectivism

I don't think anyone need worry about the possibility of that.

I incorporate morality into my conduct,

I'm certain you're a good person, so far as your own subjective opinion may convince you. I have no reason to think you're also not a good person by relative standards set by society. Heck, I have no reason to believe you're not innately a much better person than I.

Yet what is that to the point? If true, it's only accidental, and not the fruit of your moral theory. For your moral theory allows that you might do anything at all, and still believe yourself "moral."

You seem to be appealing to my sense of morality in order to alert me to the fact that I have no such sense.

More importantly, the righteousness of man is nothing to God.

I can hardly complain about that when the "righteousness" of God is nothing to me.

Why should He be impressed with our shady moral conduct, when He's perfect?

Exactly, he has much more important matters to attend to.

So then, I'm afraid, you'll have to give up rationality. There's no way to keep subjectivism and rationality together.

Rationality doesn't really have a role in my sense of morality, it would be more of a hindrance than a help, so I prefer to keep them apart.

[iambiguous]

Then it's settled. Henry, just like many, many others here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...embraces his own rooted existentially in dasein rendition of life, liberty and property as the One True Path.

It's just that, for the religious folks, they don't quite trust themselves as mere mortals to get them right. So, one way or another, they fall back on a God, the God to "confirm" it.

Of course, some, like Mr. Cant, need more than a Supreme Being who doesn't even bother to stick around to see how the flocks of sheep turn out. He needs to connect his own arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian rendition of life, liberty and property to immortality and salvation.

That's been your assessment from the start. You keep repeatin' it to -- what? -- convince someone of your assessment? Yourself?

Sigh...

One more time: the win/win syndrome

On the one hand, I have thought myself into believing that, in a No God world, my very own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that "I" am fractured and fragmented morally and that any day now I can tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion. So, sure, I come to places like this thinking, maybe, just maybe, I can encounter someone able to prompt me to yank myself up out of this truly grim hole I've dug myself down into.

On the other hand, if not that, I might succeed instead in convincing someone to actually come down into the hole with me. Empathy let's call it.

Mr. Quack

You just gotta get mean and demeaning: is that part of the rhetorician's toolbox?

You're forgetting that with those here like you and Mr. Cant, I'm basically in entertainment mode. You both wiggle out of actually responding to the points I make above and I respond accordingly.

Not to worry though. Others here really do take you seriously. They respect your intelligence and don't go to the places I go.

And I'm the first to admit that they may well be right to do so. Meaning that I may well be wrong not to. Again, these ethical and political and philosophical and religious prejudices that we exchange here in regard to human morality are seen by me as rooted existentially in dasein.

And, in my opinion, it's this assumption that particularly irks FFOs like you. I'm not here [as most are in my view] to argue that there is an objective morality and it's mine not yours. I'm here to suggest instead that in a No God world, morality itself is a social, political and economic construct rooted in ever evolving/changing historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts.

FFOs believe what they do because the belief itself is what sustains their comfort and consolation. The "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Some all the way to the grave.

And beyond, right Mr. Cant?

[Iwannaplato]

No, I had no need to.

[Immanuel Can]

Rationality doesn't really have a role in my sense of morality, it would be more of a hindrance than a help, so I prefer to keep them apart.

Okay.

That's a fairly common option, actually.

[henry quirk]

I'm basically in entertainment mode.

Ah, I see. I'm no longer to be applauded...

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

Okay. Have fun.

[Sculptor]

And so is morality.

Nope.
Fire is a physcal phenomenon; quantifiable. measurable, visible. Morality is NONE of those things'

The earth's core is, itself, not measurable, not visible, and not quantifiable. We know it's there. How?

How irrelevant can you get.
Keep trying I know you can dig yourself deeper

[henry quirk]

No answer. Typical.

'nuff said

[Sculptor]

No answer. Typical.

'nuff said

Maybe you are too deep in your hole to see?

[Dubious]

the Monotheistic claim is that God can and does involve Himself periodically in human affairs, and continues to do so. But either way, that's not a "test." It's just a confession that you personally don't know of any such evidence.

...a claim is not a fact. Anyone can "claim" anything they like at any time just as you have consistently done in defense of an outdated, outworn mythologized script.

Amazing, isn't it that Yahweh brought the people out of Egypt saving them from slavery yet when the Nazis eliminated two-thirds of European Jews with the intention to eliminate all of that tribe, there was not the slightest involvement by the god of Israel to save his Chosen People. Yet you have the temerity to state he continues to be involved! Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Based on the Exodus saga it's easy to conclude that would wake up great, great, great, grandaddy Yahweh into some action, but no! During the course of these epochal events old Yahweh seems as dead as a dried out moth stuck to the wall.

BTW, all history, in the long run, amounts to a test of human thought, its evolution or devolution.

If, for example, Israel says they escaped through the Red Sea by way of a miraculous intervention from God, which they do, in fact, say, by what test did you prove them liars?

Not in the least do I think they're liars. Like all the ancients, they just mythologized the reality into a hyperreality to give the stories a god-like authority of miracles performed, etc. The stories are always more believable if god is presented on YOUR side of the equation. All others must be expunged...You shall have no other gods before me...the first and most mandated commandment among the ten!

In effect, the Exodus account is a prime biblical example of "mythicized history" which doesn't exclude the possibility of slaves being liberated just not in the "story-telling" novelistic manner of Exodus.

In any event, there exists no direct evidence of any kind it being true. The story appears only in the Torah in which Moses was the main protagonist...not the author.

Every good story needs one.