Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

You pick up one sentence and comment on it ignoring what was said before and after.

You're upset with me because when you said, "The first thing we need is to define our terms," I said, "Yes," and have been agreeing, and taking you seriously, and attempting to do just that?

Why?

I am upset when you ignore a part or the whole part of what I am arguing. Please don't ignore my writing if you want us reach to the same conclusion.

"Tied to," in one sense only: that it takes an intelligent and morally-aware being to understand it. But that does not imply that what that being is perceiving is proceeding from himself (subjective). That's an assumption, and one you'd need to prove.

I don't understand what you want me to prove.

That morality is merely "subjective." And if we had a common definition of that term worked out, just as you claimed we needed to, then youwould know exactly what I'm asking. I'm wanting you to show that a "morality," something worthy of that name, can be premised on nothing more than the subjective feelings of an individual, and on no objective realities at all.

That is very simple. I just need one situation in which people do not agree on what is morally right or wrong. Think of abortion for example. Do you have a reason why it is wrong? If you have a reason then it means that it is objectively wrong to abort a child. Otherwise, the abortion is either based on feeling, opinion, bias, or the like.

Morality is either based on reason or not.

"Based on"?

There is no other option if you think about it.

Well, engineering is "based on" mathematics. But nobody thinks that mathematics can lead to the building of only one kind of bridge. Just so, morality maybe be "based on reason," but reason, like mathematics, is only a process, not a product. The utility of reason, like the results of mathematics, depends entirely on what premises you plug into it. If you start with a bad suppostion, such as "morality is subjective," you'll reason your way to, "Therefore no moral claims are objectively true," as inevitably as you'll reason from 2+2 to 4.

I'm saying you've plugged in the wrong variables. So what seems reasonable to you becomes untrue. That's why appealing to reason alone, without fixing the premises, will not save us here from false conclusions.

No, reason alone is enough to help people to decide properly in a situation. The problem arises when we deal with moral issues when reason cannot help us since we cannot find a reason why something is right or wrong.

My ability to perceive my computer screen is "tied to" my ability to see. But that does not mean that my computer screen is subjective, and is the product of my seeing. My computer screen is really there, whether I see it or not; and it's only my loss if I don't. Perceiving a computer screen takes an intelligent being; but the computer screen is objectively real, whether I like that or not, and whether I benefit from it or not.

You mix the two instances of objectivity, one is related to morality, and another is related to objects. Cannot you see that?

Objectivity means exactly the same thing in both cases. That's what I'm pointing out to you. I believe in a morality that is a real thing, that inheres in all situations, that is always there whether you and I recognize it or not. Like my computer screen, you and I could ignore it, deny it, or wish it away, and it will make not one scratch of difference to the fact that it's there -- because it's entirely grounded in God, not in you and me.

That's what objective means, when I call morality "objective."

No, it doesn't. You are wrong. Objective in the case of morality means that there is a reason why something is right or wrong. The objective in the case of objects does not have anything to do with reason, your computer screen simply exists. I cannot deny it as you cannot.

"Based on" in what sense? It only has to be "perceivable by way of reason" for it not to be arbitrary. It is not a product of reasoning, anymore than my computer screen is a product of my seeing.

Look, this actually can be made very simple. So I'll give that a try.

At one time, every person on the planet had the subjective belief that the Earth is flat. Every person on that Earth experienced the Earth as flat. Nobody even doubted that it was flat. It looked flat. Things didn't fall off it. People walked about in lines, not curves. Everybody knew, with total conviction, that they were standing on a flat plane.

But it wasn't objectively true. The Earth is a globe. Not one person knew it, then. They would only know it later.

That's the difference between subjective and objective. "Subjective" is what all the flat-earthers of that day believed. "Objective" is the truth that the Earth was always round, was never flat, and never would be flat, despite both their opinions and their experiences. That's why opinion and experience (and bias, and imagination, etc.) do not change the subjective-objective dichotomy.

Clear?

No, you are wrong again.

I'm not wrong, even if you happen to think the Earth is flat. It's not. One can deny that morality is objective; but all that happens is that one gets, thereby, to be wrong also.

No, you are wrong. The truth is objective and it is waiting to be discovered. People have right and wrong beliefs though. It is a matter of time to discuss things and observe things to come to the same conclusion though. You think that a wrong belief is subjective and otherwise objective. This is not the proper use of the terms subjective and objective.

[Immanuel Can]

You pick up one sentence and comment on it ignoring what was said before and after.

You're upset with me because when you said, "The first thing we need is to define our terms," I said, "Yes," and have been agreeing, and taking you seriously, and attempting to do just that?

Why?

I am upset when you ignore a part or the whole part of what I am arguing. Please don't ignore my writing if you want us reach to the same conclusion.

I'm not "ignoring" anything. I'm doing what you said we absolutely had to do first.

I don't understand what you want me to prove.

That morality is merely "subjective." And if we had a common definition of that term worked out, just as you claimed we needed to, then you would know exactly what I'm asking. I'm wanting you to show that a "morality," something worthy of that name, can be premised on nothing more than the subjective feelings of an individual, and on no objective realities at all.

That is very simple. I just need one situation in which people do not agree on what is morally right or wrong.

No, the other explanation for that is that only shows that some people know what's moral, and others don't. You aren't showing there's no right answer, only that not everybody knows what the right answer is. It doesn't show that morality is subjective.

Morality is either based on reason or not.

"Based on"?

There is no other option if you think about it.

No. I'm questioning the meaning of your phrase, "based on." I'm saying that reason is the mechanism, but not the conclusion. See below.

Well, engineering is "based on" mathematics. But nobody thinks that mathematics can lead to the building of only one kind of bridge. Just so, morality maybe be "based on reason," but reason, like mathematics, is only a process, not a product. The utility of reason, like the results of mathematics, depends entirely on what premises you plug into it. If you start with a bad suppostion, such as "morality is subjective," you'll reason your way to, "Therefore no moral claims are objectively true," as inevitably as you'll reason from 2+2 to 4.

I'm saying you've plugged in the wrong variables. So what seems reasonable to you becomes untrue. That's why appealing to reason alone, without fixing the premises, will not save us here from false conclusions.

No, reason alone is enough to help people to decide properly in a situation.

No, it's not.

The problem arises when we deal with moral issues when reason cannot help us since we cannot find a reason why something is right or wrong.

EVERYBODY has reasons. Everybody wants to think they're the reasonable one. But if they start from a false premise, then reason will lead them to a false conclusion. That's how reason works: it's a mechanism, not a conclusion.

You mix the two instances of objectivity, one is related to morality, and another is related to objects. Cannot you see that?

Objectivity means exactly the same thing in both cases. That's what I'm pointing out to you. I believe in a morality that is a real thing, that inheres in all situations, that is always there whether you and I recognize it or not. Like my computer screen, you and I could ignore it, deny it, or wish it away, and it will make not one scratch of difference to the fact that it's there -- because it's entirely grounded in God, not in you and me.

That's what objective means, when I call morality "objective."

No, it doesn't. You are wrong.

Am I objectively "wrong"? Is that objectively "bad," if I am? If not, all you're saying is, "I don't like what you're saying."

Objective in the case of morality means that there is a reason why something is right or wrong.

No, it doesn't. Having a reason is not enough.

A woman is tired of dealing with her toddler. She cries a lot and eats too much. Is the woman's decision to kill her toddler moral? She has a reason. She's even reasoning out that if she puts a pillow over her baby's face, the baby will die. She reasons that she will never have to listen to the crying again, and nobody will know, because she'll put the toddler in a trash bag and deposit her in a dumpster.

She's thought it all through. Very reasonable. She's got a workable plan, too. So is she moral?

No, you are wrong again.

I'm not wrong, even if you happen to think the Earth is flat. It's not. One can deny that morality is objective; but all that happens is that one gets, thereby, to be wrong also.

No, you are wrong. The truth is objective and it is waiting to be discovered.

So is morality.

People have right and wrong beliefs though.

Only because people are often wrong...and about many, many things, as you know.

This is not the proper use of the terms subjective and objective.

You get angry with me for defining those terms. Now you say "that's not the proper use." So you were right the first time: unless we agree on the defintion of "subjective" and "objective," we can't make progress.

So why did you complain at the start?

[bahman]

You're upset with me because when you said, "The first thing we need is to define our terms," I said, "Yes," and have been agreeing, and taking you seriously, and attempting to do just that?

Why?

I am upset when you ignore a part or the whole part of what I am arguing. Please don't ignore my writing if you want us reach to the same conclusion.

I'm not "ignoring" anything. I'm doing what you said we absolutely had to do first.

That is very nice of you.

That morality is merely "subjective." And if we had a common definition of that term worked out, just as you claimed we needed to, then you would know exactly what I'm asking. I'm wanting you to show that a "morality," something worthy of that name, can be premised on nothing more than the subjective feelings of an individual, and on no objective realities at all.

That is very simple. I just need one situation in which people do not agree on what is morally right or wrong.

No, the other explanation for that is that only shows that some people know what's moral, and others don't. You aren't showing there's no right answer, only that not everybody knows what the right answer is. It doesn't show that morality is subjective.

The point is that we still don't have a reason. I am wondering why your God does not provide us with reasons for each moral situation! He is omniscient so He knows everything.

"Based on"?

There is no other option if you think about it.

No. I'm questioning the meaning of your phrase, "based on." I'm saying that reason is the mechanism, but not the conclusion. See below.

The reason can guide us to a conclusion. Don't you agree? Of course, we have to be sure that our premises are true to make a valid and sound argument.

Well, engineering is "based on" mathematics. But nobody thinks that mathematics can lead to the building of only one kind of bridge. Just so, morality maybe be "based on reason," but reason, like mathematics, is only a process, not a product. The utility of reason, like the results of mathematics, depends entirely on what premises you plug into it. If you start with a bad suppostion, such as "morality is subjective," you'll reason your way to, "Therefore no moral claims are objectively true," as inevitably as you'll reason from 2+2 to 4.

I'm saying you've plugged in the wrong variables. So what seems reasonable to you becomes untrue. That's why appealing to reason alone, without fixing the premises, will not save us here from false conclusions.

No, reason alone is enough to help people to decide properly in a situation.

No, it's not.

It is. Just think of your computer in front of you. It is the result of scientific reasoning.

The problem arises when we deal with moral issues when reason cannot help us since we cannot find a reason why something is right or wrong.

EVERYBODY has reasons. Everybody wants to think they're the reasonable one. But if they start from a false premise, then reason will lead them to a false conclusion. That's how reason works: it's a mechanism, not a conclusion.

Of course, the reasoning must be sound and valid.

Objectivity means exactly the same thing in both cases. That's what I'm pointing out to you. I believe in a morality that is a real thing, that inheres in all situations, that is always there whether you and I recognize it or not. Like my computer screen, you and I could ignore it, deny it, or wish it away, and it will make not one scratch of difference to the fact that it's there -- because it's entirely grounded in God, not in you and me.

That's what objective means, when I call morality "objective."

No, it doesn't. You are wrong.

Am I objectively "wrong"? Is that objectively "bad," if I am? If not, all you're saying is, "I don't like what you're saying."

Again, as I said you are mixing two instances of usage of objective that mean very different things.

Objective in the case of morality means that there is a reason why something is right or wrong.

No, it doesn't. Having a reason is not enough.
A woman is tired of dealing with her toddler. She cries a lot and eats too much. Is the woman's decision to kill her toddler moral? She has a reason. She's even reasoning out that if she puts a pillow over her baby's face, the baby will die. She reasons that she will never have to listen to the crying again, and nobody will know, because she'll put the toddler in a trash bag and deposit her in a dumpster.

She's thought it all through. Very reasonable. She's got a workable plan, too. So is she moral?

She is subjectively moral, not objectively moral. She did it because of self-love toward herself, so she acts as a result of emotion instead of reason.

I'm not wrong, even if you happen to think the Earth is flat. It's not. One can deny that morality is objective; but all that happens is that one gets, thereby, to be wrong also.

No, you are wrong. The truth is objective and it is waiting to be discovered.

So is morality.

Maybe. I am wondering why your omniscient God didn't provide a reason for each moral act!

This is not the proper use of the terms subjective and objective.

You get angry with me for defining those terms. Now you say "that's not the proper use." So you were right the first time: unless we agree on the defintion of "subjective" and "objective," we can't make progress.

So why did you complain at the start?

Well, I think objectivity in morality has a very clear definition which is very different from when discussing objects like your computer screen. Objectivity in the case of your computer screen simply refers to that it exists. In the context of morality though objectivity means that there is a reason why an act is morally right or wrong. Otherwise, we are dealing with subjective morality.

[Immanuel Can]

The point is that we still don't have a reason. I am wondering why your God does not provide us with reasons for each moral situation! He is omniscient so He knows everything.

Because there's not one "reason" for everything. You have your "reasons" for being moral or immoral; and I have my "reasons" for being moral or immoral. So which "reason" did you want God to provide you: yours, or mine? If it's yours, you've already got it. If it's mine, what good do my "reasons" for doing a thing do you?

There is no other option if you think about it.

No. I'm questioning the meaning of your phrase, "based on." I'm saying that reason is the mechanism, but not the conclusion. See below.

The reason can guide us to a conclusion. Don't you agree?

Not the same conclusion, unless you and I are starting from exactly the same premises. If I start with a false premise, I may "reason" perfectly, and I'll still end up wrong.

Of course, we have to be sure that our premises are true to make a valid and sound argument.

You see? That's exactly right. It's your premises that are going to determine the quality of your conclusions. "Reason" won't turn a bad premise into a good conclusion.

The problem arises when we deal with moral issues when reason cannot help us since we cannot find a reason why something is right or wrong.

EVERYBODY has reasons. Everybody wants to think they're the reasonable one. But if they start from a false premise, then reason will lead them to a false conclusion. That's how reason works: it's a mechanism, not a conclusion.

Of course, the reasoning must be sound and valid.

And start with true premises. That's the key. And it also explains why people disagree so much about moral matters; they're not all starting with the same premises.

No, it doesn't. You are wrong.

Am I objectively "wrong"? Is that objectively "bad," if I am? If not, all you're saying is, "I don't like what you're saying."

Again, as I said you are mixing two instances of usage of objective that mean very different things.

No; when I say "objective," I mean the same thing in both cases.

Objective in the case of morality means that there is a reason why something is right or wrong.

No, it doesn't. Having a reason is not enough.
A woman is tired of dealing with her toddler. She cries a lot and eats too much. Is the woman's decision to kill her toddler moral? She has a reason. She's even reasoning out that if she puts a pillow over her baby's face, the baby will die. She reasons that she will never have to listen to the crying again, and nobody will know, because she'll put the toddler in a trash bag and deposit her in a dumpster.

She's thought it all through. Very reasonable. She's got a workable plan, too. So is she moral?

She is subjectively moral, not objectively moral. She did it because of self-love toward herself, so she acts as a result of emotion instead of reason.

There's a dead infant. Was she "moral" to kill her infant?

No, you are wrong. The truth is objective and it is waiting to be discovered.

So is morality.

Maybe. I am wondering why your omniscient God didn't provide a reason for each moral act!

See above.

This is not the proper use of the terms subjective and objective.

You get angry with me for defining those terms. Now you say "that's not the proper use." So you were right the first time: unless we agree on the defintion of "subjective" and "objective," we can't make progress.

So why did you complain at the start?

Well, I think objectivity in morality has a very clear definition which is very different from when discussing objects like your computer screen.

And I use it in exactly the same way, in both cases. How are we going to fix that?

You're starting from the premise that "objective" means, "have a reason for." I'm starting from the premise that "objective" means "really existing." Since we refuse to concede each others first premises, we're never going to agree about our conclusions.

That's a good illustration of what I was saying above: if people start from two different premises, then no matter how "reasonable" they both are, they won't arrive at the same conclusions.

[iambiguous]

You're okay with your moral claims being called "biased"?

This from the guy who insists that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior, you will not -- you cannot -- be saved. You will burn in Hell for all of eternity. Insisting that this is not just his own biased frame of mind at all, however, because it says so in the Bible. And there is simply ample scientific and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

[Walker]

You're okay with your moral claims being called "biased"?

This from the guy who insists that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior, you will not -- you cannot -- be saved. You will burn in Hell for all of eternity. Insisting that this is not just his own biased frame of mind at all, however, because it says so in the Bible. And there is simply ample scientific and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior, you will not -- you cannot -- be saved. You will burn in Hell for all of eternity. Insisting that this is not just his own biased frame of mind at all, however, because it says so in the Bible.

- IMO, that’s a true statement, but not necessarily because Christianity says so.
- It true because the bible explains cause and effect.
- The bible reports the news.
- The bible explains causation.
- The bible doesn’t cause, causation.
- How is burning in hell for all eternity a true statement? Because, it makes perfectly logical sense. Here’s why:
- Hell can only exist now. Eternity is now, and now, and now, and now …
- If you imagine eternity to be something yet to happen, the future, then eternity is just a thought, a (an?) unicorn.
- How can hell not exist now?
- By realizing the essence of Christianity and spontaneously, unerringly, living that essence.
- What does that mean?
- It means existing as the incarnated embodiment of the qualities of Christ, as exemplified and taught by Jesus ... within one’s personal capacity and human identity.
- What are these qualities? Indeed.

- Looking to the thread subject title ... this adds up to, the Holy Bible is an objective standard of universal moral principles, or rather, a place where these principles can be found. Is it the only place? Indeed.

[iambiguous]

You're okay with your moral claims being called "biased"?

This from the guy who insists that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior, you will not -- you cannot -- be saved. You will burn in Hell for all of eternity. Insisting that this is not just his own biased frame of mind at all, however, because it says so in the Bible. And there is simply ample scientific and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

unless you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior, you will not -- you cannot -- be saved. You will burn in Hell for all of eternity. Insisting that this is not just his own biased frame of mind at all, however, because it says so in the Bible.

- IMO, that’s a true statement, but not necessarily because Christianity says so.
- It true because the bible explains cause and effect.
- The bible reports the news.
- The bible explains causation.
- The bible doesn’t cause, causation.
- How is burning in hell for all eternity a true statement? Because, it makes perfectly logical sense. Here’s why:
- Hell can only exist now. Eternity is now, and now, and now, and now …
- If you imagine eternity to be something yet to happen, the future, then eternity is just a thought, a (an?) unicorn.
- How can hell not exist now?
- By realizing the essence of Christianity and spontaneously, unerringly, living that essence.
- What does that mean?
- It means existing as the incarnated embodiment of the qualities of Christ, as exemplified and taught by Jesus ... within one’s personal capacity and human identity.
- What are these qualities? Indeed.

- Looking to the thread subject title ... this adds up to, the Holy Bible is an objective standard of universal moral principles, or rather, a place where these principles can be found. Is it the only place? Indeed.

You forgot to insist that this is all true, right AJ?

[Harbal]

[q

A "standard" is something that's "standard" for everybody. But if morality is subjective, it's not "standard" for anybody to believe...rather, one can believe whatever one wants, and there's no "standard" they have to come up to. That's basic.

A standard (noun) is an arbitrary set of criteria against which something is judged,

Well, the word "arbitrary" assumes your conclusion. I don't agree. Some standards are arbitrary, like "How long do we want each piece of wood to be cut?" and some are very far from arbitrary, such as "How fast do I have to travel to break the sound barrier?"

Are you serious? The speed of sound is not a standard, it's just a mathematical value.

But one thing that's common to all things that we call a "standard" is that they have to be applicable to more than one thing.

A standard is a set of conditions we set as a gauge by which we can measure or evaluate some thing or other.

The firmest standards are universal.

I don't know what that means. Can you give an example of a universal standard?

And the decisions of subjectivity, by defnition, only have to apply to one thing. So they're not "standard" for anything at all.

That is too unintelligible to be responded to.

Standards are by no means universal.

Actually, a great many are. I can tell you by "standard" that you will not live for 150 years.

What the deuce has that got to do with standards? When you tell me I will not live for 150 years, you are basing that judgement on the laws of probability, not on a standard.

The speed of light will not change for you. The necesssary ratio between planetary size, speed and distance in order to produce orbit will not change for if your subjective wishes do. Your X and Y chromosomes will make you a man or a woman, no matter what you want. These are universal standards.

The speed of light is a physical constant, why on earth would you refer to it as a standard? These other things are just facts about physical objects and human bodies, not standards.

I've imagined my distaste for slavery, you mean?

No. You've felt your distaste. And it's real. But it means nothing more. It doesn't say so much as one thing about slavery itself.

If I have a distaste for slavery, then I probably also have reasons for having it. I could explain what my reasons are, which is more than you could do. All you could say is, "God says slavery is wrong" -except, apparently, he doesn't say that- but you can't say anything about slavery itself.

I might consider it wrong, or "evil", but you might not;

You don't. You can't. You deny there's any standard.

I said exactly the opposite, actually.

There's no such thing, according to subjectivism, that "evil" can mean. All you can say is, "For the present moment, I feel distaste for it," and subjectivism can say nothing more.

I can say why I consider something to be morally wrong without conjuring up false claims about objective truth.

And you could change your mind about even that in the next five seconds.

I suppose I could, just like you could change your mind about God's existence, but why would either of us do that? And if I did change my mind, how would that show that objective moral truths exist?

Moral knowledge?

Yes. You're claiming moral knowledge right now. You're saying, "Morality is subjective."

That is knowledge about morality, not moral knowledge.

Or did you only mean, "I wish morality would be subjective?"

Everybody has subjective moral opinions and sentiments, we all know that, so I don't need to wish it. All that is really in question is whether there is also such a thing as objective moral truth.

I'll try to explain it using the analogy of a computer...the data it needs comes mostly from our social environment...

That's the core of your answer. And what that means, then, is that you're not a subjectivist. You don't think the meaning of morality comes from you, personally.

I believe in morality, but I don't believe in God, or objective moral truth. Those are the facts, and I don't particularly care what label that puts on me.

Rather, you're saying that morality is social indoctrination.

That's one way of putting it.

But the legitimacy of that social indoctrination is the problem: how do you know that your society is telling you the right things?

Given my views on what morality actually is, that is a meaningless question.

How do you know the Bible is telling you the right things, btw?

What "makes it stick" comes from conviction rather than authority, I would say. Once we have formed a moral attitude, our emotions and intuitions are the kinds of things that tend us toward sticking to it.

That's exactly the same as saying, "Indoctrination tends to work."

That particular comment is saying nothing about indoctrination. But it is true that many of our moral convictions do come from what you call indoctrination, but not necessarily.

Yes, sometimes it does; often it does. But only for those who give in, or who give up thinking, doubting and questioning. Shame on the indoctrinators, and shame on us.

But you have given up thinking, doubting and questioning, haven't you? I mean, how much flexibility do you have?

So you don't know that slavery, rape and pedophilia are wrong. You just don't like them, maybe, and maybe only for the present moment.
And when somebody does them, or when you change your mind, then subjectivism will lead you to conclude you can legitimately indulge or even become any of those perps.

Yes, who knows? maybe this time next week I will be a child sex slaver.

I might call them moral feelings, but what I would mean -and what most people would understand me to mean- is that I have feelings about moral matters and issues.

You're missing the point. I'm asking what calling them "moral" adds. Why not just call them what you say they are: nothing but "feelings"? On what basis would you call some feelings "moral" and others just "feelings"? Call them all what they are, I would say.

Am I allowed to say that I have opinions about moral issues?

Do I need to point out that the words "mores," from which we get "morals," ......

You only need point it out if your aim is to get on my nerves.

Therefore, why do you call "moral" what is only your personal choice? It makes no logical sense.

Neither would it make logical sense for me to stop calling my moral choices moral choices just to please you.

To be objectively right, that feeling would have to refer to some action, cognition or motive that was itself objectively right. And that's the thing that subjectivism insists can never happen, since it holds that nothing is objectively right.

Yes, I agree.

Well, then, any thought of "morality" is really out the window.

Now I disagree.

I realise that you would like the definition to say more, and that you would like it even better if you were the one to decide what more it did say, but we can't go round tampering with dictionaries until we have modified them all to our own taste, can we?

Yes, we certainly can. For definitions are just the attempts of a committee to arrive at a common way of explaining something. And their success is often relative...definitions can easily be imprecise or even confused, as the one above is.

When I talk about morality, or more specifically my morality, I am using the definition of morality that I just presented you with. I believe that definition to be generally acceptable. If you wish to define morality differently, that is up to you, but then we would not be discussing the same thing.

Only some of us think we have the authority, or are a representative of an authority, that entitles us to impose our moral views on everyone else. I'm sure you have come across such people yourself.

But you're not one of those, are you?

No, but you are.

Please tell me who these august specimens are. If I must bow to them, and accept their definition of who gets to tell me what to do, at least you could give me their credentials.

Godists and Bibleists.

[Immanuel Can]

A standard is a set of conditions we set as a gauge by which we can measure or evaluate some thing or other.

Yes! So it's not something you just have for one things, but has to be used to judge many...like morality.

The firmest standards are universal.

I don't know what that means. Can you give an example of a universal standard?

Do not steal. Do not murder. Love God.

And the decisions of subjectivity, by defnition, only have to apply to one thing. So they're not "standard" for anything at all.

That is too unintelligible to be responded to.

Not unintelligible. You perhaps just didn't understand it. But it seems to do get the point, because you made it yourself, above: standards are things we apply to multiple entities, cases or situations, not to a singular one.

The speed of light will not change for you. The necesssary ratio between planetary size, speed and distance in order to produce orbit will not change for if your subjective wishes do. Your X and Y chromosomes will make you a man or a woman, no matter what you want. These are universal standards.

The speed of light is a physical constant, why on earth would you refer to it as a standard? These other things are just facts about physical objects and human bodies, not standards.

And they are......STANDARD.

I've imagined my distaste for slavery, you mean?

No. You've felt your distaste. And it's real. But it means nothing more. It doesn't say so much as one thing about slavery itself.

If I have a distaste for slavery, then I probably also have reasons for having it.

Well, according to subjectivism, then can be only your personal "reasons." Nothing makes slavery inherently wrong, then.

I might consider it wrong, or "evil", but you might not;

You don't. You can't. You deny there's any standard.

I said exactly the opposite, actually.

But that contradicts subjectivism. Unless what you mean by "wrong" or "evil" is a standard of some kind, and thus properly applicable by many evaluators other than yourself, then you claim "Slavery is evil" just means Harbal finds slavery distasteful. No more.

There's no such thing, according to subjectivism, that "evil" can mean. All you can say is, "For the present moment, I feel distaste for it," and subjectivism can say nothing more.

I can say why I consider something to be morally wrong without conjuring up false claims about objective truth.

Go ahead, then, if you can do it; explain why slavery is wrong.

And you could change your mind about even that in the next five seconds.

I suppose I could, just like you could change your mind about God's existence, but why would either of us do that? And if I did change my mind, how would that show that objective moral truths exist?

By itself, it doesn't. It's only part of the argument to be made. What is shows is that subjective assessmments amount to nothing durable at all.

Moral knowledge?

Yes. You're claiming moral knowledge right now. You're saying, "Morality is subjective."

That is knowledge about morality, not moral knowledge.

Fair enough. But since according to subjectivism, "morality" just means "distaste," then all we're talking about is your personal distaste for things: why call those things "moral"?

I'll try to explain it using the analogy of a computer...the data it needs comes mostly from our social environment...

That's the core of your answer. And what that means, then, is that you're not a subjectivist. You don't think the meaning of morality comes from you, personally.

I believe in morality, but I don't believe in God, or objective moral truth.

Then your morality is a vapour. It can change on a moment's notice, and nobody is at all obligated to share your view anyway. Why should anybody else feel they owe you to share a purely subjective claim?

Rather, you're saying that morality is social indoctrination.

That's one way of putting it.

But the legitimacy of that social indoctrination is the problem: how do you know that your society is telling you the right things?

Given my views on what morality actually is, that is a meaningless question.

No, it's essential. Your society could have as easily been Nazi Germany or conservative Islamist society. If it were, would that make antisemitism "moral" for you?

What "makes it stick" comes from conviction rather than authority, I would say. Once we have formed a moral attitude, our emotions and intuitions are the kinds of things that tend us toward sticking to it.

That's exactly the same as saying, "Indoctrination tends to work."

That particular comment is saying nothing about indoctrination.

That's exactly what it's talking about. A "doctrine" about morals that your society puts "in" you, whether it's a good one or a bad one.

So you don't know that slavery, rape and pedophilia are wrong. You just don't like them, maybe, and maybe only for the present moment.
And when somebody does them, or when you change your mind, then subjectivism will lead you to conclude you can legitimately indulge or even become any of those perps.

Yes, who knows? maybe this time next week I will be a child sex slaver.

Well, that's the problem. So much for what you can tell us, then, about the moral status of those actions.

I might call them moral feelings, but what I would mean -and what most people would understand me to mean- is that I have feelings about moral matters and issues.

You're missing the point. I'm asking what calling them "moral" adds. Why not just call them what you say they are: nothing but "feelings"? On what basis would you call some feelings "moral" and others just "feelings"? Call them all what they are, I would say.

Am I allowed to say that I have opinions about moral issues?

I'm asking why you use the word "moral"? Are you trying to give mere personal feelings about things in some sort of special glow of moral esteem? But why shoudl any issue be "moral," when there's no such thing as "moral"? And subjectivism denies that anything is objectively moral.

Do I need to point out that the words "mores," from which we get "morals," ......

You only need point it out if your aim is to get on my nerves.

Well, it's true. Both "morals" and "ethics" mean, "the traditions of a people." But you say both that you get your morals from your social indoctrination, and that you get them from yourself -- which is contradictory, of course. Their ultimate authority has to come from one or the other, not both.

Therefore, why do you call "moral" what is only your personal choice? It makes no logical sense.

Neither would it make logical sense for me to stop calling my moral choices moral choices just to please you.

It would be very logical for you to understand that "moral" implies a standard that governs multiple people, not just you.

When I talk about morality, or more specifically my morality, I am using the definition of morality that I just presented you with.

That's a shame. It's an incoherent and implausible definition. Where did you get it from? You never said...

[Harbal]

I don't know what that means. Can you give an example of a universal standard?

Do not steal. Do not murder. Love God.

They are instruction, not standards.

The speed of light is a physical constant, why on earth would you refer to it as a standard? These other things are just facts about physical objects and human bodies, not standards.

And they are......STANDARD.

Does it ever occur to you that when you find yourself having to manipulate the meaning of words in order to give the appearance of some kind of logic in your argument, which you frequently do, your case might not be worth pursuing?

If I have a distaste for slavery, then I probably also have reasons for having it.

Well, according to subjectivism, then can be only your personal "reasons." Nothing makes slavery inherently wrong, then.

In my opinion, slavery is morally wrong. Had we been having this conversation 200 years ago, it could well be that we were both of the opinion that slavery was fine.

I can say why I consider something to be morally wrong without conjuring up false claims about objective truth.

Go ahead, then, if you can do it; explain why slavery is wrong.

I have an aversion to suffering. Mainly my own suffering, but also the suffering of others. I empathise with them, and my emotional response makes me want the suffering to stop. I know that's a very simple explanation, but it's all I can be bothered with.

I suppose I could, just like you could change your mind about God's existence, but why would either of us do that? And if I did change my mind, how would that show that objective moral truths exist?

By itself, it doesn't. It's only part of the argument to be made. What is shows is that subjective assessmments amount to nothing durable at all.

Just because you can't see why something has to be durable doesn't mean it isn't. Besides, durability isn't part of the definition of morality.

That is knowledge about morality, not moral knowledge.

Fair enough. But since according to subjectivism, "morality" just means "distaste," then all we're talking about is your personal distaste for things: why call those things "moral"?

Because what I think appropriate matters more to me than what you think appropriate does.

I believe in morality, but I don't believe in God, or objective moral truth.

Then your morality is a vapour.

Maybe to you, but not to me.

Why should anybody else feel they owe you to share a purely subjective claim?

When did I ask anyone to share it?

Given my views on what morality actually is, that is a meaningless question.

No, it's essential. Your society could have as easily been Nazi Germany or conservative Islamist society. If it were, would that make antisemitism "moral" for you?

Maybe, how can I know?

Am I allowed to say that I have opinions about moral issues?

I'm asking why you use the word "moral"? Are you trying to give mere personal feelings about things in some sort of special glow of moral esteem? But why shoudl any issue be "moral," when there's no such thing as "moral"?

But I believe there is such a thing as "moral".

And subjectivism denies that anything is objectively moral.

I also deny that anything is objectively moral.

Neither would it make logical sense for me to stop calling my moral choices moral choices just to please you.

It would be very logical for you to understand that "moral" implies a standard that governs multiple people, not just you.

I do understand that, but you and I don't belong to the same multiple.

When I talk about morality, or more specifically my morality, I am using the definition of morality that I just presented you with.

That's a shame. It's an incoherent and implausible definition.

You mean IC doesn't like it.

Where did you get it from? You never said...

I can't remember which reputable source I got it from.

[Immanuel Can]

And they are......STANDARD.

Does it ever occur to you that when you find yourself having to manipulate the meaning of words in order to give the appearance of some kind of logic in your argument, which you frequently do, your case might not be worth pursuing?

I'm not. But you set me straight. What do you think a "standard" means?

If I have a distaste for slavery, then I probably also have reasons for having it.

Well, according to subjectivism, then can be only your personal "reasons." Nothing makes slavery inherently wrong, then.

In my opinion, slavery is morally wrong.

All that means is, "In my opinion, slavery is against my opinion." Because "moral" just means "opinion."

I can say why I consider something to be morally wrong without conjuring up false claims about objective truth.

Go ahead, then, if you can do it; explain why slavery is wrong.

I have an aversion to suffering. Mainly my own suffering, but also the suffering of others. I empathise with them, and my emotional response makes me want the suffering to stop. I know that's a very simple explanation, but it's all I can be bothered with.

Not just simple: kind of useless. You may indeed change your mind tomorrow...and certainly you can offer no "mores," no guidance to "the traditions of the people," so...you really aren't offering anybody anything at all.

I suppose I could, just like you could change your mind about God's existence, but why would either of us do that? And if I did change my mind, how would that show that objective moral truths exist?

By itself, it doesn't. It's only part of the argument to be made. What is shows is that subjective assessmments amount to nothing durable at all.

Just because you can't see why something has to be durable doesn't mean it isn't.

It's so ephemeral we can't even count on your judgment holding for the next ten minutes. That's pretty ephemeral.

That is knowledge about morality, not moral knowledge.

Fair enough. But since according to subjectivism, "morality" just means "distaste," then all we're talking about is your personal distaste for things: why call those things "moral"?

Because what I think appropriate matters more to me than what you think appropriate does.

"Appropriate"? But nothing is "inappropriate" to a subjectivist. Whatever a person can want or imagine is "appropriate," whether they be a charity worker or an axe murderer.

I believe in morality, but I don't believe in God, or objective moral truth.

Then your morality is a vapour.

Maybe to you, but not to me.

To everybody. And even you don't know that your judgment's going to hold. What if you find out something in the next five minutes that makes you change your mind?

Why should anybody else feel they owe you to share a purely subjective claim?

When did I ask anyone to share it?

If you didn't, then by definition, is wasn't "moral," because it had nothing for the "mores" of the people.

Given my views on what morality actually is, that is a meaningless question.

No, it's essential. Your society could have as easily been Nazi Germany or conservative Islamist society. If it were, would that make antisemitism "moral" for you?

Maybe, how can I know?

Right! By way of subjectivism, you never can.

Am I allowed to say that I have opinions about moral issues?

I'm asking why you use the word "moral"? Are you trying to give mere personal feelings about things in some sort of special glow of moral esteem? But why shoudl any issue be "moral," when there's no such thing as "moral"?

But I believe there is such a thing as "moral".

I can't see that you do. "Mores" and "ethos" go entirely unaffected by your personal opinions, so where's the "moral" or "ethical" component?

And subjectivism denies that anything is objectively moral.

I also deny that anything is objectively moral.

Right! By way of subjectivism, "moral" is a dead concept. Even to use the word is like trying to animate the corpse of something you've already killed.

Neither would it make logical sense for me to stop calling my moral choices moral choices just to please you.

It would be very logical for you to understand that "moral" implies a standard that governs multiple people, not just you.

I do understand that, but you and I don't belong to the same multiple.

It doesn't matter. By way of subjectivism, you can't even recommend anything to cantankerous old Yorkshiremen. Why should they care what opinion you have, if it's only for you?

When I talk about morality, or more specifically my morality, I am using the definition of morality that I just presented you with.

That's a shame. It's an incoherent and implausible definition.

You mean IC doesn't like it.

No, I mean it really doesn't work. And I gave you the reasons.

Where did you get it from? You never said...

I can't remember which reputable source I got it from.[/quote] Yeah, I'll bet. But it was "reputable," you say? Even though you haven't got the foggiest notion of where you found it?

How mysterious...

[Harbal]

I can't remember which reputable source I got it from.

Yeah, I'll bet. But it was "reputable," you say? Even though you haven't got the foggiest notion of where you found it?

How mysterious...

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Wikipedia
Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

Britannica
Morality, the moral beliefs and practices of a culture, community, or religion or a code or system of moral rules, principles, or values.

New World Encyclopedia
In its "everyday sense" morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") refers to a code of conduct, by which human beings regulate their lives.
Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals. In its descriptive sense, morality is whatever a society, group, or individual, says it is. For example, descriptive "morality" may include norms of correct behavior according to which cannibalism and [rape]] are morally permissible. Nor is it the case that descriptive "moralities" must always be consistent in their application of moral rules (even within a culture). Historically speaking, different moral rules were held to apply to slaves and free men and women in societies in which slave owning was permitted.

This is what people mean when they use the word morality, and I'm not sure if what you've been talking about actually is morality, or something else.

[Walker]

- IMO ...

You forgot to insist that this is all true, right AJ?

[bahman]

The point is that we still don't have a reason. I am wondering why your God does not provide us with reasons for each moral situation! He is omniscient so He knows everything.

Because there's not one "reason" for everything. You have your "reasons" for being moral or immoral; and I have my "reasons" for being moral or immoral. So which "reason" did you want God to provide you: yours, or mine? If it's yours, you've already got it. If it's mine, what good do my "reasons" for doing a thing do you?

If there is no one reason or principle for everything then morality is subjective.

No. I'm questioning the meaning of your phrase, "based on." I'm saying that reason is the mechanism, but not the conclusion. See below.

The reason can guide us to a conclusion. Don't you agree?

Not the same conclusion, unless you and I are starting from exactly the same premises. If I start with a false premise, I may "reason" perfectly, and I'll still end up wrong.

Therefore, the morality is subjective.

EVERYBODY has reasons. Everybody wants to think they're the reasonable one. But if they start from a false premise, then reason will lead them to a false conclusion. That's how reason works: it's a mechanism, not a conclusion.

Of course, the reasoning must be sound and valid.

And start with true premises. That's the key. And it also explains why people disagree so much about moral matters; they're not all starting with the same premises.

Therefore morality is subjective.

Am I objectively "wrong"? Is that objectively "bad," if I am? If not, all you're saying is, "I don't like what you're saying."

Again, as I said you are mixing two instances of usage of objective that mean very different things.

No; when I say "objective," I mean the same thing in both cases.

If by objective you mean the existence of something then objective morality means that morality exists. It does not tell us anything about the content of morality and what it should look like.

No, it doesn't. Having a reason is not enough.
A woman is tired of dealing with her toddler. She cries a lot and eats too much. Is the woman's decision to kill her toddler moral? She has a reason. She's even reasoning out that if she puts a pillow over her baby's face, the baby will die. She reasons that she will never have to listen to the crying again, and nobody will know, because she'll put the toddler in a trash bag and deposit her in a dumpster.

She's thought it all through. Very reasonable. She's got a workable plan, too. So is she moral?

She is subjectively moral, not objectively moral. She did it because of self-love toward herself, so she acts as a result of emotion instead of reason.

There's a dead infant. Was she "moral" to kill her infant?

Yes and no. In our opinion, it was a wrong act and in her opinion, emotion... she was right.

So is morality.

Maybe. I am wondering why your omniscient God didn't provide a reason for each moral act!

See above.

Ok.

You get angry with me for defining those terms. Now you say "that's not the proper use." So you were right the first time: unless we agree on the defintion of "subjective" and "objective," we can't make progress.

So why did you complain at the start?

Well, I think objectivity in morality has a very clear definition which is very different from when discussing objects like your computer screen.

And I use it in exactly the same way, in both cases. How are we going to fix that?

You're starting from the premise that "objective" means, "have a reason for." I'm starting from the premise that "objective" means "really existing." Since we refuse to concede each others first premises, we're never going to agree about our conclusions.

That's a good illustration of what I was saying above: if people start from two different premises, then no matter how "reasonable" they both are, they won't arrive at the same conclusions.

See above.

[Will Bouwman]

You can't do it because no such dictionary and no such definition exists - you made it up.

Actually, what I wrote was this:

P.S. -- On the other matter, the trustworthiness of common dictionaries, I'm taking the liberty of giving you a link. There are many such other links. https://www.eapfoundation.com/vocab/dictionaries/ This is something you can research for yourself, and you'll find out that what I've said about the liabilities of standard dictionaries is quite correct. They aren't holy books: they are attempted committee definitions of words outside of any particular specialist context, and as such, are generally good but often not precise enough for more technical purposes in any given field.

Yes you did actually say that, but it doesn't change the fact that you also actually said this:

I've had this discussion with the dictionary-naive in other places. Dictionaries are great for general definitions, but not always good for precise ones. What you will find, if you check, is that there are more specialized dictionaries for every discipline that requires a more strict or capacious or specialize vocabulary and a more precise use of language.

Despite your dictionary sophistication, you clearly don't appreciate that even the most specialised definitions are decided in the same flawed way you condemn popular dictionaries for. Even the most technical terms are "attempted committee definitions"; words only mean what people mean them to mean; there is no God of language anymore than there is a God of morality. And who do you think the committees of popular dictionaries consult?

We don't need an "Atheist dictionary," and I didn't propose we needed one. What I said was that we do need more specialized definitions for ALL ideologies.

Well, if "we do need more specialized definitions for ALL ideologies", that would be consistent with there being dictionaries of such definitions. And if, as you claim, atheism is an ideology, surely an Atheist dictionary would be useful. Not according to you:

The very idea of an "Atheist dictionary" is absurd, and I would never say that.

Clearly you don't take your own advice. Had you checked, you might have found this from the Oxford University Press: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display ... 0191816819
The irony is that "absurd" as an atheist dictionary may be, such a thing exists, whereas there is no specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition in the way you do.

Here is Stanford University on the subject, at length. They don't, so far as I can detect, use the specific word "ideology."

Well, if you can't be bothered to read it, why shouldI?

What do you think science is?

I think it is exactly what philosophers of science say it is. I think it's a method, not a particular finding or conclusion.

So what does that method involve?