Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

I don't have the patience to write out all my thoughts relating to the outline I have described, and I doubt that anyone would take it seriously if I did.

1. If you were to be Honest, then I WOULD take what you said SERIOUSLY.

2. Surely it would NOT take you long AT ALL to just write the reason WHY 'you' THINK there is 'reason' to BELIEVE that human instinct caused 'you', human beings, to show EXTREME brutality towards "outsiders", in so-called 'earlier times', and which 'you' THINK or BELIEVE that 'you' are, basically, STILL the SAME 'animal' now.

I have always wondered why and how human beings came to have such a high level of intelligence. Our intelligence is so vastly superior to that of any other living creature that it could fairly be called a super power. But why?

Why did natural selection continue to increase human intelligence far beyond the amount needed to completely dominate our environment? Why are we clever enough to send machines into space, and invent computers, when a much lower level of intelligence would have enabled us to easily outsmart woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers?

The main drivers of natural selection are things like the need to get food, avoid predators and be more successful than our competitors. It seems like major overkill to me for us to have brains capable of investigating quantum mechanics just to be very good at feeding ourselves and figuring out ways to prevent things from eating us. So, we are left with competition. But what kind of competition would warrant our developing super intelligence? Other very intelligent creatures was the answer I came up with, or in other words: other human beings. We are the result of an evolutionary arms race with ourselves, and intelligence as the weapon. The more I thought about it, the more I was left with the impression that human beings must have been incredibly hostile towards each other back in our dim and distant past. That potentiality is still buried deep inside us, I suspect.

AND, even if what 'you' SAY here was even REMOTELY true, then WHY do 'you' ALSO SAY that 'you', human beings, are STILL the SAME animal 'now'?

Because evolution is a very slow and gradual process, where change is measured over hundreds of thousands of years.

[Immanuel Can]

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

But when your subjective feeling about that changes, what makes you in any way duty-bound to do the 'right' thing (whatever you conceive that to be), as opposed to the merely expedient thing, the thing that gets you the next advantage you perceive to be available?

You asked for a subjective moral imperative, and I gave you one.

You gave me a statement. But nothing suggests it's imperative. And imperative is something one HAS to do, that one has a DUTY to do, or has an OBLIGATION towards. And I'm just looking for the missing piece: what makes that imperative?

Our moral outlook does often change as we go through life; mine certainly has.

Well, perhaps; but then it's not "imperative," by definition, that you follow that axiom. You could do otherwise, and there'd be nothing "wrong" with you having done otherwise. You have no duty to choose that axiom over any other -- even its opposite. So manifestly, it no longer fits the case. It's not "imperative," by any account, for you to prefer it.

You say, "I expect it of myself." Okay. But when you don't, it's gone. And you could as easily have never "expected" it in the first place. On what basis do you think such a transient, temporary, private and ephemeral whim merits the term "moral"?

[Harbal]

But when your subjective feeling about that changes, what makes you in any way duty-bound to do the 'right' thing (whatever you conceive that to be), as opposed to the merely expedient thing, the thing that gets you the next advantage you perceive to be available?

You asked for a subjective moral imperative, and I gave you one.

You gave me a statement. But nothing suggests it's imperative. And imperative is something one HAS to do, that one has a DUTY to do, or has an OBLIGATION towards. And I'm just looking for the missing piece: what makes that imperative?

Our moral outlook does often change as we go through life; mine certainly has.

Well, perhaps; but then it's not "imperative," by definition, that you follow that axiom. You could do otherwise, and there'd be nothing "wrong" with you having done otherwise. You have no duty to choose that axiom over any other -- even its opposite. So manifestly, it no longer fits the case. It's not "imperative," by any account, for you to prefer it.

You say, "I expect it of myself." Okay. But when you don't, it's gone. And you could as easily have never "expected" it in the first place. On what basis do you think such a transient, temporary, private and ephemeral whim merits the term "moral"?

Okay, if you don't get it, I don't know what else to say.

[Immanuel Can]

You asked for a subjective moral imperative, and I gave you one.

You gave me a statement. But nothing suggests it's imperative. And imperative is something one HAS to do, that one has a DUTY to do, or has an OBLIGATION towards. And I'm just looking for the missing piece: what makes that imperative?

Our moral outlook does often change as we go through life; mine certainly has.

Well, perhaps; but then it's not "imperative," by definition, that you follow that axiom. You could do otherwise, and there'd be nothing "wrong" with you having done otherwise. You have no duty to choose that axiom over any other -- even its opposite. So manifestly, it no longer fits the case. It's not "imperative," by any account, for you to prefer it.

You say, "I expect it of myself." Okay. But when you don't, it's gone. And you could as easily have never "expected" it in the first place. On what basis do you think such a transient, temporary, private and ephemeral whim merits the term "moral"?

Okay, if you don't get it, I don't know what else to say.

It's not a case of "not getting it."

Absent any imperative implication, there isn't an imperative there to "get." There's only something on the level of a whim.

But you, yourself have pointed out that mere whims or matters-of-taste cannot possibly be imperative, so you really didn't provide a subjective imperative at all; just a subjective wish, which even you do not owe it to continue.

[Harbal]

You gave me a statement. But nothing suggests it's imperative. And imperative is something one HAS to do, that one has a DUTY to do, or has an OBLIGATION towards. And I'm just looking for the missing piece: what makes that imperative?

Well, perhaps; but then it's not "imperative," by definition, that you follow that axiom. You could do otherwise, and there'd be nothing "wrong" with you having done otherwise. You have no duty to choose that axiom over any other -- even its opposite. So manifestly, it no longer fits the case. It's not "imperative," by any account, for you to prefer it.

You say, "I expect it of myself." Okay. But when you don't, it's gone. And you could as easily have never "expected" it in the first place. On what basis do you think such a transient, temporary, private and ephemeral whim merits the term "moral"?

Okay, if you don't get it, I don't know what else to say.

It's not a case of "not getting it."

Absent any imperative implication, there isn't an imperative there to "get." There's only something on the level of a whim.

But you, yourself have pointed out that mere whims or matters-of-taste cannot possibly be imperative, so you really didn't provide a subjective imperative at all; just a subjective wish, which even you do not owe it to continue.

This silly pretence of yours not to understand what every normal human being is fully aware of is getting too tedious now. I need to take one of my little breaks.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, if you don't get it, I don't know what else to say.

It's not a case of "not getting it."

Absent any imperative implication, there isn't an imperative there to "get." There's only something on the level of a whim.

But you, yourself have pointed out that mere whims or matters-of-taste cannot possibly be imperative, so you really didn't provide a subjective imperative at all; just a subjective wish, which even you do not owe it to continue.

This silly pretence of yours not to understand what every normal human being is fully aware of is getting too tedious now. I need to take one of my little breaks.

Take your break, of course; as you wish. However, you must realize that it won't help anyone "see" what was never there. You never showed that your "axiom" was imperative for anybody...even for you.

I think the problem, H., is that you're assuming that your modern-society way of thinking about morality is normal or obvious to everybody else. But of course, it's not: most people have tended to imagine (let us say it's only an imagining, for argument's sake) that they had a duty to obey if something was genuinely moral. ("Moral" and "imperative" do not only go together in Kant, but everywhere else, too.) They might obey that duty, or they might violate it -- but if they violated it, they would know that they had not done what was imperative and moral for them to do. They were, as we say, "wrong," or "immoral" or "bad" for having failed their duty.

That's normal. That's historical. That's analytical. That's what "moral" entails. That's an "imperative." And manifestly, your view lacks it.

So again, I understand your frustration: my question undermines your whole way of habitually thinking about right and wrong. But, of course, that way was always wrong, and it's better to know when one is wrong than to persist in a confusion. So nothing can be done to soften that blow, I would think.

[Harbal]

Take your break, of course; as you wish.

Thank you.

I understand your frustration

I'm sure you do, given the lengths to which you have gone to engineer it.

[FlashDangerpants]

my question undermines your whole way of habitually thinking about right and wrong.

lol

[Immanuel Can]

Take your break, of course; as you wish.

Thank you.

I understand your frustration

I'm sure you do, given the lengths to which you have gone to engineer it.

No hard feelings. When two people disagree about an issue, it's pretty hard not to get feelings involved. Cool rationality, impartiality, equanimity are ideals for which we might all aspire, but that state is also hard to reach as a human being.

I don't feel frustrated. I feel clear. It's evident that an imperative cannot be imperative without being imperative. But we can let that rest, for now.

[Harbal]

Take your break, of course; as you wish.

Thank you.

I understand your frustration

I'm sure you do, given the lengths to which you have gone to engineer it.

No hard feelings. When two people disagree about an issue, it's pretty hard not to get feelings involved. Cool rationality, impartiality, equanimity are ideals for which we might all aspire, but that state is also hard to reach as a human being.

I don't feel frustrated. I feel clear. It's evident that an imperative cannot be imperative without being imperative. But we can let that rest, for now.

Well neither of us is in a position to give an unbiased assessment of which one of us has the more compelling case, so we must leave that to any impartial readers of our discussion to judge.

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you.

I'm sure you do, given the lengths to which you have gone to engineer it.

No hard feelings. When two people disagree about an issue, it's pretty hard not to get feelings involved. Cool rationality, impartiality, equanimity are ideals for which we might all aspire, but that state is also hard to reach as a human being.

I don't feel frustrated. I feel clear. It's evident that an imperative cannot be imperative without being imperative. But we can let that rest, for now.

Well neither of us is in a position to give an unbiased assessment of which one of us has the more compelling case,

I hardly think that's true. "Bias" is quite different from "rational." And all I've been asking for is a rational case for moral subjectivism.

It seems to me that too many moral subjectivists here are blithely assuming that if they can cast any doubt upon moral objectivism, that moral subjectivism will simply win by default. But it wouldn't, rationally speaking: what would 'win' would be moral nihilism. Given the assumption that morality is not objective, the next problem is how to show it's real at all. And subjectivism, it seems, cannot do that task. But if it cannot, then moral nihilism would follow.

And that's not good...for anybody. So I think both you and I have an important stake in making our case. Our common problem is the potential for our hearer's logical lapse into complete moral nihilism, which a subjectivism-without-grounds would precipitate any rational person into.

[iambiguous]

It seems to me that too many moral subjectivists here are blithely assuming that if they can cast any doubt upon moral objectivism, that moral subjectivism will simply win by default.

Of course, my focus is less on the doubts the subjectivists bring up, and more on the fact that those here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...who [all up and down moral and political spectrum] argue for moral objectivism can't all be right. But they all insist that they and only they encompass the one true path to enlightenment.

Then those who also connect the dots between moral righteousness "here and now" and immortality and salvation "there and then". All the more reason of course to demand of them demonstrable proof that their path and only their path is the Real Deal. The one we had all better hop onto eventually. Or else.

"Or else you will burn in agony for all of eternity in Hell," some say.

But it wouldn't, rationally speaking: what would 'win' would be moral nihilism. Given the assumption that morality is not objective, the next problem is how to show it's real at all. And subjectivism, it seems, cannot do that task. But if it cannot, then moral nihilism would follow.

Again, given the assumption that morality is objective -- real -- why his and not hers? Ours and not theirs?

And note the role the moral objectivists have played down through history in precipitating and then sustaining all manner of terrible human pain and suffering. In the Gaza Strip today, of course, but there have been countless other examples. Mein Kampf for some. The Communist Manifesto for others. And the Bible for still more.

"Kingdoms of Ends" I believe Kant called them. The kind that many moral objectivists are more than ready, willing and able to insist justify any and all means.

In the Gaza Strip and Israel today, of course, but there have been countless other examples. You know the ones.

[Harbal]

No hard feelings. When two people disagree about an issue, it's pretty hard not to get feelings involved. Cool rationality, impartiality, equanimity are ideals for which we might all aspire, but that state is also hard to reach as a human being.

I don't feel frustrated. I feel clear. It's evident that an imperative cannot be imperative without being imperative. But we can let that rest, for now.

Well neither of us is in a position to give an unbiased assessment of which one of us has the more compelling case,

I hardly think that's true. "Bias" is quite different from "rational." And all I've been asking for is a rational case for moral subjectivism.

It seems to me that too many moral subjectivists here are blithely assuming that if they can cast any doubt upon moral objectivism, that moral subjectivism will simply win by default. But it wouldn't, rationally speaking: what would 'win' would be moral nihilism. Given the assumption that morality is not objective, the next problem is how to show it's real at all. And subjectivism, it seems, cannot do that task. But if it cannot, then moral nihilism would follow.

And that's not good...for anybody. So I think both you and I have an important stake in making our case. Our common problem is the potential for our hearer's logical lapse into complete moral nihilism, which a subjectivism-without-grounds would precipitate any rational person into.

Okay, if that is what you really believe, you stick to your guns. The world will go on turning in the same old way regardless of what you or I believe, or don't believe. So, no, I don't have an important stake in making my case, and neither should you if you have any sense. We both totally reject what the other says, so what?

Don't make it sound so serious.

[Immanuel Can]

Well neither of us is in a position to give an unbiased assessment of which one of us has the more compelling case,

I hardly think that's true. "Bias" is quite different from "rational." And all I've been asking for is a rational case for moral subjectivism.

It seems to me that too many moral subjectivists here are blithely assuming that if they can cast any doubt upon moral objectivism, that moral subjectivism will simply win by default. But it wouldn't, rationally speaking: what would 'win' would be moral nihilism. Given the assumption that morality is not objective, the next problem is how to show it's real at all. And subjectivism, it seems, cannot do that task. But if it cannot, then moral nihilism would follow.

And that's not good...for anybody. So I think both you and I have an important stake in making our case. Our common problem is the potential for our hearer's logical lapse into complete moral nihilism, which a subjectivism-without-grounds would precipitate any rational person into.

Okay, if that is what you really believe, you stick to your guns. The world will go on turning in the same old way regardless of what you or I believe, or don't believe.

I think you'll find it won't. What people believe about morality is pretty determinative of how they live. And one of the things this thread invites us to do is to test the very question I'm attempting to test with you. So I'm somewhat surprised at your reticence.

But then, when I think about how I'd feel if I were asked to show that morality is subjective, then I understand. I can't think of any rational answer a person could give.

[Harbal]

I hardly think that's true. "Bias" is quite different from "rational." And all I've been asking for is a rational case for moral subjectivism.

It seems to me that too many moral subjectivists here are blithely assuming that if they can cast any doubt upon moral objectivism, that moral subjectivism will simply win by default. But it wouldn't, rationally speaking: what would 'win' would be moral nihilism. Given the assumption that morality is not objective, the next problem is how to show it's real at all. And subjectivism, it seems, cannot do that task. But if it cannot, then moral nihilism would follow.

And that's not good...for anybody. So I think both you and I have an important stake in making our case. Our common problem is the potential for our hearer's logical lapse into complete moral nihilism, which a subjectivism-without-grounds would precipitate any rational person into.

Okay, if that is what you really believe, you stick to your guns. The world will go on turning in the same old way regardless of what you or I believe, or don't believe.

I think you'll find it won't. What people believe about morality is pretty determinative of how they live. And one of the things this thread invites us to do is to test the very question I'm attempting to test with you. So I'm somewhat surprised at your reticence.

But then, when I think about how I'd feel if I were asked to show that morality is subjective, then I understand. I can't think of any rational answer a person could give.

Just let it go, IC, let it go.