Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

If morality is objective then it means that humans can find a reason why an act is morally right or wrong, whether God exists or not.

No. If morality is objective, it means that it's true whether or not human beings even know it is.

Well, something that is objective can be verified! It is not like that God owes everything then everything that God says is objective. What kind of verification is this?

There are no such reasons to be had. "Reason" isn't itself some kind of metaphysical entity prior to God.

If morality is objective then it means that we can agree on why an act is morally right or wrong.

See above. It doesn't. It just means we should agree, because it's foolish and counterproductive to disbelieve in an objective truth.

So God does not have any reason except that He owns us!

I did. You called it "subjective," even though it's an objective argument, about objective facts, and issuing in an objective moral duty.

You just said because God says so. Because we are the property of God. That is not a reason.

It is. It's just not a reason that you like or will accept, perhaps. But it's the final reason.

It is a reason to you? So be happy with it. I am not convinced though.

Yes. Because the child belongs to God, by all rights. She's not the woman's to kill. And the woman herself is also entirely owned by God, by all rights; so she has no legitimate authority to murder her baby.

So God to you is a totalitarian being dictating everything to rational beings, humans, without providing a reason.

"Totalitarian"? No. Sovereign, yes. And He sometimes graciously tells us reasons for what He requires of us; but if He doesn't, He doesn't owe them to us, because you don't demand things of God. If God says it, then that's all that really needs to be said. Further reasons are only ever secondary.

No, He owes us! We have the right to know why an action is morally right or wrong. We can understand without Him if there was a reason why an act is morally right or wrong, yet we don't have a reason for many acts.

[Immanuel Can]

If morality is objective then it means that humans can find a reason why an act is morally right or wrong, whether God exists or not.

No. If morality is objective, it means that it's true whether or not human beings even know it is.

Well, something that is objective can be verified!

The size of the universe is an objective number. Can you verify it for me? The number of cups of water in the oceans is an objective number. Can you supply it to me? Mind is an objective reality. Can you explain it to me?

Objectivity means something is so, whether anybody knows it or not. Subjectivity means something only appears to be so, so long as somebody knows it.

You just said because God says so. Because we are the property of God. That is not a reason.

It is. It's just not a reason that you like or will accept, perhaps. But it's the final reason.

It is a reason to you? So be happy with it. I am not convinced though.

That's the great thing about an objective truth: it really doesn't matter whether you're convinced of it or not. If you disbelieve it, you don't hurt anything but yourself.

So God to you is a totalitarian being dictating everything to rational beings, humans, without providing a reason.

"Totalitarian"? No. Sovereign, yes. And He sometimes graciously tells us reasons for what He requires of us; but if He doesn't, He doesn't owe them to us, because you don't demand things of God. If God says it, then that's all that really needs to be said. Further reasons are only ever secondary.

No, He owes us!
[/quote]
On what basis? You are the creation, and He is the Creator. What does he "owe" you? And who's going to demand it for you?

Everything you get is a bonus. You weren't owed life, liberty or property, apart from the gracious giving of God. But He gave them to you. And you aren't owed anything that He hasn't entited you to.

[Harbal]

What about ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and psychokinesis, should my absence of experience of them lead me to the conclusion that I should also take those things seriously? I have my own sense of the nature of reality and of what may or may not be possible, and I can only judge the likelihood of something in reference to that sense.

That doesn't seem right. That would mean you could never obtain any new knowledge or experiences, because you'd rule out anything you didn't already "have a sense of." But I doubt that's the way you operate.

There are metaphysical claims we should doubt, of course: reincarnation, telepathy, etc., because we have scientific grounds for doing so, adequate to the subject in doubt. Then there are metaphysical claims we really cannot doubt: that we exist, that we have minds, that reality means something and is, in some sense, present to us, that science and logic are useful, and so on. Then there are the middle metaphysical claims: those we are not sure of, but which we can explore. The whole question is, "To which of these three categories does God belong?"

What would be the point of my speculating about God? Even if my observations of what you call "order" in the world/universe led me to conclude there must be intelligent design behind it, how would I even know where to begin to start figuring out what the nature of the intelligence was?

But the supernatural doesn't explain anything; it's just a way of saying something can't be explained.

I don't remember invoking "the supernatural," but we can use that word if you prefer it. I would say, "the transcendent" or "the metaphysical," rather than "supernatural, " because "supernaturalism" is a word with baggage, and "metaphysical" has the good implication of something not contrary to the physical but supplemental to it.

Any aspect of the power you attribute to God would be called magic in any other context, so I think "supernatural" is a fair compromise between that and "metaphysical". But whatever we call it, we are no closer to understanding it. It doesn't just fail to explain anything, it forms a barrier to asking any further questions.

[Immanuel Can]

What would be the point of my speculating about God?

The same as speculating about anything: to ask the question, is there something I've missed here?

Even if my observations of what you call "order" in the world/universe led me to conclude there must be intelligent design behind it, how would I even know where to begin to start figuring out what the nature of the intelligence was?

A good question, but secondary. Unless there is some kind of a God, you can't really get about asking, "What kind of God does/doesn't exist?"

And there are places to start with that. One is the realization that one is dependent on that same God that exists to reveal Himself in some way. It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that left to our own devices you and I are not equipped for the search, is it not?

Any aspect of the power you attribute to God would be called magic in any other context,

I don't think so. I wonder why you suppose that.

A mountain has attributes: I don't have to invoke anything "magical" to say what they are. I just have to see the mountain.

[Harbal]

If morality is objective then it means that humans can find a reason why an act is morally right or wrong, whether God exists or not.

No. If morality is objective, it means that it's true whether or not human beings even know it is.

But since God, as the First Cause, is the ultimate explanation or reason for everything, that's impossible.

What do you mean?

I don't know if I can break it down any further for you: the First Cause of all things is the only final explanation there is, or ever could be. That's what "first" implies, there.

There are no such reasons to be had. "Reason" isn't itself some kind of metaphysical entity prior to God.

If morality is objective then it means that we can agree on why an act is morally right or wrong.

See above. It doesn't. It just means we should agree, because it's foolish and counterproductive to disbelieve in an objective truth.

I did. You called it "subjective," even though it's an objective argument, about objective facts, and issuing in an objective moral duty.

You just said because God says so. Because we are the property of God. That is not a reason.

It is. It's just not a reason that you like or will accept, perhaps. But it's the final reason.

Morality is a human value system by which we determine what is good, bad, right and wrong in regard to how humans behave toward each other. Whether moral values are based on personal opinion or supposed objective truth does not affect their entitlement to be called moral values. That is my definition of morality, and while you are free to hold a completely different definition, neither of us is entitled to disqualify the other’s. For any argument or discussion about morality to make any sense, a definition has to be agreed upon beforehand, and that is why everything that has been said on the subject so far has been a waste of time.

[Harbal]

Even if my observations of what you call "order" in the world/universe led me to conclude there must be intelligent design behind it, how would I even know where to begin to start figuring out what the nature of the intelligence was?

A good question, but secondary. Unless there is some kind of a God, you can't really get about asking, "What kind of God does/doesn't exist?"

And there are places to start with that. One is the realization that one is dependent on that same God that exists to reveal Himself in some way. It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that left to our own devices you and I are not equipped for the search, is it not?

So when I perceive "order" in the universe, and infer intelligent, or purposeful design, what line of reasoning compels me to call it God?

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is a human value system by which we determine what is good, bad, right and wrong in regard to how humans behave toward each other.

You don't believe that.

You're a subjectivist. And if so, morality doesn't "determine" anything at all. It's merely the feeling of one person versus that of the other. What's been "determined"?

Whether moral values are based on personal opinion or supposed objective truth does not affect their entitlement to be called moral values.

You can call them whatever you want, of course; but the difference will appear in their universality. You can't legitimately enforce or even teach any subjective values. Enforcing them is bullying, and teaching them is nothing more than indoctrination. But you can, if they're morals, and if morals are objective.

...neither of us is entitled to disqualify the other’s.

The truth will disqualify one of us. We won't have to do it ourselves.

[Harbal]

Morality is a human value system by which we determine what is good, bad, right and wrong in regard to how humans behave toward each other.

You don't believe that.

You're a subjectivist. And if so, morality doesn't "determine" anything at all. It's merely the feeling of one person versus that of the other. What's been "determined"?

I have given you my definition of "morality", and I have my own means of arriving at moral value, so I don't see any obstacle to my acting as a moral agent.

Whether moral values are based on personal opinion or supposed objective truth does not affect their entitlement to be called moral values.

You can call them whatever you want, of course; but the difference will appear in their universality.

Universality is not part of the definition, so it doesn't matter.

You can't legitimately enforce or even teach any subjective values.

My definition doesn't depend on your seal of legitimacy, nor does it stipulate anything in regard to enforcement or teaching.

Enforcing them is bullying, and teaching them is nothing more than indoctrination.

Wouldn't that depend on the circumstances? But you needn't worry, my moral values are only intended for personal use.

But you can, if they're morals, and if morals are objective.

Okay, if I ever decide to enforce or teach morality, I will do as you do, and describe it as objective morality.

...neither of us is entitled to disqualify the other’s.

The truth will disqualify one of us. We won't have to do it ourselves.

It is true that the definition I gave you is the definition I refer to when I talk about morality, so I have nothing to worry about.

[Immanuel Can]

I have given you my definition of "morality", and I have my own means of arriving at moral value, so I don't see any obstacle to my acting as a moral agent.

Well, except that you've effectively voided the word "moral" of any content at all. You've made it mean, "Whatever I subjectively feel like doing."

But who doesn't want to do"whatever they subjectively feel like doing?" How does that make one an admirable person? What great fortitude or commitment to principle is exemplified by being ruled by "whatever I subjectively feel like doing"? It looks more like what we used to call "self-indulgence": and nobody thinks that's some great moral achievement.

So something's really missing there, if you want to say, "I'm a moral agent." What's so "moral" about just pleasing yourself?

Whether moral values are based on personal opinion or supposed objective truth does not affect their entitlement to be called moral values.

You can call them whatever you want, of course; but the difference will appear in their universality.

Universality is not part of the definition, so it doesn't matter.

It does, if you want to be regarded as a "moral agent" by anybody but yourself, of if you want that self-assessment to have any content. What you need is the agreement of others. But if what they are doing is merely pleasing themselves (because their morality, too, is subjective, according to you) why do they owe you to call you a "moral agent"?

You can't legitimately enforce or even teach any subjective values.

My definition doesn't depend on your seal of legitimacy, nor does it stipulate anything in regard to enforcement or teaching.

Again, this is vacuous. Your morality isn't legitimate, because you don't even care about legitimacy. It's not social, because you don't care if anybody else believes it. And it's certainly not universal. So again, why should anybody think you're a "moral agent"? What have you done that merits that title?

...my moral values are only intended for personal use.

Exactly so. And as such, they don't differ in any meaningful way from the intention merely to please yourself.

...neither of us is entitled to disqualify the other’s.

The truth will disqualify one of us. We won't have to do it ourselves.

It is true that the definition I gave you is the definition I refer to when I talk about morality, so I have nothing to worry about.

Well, we'll see if that definition is right.

[Harbal]

I have given you my definition of "morality", and I have my own means of arriving at moral value, so I don't see any obstacle to my acting as a moral agent.

Well, except that you've effectively voided the word "moral" of any content at all.

No I haven't. I acknowledge that "moral" relates to matters concerning morality.

You've made it mean, "Whatever I subjectively feel like doing.

No I haven't. Nothing in my definition prevents my moral values from conflicting with what I feel like doing.

But who doesn't want to do"whatever they subjectively feel like doing?

I have a choice. I can do what I don't feel like doing when my moral values require it of me, or I can neglect my moral "duty", and do what I feel like doing, instead. Do you not find yourself in exactly the same position with your objective morality?

How does that make one an admirable person?

Doing the right thing isn't about being admired.

What great fortitude or commitment to principle is exemplified by being ruled by "whatever I subjectively feel like doing"?

What makes you doubt that I am able to act in accordance with my principles regardless of what I might feel like doing, and how do I know that you always put your objective moral principles before what you feel like doing?

It looks more like what we used to call "self-indulgence":

Why did we stop calling it "self-indulgence", may I ask?

So something's really missing there, if you want to say, "I'm a moral agent." What's so "moral" about just pleasing yourself?

The fact that it pleases me when I act in accordance with my moral principles, I suppose.

Universality is not part of the definition, so it doesn't matter.

It does, if you want to be regarded as a "moral agent" by anybody but yourself,

Are the moral principles you follow regarded as universal by everybody?

What you need is the agreement of others. But if what they are doing is merely pleasing themselves (because their morality, too, is subjective, according to you) why do they owe you to call you a "moral agent"?

Moral integrity, as I understand it, requires one to stick to one's principles regardless of what others might think.

My definition doesn't depend on your seal of legitimacy, nor does it stipulate anything in regard to enforcement or teaching.

Again, this is vacuous. Your morality isn't legitimate, because you don't even care about legitimacy.

I don't care what you consider to be legitimate, because I don't recognise your authority to make such declarations.

It's not social, because you don't care if anybody else believes it.

I prefer people to agree with my moral principles, but I can't force them to, just as you can't force anyone to agree with yours.

And it's certainly not universal. So again, why should anybody think you're a "moral agent"? What have you done that merits that title?

When you act according to your moral principles, you are a moral agent.

...my moral values are only intended for personal use.

Exactly so. And as such, they don't differ in any meaningful way from the intention merely to please yourself.

Whether we believe our moral principles to be based on objective moral truth, or recognise them as subjective views, we are equally free to take them as seriously or as casually as we like.

It is true that the definition I gave you is the definition I refer to when I talk about morality, so I have nothing to worry about.

Well, we'll see if that definition is right.

It is neither right or wrong, it is simply what the word, "morality", means to me. But if you insist that it is wrong, just how do you imagine we will come to see that?

[Immanuel Can]

I have given you my definition of "morality", and I have my own means of arriving at moral value, so I don't see any obstacle to my acting as a moral agent.

Well, except that you've effectively voided the word "moral" of any content at all.

No I haven't. I acknowledge that "moral" relates to matters concerning morality.

That's circular. If "moral" means subjective wishes, or "what I subjectively feel like doing," then it essentially means nothing at all. There's no point in even using the word. Just say, "I'm an agent of my own wishes." The word "moral" doesn't add anything, then.[/quote]

Let's shorten this conversation, because we're going around and around the same simple point. The word "moral" has no meaning if it simply refers to subjectivity, to "what I happen to want to do." It's just selfishness. But morality is about putting aside self for the good of others, or sticking to principle when it's personally costly to do so. Pleasing oneself isn't moral; its what we expect any selfish, narcissistic or solipsistic person to do, and no more.

Therefore, there's no sense in which a subjectivist can be called a "moral agent." He or she is only an "agent" -- an agent of their own impulses and selfish preferences. And that is not a laudable thing.

[bahman]

No. If morality is objective, it means that it's true whether or not human beings even know it is.

Well, something that is objective can be verified!

The size of the universe is an objective number. Can you verify it for me? The number of cups of water in the oceans is an objective number. Can you supply it to me? Mind is an objective reality. Can you explain it to me?

Objectivity means something is so, whether anybody knows it or not. Subjectivity means something only appears to be so, so long as somebody knows it.

I think we should agree on the definition of subjective and objective first. Something is subjective if it is dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, imaginations, or conscious experiences. Something is objective if it can be confirmed by reason and it is independent of biases,..

"Totalitarian"? No. Sovereign, yes. And He sometimes graciously tells us reasons for what He requires of us; but if He doesn't, He doesn't owe them to us, because you don't demand things of God. If God says it, then that's all that really needs to be said. Further reasons are only ever secondary.

No, He owes us!

On what basis? You are the creation, and He is the Creator. What does he "owe" you? And who's going to demand it for you?

Everything you get is a bonus. You weren't owed life, liberty or property, apart from the gracious giving of God. But He gave them to you. And you aren't owed anything that He hasn't entited you to.

He owes us as our parents owe us. We need to understand why something is right or wrong. We need teaching supported by reasoning.

[Will Bouwman]

Let me ask you, then: can an Atheist believe in a God or gods, and still be an Atheist, as you see it?

I don't accept "atheism" is an ideology with a capital A, nor does anyone else. For the third time:

Well, being dictionary naive, I am happy for you to guide me to any specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition.

There is no such definition. You complain about committees defining words, at least there is some agreement; your definition is decided by a committee of one.

As someone who brings up etymology, you ought to appreciate that is what it literally means.

I do, actually. Here's what the Wiki says.

Do you mean this Wiki?

Wiki is an open-source, which means anybody can contribute to it. You need a credible source. You've given none. And not surprisingly, because the information you have is just plain wrong.

...Atheism requires us to believe that the whole universe is an accident.

Again, that is your capitalised Atheist ideology that only you agree with. There is no requirement of atheism to believe anything.

In fact, what we think is "science" could be no more than our deceptive brains throwing up apparent patterns where none actually exist.

That is underdetermination in a nutshell. There are always alternative explanations and mathematical descriptions for exactly the same phenomena; different patterns in the same data. In some experiments there is so much data that we have to think of patterns to look for in what is otherwise a meaningless jumble.

There's nothing that promises any "fit" between rationality and the universe anymore.

Well, we live in interesting times. AI will almost certainly be better at designing and finding patterns and in many cases already is, with the implication that while God clearly didn't design a brain that relies on the production of truth for the reproduction of its species, we might.

...it seems to me that the risk of thinking through religion is that you will lose it.

That's sometimes true, but only for irrational religions. In regards to Christianity, I, and countless other scholars as well, down throughout more than two centuries, have found that thinking carefully about theif faith has been very confirming.

Of course it has. If you are seeking to confirm your belief you will promote anything that can be taken as evidence and rationalise away the facts that contradict your belief. It is called confirmation bias. It leads to what Popper called unfalsifiability.

And if you know the history of science, you'll also know that it's not accidental that science appeared in the Christian West, but not in, say, Confuscian China, Hindu India, animinist Africa, or among the many aboriginal nations of North America. It began because of the metaphysical principles of Christianity, and its very most basic method was first proposed by a theologian, Francis Bacon.

That is an example of confirmation bias. If you really know the history of science, you will agree that Francis Bacon was certainly an important figure, but probably not in the way you apparently suppose. His legacy is less the methods described in the Novum Organum and more the influence of New Atlantis on the founders of the Royal Society a ‘College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning’. The origins of western science go back to Ancient Greece and the empirical work of the Milesians Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, the mathematics of the Pythagoreans and a dash of the logic of the Eleatics all of whom predate Christianity by roughly 500 years. You can read about it here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

Most of the early scientists, in fact, were even clergymen; and even today, many scientists remain Theists.

More Noblemen than clergy. The key thing was the luxury to play around with ideas and experiments that weren't immediately fruitful.

So much for the old religion-against-science trope. It may be a convenient belief for Atheists, but is not related to truth. Perhaps it's just like one of those false beliefs that help Atheists survive-As-Atheists; but in any case, it doesn't reflect the history or the real world even today.

What false beliefs of your false Atheists would they be?

[Harbal]

Well, except that you've effectively voided the word "moral" of any content at all.

No I haven't. I acknowledge that "moral" relates to matters concerning morality.

That's circular. If "moral" means subjective wishes, or "what I subjectively feel like doing," then it essentially means nothing at all. There's no point in even using the word. Just say, "I'm an agent of my own wishes." The word "moral" doesn't add anything, then.

Let's shorten this conversation, because we're going around and around the same simple point. The word "moral" has no meaning if it simply refers to subjectivity, to "what I happen to want to do." It's just selfishness. But morality is about putting aside self for the good of others, or sticking to principle when it's personally costly to do so. Pleasing oneself isn't moral; its what we expect any selfish, narcissistic or solipsistic person to do, and no more.

Therefore, there's no sense in which a subjectivist can be called a "moral agent." He or she is only an "agent" -- an agent of their own impulses and selfish preferences. And that is not a laudable thing.

This, along with all your other responses, is a complete misrepresentation of what I have described to you as my concept of morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, something that is objective can be verified!

The size of the universe is an objective number. Can you verify it for me? The number of cups of water in the oceans is an objective number. Can you supply it to me? Mind is an objective reality. Can you explain it to me?

Objectivity means something is so, whether anybody knows it or not. Subjectivity means something only appears to be so, so long as somebody knows it.

I think we should agree on the definition of subjective and objective first. Something is subjective if it is dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, imaginations, or conscious experiences. Something is objective if it can be confirmed by reason and it is independent of biases,..

No, I don't think that will do, and it's not the way I use the terms. It's also not the way the advocates of moral subjectivism will want you to characterize their view, obviously: why would they want to be accused of advocating something "dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, or imaginations," as you put it? They won't.

No, in this context, "subjective" means "derived from the indvidual person." They might accept your term "derived from conscious experiences," but not the rest, I'm sure. So if you insist that "subjective" means all the things you list, you'll find yourself talking at cross-understandings with practically everybody here, I'm also sure.

"Objective" means, as I have already suggested, "real, independent of cognition or perception." It doesn't mean "confirmable," "verifiable" or "known for certain," because whether people know a thing is a different question from whether or not that thing is real. Before anybody knew about North America, North America existed. It was "objectively there." Before anybody knew what polio was, polio still killed people. Polio was an objective reality. That's what "objective" means.

So now we know what we mean by "subjective" and "objective," assuming we're clear on that. What did you want to say?