Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Which of them was your source?

[Immanuel Can]

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

Well, yes...but that is not quite enough of a definition. It's only one symptom of "being subjective," not the total definition. The basic definition is, "dependent on the subject," i.e. ("produced and authorized solely by the person believing it").

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.

No. That's a non-sequitur.

The right conclusion would be, "Therefore, people with different premises will not agree, even when both use reason."

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.

Right. It actually exists, independent of the subject (the individual person believing it or failing to believe it).

It does not tell us anything about the content of morality and what it should look like.

We haven't even asked that question. All we've asked so far is whether or not ANY morality can be objective; not what moral precepts would specifically be included in such.

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.

If morality is subjective, the answer has to be "Yes," not "No." For in subjectivism, only the subjective person has any say. You and I can't have any say about what her choice is, in that way of thinking. Our opinion is simply irrelevant to the "moral" case there.

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.

What am I looking for? Nothing you said previously deals with the observation that reason by itself won't fix the problem.

[Harbal]

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.

Which of them was your source?

They all say basically the same thing, so what does it matter? Their similarity leads us to reasonably deduce that the definition they all confirm is the generally accepted one. You are free to provide the definition of the word, "morality", that you prefer to reference, if you wish. It would be interesting to compare it with the standard* definition.

*standard = most commonly used.

[Immanuel Can]

...you clearly don't appreciate that even the most specialised definitions are decided in the same flawed way you condemn popular dictionaries for.

Actually, I very much do. And I accept that even the pronouncements of specialist dictionaries are not guaranteed to be inerrant, even if they are possibly (though not always) more accurate than those found in dictionaries aimed at the general public.

Well, if "we do need more specialized definitions for ALL ideologies", that would be consistent with there being dictionaries of such definitions.

Your theory is that if we "need" something, then it's bound to exist?

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?

"Bothered" with what? To the satisfaction of any reasonable assessment, I met your challenge, even though it wasn't a challenge I promised you in the first place, but was designed by you. But if you didn't care about the challenge, why did you propose it?

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?

Goldstein and Goldstein summarize it quite nicely: "Bacon's scientific methodology can be summarized as follows: 1. The scientist must start with a set of unprejudiced observations; 2. these observations lead infallibly to correct generalizations or axioms; and 3. the test of a correct axiom is that it leads to new discoveries."

I could expand that. In the ideal, the scientific method is pattern of procedure, beginning with an intuition that leads to a hypothesis, and then proceeding through a disciplined process of designing a test, gathering materials, performing the test, gathering data and observations, assessing the findings, revising the hypothesis, and repeating the procedure. (It also includes things like assessing control groups, and such, but that's fine detail.)

That's a good description of a controlled scientific procedure in a lab...science has to operate slightly less rigorously in the field, where things like controlled experiments are not always possible: but in all cases, the goal of the scientific method is to discipline observation to the empirical facts, rather than to operate on tradition, superstition, mere guesses, and such. So it aims to replicate that method as closely as it can in all cases.

Contra the Goldstein description, though, I wouldn't use the word "infallible". What Bacon discovered was rather that scientific method, though not "infallible," was far more reliable than any hitherto proposed alternative, such as tradition, speculation, guess-making, superstition, intuition and so on, that had been employed to resolve problems of physical reality before.

Scientific method worked quite spectacularly on such physical problems, though it's never shown any traction on any metaphysical problems, such as "What is the meaning of life," or "What are right and wrong," or even "What is a mind?"

[bahman]

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

Well, yes...but that is not quite enough of a definition. It's only one symptom of "being subjective," not the total definition. The basic definition is, "dependent on the subject," i.e. ("produced and authorized solely by the person believing it").

Give me your first premise that we can use and reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong. You don't have any premise except that God exists and whatever He asks is right and otherwise it is wrong. Unfortunately, I cannot buy that. So you have to try better.

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.

No. That's a non-sequitur.

The right conclusion would be, "Therefore, people with different premises will not agree, even when both use reason."

People have different preferences when it comes to a moral situation. That is why they choose differently. Therefore morality is subjective.

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.

Right. It actually exists, independent of the subject (the individual person believing it or failing to believe it).

It does not tell us anything about the content of morality and what it should look like.

We haven't even asked that question. All we've asked so far is whether or not ANY morality can be objective; not what moral precepts would specifically be included in such.

OK, we disagree on the definition of objective and subjective. Let's accept that morality is objective for the sake of reasoning. What is the content of it? Please don't say whatever God says.

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.

If morality is subjective, the answer has to be "Yes," not "No." For in subjectivism, only the subjective person has any say. You and I can't have any say about what her choice is, in that way of thinking. Our opinion is simply irrelevant to the "moral" case there.

No, you get the subjectivity wrong. If subjectivity refers to opinion, emotion, bias, and the like then obviously people have different opinions on subject matter.

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.

What am I looking for? Nothing you said previously deals with the observation that reason by itself won't fix the problem.

If you have no true premises that we can start with then of course morality is subjective.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Well, yes...but that is not quite enough of a definition. It's only one symptom of "being subjective," not the total definition. The basic definition is, "dependent on the subject," i.e. ("produced and authorized solely by the person believing it").

Give me your first premise that we can use and reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

Here it is:

All human lives rightfully belong to God. From that, it's a very quick road to the conclusion, as you can see.

Therefore, the morality is subjective.

No. That's a non-sequitur.

The right conclusion would be, "Therefore, people with different premises will not agree, even when both use reason."

People have different preferences when it comes to a moral situation. That is why they choose differently. Therefore morality is subjective.

Non-sequitur again. The logical conclusion would never be "Therefore [they're all equally right, and] morality is subjective," but rather, "Therefore, some of them are wrong," particularly if, as is the case, many of those conclusions are mutually contradictory.

For example, take abortion. In all cases, a baby dies. Either that's a murder, or it's not. There's zero chance of getting both interpretations, since they rule each other out; so at least one has to be wrong.

If by objective you mean the existence of something then objective morality means that morality exists.

Right. It actually exists, independent of the subject (the individual person believing it or failing to believe it).

It does not tell us anything about the content of morality and what it should look like.

We haven't even asked that question. All we've asked so far is whether or not ANY morality can be objective; not what moral precepts would specifically be included in such.

OK, we disagree on the definition of objective and subjective.

That's why we can never agree.

What is the content of it?

No, we can't blow past that earlier point, and get onto particulars yet. It's decisive of what we will say afterward.

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

If morality is subjective, the answer has to be "Yes," not "No." For in subjectivism, only the subjective person has any say. You and I can't have any say about what her choice is, in that way of thinking. Our opinion is simply irrelevant to the "moral" case there.

No, you get the subjectivity wrong.

I don't. I understand what it is: I just think it's completely wrong.

Even on subjectivism's own terms, there's no particular meaning in the word "moral." It's no honourific to assign it to anything. It just means, "My subjective opinion." That's no great thing.

A further thought, though, is something I saw from theologian Os Guinness. He points out that subjectivism recapitulates the original sin.

What that means is that Eve's original folly was to want to obtain "knowledge of good and evil." Guinness suggests (and I think he's right) this means more than just that the original sin was to want to know about good and evil, as if merely to know what they were; rather, it was the desire to become the authority behind and touchstone of good and evil herself -- in short, exactly what subjectivism insists we should all be, the ones to decide when something is good or evil.

Now, there's definitely something to Guinness's view. Because we can see it from Genesis 3, which tells us that in choosing the tree, Eve was choosing to doubt the integrity of God, who had told her not to eat of it, and to prefer her own personal judgment to what God had already decisively told her. There's no doubt that's a significant feature of the narrative.

Ironically, then, every subjectivist is repeating the sin of Eden. And it's ironic, therefore, that people complain that an injustice is done to them if they are being associated with that original sin -- for in that very complaint they repeat that self-same sin, namely wanting to make themselves God, being the ones who "know good and evil," instead of accepting the authority of God to establish what good and evil are, and bowing themselves to His authority.

A subjectivist, then, is an advocate of the original sin. An interesting thought.

[Harbal]

Well, yes...but that is not quite enough of a definition. It's only one symptom of "being subjective," not the total definition. The basic definition is, "dependent on the subject," i.e. ("produced and authorized solely by the person believing it").

Give me your first premise that we can use and reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

Here it is:

All human lives rightfully belong to God. From that, it's a very quick road to the conclusion, as you can see.

Is that the best you can do? It's just that it's not much of a premise to those of us who don't believe in God.

A subjectivist, then, is an advocate of the original sin. An interesting thought.

In as much as it demonstrated a healthy disrespect for authority, I am an advocate of it.

[Immanuel Can]

Give me your first premise that we can use and reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

Here it is:

All human lives rightfully belong to God. From that, it's a very quick road to the conclusion, as you can see.

Is that the best you can do? It's just that it's not much of a premise to those of us who don't believe in God.

That's the point. Contra subjectivism, the truth is that it doesn't really matter what one of us believes...it matters what's true. If all lives belong to God, certain things follow...human rights, objective moral values, a duty toward ethical conduct, the wisdom of sacrifice...and so on.

If that axiom is not true, then none of these things follows.

And we are beginning to see the full effects of the latter belief today, as the former is replaced with it.

[Harbal]

Here it is:

All human lives rightfully belong to God. From that, it's a very quick road to the conclusion, as you can see.

Is that the best you can do? It's just that it's not much of a premise to those of us who don't believe in God.

That's the point. Contra subjectivism, the truth is that it doesn't really matter what one of us believes...it matters what's true. If all lives belong to God, certain things follow...human rights, objective moral values, a duty toward ethical conduct, the wisdom of sacrifice...and so on.

With all due respect, that is absolutely useless to me, because I don't believe in God. Besides, your attitude towards human rights and ethical conduct isn't always all that great, so your premise isn't as good as you seem to think.

[Immanuel Can]

Is that the best you can do? It's just that it's not much of a premise to those of us who don't believe in God.

That's the point. Contra subjectivism, the truth is that it doesn't really matter what one of us believes...it matters what's true. If all lives belong to God, certain things follow...human rights, objective moral values, a duty toward ethical conduct, the wisdom of sacrifice...and so on.

With all due respect, that is absolutely useless to me, because I don't believe in God.

With all due respect, what's useful to you, in reality, is only one thing: to know the truth. Everything else is just hubris and nonsense. With all due respect.

[Harbal]

That's the point. Contra subjectivism, the truth is that it doesn't really matter what one of us believes...it matters what's true. If all lives belong to God, certain things follow...human rights, objective moral values, a duty toward ethical conduct, the wisdom of sacrifice...and so on.

With all due respect, that is absolutely useless to me, because I don't believe in God.

With all due respect, what's useful to you, in reality, is only one thing: to know the truth. Everything else is just hubris and nonsense. With all due respect.

Talking of respect, I obviously have more of it for the truth than you do. Just saying.

[Immanuel Can]

With all due respect, that is absolutely useless to me, because I don't believe in God.

With all due respect, what's useful to you, in reality, is only one thing: to know the truth. Everything else is just hubris and nonsense. With all due respect.

Talking of respect, I obviously have more of it for the truth than you do. Just saying.

We'll see. The truth has a way of winning...every time. Count on it.

[Harbal]

With all due respect, what's useful to you, in reality, is only one thing: to know the truth. Everything else is just hubris and nonsense. With all due respect.

Talking of respect, I obviously have more of it for the truth than you do. Just saying.

We'll see. The truth has a way of winning...every time. Count on it.

So you want me to take your word for it for now, and you'll prove it to me when I'm dead?

Do you sell second hand cars for a living, by any chance?

[bahman]

Well, yes...but that is not quite enough of a definition. It's only one symptom of "being subjective," not the total definition. The basic definition is, "dependent on the subject," i.e. ("produced and authorized solely by the person believing it").

Give me your first premise that we can use and reach the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

Here it is:

All human lives rightfully belong to God. From that, it's a very quick road to the conclusion, as you can see.

I already mentioned that I won't buy that. First, we have to agree that God is real. We then have to agree that your God is the true God. You know, there are a bunch of religions out there each claiming something different. Moreover, I don't recall any verse from the Bible that claims that we belong to God.

No. That's a non-sequitur.

The right conclusion would be, "Therefore, people with different premises will not agree, even when both use reason."

People have different preferences when it comes to a moral situation. That is why they choose differently. Therefore morality is subjective.

Non-sequitur again. The logical conclusion would never be "Therefore [they're all equally right, and] morality is subjective," but rather, "Therefore, some of them are wrong," particularly if, as is the case, many of those conclusions are mutually contradictory.

For example, take abortion. In all cases, a baby dies. Either that's a murder, or it's not. There's zero chance of getting both interpretations, since they rule each other out; so at least one has to be wrong.

You need to give me a promise we can agree on.

If morality is subjective, the answer has to be "Yes," not "No." For in subjectivism, only the subjective person has any say. You and I can't have any say about what her choice is, in that way of thinking. Our opinion is simply irrelevant to the "moral" case there.

No, you get the subjectivity wrong.

I don't. I understand what it is: I just think it's completely wrong.

Even on subjectivism's own terms, there's no particular meaning in the word "moral." It's no honourific to assign it to anything. It just means, "My subjective opinion." That's no great thing.

A further thought, though, is something I saw from theologian Os Guinness. He points out that subjectivism recapitulates the original sin.

What that means is that Eve's original folly was to want to obtain "knowledge of good and evil." Guinness suggests (and I think he's right) this means more than just that the original sin was to want to know about good and evil, as if merely to know what they were; rather, it was the desire to become the authority behind and touchstone of good and evil herself -- in short, exactly what subjectivism insists we should all be, the ones to decide when something is good or evil.

Now, there's definitely something to Guinness's view. Because we can see it from Genesis 3, which tells us that in choosing the tree, Eve was choosing to doubt the integrity of God, who had told her not to eat of it, and to prefer her own personal judgment to what God had already decisively told her. There's no doubt that's a significant feature of the narrative.

Ironically, then, every subjectivist is repeating the sin of Eden. And it's ironic, therefore, that people complain that an injustice is done to them if they are being associated with that original sin -- for in that very complaint they repeat that self-same sin, namely wanting to make themselves God, being the ones who "know good and evil," instead of accepting the authority of God to establish what good and evil are, and bowing themselves to His authority.

A subjectivist, then, is an advocate of the original sin. An interesting thought.

Well, we have been through the myth of Adam and Eve. To you objective what is God says which is right and subjective is what we prefer to do which is wrong.

[Harbal]

For example, take abortion. In all cases, a baby dies. Either that's a murder, or it's not. There's zero chance of getting both interpretations, since they rule each other out; so at least one has to be wrong.

In which country is the abortion performed, and under what circumstances? That makes a difference to whether abortion is murder. Abortion is only murder if it is performed under unlawful circumstances. In short, abortion is sometimes murder, and sometimes not.