Is morality objective or subjective?

[promethean75]

https://youtu.be/iMQtQq5XcqU

[nemos]

... That makes a difference to whether abortion is murder...

As always without claiming to absolute justice.

Murder means the intentional taking of life, although some believe that if the intentional taking of life is not attributable to a person, or is legally approved, then it is not murder (well, I disagree - it is just an attempt to remove moral responsibility from oneself).

Now for the moral and ethical side:
If we stick to the fact that "murder", as a term, applies only to people, then we have to evaluate whether a person's embryo can be considered a person? If yes, then:
1. How old an embryo killing is murder? Does immediately after the start of the division of the fertilized egg, count? If so, what about an unfertilized egg that is eliminated during menstruation?
2. Can taking the life of someone who has no consciousness or self be called murder?
3. A place for your additions ...

To be honest, I would like to say that I consider immoral, not only illegal murder, but also any unjustified and therefore excessive and wasteful action.
Respect will save the world, but disrespect destroys it. Because of disrespect, nature languishes and dies, objects break and disintegrate, and of course wars break out.

[Immanuel Can]

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...

That's the great thing about the truth. It really doesn't require you to take my word for anything.

[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.

I already mentioned that I won't buy that.

You asked me only for "your first premise that we can use to reach the conclusion..." That's it. It works. You don't have to like it, because you asked for "my" premise, not yours, and only that it's possible to use it to reach the necessary conclusion.

Now, would I prefer that you accept it? Sure. But if you don't, it won't change a thing, obviously. It will still work for the demanded purpose, and if true, won't simply change because somebody refuses to acknowledge it.

In other words, it will be objective.

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.

I don't, actually. All I need to do is tell you the truth. Whether you agree or not is going to be up to you. You have a free will, and I would never try to circumvent that. God gave it to you, and it's a gift. My advice is simply that you use it wisely.

[Harbal]

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...

That's the great thing about the truth. It really doesn't require you to take my word for anything.

Not only does it not require it, it absolutely forbids it.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I[n] which country is the abortion performed, and under what circumstances?

Will changing the country change the fact of death? No.

Abortion is only murder if it is performed under unlawful circumstances.

The Law of God does not depend on local or temporal approval.

But let's play along. Even within individual countries, the same fact applies: either the baby dies, or the baby does not. Either the local laws sanction that, or they do not. In all cases, there' s again no possibility of getting both, which was the point. Those outcomes are genuinely mutually-excluding, mutually contradictory. It's one of the other, and they cancel each other out.

Or, in technical terms, they're "incommensurable," as sociologists like to say.

[Harbal]

... That makes a difference to whether abortion is murder...

As always without claiming to absolute justice.

Murder means the intentional taking of life, although some believe that if the intentional taking of life is not attributable to a person, or is legally approved, then it is not murder (well, I disagree - it is just an attempt to remove moral responsibility from oneself).

To the best of my knowledge, the word, "murder", has "unlawful" as part of its definition. Have you checked?

How old an embryo killing is murder?

I doubt an embryo ever reaches an age at which it could be held accountable for its actions, so the case would probably get thrown out of court.

[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.

I[n] which country is the abortion performed, and under what circumstances?

Will changing the country change the fact of death? No.

Of course not, it would only have any bearing on whether the death was the result of murder.

Abortion is only murder if it is performed under unlawful circumstances.

The Law of God does not depend on local or temporal approval.

I don't know anything about God's law; I am subject to UK law.

But let's play along. Even within individual countries, the same fact applies: either the baby dies, or the baby does not. Either the local laws sanction that, or they do not. In all cases, there' s again no possibility of getting both, which was the point.

Could we get round the problem by murdering the baby while it is still a foetus?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know anything about God's law; I am subject to UK law.

You are actually subject to both, but to the former immeasurably more than the latter.

It is funny, though, how subjectivists think, "I don't agree" is a defense against objective moral truth -- assuming such exists, of course. It's as if they think God needs their permission to exist, or to give them a moral law. Really?

But He doesn't require any approval. And those who ignore the higher moral Law will be judged by the very Law they didn't believe in...and judged, as well, for not believing in it, because they should have known better.

As the Word of God says,

"For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law..." (Romans 2:11-12)

But let's play along. Even within individual countries, the same fact applies: either the baby dies, or the baby does not. Either the local laws sanction that, or they do not. In all cases, there' s again no possibility of getting both, which was the point.

Could we get round the problem by murdering the baby while it is still a foetus?

Nope.

My example doesn't say "foetus." It says "toddler." Maybe you didn't notice. Maybe we're so used to excusing baby-murder that we're becoming insensitive to the difference. I'm not surprised.

I'll requote it:

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?

But I'm not talking about abortion but of infanticide.

I could have said "foetus," but I'm not handing my objector any facile excuses. So I will stipulate the case of a child maybe 6 months or a year old, not a "foetus" (which, by the way, is a word that only means "offspring." Did you know that?)

[nemos]

To the best of my knowledge, the word, "murder", has "unlawful" as part of its definition. Have you checked?

I'm really glad that your opinion is clearly in line with the law - although sometimes it can be mistaken for a lack of opinion.

I doubt an embryo ever reaches an age at which it could be held accountable for its actions, so the case would probably get thrown out of court.

I'm not sure I got it right, but I guess it's fun.

[Harbal]

I don't know anything about God's law; I am subject to UK law.

You are actually subject to both, but to the former immeasurably more than the latter.

No, God definitely has no jurisdiction in my part of the world.

It is funny, though, how subjectivists think, "I don't agree" is a defense against objective moral truth -- assuming such exists, of course. It's as if they think God needs their permission to exist, or to give them a moral law. Really?

Or it could be that they think there is no such thing as God, but I don't expect you find that as funny.

But He doesn't require any approval. And those who ignore the higher moral Law will be judged by the very Law they didn't believe in...and judged, as well, for not believing in it, because they should have known better.

We'll see.

As the Word of God says,

I'll listen to what God says when he says it to me.

Could we get round the problem by murdering the baby while it is still a foetus?

Nope.

My example doesn't say "foetus." It says "toddler." Maybe you didn't notice. Maybe we're so used to excusing baby-murder that we're becoming insensitive to the difference. I'm not surprised.

I'll requote it:

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?


But I'm not talking about abortion but of infanticide.

I could have said "foetus," but I'm not handing my objector any facile excuses. So I will stipulate the case of a child maybe 6 months or a year old, not a "foetus" (which, by the way, is a word that only means "offspring." Did you know that?)

I wasn't responding to that comment, and I can't imagine why you think I was.

I was responding to this:

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.

[Harbal]

To the best of my knowledge, the word, "murder", has "unlawful" as part of its definition. Have you checked?

I'm really glad that your opinion is clearly in line with the law - although sometimes it can be mistaken for a lack of opinion.

I doubt an embryo ever reaches an age at which it could be held accountable for its actions, so the case would probably get thrown out of court.

I'm not sure I got it right, but I guess it's fun.

There's no reason why philosophy can't be fun.

[bahman]

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.

You asked me only for "your first premise that we can use to reach the conclusion..." That's it. It works. You don't have to like it, because you asked for "my" premise, not yours, and only that it's possible to use it to reach the necessary conclusion.

Now, would I prefer that you accept it? Sure. But if you don't, it won't change a thing, obviously. It will still work for the demanded purpose, and if true, won't simply change because somebody refuses to acknowledge it.

In other words, it will be objective.

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.

I don't, actually. All I need to do is tell you the truth. Whether you agree or not is going to be up to you. You have a free will, and I would never try to circumvent that. God gave it to you, and it's a gift. My advice is simply that you use it wisely.

I already told you to start with this premise one needs to prove God first. Why? Because the premise obviously depends on God. You also need to show that that is only your God who is true among many Gods. On top of that, you need a verse in which God clearly mentions that we are part of His property. The other solution is to start with a premise that does not depend on God which it seems you don't have.

[Immanuel Can]

I was responding to this:

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.

The answer is still "nope." And the reason is the same. In both cases an entity dies. You may call it "cells," or you may call it "baby." You can take either interpretation, but it's going to contradict the other one, and eliminate any chance of its principle being the one that is actualized.

But I like the infanticide case better, because it avoids all the "is it a child" nonsense, that we all know is utterly insincere anyway, though we protest we don't. So let's work with the clear case, rather than the one everybody likes to pretend is muddy.

So is the woman who smothers her toddler "moral"? She has reasons. She has the means to get away with it...We've seen many such cases, and can't possibly how many more have gotten away with the same action undetected. So if she's crafty, she's very likely to be successful...just bury the body deep in the dumpster, and it's highly unlikely she'll be caught...and if she were, what principle would we employ to indict somebody who acted as a perfectly consistent subjectivist?

[Immanuel Can]

I already told you to start with this premise one needs to prove God first.

And I pointed out to you that you only asked for MY premise, not yours, and it works perfectly for the conclusion. So I'm one up on subjectivism, even if you don't believe God exists; because at least my view can be rationally articulated and logical with reference to its own terms: subjectivism doesn't have either of those things going for it.

You also need to show that that is only your God who is true among many Gods.

Not yet, I don't. All I need to show is that my view makes sense, and subjectivism simply doesn't. Then we can rule out subjectivism, once and for all -- assuming you and I wish to remain rational, of course.

After that, we can ask secondary questions like, "What kind of God?" If we didn't know God existed, we couldn't even ask that question at all.

So are we there yet? Have you realised that subjectivism isn't even intelligible on its own terms?