Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

People often speak about the order in nature, but it doesn't seem particularly ordered to me; it seems rather chaotic, actually.

Well, I don't want to sound insulting, but clearly, you need to do some science, then. Science absolutely relies on the universe being orderly and law-governed. If it were not, if it were chaotic, science itself would be utterly impossible.

But say there is order, and we can't account for it, why does that mean God; why couldn't there be some other explanation that we are unaware of? I don't doubt there is much in nature that science can't explain, but there are always things that science can't explain but will explain in the future.

Well, for anybody who thinks order "just happens," they should try standing in the middle of a room with a thousand hole-punch punchouts in their hands, and throwing them up in the air until they land on the floor and spell out the first line of A Tale of Two Cities or the Magna Carta.

If that's improbable to suppose, then just imagine how improbable it is for billions of chaotic particles to congeal, under no laws or organization at all, and form worlds.

I agree that good things can come from religion, but so can bad things.

That's because not all of what you call "religions" are equal. It's clear, though, that you'll search in vain in Atheism for a legacy anywhere near as august in terms of the generating of charity, welfare, reform, education, medicine, international outreach, addiction, etc. as that of the Christians. Atheism doesn't come within a million miles of the good Christianity has done; and Atheism's killed far more people than any ideology in history -- orders of magnitude more than all the "religions" put together -- mostly through Marxism and its toxic relatives, nationalism, eugenics, hedonism, and so forth.

What "experience" or sequence of "experiences" eventually convinced you there is no God? Or have you ever thought about that

I can't remember the transition from assuming there was God because some people said there was, to realising it was a completely implausible proposition.

But how did you "realize" it? What made you go from "assuming" one thing to "assuming" the opposite?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I broadly agree with that, but I still think that empathy is what morality is mainly based on. Whether or not that is a good base is not what we are questioning.

That's pretty obviously EXACTLY what we're questioning: is empathy a "good" base? (Notice the moral term "good.") And that's a moral question, and one that precedes any application of empathy itself.

[FlashDangerpants]

I can use the word 'wrong' in exactly the normal way.

You're using it objectively, then, whether you know it or not.

So what? That's exactly what Mackie says, it's the basis of error theory.
Fictionalism and quasi-realism both operate on the same basis except as-if rather than directly assuming a truth. (ok, the second one isn't really quite like that, but this will do for now)

So you can now quot writing stuff like this...

But as a subjectivist, you can't just say, "Killing is wrong," because "wrong" does not have any specific meaning

Because by now you are well enough informed to know that it is a lie.

[Immanuel Can]

I can use the word 'wrong' in exactly the normal way.

You're using it objectively, then, whether you know it or not.

So what? That's exactly what Mackie says, it's the basis of error theory.

You've missed the point: Mackie does this merely assumptively, in the first place. He doesn't even try to prove anything...he just says, "It's so: believe me."

That's stupid. One must always give sufficient reason why your first premise is to be believed, even if your interlocutors do not accept your argument. You must always at least show you have reasons for the claim.

Secondly, Mackie actually agrees with what I'm saying about subjectivism (and error theory): that its implication is that there are no moral truths. Period. So nobody can say anything true about morality, including that rape, genocide and torture are "wrong." The word has no actual meaning, just as I said. So you can't use "wrong" in your syllogism: Mackie denies it to you. It does not refer to anything real. It's not a predication.

So essentially, what Mackie commits you to is that you know NOTHING about morality. It's not authentic, and when we make moral talk, we're only making an error, because there is no fact about genocide, rape or torture that is relevant to making a moral judgment.

In other words, Mackie just dodges the whole problem posed by the thread. Instead of saying that morality is objective, or even that it is subjective, he just essentially says, "There's no morality, either subjective or objective." Morality is not a "real" thing, for him.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're using it objectively, then, whether you know it or not.

So what? That's exactly what Mackie says, it's the basis of error theory.

You've missed the point: Mackie does this merely assumptively, in the first place. He doesn't even try to prove anything...he just says, "It's so: believe me."

No you are missing the point. You have been trying to deny me access to a word. You can stop that now.

[Immanuel Can]

So what? That's exactly what Mackie says, it's the basis of error theory.

You've missed the point: Mackie does this merely assumptively, in the first place. He doesn't even try to prove anything...he just says, "It's so: believe me."

No you are missing the point.

That's not the point: the point is that Mackie is faking it. He's got nothing to show that what he says about morality is true; he's just bluffing, and you bought it.

You have been trying to deny me access to a word. You can stop that now.

You can't have the word, unless you prove you know what it means. Otherwise, it's just an X. Forget it. Nobody's fooled.

[FlashDangerpants]

You've missed the point: Mackie does this merely assumptively, in the first place. He doesn't even try to prove anything...he just says, "It's so: believe me."

No you are missing the point.

That's not the point: the point is that Mackie is faking it. He's got nothing to show that what he says about morality is true; he's just bluffing, and you bought it.

You have been trying to deny me access to a word. You can stop that now.

You can't have the word, unless you prove you know what it means. Otherwise, it's just an X. Forget it. Nobody's fooled.

When did you become a Logical Positivist?
Where did you get this ludicrous notion that words only have provable contents?
Your morality is based on a religious delusion, so you are sitting in that glass house throwing stones.

[Immanuel Can]

Where did you get this ludicrous notion that words only have provable contents?

You'll have to show me where I said that. Otherwise, the "ludicrous notion" you mention must be of your own making.

What I said is that if you don't have any content in your word "wrong," then there's nothing you mean when you use it. It's not a predication of anything.

[FlashDangerpants]

Where did you get this ludicrous notion that words only have provable contents?

You'll have to show me where I said that. Otherwise, the "ludicrous notion" you mention must be of your own making.

What I said is that if you don't have any content in your word "wrong," then there's nothing you mean when you use it. It's not a predication of anything.

What do you mean "you don't have any content".... are you still under the delusi0on that I am a non-cognitivist?

[Immanuel Can]

Where did you get this ludicrous notion that words only have provable contents?

You'll have to show me where I said that. Otherwise, the "ludicrous notion" you mention must be of your own making.

What I said is that if you don't have any content in your word "wrong," then there's nothing you mean when you use it. It's not a predication of anything.

What do you mean "you don't have any content".... are you still under the delusi0on that I am a non-cognitivist?

What is your synonym for "wrong"? Is it pain? Is it emotion? Is it 'unreason'? Is it "contrary to my society?" Is it "contrary to my desires?" What the theory you have about what makes a thing "wrong"?

Just say it, and we'll all know what you are. If you say nothing, then you have no content in your word "wrong."

[FlashDangerpants]

You'll have to show me where I said that. Otherwise, the "ludicrous notion" you mention must be of your own making.

What I said is that if you don't have any content in your word "wrong," then there's nothing you mean when you use it. It's not a predication of anything.

What do you mean "you don't have any content".... are you still under the delusi0on that I am a non-cognitivist?

What is your synonym for "wrong"? Is it pain? Is it emotion? Is it 'unreason'? Is it "contrary to my society?" Is it "contrary to my desires?" What the theory you have about what makes a thing "wrong"?

Just say it, and we'll all know what you are. If you say nothing, then you have no content in your word "wrong."

I don't use one. I am losing the will to try and get you to understand that this whole "bad = boo" thing is only relevant to non-cognitivists. For everyone else, all the moral words are just the moral words we use. I learned good and bad and right and wrong when I was a toddler just like you did. The words haven't changed.

If you still can't get that, then you just aren't very clever.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean "you don't have any content".... are you still under the delusi0on that I am a non-cognitivist?

What is your synonym for "wrong"? Is it pain? Is it emotion? Is it 'unreason'? Is it "contrary to my society?" Is it "contrary to my desires?" What the theory you have about what makes a thing "wrong"?

Just say it, and we'll all know what you are. If you say nothing, then you have no content in your word "wrong."

I don't use one.

Then your word "wrong" signifies nothing. You have no idea why you use it, or what makes it justified to use.

[FlashDangerpants]

What is your synonym for "wrong"? Is it pain? Is it emotion? Is it 'unreason'? Is it "contrary to my society?" Is it "contrary to my desires?" What the theory you have about what makes a thing "wrong"?

Just say it, and we'll all know what you are. If you say nothing, then you have no content in your word "wrong."

I don't use one.

Then your word "wrong" signifies nothing. You have no idea why you use it, or what makes it justified to use.

Wrong

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, I broadly agree with that, but I still think that empathy is what morality is mainly based on. Whether or not that is a good base is not what we are questioning.

Empathy, compassion, sympathy
+
eliminating those things that propagandize away these attitudes. Like if we look at the various forms of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany, via family, media, academic channels. What inhibits EC+S?
The also what enhances those traits at a distance. We're made for tribal levels of social relations, but what we do affects people far out of sight.
Much of this need not be the kind of emotional intimacy when we burst into tears when a best friend tells us about their mother dying. But we have to have that as a base, somewhere, even in the distance in the mind. We get what others pain is. A doctor working at a hospital and an economist sitting in some EU meeting need not be bursting into tears all the time and in fact it's likely best that most of the time they don't. But that they are people who have that connection somewhere and could be affected that way by a stranger's suffering. They have been down there and there is some thread to the intimate knowledge of another's potential pain loss need.

We are social animals. And there's the other side of empathy, compassion, sympathy. A broader category that makes us, social mammals, unique: collaboration (even across species). Play, is one form. Play is very complicated. You have to read the others to know that a play fight is not a real fight. Colloboration is a kind of dance that uses the same reading others and intimacy (automatic identification with and feeling into others) that can lead to what gets called empathy, but is used by social animals in a wide variety of ways. Any activity that includes collabortion and cooperation.

One of the problems I have with the Abrahamic approach is that they teach you to hate yourself and are surprised when many of their members of so hateful of themselves and others. So, someone like IC will then say, oh, they aren't really Christian. How not to take responsibility.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I broadly agree with that, but I still think that empathy is what morality is mainly based on. Whether or not that is a good base is not what we are questioning.

Empathy, compassion, sympathy

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... r-tsarnaev

Other people in prison who received plenty of empathy letters: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez...