Is morality objective or subjective?

[promethean75]

hey biggs why don't u ever include tornadoes and hurricanes in that list u post everyday in every thread?

[bahman]

Very easily. That's what "objective" entails...it means that morality is intrinsic to the created order, precisely because God created everything with moral significance.

No, such a morality is biased with the nature of the creator.

You're using "objective" in two different senses: one is, "actually true, regardless of subjectivity," which is what this OP is talking about. The other is "impartial," which is not what the OP is implying at all.

By objective I mean it is true and any rational being agrees with it. Like the law of gravity.

No, that would be wrong. "Objective" doesn't mean, "obvious to everybody." It just means, "True, whether particular people know it or not."

The law of gravity is objective. If you ignore it, it won't go away or become less objective. It will just make you fall anyway.

By obvious, I mean that it is true and everybody would agree with it.

That is not what "objective" ever means. It means "true regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it."

You cannot disagree with something objective. Remember the law of gravity.

No, that's not logical.

It follows given the definition of objective morality as I stated in the last comment.

No, actually...it doesn't.

It follows.

Moreover, since both exist, there's no conflict there, either way.

Prove that God exists.

I've already done quite a variety of that. What is it that you will accept as proof?

Pick up the one you like.

[Immanuel Can]

No, such a morality is biased with the nature of the creator.

You're using "objective" in two different senses: one is, "actually true, regardless of subjectivity," which is what this OP is talking about. The other is "impartial," which is not what the OP is implying at all.

By objective I mean it is true and any rational being agrees with it.

That's two different definitions. That's why you had to use the conjunction "and" to explain it. You have to pick one, and stay with it, to be rational in your argument.

You cannot disagree with something objective. Remember the law of gravity.

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die. Because what "objective' really means in this context is, "not subjective" (see above) or is, "true, whether or not anybody agrees with it."

Prove that God exists.

I've already done quite a variety of that. What is it that you will accept as proof?

Pick up the one you like.

That's no good: YOU have to like it. If you don't, then it's no good just convincing me, because I already know it's true.

So what would you accept as proof of the existence of God?

[bahman]

You're using "objective" in two different senses: one is, "actually true, regardless of subjectivity," which is what this OP is talking about. The other is "impartial," which is not what the OP is implying at all.

By objective I mean it is true and any rational being agrees with it.

That's two different definitions. That's why you had to use the conjunction "and" to explain it. You have to pick one, and stay with it, to be rational in your argument.

Any rational being agrees with the truth. Isn't it?

You cannot disagree with something objective. Remember the law of gravity.

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die. Because what "objective' really means in this context is, "not subjective" (see above) or is, "true, whether or not anybody agrees with it."

That was you who came up with the example of gravity as an objective thing.

I've already done quite a variety of that. What is it that you will accept as proof?

Pick up the one you like.

That's no good: YOU have to like it. If you don't, then it's no good just convincing me, because I already know it's true.

Don't worry, I will like it.

So what would you accept as proof of the existence of God?

Just pick up the one you are comfortable with.

[Harbal]

You cannot disagree with something objective. Remember the law of gravity.

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die.

Yet people disagree with your "objective moral truth", and absolutely nothing happens to them.

[bahman]

hey biggs why don't u ever include tornadoes and hurricanes in that list u post everyday in every thread?

True!

[Immanuel Can]

By objective I mean it is true and any rational being agrees with it.

That's two different definitions. That's why you had to use the conjunction "and" to explain it. You have to pick one, and stay with it, to be rational in your argument.

Any rational being agrees with the truth. Isn't it?

No. All rational beings should agree with the truth, if they know it. But not everybody behaves rationally, and not everybody knows everything.

You cannot disagree with something objective. Remember the law of gravity.

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die. Because what "objective' really means in this context is, "not subjective" (see above) or is, "true, whether or not anybody agrees with it."

That was you who came up with the example of gravity as an objective thing.

Yes. But not because people can't disagree with it; only because gravity always wins.

Pick up the one you like.

That's no good: YOU have to like it. If you don't, then it's no good just convincing me, because I already know it's true.

Don't worry, I will like it.

Okay. Let's start with the Creation, very generally.

Just look around you. That's evidence for God.

Do you like it?

[Immanuel Can]

You cannot disagree with something objective. Remember the law of gravity.

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die.

Yet people disagree with your "objective moral truth", and absolutely nothing happens to them.

Yet.

But even now, that's very debatable. Does nobody ever experience a consequence for choosing to do evil?

We'll consult the prisons, and find out.

[bahman]

That's two different definitions. That's why you had to use the conjunction "and" to explain it. You have to pick one, and stay with it, to be rational in your argument.

Any rational being agrees with the truth. Isn't it?

No. All rational beings should agree with the truth, if they know it.

No, All rational beings would agree with the truth, if they know it.

But not everybody behaves rationally, ...

We are not talking about behavior.

...and not everybody knows everything.

Don't worry we can agree with it.

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die. Because what "objective' really means in this context is, "not subjective" (see above) or is, "true, whether or not anybody agrees with it."

That was you who came up with the example of gravity as an objective thing.

Yes. But not because people can't disagree with it; only because gravity always wins.

People cannot disagree with gravity since it always win. They know that jumping out of a clif is leathal.

That's no good: YOU have to like it. If you don't, then it's no good just convincing me, because I already know it's true.

Don't worry, I will like it.

Okay. Let's start with the Creation, very generally.

Just look around you. That's evidence for God.

That is what I call the universe. You have to try harder since the stuff that made the universe simply could exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

Do you like it?

No.

[Harbal]

People disagree with the law of gravity all the time. And they die.

Yet people disagree with your "objective moral truth", and absolutely nothing happens to them.

Yet.

But even now, that's very debatable. Does nobody ever experience a consequence for choosing to do evil?

We'll consult the prisons, and find out.

They put you in prison for breaking the law, not for ignoring supposed objective moral truth.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That I’m probably with you on this one.

The PH's OP rejects that Morality is Objective.
How would you counter that with intersubjectivity as objectivity?
Btw, what references are you relying on re intersubjectivity?

Morality: Intersubjectivity and Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40391

That morality isnt as bold as saying there’s a one size fits all but rather a convention among people.
The reference is like 10 ys of reading political philosopy and ajacent philosophies creating a kind of hunch of what it could be. Down my gut. I could come up with a list of media referring to that. But I have no facit.

I think you are heading in the wrong direction with the above.

Analogy:
Re Nutrition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition

• Nutrition is the biochemical and physiological process by which an organism uses food to support its life. It provides organisms with nutrients, which can be metabolized to create energy and chemical structures.

There are probably 100s or even 1000 of variables [main and subs] humans obtain from natural sources, cultivate and produce their own food; ways of preparing, and uses food to support human life; in variation with different "convention among people" in terms of personal preferences, specific purposes, medical, culture, traditions, customs, etc.
But within all the above, there is a one-size-fit-all, i.e. all the above variations and complexity are reducible to:
-one generic digestive system with
-one purpose to extract essential nutrients for
-one purpose to support human life.

It is the same for morality as a human function:
the complex set of subjective moral variations with different "convention among people" in terms of culture, traditions, customs, etc., are reducible to a "one-size-fit-all"
-one generic moral system
-one purpose to general moral principles for moral actions for
-one purpose to support human life.

That it is one, generic and universal means it is objective [intersubjective].
The question is what is this undeniable generic moral system?
This is where one will have to research and contemplate.

This is in contrast to your;
"That morality isnt as bold as saying there’s a one size fits all but rather a convention among people."

[Shellbell]

Science and evolution tell us humans are intrinsically connected to animals. We have a shared DNA of 96% with Chimpanzees.
When you consider people like Rene Descartes had their thinking drenched deep in religion, I give them no benefit of intelligent thought.
How do you define a soul? Does a thing exist? It did in Descartes times as to not believe in god was heresy, dangerous. Animals are very intelligent. Whether 400 years ago or now. Animals represented many gods from many ancient religions. It was the onset of Christianity who's God loves him a big old burning sacrifice of meats. Farm animals are intelligent. Cows are inherently curious. Pigs are known for their smarts. However they use their brain, they all feel....feel kindness, feel pain, feel fear.
Animals humans eat are treated terribly and that shows human incapacity for compassion or any sort of care for an animal who has its life taken purely for food.
About the marine and the puppy.....there will always be those that lack decency, that have some sort of misguided thrill gained by hurting or scaring something smaller and weaker than themselves. The puppy might have been terminally ill but it didn't deserve to feel fear before it plummeted to its death. And he did it and recorded it for this disgusting thrill he got. Imagine his compassion as a marine. He is a bully and would be the same to any weaker human crossing his path.
Descartes set the precedent for humans to treat animals terribly for centuries. He wasn't a philosopher, he was confused, brought demons and god into his "reasoning", had no basis for a soul existing except what's taught in his religion. He wasn't even sure if he was awake or dreaming. He just deduced he existed......even if god or a demon was tricking him. There were some smart thinking men further down the track but in the ages of Descartes and others where god played such a big part these "philosophers " were severely lacking.
Btw, animals are called dumb animals purely because they can't speak to humans, hence dumb. Animals are very intelligent.

Most animals may not be self-aware but many of them have their own little minds. To think otherwise is imo a form of animal abuse.
[/quote]

You can't abuse an animal with a thought.
[/quote]

Thoughts lead to actions
[/quote]

[Immanuel Can]

Don't worry, I will like it.

Okay. Let's start with the Creation, very generally.

Just look around you. That's evidence for God.

That is what I call the universe. You have to try harder since the stuff that made the universe simply could exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

Do you like it?

No.

Then my point is made. It's not true that you will "like it." It's not true that you have to agree to "like" anything, in fact. So the only way to proceed is for me to ask you what sort of proof you WOULD like...and then I'll see if I can give it to you, or if it's even reasonable for you to expect.

Go ahead. What will you accept as proof? And if you don't know, then the obvious answer is that there is nothing you would ever accept. And nobody can fix that disposition for you.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet people disagree with your "objective moral truth", and absolutely nothing happens to them.

Yet.

But even now, that's very debatable. Does nobody ever experience a consequence for choosing to do evil?

We'll consult the prisons, and find out.

They put you in prison for breaking the law, not for ignoring supposed objective moral truth.

The objective moral truth is what human laws have to (attempt to) reflect. If there is no actual reason why murder or theft is wrong, then what legitimacy has any society in penalizing somebody for performing those acts, far less for imprisoning anybody?

[bahman]

Okay. Let's start with the Creation, very generally.

Just look around you. That's evidence for God.

That is what I call the universe. You have to try harder since the stuff that made the universe simply could exist at the beginning of time without any intervention.

Do you like it?

No.

Then my point is made. It's not true that you will "like it." It's not true that you have to agree to "like" anything, in fact. So the only way to proceed is for me to ask you what sort of proof you WOULD like...and then I'll see if I can give it to you, or if it's even reasonable for you to expect.

Go ahead. What will you accept as proof? And if you don't know, then the obvious answer is that there is nothing you would ever accept. And nobody can fix that disposition for you.

It is not about me like it or not. You need to provide an argument you are comfortable with.