Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Is calling a blind person blind, when the topic is sight, an ad hominem?

It could be. What is the relevance of the speaker's blindness to the truth or falsehood of what he claims?

If the topic were, "Are you blind?" then the man's blindness is relevant, but only to that question and no more.

If the topic is a "sight," that is, something being seen, like the sun coming up, and the man has said, "The sun came up today," then telling him, "You're wrong, because you're blind," would be ad hominem, even if he IS blind. He might well be blind, but the fact that he can't personally see the sun coming up does not determine whether or not the sun came up.

Got it?

Did I ask

Is calling a blind person blind, when the topic is a sight, an ad hominem?

or did I ask

Is calling a blind person blind, when the topic is sight, an ad hominem?

Did I not answer you clearly enough? Then let me be succinct.

To say, if the subject is "Are you blind?" that a person is "blind" is only not an ad hom when his having or not having sight is the only topic in view. But it's also circular and trivial.

The minute you use it to imply "You are blind, so your claim, X, is not true," then you've created an ad hominem fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean one ought not to do them, because they are contrary for the divine purposes for which such women were created. It's an insult to, and assault against, a person created by God, in the image and likeness of his own personhood.

You are not in a position to make your own personal judgment or interpretation of God's words as in the above case.

I'm in the same position as every other human being to do so. Nobody has special privilege in that regard.

And the credit for giving any man the wits to read is God's, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

I have said that the concepts of right and wrong only exist in the minds of human beings,

Yes, I know: but if that's so, then the logical result is that there is no such thing as right and wrong, so morally thinking is firstly irrational and absurd (since it has no correspondence to anything in reality) and secondly inexplicable, since there's no obvious reason why creatures that have appeared in an objective reality as mere products of impersonal forces should mysteriously manage to generate "concepts" that have neither basis nor cause in reality.

Moreover, nobody is obligated to pay any attention to any such concepts, and smart people would disregard them entirely, recognizing them for what they are: the entirely arbitrary constructs of other louts and fools who are trying to tyrannize them by imposing rules that have no justification or basis in reality.

You keep bringing up rationality as an argument against subjective morality, and I keep saying that our moral responses are emotional, not logical.

That's not my argument there, H. My point is that IF what you were saying is true, then "morality" is nothing more than an empty delusion, and we'd be better to drop the concept completely. We're too old to knowingly delude ourselves, are we not?

You might not agree, but I am certain that you understand what I mean. It isn't logical to say please and thank you, but most of us do it frequently. If someone hurts you, your natural response is to hurt them back, but what is rational about revenge?

Revenge can actually be perfectly rational. If I hurt you, then by hurting me back you not only restore your own feeling of vindication but give me fair warning I'd better not do it again. That's very rational, proportional and strategically effective.

But it's also wrong to take vengeance.

Our conscience obligates us

It cannot. A feeling cannot create an obligation. Feelings are often unwarranted, confused, misplaced and errant. But even were they not, they don't issue in duties.

I can't say to you, "You owe me £10 because I feel you do."

It's more a case of empathy motivating our actions than adjudicating wrongness.

Oh, nobody doubts that feelings can be motivators. But we all have feelings we should obey, and also feelings we just need to get over. If I have a feeling that a bogeyman is trying to kill me, I may be motivated not to leave the house, ever. That doesn't mean I'm obligated, and it doesn't mean that leaving the house becomes morally wrong. All it means is I have a misguided feeling.

Will you tell me how you would determine something to be wrong?

Do you mean, "how you, personally, would determine" it, or "what would actually make it" right or wrong?

I mean how would/do you, IC, determine the wrongness of something?

By the Word of God, and according to my relationship with Him. But I'm pretty sure that answer's too short for what you have in mind...I'm just not sure what more you'd like me to say. It seems a rather obvious answer for a moral objectivist to give, doesn't it?

I mean one ought not to do them, because they are contrary for the divine purposes for which such women were created. It's an insult to, and assault against, a person created by God, in the image and likeness of his own personhood.

But they are not contrary to your purpose, you didn't create them in your own image, so what rational reason do you have to care?

I have reason to care because I love and respect God; and it's not loving and respectful to abuse His property...which is what we ultimately all are.

John Locke made the same case when he laid down the groundwork for all human rights. His argument was very simple: people are the creations of God, and rightfully belong to God; to hurt one is to offend not merely against a person, but against God Himself.

Whichever society we happen to belong to. All societies that have morality significantly different to our own are false gods. You know, the same principle as actual religion.

No, that's not actually the same. At least when religions compete, they each appeal to the issue of truth. But your view relies instead on cultural imperialism...on the possibly-gratutious claim that one's own society is better, and even definitive of the right kind of society, for no other reason than that one happens to belong to it oneself.

I don't want to trivialise morality, but our preferences regarding moral values come to us in much the same way as our preferences for the clothes we wear, and the food we eat. We take on the prevailing ones of our own society. That's much how it works with religion, too.

If that were true, then how do people ever convert? If what you're saying were true, then a Muslim could never become an Atheist, a Jew could never become a Buddhist, or an agnostic could not decide to become a Christian. But if these things happen (and we know they do, and rather often) it must also be obvious that something not socially-deterministic is involved.

Well I suppose it's a case of whether we are realistic and see morality as the biological artifact that it is,...

Wait. You said at first that morality is a product of socialization. Then you said it is an artifact of biology. Those are very different claims. If the former is true, morality will vary by society; but if it's the latter, then morality will be as uniform as biology.

Which one do you think is correct, or neither?

[Atla]

It could be. What is the relevance of the speaker's blindness to the truth or falsehood of what he claims?

If the topic were, "Are you blind?" then the man's blindness is relevant, but only to that question and no more.

If the topic is a "sight," that is, something being seen, like the sun coming up, and the man has said, "The sun came up today," then telling him, "You're wrong, because you're blind," would be ad hominem, even if he IS blind. He might well be blind, but the fact that he can't personally see the sun coming up does not determine whether or not the sun came up.

Got it?

Did I ask

Is calling a blind person blind, when the topic is a sight, an ad hominem?

or did I ask

Is calling a blind person blind, when the topic is sight, an ad hominem?

Did I not answer you clearly enough? Then let me be succinct.

To say, if the subject is "Are you blind?" that a person is "blind" is only not an ad hom when his having or not having sight is the only topic in view. But it's also circular and trivial.

The minute you use it to imply "You are blind, so your claim, X, is not true," then you've created an ad hominem fallacy.

That's also only the case when X isn't relevant. For example some people are blind but they claim they can see. You should look up ad hom imo in a dictionary.

[Immanuel Can]

You should look up ad hom imo in a dictionary.

Well, somebody should.

But to return to the main point: can anybody fix the "boo" syllogism, so as to express what moral language could mean, in a believable way?

[Sculptor]

Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: no

[Atla]

Well, somebody should.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

When the argument is about conscience, having or not having a conscience belongs to the substance of the argument.
Even if you still want to call this an ad hominem argument, so you're not using it in a typical way, in that case it's a valid ad hominem argument, not an ad hominem fallacy.
You're welcome

But to return to the main point: can anybody fix the "boo" syllogism, so as to express what moral language could mean, in a believable way?

Though morality is subjective, if humanity was smarter than it is, it could still come up with a global moral system, and treat it as it was kind of objective. For example it could be: "maximum sustainable well-being of humanity and the biosphere with minimum sacrifices". Under which most forms of murder would be considered wrong, similarly to how they are today.

[Immanuel Can]

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

See it, yet?

It's in the quotation you selected yourself.

But to return to the main point: can anybody fix the "boo" syllogism, so as to express what moral language could mean, in a believable way?

Though morality is subjective...etc.

No. Not that.

I asked a very specific question, pointed to a specific challenge. I didn't request a bunch of unfounded opinions or an exercise in rhetoric in place of that.

I mean, can you rewrite the "boo" syllogism?

Have a go. If you can't, then I have my answer, at least in the present case.

[Atla]

See it, yet?

It's in the quotation you selected yourself.

Yeah about that. That just again confirms what I said: you have no idea what the word conscience refers to. Otherwise you would see why it wasn't an ad hom, as conscience was the substance of the argument.
Of course you're at a disadvantage here because you can't really even imagine, what it is that you're missing.

No. Not that.

I asked a very specific question, pointed to a specific challenge. I didn't request a bunch of unfounded opinions or an exercise in rhetoric in place of that.

I mean, can you rewrite the "boo" syllogism?

Have a go. If you can't, then I have my answer, at least in the present case.

Dunno, I'd have to read up on what that's all about, not interested. Moral philosophers on all sides seem to have come up with a million different ways to think about morality and categorize it, which I consider an intellectual pathology.

[Immanuel Can]

I asked a very specific question, pointed to a specific challenge. I didn't request a bunch of unfounded opinions or an exercise in rhetoric in place of that.

I mean, can you rewrite the "boo" syllogism?

Have a go. If you can't, then I have my answer, at least in the present case.

Dunno, I'd have to read up on what that's all about, not interested.

Okay. Bye.

[Atla]

I asked a very specific question, pointed to a specific challenge. I didn't request a bunch of unfounded opinions or an exercise in rhetoric in place of that.

I mean, can you rewrite the "boo" syllogism?

Have a go. If you can't, then I have my answer, at least in the present case.

Dunno, I'd have to read up on what that's all about, not interested.

Okay. Bye.

Bye-bye

[Harbal]

Yes, I know: but if that's so, then the logical result is that there is no such thing as right and wrong, so morally thinking is firstly irrational and absurd (since it has no correspondence to anything in reality) and secondly inexplicable, since there's no obvious reason why creatures that have appeared in an objective reality as mere products of impersonal forces should mysteriously manage to generate "concepts" that have neither basis nor cause in reality.

Moreover, nobody is obligated to pay any attention to any such concepts, and smart people would disregard them entirely, recognizing them for what they are: the entirely arbitrary constructs of other louts and fools who are trying to tyrannize them by imposing rules that have no justification or basis in reality.

You keep bringing up rationality as an argument against subjective morality, and I keep saying that our moral responses are emotional, not logical.

That's not my argument there, H. My point is that IF what you were saying is true, then "morality" is nothing more than an empty delusion, and we'd be better to drop the concept completely. We're too old to knowingly delude ourselves, are we not?

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion. Is the love you have for your wife a delusion, or do you think of it as one? Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality? And why would we be better to drop the concept of morality, even if you think it's a delusion? If it prevents me from stealing from you, wouldn't you rather I didn't drop it?

Our conscience obligates us

It cannot. A feeling cannot create an obligation. Feelings are often unwarranted, confused, misplaced and errant. But even were they not, they don't issue in duties.

Perhaps I should have said our conscience compels us, or at least persuades us. I find that mine does; don't you ever expeience that?

I can't say to you, "You owe me £10 because I feel you do."

Why not? You have said much more preposterous things than that.

It's more a case of empathy motivating our actions than adjudicating wrongness.

Oh, nobody doubts that feelings can be motivators. But we all have feelings we should obey, and also feelings we just need to get over. If I have a feeling that a bogeyman is trying to kill me, I may be motivated not to leave the house, ever. That doesn't mean I'm obligated, and it doesn't mean that leaving the house becomes morally wrong. All it means is I have a misguided feeling.

If that's your best response, I think you would have been wiser not to respond at all.

I mean how would/do you, IC, determine the wrongness of something?

By the Word of God, and according to my relationship with Him. But I'm pretty sure that answer's too short for what you have in mind...I'm just not sure what more you'd like me to say. It seems a rather obvious answer for a moral objectivist to give, doesn't it?

I don't believe that you never have moral feelings of your own that you act upon, and are independant of God. You couldn't possibly know what God would want you to do in absolutely every conceivable situation.

I have reason to care because I love and respect God; and it's not loving and respectful to abuse His property...which is what we ultimately all are.

But what about those of us who have no belief in God? Surely you would prefer it if we had an alternative means of arriving at moral judgements. If that alternative means results in my condemning rape as strongly as you do, why would you try to negate it?

I don't want to trivialise morality, but our preferences regarding moral values come to us in much the same way as our preferences for the clothes we wear, and the food we eat. We take on the prevailing ones of our own society. That's much how it works with religion, too.

If that were true, then how do people ever convert? If what you're saying were true, then a Muslim could never become an Atheist, a Jew could never become a Buddhist, or an agnostic could not decide to become a Christian. But if these things happen (and we know they do, and rather often) it must also be obvious that something not socially-deterministic is involved.

I don't see the logic of your argument. When I was a teenager, I wore flared jeans and platform shoes, because that's what my contemporaries wore. You don't see that so much these days, though. We "converted" to something else. Some people in the West wear kaftans, which are not traditional here. My point being that we are strongly influenced by our social environment, but not to the point of it being irresistably deterministic.

Well I suppose it's a case of whether we are realistic and see morality as the biological artifact that it is,...

Wait. You said at first that morality is a product of socialization. Then you said it is an artifact of biology. Those are very different claims. If the former is true, morality will vary by society; but if it's the latter, then morality will be as uniform as biology.

Which one do you think is correct, or neither?

Our capacity for having a sense of morality is biological, but we enter the world with it more or less empty. It is what we fill that capacity with that we derive from our social environment. This is how it comes to be that all societies have systems of morality, but the nature of that morality can differ between them.

The thing is; people who do not believe in God still have a sense of morality, and often share mostly the same moral values as those who do believe. Like a lot of people, I roughly know most of the ten comandments, but my moral values cover much more than that. If I didn't form those values by knowing what God wants, then God is obviously not the source of them. Our moral sense has nothing to do with God, and you know it doesn't. Sure, it can be influenced by what we think God wants, but it can also be influenced by various other things, too. That doesn't suggest there is no God; it doesn't suggest anything either way, so I really can't understand why you are refusing to acknowledge what is undeniable:

Morality does not depend on God for its existence.

[Atla]

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion. Is the love you have for your wife a delusion, or do you think of it as one? Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality?

Unfortunately you are comparing something he cannot experience (conscience) to another thing he cannot experience (love)..

[FlashDangerpants]

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion. Is the love you have for your wife a delusion, or do you think of it as one? Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality?

Unfortunately you are comparing something he cannot experience (conscience) to another thing he cannot experience (love)..

And most likely he is only heterosexual because he thinks God commands it so. That's probably what he really means when he says that if he stopped believing in God he'd get up to all sorts of sin, he would absolutely go to town on a cock right away. And he should do that right now, either God doesn't really mind, or there is no god to object at all.

So he has conscience, but he sold it for religion. And he could experience love, but he traded that for religion too.

[Atla]

Why do you think of an emotional feeling as a delusion. Is the love you have for your wife a delusion, or do you think of it as one? Love doesn't seem to be based on rationality, so why demand it of morality?

Unfortunately you are comparing something he cannot experience (conscience) to another thing he cannot experience (love)..

And most likely he is only heterosexual because he thinks God commands it so. That's probably what he really means when he says that if he stopped believing in God he'd get up to all sorts of sin, he would absolutely go to town on a cock right away. And he should do that right now, either God doesn't really mind, or there is no god to object at all.

So he has conscience, but he sold it for religion. And he could experience love, but he traded that for religion too.

I don't think so, he comes across to me as one of those who literally have no conscience.