Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

https://youtu.be/OnkQk_bWXpA?si=7x_DNWv-3Zlon9AX

Or, rather, the philosophical "world of words" rendition that we engage in here.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, I'm not going to get an answer, it seems...so why not?

[Harbal]

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.

Well, I'm not going to get an answer, it seems...so why not?

What's the point? We are just saying the same things over and over, and it's getting very boring.

[Age]

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.

Okay, but 'this' is a BIG JUMP from what WAS just being talked ABOUT, and DISCUSSED, here.

Also, the ANSWERS to EVERY thing' 'you' are WONDERING ABOUT and/or QUESTIONING here is ALREADY KNOWN.

By the way, when you have defined the word 'intelligence' in a way, which FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH other words, and their definitions, then you WILL and DO UNDERSTAND WHY and HOW 'intelligence', itself, exists.

Our intelligence is so vastly superior to that of any other living creature that it could fairly be called a super power. But why?

But there is NO such 'thing' as 'our intelligence'. There IS, however, 'intelligence', itself, which exists, within the human body. 'This intelligence', combined WITH the 'human brain', is WHY 'you', the human being animal, are DIFFERENT from ALL other animals. 'That DIFFERENCE between 'you', human beings, AND other animals is the human being can LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON ANY and EVERY 'thing'. NO other 'known' animal can do 'this'.

Why did natural selection continue to increase human intelligence far beyond the amount needed to completely dominate our environment?

But the EXACT SAME 'intelligence', itself, has ALWAYS existed. There is NO 'human intelligence' and there is NO 'continual increase' of 'intelligence', itself.

How, exactly, do 'you' define the 'intelligence' word?

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?

So, that 'Life/the Universe', Itself, could COME-TO-KNOW thy Self.

Do NOT forget that 'you', human beings, are ONLY A PART OF, the continuous, evolution.

ONCE thee 'I' PASSES past the human being stage of evolution, then what 'I' have been SAYING, and ALLUDING TO, here becomes MUCH, MUCH CLEARER.

By the way, do 'you' think or believe that just living at a stage where 'you' are able to easily outsmart woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers would be ENOUGH?

Also, do 'you' imagine just sending machines into space and inventing computers is ENOUGH?

ONCE 'you' FULLY UNDERSTAND 'intelligence', itself, 'you' WILL SEE that there is NEVER 'enough' to LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, and REASON in this One and ONLY infinite and eternal 'Place' called Life, or the Universe, Itself.

'you', human beings, are just at one particular STAGE, along a continuum creation of Life, evolving.

In other words, 'you', human beings, are CERTAINLY NOT at the FINAL STAGE, YET.

The main drivers of natural selection are things like the need to get food, avoid predators and be more successful than our competitors.

'Natural selection' can also be viewed as just being 'the survival of the FITTEST'. WITH the word 'fittest' meaning, or referring to, 'FITTING IN' (WITH OTHER 'things') and NOT 'strength', as some like to think or BELIEVE the word 'fittest' means here.

BUT, if 'you', "harbal", WANT to VIEW and SEE that there ARE 'competitors' existing, then by all means 'you' are absolutely FREE to SEE 'them' AND LOOK FOR 'them'.

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.

Well MAYBE if 'you' did NOT VIEW and SEE that there is NO PURPOSE of Life OTHER than to just PREVENT oneself from being eating nor just COMPETING with so PERCEIVED 'competitors', then 'you' may well NOT think nor BELIEVE that 'investigating' so-called 'quantum mechanics' was UNNECESSARY or just WASTING 'time'.

So, we are left with competition.

'This' is what 'you' are LEFT WITH.

'This' is CERTAINLY NOT 'I' am LEFT WITH, NOR even BEGUN WITH.

But what kind of competition would warrant our developing super intelligence?

Do 'you' RECALL that 'you' SAID, 'I would be interested in anything you have to say about it', with 'it' referring to 'the personal desire to behave morally well', as ASCERTAINED after OBTAINING CLARIFICATION?

If yes, then have 'you' NOTICED just how FAR 'you' have STRAYED?

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN above is that 'you' have NOT SHOWN one bit of ANY ACTUAL INTEREST in ANY 'thing' that I ACTUALLY SAID, and RATHER have SHOWN much MORE INTEREST in SHARING 'your' OWN 'personal' VIEWS of 'things' here.

Which, by the way, NONE OF 'your views' have 'you' SHOWN ANY ACTUAL FULL INSIGHT OF KNOWING, IRREFUTABLY.

Now, there is NO so-called 'developing super intelligence'. There IS, however, just 'INTELLIGENCE', itself.

Also, there is NO 'competition' ANYWHERE, except ONLY IN the IMAGINATION of SOME of 'you', human beings, in 'the days' of when this was being written.

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.

So, what EXACTLY would be THE PURPOSE of RACING TO WIPE "yourselves" OUT, BE FOR, EXACTLY?

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.

Okay, that is HOW 'you', personally, ARRIVED AT such a CONCLUSION.

That potentiality is still buried deep inside us, I suspect.

BUT 'that' would HAVE TO BE even just SOMEWHAT TRUE BEFORE 'that' could be so-called 'STILL buried deep inside 'you', human beings'.

However, 'that' is NOT even REMOTELY CLOSE to BEING True, let alone BEING ACTUALLY True AT ALL.

AND, AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one is INTERESTED in LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, WHY, then just let me KNOW.

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.

AGAIN, 'this' is NOT even REMOTELY True AT ALL.

'Evolution' is A PROCESS, which IS CONTINUAL.

IF there was ANY 'speed' of 'evolution', then 'it' WOULD BE and IS the EXACT SAME at EVERY moment.

Also, 'CHANGE', itself, can be measured over millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, millennia, centuries, decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, seconds, increments of seconds, ALL DEPENDING on HOW one WANTS TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

'CHANGE' IS HAPPENING OCCURRING HERE-NOW AT and IN EVERY 'moment' CONTINUALLY.

In fact there IS a CONSTANT state of CHANGE, ALWAYS NOW, and this is just HOW the Universe IS IN a CONSTANT Evolving STATE OF Creation.

[Age]

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.

But, from my perspective, 'you' do NOT seem to be UNDERSTANDING what "Immanuel can" IS POINTING OUT and SHOWING here "harbal".

[Age]

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.

'you', "immanuel can", are AWARE, right, that 'you', 'currently', COMPLETELY LACK the ABILITY to also EXPRESS A view that 'you' have ANY REAL CLUE and IDEA ABOUT an ACTUAL 'subjective imperative' "yourself"?

So again, I understand your frustration: my question undermines your whole way of habitually thinking about right and wrong.

My QUESTIONS TO 'you', "immanuel can", have ALSO EXPOSED 'your' OWN INABILITY to SHOW that 'you' ACTUALLY KNOW ANY 'thing' ABOUT what IS ACTUALLY Right AND Wrong IN Life.

But, of course, that way was always wrong, and it's better to know when one is wrong than to persist in a confusion.

LOL YET here 'you' ARE "immanuel can" DESPARATELY PERSISTING WITH 'your' VERY OWN CONFUSION here.

So nothing can be done to soften that blow, I would think.

Okay, if 'this' is what 'you' would think.

'you' have OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY and CONTINUALLY SHOWN that 'you', "immanuel can", are NOT YET ABLE TO ACCEPT the so-called BLOWS, "yourself".

[Age]

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.

'you', adult human beings, STILL, when this is being written, did NOT seem to FULLY COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that 'feelings/emotions' ARE INVOLVED ALWAYS. 'Emotional feelings' do NOT ONLY COME when 'disagreement' arises. 'Emotions' exist ALWAYS, in EVERY waking moment.

Cool rationality, impartiality, equanimity are ideals for which we might all aspire, but that state is also hard to reach as a human being.

BUT NO so-called 'state' here is so-alleged 'hard to reach'. That is; ONCE one LEARNS, and/or KNOWS, HOW TO HAVE CONTROL OVER ALL 'emotions' AND ALL 'thoughts and thinking'.

I don't feel frustrated. I feel clear.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is the FIRST TIME I have EVER heard ANY one 'feeling clear'.

AND, what makes 'this CLAIM' MORE FUNNY is that a LOT of 'your' views "immanuel can" do NOT come across as being 'clear' AT ALL.

In fact a LOT of 'your' views come across as 'you' be VERY 'judgmental' AND 'condescending' OF "others". Which is a VERY STRONG SIGN of 'you' being just "another" VERY LOST and CONFUSED one, 'among the flock', as some might say.

It's evident that an imperative cannot be imperative without being imperative. But we can let that rest, for now.

Well considering the ACTUAL Fact that 'you' are YET to SHOW that 'you' HAVE, or even KNOW OF, an 'imperative' here, subjective or objective, PERSISTING WITH "others" that 'they' EXPRESS or SHOW a 'subjective imperative' seems to be just ANOTHER one of 'your' DEVILISH WAYS of MISBEHAVING here "immanuel can".

[Harbal]

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.

Okay, but 'this' is a BIG JUMP from what WAS just being talked ABOUT, and DISCUSSED, here.

I know, but I had to go there in order to explain why I think human beings cannot live in harmony. Maybe it is all nonsense, but you asked me to explain, so I did.

[Age]

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, so we must leave that to any impartial readers of our discussion to judge.

VERY GOOD INSIGHT here "harbal".

And just KNOW that 'impartial readers' ARE READING, LISTENING, WATCHING, OBSERVING, and LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING MORE and MORE here, NOW.

[Age]

I have always wondered why and how human beings came to have such a high level of intelligence.

Okay, but 'this' is a BIG JUMP from what WAS just being talked ABOUT, and DISCUSSED, here.

I know, but I had to go there in order to explain why I think human beings cannot live in harmony.

How far 'into the future' does 'this thought' go for?

FOREVER MORE?

By the way I was UNAWARE that 'you' even thought that 'you', human beings, could NOT live in harmony.

Maybe it is all nonsense, but you asked me to explain, so I did.

Okay, fair enough.

[Harbal]

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.

But, from my perspective, 'you' do NOT seem to be UNDERSTANDING what "Immanuel can" IS POINTING OUT and SHOWING here "harbal".

That's okay, I wasn't responding to him from your perspective.

[Age]

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.

If what 'you' are, REALLY, ASKING for here is a 'rational case' for 'moral subjectivism', then the Fact that 'you', adult human beings, separately or individually, have DIFFERENT views of what is morally right and wrong IS, then here IS a 'rational case' for 'moral subjectivism'.

Which by the way LEADS ONTO EXPLAINING HOW, WHY, and WHAT 'moral objectivism' IS, and CONSISTS OF, EXACTLY. AGAIN, that is; FOR those who ARE Truly INTERESTED.

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.

LOL 'this' IS EXACTLY what 'you' ARE DOING here "Immanuel can". Just OBVIOUSLY in regards to the OTHER WAY AROUND.

AND, what ALL of 'you', posters, here have FAILED, ABSOLUTELY, to RECOGNIZE and SEE is that 'morality', itself, IS BOTH 'subjective' AND 'objective'.

But PLEASE, ALL of 'you', posters, here, KEEP 'your' "one-sided" VIEWS here as what 'you' are ALL DOING here is SHOWING 'future generations' what IS 'morally Wrong' IN Life, and thus what NOT TO DO, in the future.

This is WHY I have been SAYING that 'you', posters, here are TEACHING some of the GREATEST 'lessons', and BEING some of the GREATEST 'teachers' IN Life.

But it wouldn't, rationally speaking: what would 'win' would be moral nihilism.

BUT AGAIN, there IS absolutely NOTHING TO 'win', other than, OF COURSE, the LEARNING OF WHAT IS, and HOW to BEHAVE, 'morally Right', IN Life

Given the assumption that morality is not objective, the next problem is how to show it's real at all.

AND ANY one could SAY TO 'you', "Immanuel can", given YOUR ASSUMPTION that 'morality' is NOT subjective, then NEXT so-called 'problem' 'you' HAVE is HOW 'you' are going to SHOW that 'it' is real at all.

And subjectivism, it seems, cannot do that task.

LOL HOW do 'you' think views are SHARED, and thus 'things' LEARNED, and UNDERSTOOD, if NOT THROUGH 'subjectivism', itself?

But if it cannot, then moral nihilism would follow.

Talk ABOUT a PRIME example of one having ALREADY ARRIVED AT some CONCLUSION, and then LOOKING FOR just about ANY 'thing', in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support that, OBVIOUSLY False and BIASED, 'conclusion'

And that's not good...for anybody. So I think both you and I have an important stake in making our case.

Have 'you' even BEGUN to START to MAKE 'your' case here "Immanuel can"?

If yes, then WHERE, EXACTLY?

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.

WHY RESORT TO some made up by 'you' so-called 'moral nihilism' here?

WHERE is 'your case' that 'moral objectivism' IS TRUE and IRREFUTABLE?

AFTER ALL the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE CASE can be MADE HERE, and VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY by the way.

[Age]

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.

But, from my perspective, 'you' do NOT seem to be UNDERSTANDING what "Immanuel can" IS POINTING OUT and SHOWING here "harbal".

That's okay, I wasn't responding to him from your perspective.

That is okay. I was JUST SHARING 'my perspective' here.

[Age]

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.

That 'this thread' is inviting what 'you' CLAIM here "immanuel can" is just ANOTHER example of just how 'subjective' 'YOUR VIEWS' REALLY ARE, including ALL those 'morals ones' that 'you' HAVE and ARE HOLDING ONTO here.

Also, and by the way, I DOUBT, VERY MUCH, that 'this thread', which was NOT STARTED BY 'you', "Immanuel can", was NOT written WITH the one of the INTENTIONS of 'inviting 'us' to TEST the VERY QUESTION that 'you', "Immanuel can" are ATTEMPTING TO TEST "another" WITH.

In fact it could well be ARGUED that 'this thread' IS 'inviting 'us' TO TEST 'you' and 'your CLAIMS' here Immanuel can".

'you' REALLY DO have A WAY of DECEIVING and putting up FALSE PRETENSES of DECEPTION "Immanuel can". But, AGAIN, 'they' ARE VERY EASILY TO SPOT, and SEE THROUGH.

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.

LOL BECAUSE 'you' are ABSOLUTELY BLIND here BECAUSE of 'your' BELIEF that 'morality IS objective'.

Which, by the way, 'you' ABSOLUTELY DISINTEGRATE, "yourself", when ASKED to SHOW that 'morality IS objective', ANYWAY, "immanuel can".

So, when I think about how 'you' would feel if 'I' were 'you', "Immanuel can", when ASKED to SHOW that 'morality IS objective', then 'I' DO FULLY UNDERSTAND.

Being that FULLY USELESS and INCOMPETENT WHEN CHALLENGED over 'your CLAIMS' here "Immanuel can" 'you' have CLEARLY ALREADY SHOWN.

[Age]

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.

Well, I'm not going to get an answer, it seems...so why not?

Will 'you' give AN ANSWER TO, 'What is an 'objective imperative', "Immanuel can"?

Let 'us' SEE if 'we' are going to get AN ANSWER.