Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:10 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 3:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 3:31 pm But there's a missing piece. That is, a person has to involve his/her relationship with God, or moral clarity just won't come. The objective truth is that whatever fits with that relationship is objectively moral. Whatever fails to do so is objectively not moral.

I don't have a relationship with God, so I have to look elsewhere, but I don't have to look farther than myself.

If you and I, as contingent, failing, aging, faltering, fallible, transient, sinning, time-bound and not-self-originating beings could provide grounds for morality, then maybe that would be possible to imagine. But you can see all the reasons it can't, listed above.

I think morality is purely a human thing, so we are the only ones who can provide grounds. I know you think that is inadequate, but it's the best I can do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:10 pm

Harbal wrote: I acknowledge that I can't always achieve complete moral clarity, but I quite often can.

I agree. Natural moral conscience is crippled by our fallenness, but not entirely destroyed. However, it's a slippery little beggar, and too often lets us down.

I don't really undedrstand the concept of "fallenness". I suppose our moral judgements are like all our others as far as their soundness is concerned. Sometimes we get the outcome we want, and sometimes we don't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:10 pm

Harbal wrote: And it is true that I can't form a rational argument as to why stealing and lying are morally wrong; I can only describe why I consider them to be morally wrong.

Well, you're an honest man. That's something. At least you understand the limits of the subjectivist account of morality; others are still trying to say it has objective authority...I don't think they're ever going to be able to show that.

What I understand is the limits of morality, not the limits of anyone's account of morality. I have never said, nor thought, that morality has any objective authority. On what we consider to be the more important moral issues, we can only hope that others see things the same as we do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:28 pm
I just did. They say that subjective thinking IS morality. That means "exists as." And if they don't mean something objective by that, then they're really not saying anything at all, beyond, "delusions are delusions." And I don't know what you want to make of a claim like that.

So it's just a delusion that my favourite color is blue, because blue isn't objectively the favourite color?

Not a good analogy. "Blue" is colour that exists in the external world by way of wavelenths of light (regardless of differences in sight, which is only an epistemological not ontological problem). And "favourite" is trivial. Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Subjectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so.

And human behaviours also exist in the external world. Human consciences also exist in the external world, which push us towards certain behaviours.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:28 pm
I just did. They say that subjective thinking IS morality. That means "exists as." And if they don't mean something objective by that, then they're really not saying anything at all, beyond, "delusions are delusions." And I don't know what you want to make of a claim like that.

So it's just a delusion that my favourite color is blue, because blue isn't objectively the favourite color?

Not a good analogy. "Blue" is colour that exists in the external world by way of wavelenths of light (regardless of differences in sight, which is only an epistemological not ontological problem). And "favourite" is trivial. Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Subjectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so.

Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Objectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so. We just need to believe in an objective morality that promotes genocide.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:10 pm If you and I, as contingent, failing, aging, faltering, fallible, transient, sinning, time-bound and not-self-originating beings could provide grounds for morality, then maybe that would be possible to imagine. But you can see all the reasons it can't, listed above.

I think morality is purely a human thing, so we are the only ones who can provide grounds.

Then the conclusion is obvious: there actually ARE no grounds. Morality is an illusion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:10 pm

Harbal wrote: I acknowledge that I can't always achieve complete moral clarity, but I quite often can.[/quite]
I agree. Natural moral conscience is crippled by our fallenness, but not entirely destroyed. However, it's a slippery little beggar, and too often lets us down.

I don't really undedrstand the concept of "fallenness".

It's the Biblical concept, the idea that man was created innocent, but "fell" as a result of his rejection of God. It explains why we have a conscience, but not a perfect one.

what we consider to be the more important moral issues, we can only hope that others see things the same as we do.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, that's not what you see around you in the world, is it?

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:34 pm
So it's just a delusion that my favourite color is blue, because blue isn't objectively the favourite color?

Not a good analogy. "Blue" is colour that exists in the external world by way of wavelenths of light (regardless of differences in sight, which is only an epistemological not ontological problem). And "favourite" is trivial. Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Subjectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so.

And human behaviours also exist in the external world.

Yes, they do. Unfortunately for you and me, these behaviours are not all good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:10 pm If you and I, as contingent, failing, aging, faltering, fallible, transient, sinning, time-bound and not-self-originating beings could provide grounds for morality, then maybe that would be possible to imagine. But you can see all the reasons it can't, listed above.

I think morality is purely a human thing, so we are the only ones who can provide grounds.

Then the conclusion is obvious: there actually ARE no grounds. Morality is an illusion.

I can live with that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:17 pm

Harbal wrote: I don't really undedrstand the concept of "fallenness".

It's the Biblical concept, the idea that man was created innocent, but "fell" as a result of his rejection of God. It explains why we have a conscience, but not a perfect one.

If you say so.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:17 pm

Harbal wrote: what we consider to be the more important moral issues, we can only hope that others see things the same as we do.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, that's not what you see around you in the world, is it?

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It would be nice if your attitude towards gay people and abortion were more in tune with mine, but that's just how it is.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:34 pm Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It would be nice if your attitude towards gay people and abortion were more in tune with mine, but that's just how it is.

I'd be glad if we both were in tune with the objective morality grounded in the character and revealed will of God.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:34 pm
So it's just a delusion that my favourite color is blue, because blue isn't objectively the favourite color?

Not a good analogy. "Blue" is colour that exists in the external world by way of wavelenths of light (regardless of differences in sight, which is only an epistemological not ontological problem). And "favourite" is trivial. Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Subjectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so.

Is genocide a trivial thing, just a matter of taste, like colour preference? Objectivism, if we believed it, would have us think so. We just need to believe in an objective morality that promotes genocide.

That's a real danger, of course. Somebody could believe in objective morality, but get it wrong. But subjectivism offers no cure to that situation at all; for subjectivism does not conduce to humility or reluctance to act in bad ways; rather, it removes any impediment between the desiring self and the object he/she desires...whatever it may be...be it good, or be it evil.

And it has, historically, often been things like slavery, rape, murder and genocide. It's not hard to realize that all the great genocides of the last century, that killed more human beings than all of previous history put together, were not impeded by the increasing secularization of the century. Rather, they accelerated very quickly. That shouldn't have happened, if subjectivism offered us any bulwark against genocide.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:42 pm That's a real danger, of course. Somebody could believe in objective morality, but get it wrong. But subjectivism offers no cure to that situation at all; for subjectivism does not conduce to humility or reluctance to act in bad ways; rather, it removes any impediment between the desiring self and the object he/she desires...whatever it may be...be it good, or be it evil.

And it has, historically, often been things like slavery, rape, murder and genocide. It's not hard to realize that all the great genocides of the last century, that killed more human beings than all of previous history put together, were not impeded by the increasing secularization of the century. Rather, they accelerated very quickly. That shouldn't have happened, if subjectivism offered us any bulwark against genocide.

Objective morality - which one?

As things stand, there is only subjective morality, objective moralists are simply in denial about this. Every objective morality on the planet was subjectively made up by people, and they are all pretending that their particular objective morality is the real deal and others are simply delusional.

Objective morality is simply a massive denial about the nature of reality, a monumental delusion, and as long there are so many different objective moralities followed by so many people that can conflict with each other, humanity won't have a good possibility of unifying. Increasing the chance of armageddon.

With subjective morality, there would at least be a somewhat higher chance for unification.

So in summary, objective moralists care more about themselves than humanity's future.

---------------------------

But of course the truth is that we're headed for armageddon either way. The problem isn't really with subjective or objective morality, but that most people are naturally too stupid and evil, no matter what philosophy they follow.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:38 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:34 pm Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. It would be nice if your attitude towards gay people and abortion were more in tune with mine, but that's just how it is.

I'd be glad if we both were in tune with the objective morality grounded in the character and revealed will of God.

I'm sorry, but I'm simply not prepared to compromise when it comes to God.

Here's the big truth: if the average human wasn't so effing stupid, malignant and selfish, humans would have agreed on beneficial moral systems thousands of years ago, which would be updated when necessary.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:42 pm That's a real danger, of course. Somebody could believe in objective morality, but get it wrong. But subjectivism offers no cure to that situation at all; for subjectivism does not conduce to humility or reluctance to act in bad ways; rather, it removes any impediment between the desiring self and the object he/she desires...whatever it may be...be it good, or be it evil.

And it has, historically, often been things like slavery, rape, murder and genocide. It's not hard to realize that all the great genocides of the last century, that killed more human beings than all of previous history put together, were not impeded by the increasing secularization of the century. Rather, they accelerated very quickly. That shouldn't have happened, if subjectivism offered us any bulwark against genocide.

Objective morality - which one?

The objective one. None of the ones that claim to be the objective truth, but are not.

As things stand, there is only subjective morality,

Were that true, then there's no morality at all, anywhere. Just the delusion of it.

...humanity won't have a good possibility of unifying.

Well, since the desire to unify is only a subjective preference on your part, allegedly, how serious a concern can that be? It begins and ends with your personal preference for it, not with any duty of anybody else to agree, apparently...if subjectivism is true.

Increasing the chance of armageddon.

I've got bad news for you. That's not a "chance." That's a certainty.

But consider how subjectivism feeds into that. Firstly, it creates moral bewilderment on the part of everybody who is wooed by it...there are no morals upon which any society or even consensus between people can be structured. Social chaos breaks out -- as we are seeing it do around the world today -- and eventually, people desperate for security surrender all their autonomy to the first authoritarian who will provide the illusion of security.

That's exactly the moral cycle that happened in the Weimar Republic, I think, with the cabarets, corrupt politics and Communist uprisings in Germany. Moral decay and relativism advanced, along with social disintegration, conflict, misery and rage. Eventually, a man appeared who promised security, and the Germans flooded to his cause...because he offered an artificial certainty, and even an artificial one was better than none.

With subjective morality, there would at least be a somewhat higher chance for unification.

That seems implausible. If, as you would have me think, both your morality and mine, and everybody else's is simply "subjective," then why do we need to "agree"? We don't. Nobody's going to be "right" or "wrong" in any real sense if we don't agree. In fact, we can't even show that getting along is, in any objective sense, "better" than killing each other. It's all up to what the individual wants to do.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:55 pm Here's the big truth: if the average human wasn't so effing stupid, malignant and selfish, humans would have agreed on beneficial moral systems thousands of years ago, which would be updated when necessary.

And yet, here we are. People are manifestly not what you want them to be, right?

But why doesn't that satisfy subjectivism? They are choosing their own way. Why let that offend you? They're subjectivists...there are no answers but the ones in their own heads...and objectively, they owe each other no respect, no duties, no consideration at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 6:05 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:55 pm Here's the big truth: if the average human wasn't so effing stupid, malignant and selfish, humans would have agreed on beneficial moral systems thousands of years ago, which would be updated when necessary.

And yet, here we are. People are manifestly not what you want them to be, right?

But why doesn't that satisfy subjectivism? They are choosing their own way. Why let that offend you? They're subjectivists...there are no answers but the ones in their own heads...and objectively, they owe each other no respect, no duties, no consideration at all.

You really don't understand the potential of subjectivism at all, or you are blatantly lying. It's probably the latter. The great objective moralities of the world are all subjectively based, conscience based. If people were smarter, they could create a subjective morality shared by most people, that's far better than any "objective morality" they've created so far.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 6:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 6:05 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 5:55 pm Here's the big truth: if the average human wasn't so effing stupid, malignant and selfish, humans would have agreed on beneficial moral systems thousands of years ago, which would be updated when necessary.

And yet, here we are. People are manifestly not what you want them to be, right?

But why doesn't that satisfy subjectivism? They are choosing their own way. Why let that offend you? They're subjectivists...there are no answers but the ones in their own heads...and objectively, they owe each other no respect, no duties, no consideration at all.

You really don't understand the potential of subjectivism at all,

It has no "potential." It's limited to the "subject" who experiences it. It can, by definition, go no futher.

What you're actually articulating is a wish for a nominally-subjective morality (yours, presumably) to be taken up and treated as if objective (that is, to be held by all people). And what you're lamenting is just that others don't agree with you.

But unless you refer to a moral standard higher than both them and yourself, you cannot really complain. They're not doing wrong, when they disagree with you. They're living out their "subjectivity." As a subjectivist, you have no basis for asking more.