Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course it's subjective. No action or event can contain wrongness; it is something that only exists in our minds.

So it "exists in your mind" that you have a feeling of not liking what you (incorrectly) say God does? That's it? That's what you meant when you said "he's wrong"?

That's not a charge that anybody needs to take very seriously, is it?

...did I say that I expect anyone to take it seriously?

There was really no other reason for you to mention it at all, if you expected nobody to agree. It's as irrelevant as talking about your own toenails.

But I think that you still wanted people to agree, and even expected it to count as some sort of objection I should take seriously as well. So your methods suggest you wanted it understood as implicating some objective "wrongness."

But if you say not, we can just dismiss it without any response at all, I guess.

Yes, that's what I said it meant.
But if "that's wrong" only means "Harbal doesn't like," then it's just the contingent feeling of one person. Nobody needs to agree, or even should; and God is not being indicted of anything bad.

It's my personal criticism of God's conduct, and others are free to agree or disagree.

But since there's no objective facts to which to refer, nobody has any reason to do either.

If morality were objective, you would be forced to disapprove of it, too.

Right. So you're not expecting me to have to agree with your "disapproval" of God's alleged conduct...you're just saying, "Harbal no like, but you can like whatever you want, and so can everybody else."

In essence, yes, that's correct.

Well, why don't we talk about something that involves somebody more than just you...because frankly, the toenails are just not very interesting to anybody else.

[LuckyR]

Hitler was just following his values too.

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.

Well the order follower may not have come up with the idea of the order but the order, if followed, must be compatible with the follower's moral code, so no ducking (moral) responsibility.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is following your own ethical values.

No, that's solipsism, or even narcissism.

Having an ethical approach to your dealings and interactions with other people is neither solipsistic nor narcissistic.

Ah, but there you've admitted that morality governs relations. So it's no longer a case of merely "following your own ethical values." Other people have every right to say, "What you think is moral is offending me, or your beliefs/behaviour are unpleasant to me."

In fact, has that not been what you were saying to me all along: "your beliefs are unpleasant to me"? And you don't expect me to turn to you and say, "Sorry; you're not a counter in the moral equation." You would expect me to be concerned in some way, would you not?

Even in secular thought, we can certainly realize that ethical values are shared properties of human societies, not "your own." And because they govern relations among and between people, not simply what you do to yourself, they're other people's concern as well as yours.

Morality is a common code regulating interactions among the various entities that count in the moral equation: between you and your duty to self-care, between you and your neighbour, between you and your community, between you and your nation, and between you and your Maker. It's not "following your own ethical values".

Yes, I can broadly go along with that, but the values within any community can vary, and even conflict, so you are painting a rather simplistic picture.

I'm not "painting a picture" at all: I'm just stating one very obvious fact about morality. There's no detail, no "brushstrokes" there for you to criticize as "simplistic." One is a very simplistic number.

But yes, people's values conflict. That's not a surprise, when multiple counters and agendas are involved. It's also no stroke against the objectivity of morality; all it tells us for sure is that some of these counters and agenda get the story wrong. It doesn't somehow automatically give us reason to suppose there's no right one.

In fact, Biblically,

I'm going to have to stop you there, I'm afraid; I don't do biblical.

I know. But I do.

If I were wanting to be ironic, I'd say, "It's my own morality," just as you were claiming to have your own. But we're past that earlier error now, aren't we?

[Skepdick]

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.

Well the order follower may not have come up with the idea of the order but the order, if followed, must be compatible with the follower's moral code, so no ducking (moral) responsibility.

And the value-follower may not have come up with order either. Were it not for their values.

The question of whether Hitler’s orders were compatible with his moral code isn’t even relevant.

It was the moral code that he followed which made him feel morally responsible to give the order.

It was his moral duty to deliver the final solution.

[Harbal]

Hitler was just following his values too.

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.

The difference shows up when you try to pin the responsibility on someone else.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.

Well the order follower may not have come up with the idea of the order but the order, if followed, must be compatible with the follower's moral code, so no ducking (moral) responsibility.

Problem: Hitler's reasoning for the Holocaust was to end a "conspiracy" by Jews, and to eliminate the "plague" of Jewishness from Germany, and eventually from the world. His was a "sanitizing" mission, in his mind, in other words, a "purifying" of the human race from its various contagions and "diseases". So what he was doing was fully "compatible with the follower's moral code," to use your term.

It didn't make him "moral," did it?

[Skepdick]

Yes, but he wasn't following orders, he was giving them.

Not sure what difference it makes whether you are following orders; or following your values when you commit genocide.

You were doing your job.
Hitler was doing his calling.

The difference shows up when you try to pin the responsibility on someone else.

Why is the difference relevant?

Whether you blame it on somebody else (your boss); or something else (your innate values) you are still not taking responsibility.

[Harbal]

So it "exists in your mind" that you have a feeling of not liking what you (incorrectly) say God does? That's it? That's what you meant when you said "he's wrong"?

That's not a charge that anybody needs to take very seriously, is it?

...did I say that I expect anyone to take it seriously?

There was really no other reason for you to mention it at all, if you expected nobody to agree. It's as irrelevant as talking about your own toenails.

But I think that you still wanted people to agree, and even expected it to count as some sort of objection I should take seriously as well. So your methods suggest you wanted it understood as implicating some objective "wrongness."

But if you say not, we can just dismiss it without any response at all, I guess.

Dismissing it without response would require less effort from me in return, so I'm okay with that.

It's my personal criticism of God's conduct, and others are free to agree or disagree.
But since there's no objective facts to which to refer, nobody has any reason to do either.

I don't think they will let that stop them, though.

[Immanuel Can]

It's my personal criticism of God's conduct, and others are free to agree or disagree.

But since there's no objective facts to which to refer, nobody has any reason to do either.

I don't think they will let that stop them, though.

Maybe, and maybe not. But since you post it on a public forum, or at least tell me about it, I think what you're probably expecting is that a "moral" person should agree with the assessment. And you're thinking there are some objective moral facts that should tend them one way or another, are you not?

And if you anticipate it should present some obstacle to me or my position, or that I should take it seriously and respond, or else I would be derelict in my responsibility to the conversation or to you, then you're no longer just talking about a "your own" morality. You're now talking about something beyond the merely subjective, and plausibly, beyond the humanly intersubjective as well.

But we've agreed, have we not, that morality is a common concern? So I'm happy to respond, if you still have an objection.

[Harbal]

No, that's solipsism, or even narcissism.

Having an ethical approach to your dealings and interactions with other people is neither solipsistic nor narcissistic.

Ah, but there you've admitted that morality governs relations. So it's no longer a case of merely "following your own ethical values." Other people have every right to say, "What you think is moral is offending me, or your beliefs/behaviour are unpleasant to me."

In fact, has that not been what you were saying to me all along: "your beliefs are unpleasant to me"? And you don't expect me to turn to you and say, "Sorry; you're not a counter in the moral equation." You would expect me to be concerned in some way, would you not?

Yes, of course I admit that morality governs relations; it is too obvious not to admit it. Moral opinions differ, and we can respect the opinions of others, or we can dismiss them.

But yes, people's values conflict. That's not a surprise, when multiple counters and agendas are involved. It's also no stroke against the objectivity of morality; all it tells us for sure is that some of these counters and agenda get the story wrong. It doesn't somehow automatically give us reason to suppose there's no right one.

What if all parties claim to be objectively right, and are able to point to their "objective" source of preference?

[Skepdick]

What if all parties claim to be objectively right, and are able to point to their "objective" source of preference?

Well, explain your source then.

Why is following orders excusable, but following your moral obligations inexcusable?

Following is following is following.

It isn’t leading.

Why the double standard.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, of course I admit that morality governs relations; it is too obvious not to admit it.

Well, I agree. But since people don't always think carefully about ethics, one of the biases in our society suggests that morality is merely a private, personal or individual concern. So it was worth sticking a pin in that balloon, was it not?

Moral opinions differ, and we can respect the opinions of others, or we can dismiss them.

And they can be wrong. I assume you found the discussion about Hitler's "morals" relevant to that thought.

What if all parties claim to be objectively right, and are able to point to their "objective" source of preference?

Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction rules that out. It's not possible they're right. We could all be wrong about what the objective truth of morality is -- the "law" does not eliminate that possibility -- but it certainly shows that the vast majority of these contradicting "parties" are mostly wrong.

[Harbal]

But since there's no objective facts to which to refer, nobody has any reason to do either.

I don't think they will let that stop them, though.

Maybe, and maybe not. But since you post it on a public forum, or at least tell me about it, I think what you're probably expecting is that a "moral" person should agree with the assessment. And you're thinking there are some objective moral facts that should tend them one way or another, are you not?

And if you anticipate it should present some obstacle to me or my position, or that I should take it seriously and respond, or else I would be derelict in my responsibility to the conversation or to you, then you're no longer just talking about a "your own" morality. You're now talking about something beyond the merely subjective, and plausibly, beyond the humanly intersubjective as well.

But we've agreed, have we not, that morality is a common concern? So I'm happy to respond, if you still have an objection.

You said that people had no reason to agree or disagree with me, but people often seem keen to voice their moral opinions, and their attitude towards those of others, so it seems they must have a reason, albeit a subjective reason. But then most of what we do is for subjective reasons.

[Harbal]

What if all parties claim to be objectively right, and are able to point to their "objective" source of preference?

Well, explain your source then.

Why is following orders excusable, but following your moral obligations inexcusable?

Following is following is following.

It isn’t leading.

Why the double standard.

You obviously missed my point, and now you've gone off in a direction to who knows where.

[Skepdick]

What if all parties claim to be objectively right, and are able to point to their "objective" source of preference?

Well, explain your source then.

Why is following orders excusable, but following your moral obligations inexcusable?

Following is following is following.

It isn’t leading.

Why the double standard.

You obviously missed my point, and now you've gone off in a direction to who knows where.

Your point was understood.

Your double standard isn’t.

Why is following orders different to following your perceived moral obligations ?