Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Fun fact: not only is morality subjective, but a few humans may have more than one subjective moralities. I'm thinking of humans with multiple personalities and humans with one fragmented personality/mind.

Yes, some people feel genocidal on Mondays and humanitarian on Tuesdays and Fridays.

It's even worse if they don't get their morning coffee.

[Atla]

Fun fact: not only is morality subjective, but a few humans may have more than one subjective moralities. I'm thinking of humans with multiple personalities and humans with one fragmented personality/mind.

Yes, some people feel genocidal on Mondays and humanitarian on Tuesdays and Fridays.

It's even worse if they don't get their morning coffee.

Welcome to the subjectivist camp. You are now a follower of Satan.

[Skepdick]

Welcome to the subjectivist camp. You are now a follower of Satan.

Sure. Subjectively speaking, what's wrong with that?

What are you doing this weekend? Want to behead some babies and boil their blood?

We can make dreamcatchers from their limbs.

[Atla]

Welcome to the subjectivist camp. You are now a follower of Satan.

Sure. Subjectively speaking, what's wrong with that?

What are you doing this weekend? Want to behead some babies and boil their blood?

We can make dreamcatchers from their limbs.

You have much to learn, padawan. Why wait till the weekend when you can do it today.

[Skepdick]

Welcome to the subjectivist camp. You are now a follower of Satan.

Sure. Subjectively speaking, what's wrong with that?

What are you doing this weekend? Want to behead some babies and boil their blood?

We can make dreamcatchers from their limbs.

You have much to learn, padawan. Why wait till the weekend when you can do it today.

Commitments...

[Harbal]

Webster's Dictionary:

imperative
1 of 2
adjective
im·​per·​a·​tive im-ˈper-ə-tiv
-ˈpe-rə-
Synonyms of imperative
1
: not to be avoided or evaded : necessary
an imperative duty

Collins:

imperative
[ im-per-uh-tiv ]
See synonyms for: imperativeimperativesimperativelyimperativeness on Thesaurus.com
adjective

absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable: It is imperative that we leave.

of the nature of or expressing a command; commanding.

Oxford:

noun. /ɪmˈperətɪv/ /ɪmˈperətɪv/ ​(formal) a thing that is very important and needs immediate attention or action; a factor that makes something necessary.

How many more do you need?

I only require one that I cannot choose to ignore.

And don't forget: You can still provide an example of a moral imperative that has to be obeyed, if you like.

Well, you're choosing to ignore the standard definition of "imperative," very clearly.

I didn't do it intentionally; I just didn't know what your standard definition of the word was.

As for an objective imperative, I can easily provide one. But as you are ignoring the definition of "imperative," how can I not see that you'll simply ignore it, too,

But, according to your (standard) definition of "imperative", I would not be able to ignore the imperative itself. So just give me a moral imperative that I am unable to reject or ignore.

There is only moral nihilism, if subjectivism is taken seriously and followed through to its logical conclusions.

How can you, as a self proclaimed moral objectivist, know what I, or any subjectivist, takes seriously? I think morality is important, and do not take a nihilistic view of it. Your conclusion isn't logical at all.

Fortunately for us all, subjectivists almost never take their subjectivism seriously, or follow out its logic to moral nihilism. Instead, they fudge their beliefs and say both that "morality is real and binding" and also that "morality is only subjective and optional". They just refuse to recognize the irrationality of that.

What's that supposed to be?

That isn't an argument for anything; it's just a biased and fictitious account that you've plucked out of thin air.

But that manifest self-contradiction is also why subjectivism cannot be taken seriously at all.

And yet I take it seriously.

And I will ask you once more; please give me an example of an objective moral imperative that I am forced to take more seriously than any of my own subjective moral imperatives.

[Immanuel Can]

Fun fact: not only is morality subjective, but a few humans may have more than one subjective moralities. I'm thinking of humans with multiple personalities and humans with one fragmented personality/mind.

Actually, rational inconsistency is not rare among humans.

Plenty of people say they believe one thing, but also say they believe the opposite. They're simply unaware of their self-contradiction, or unfamiliar with the requirements of basic logic, or ideologically-driven rather than rational. That's extremely common, and no mental illness is implicated.

[Atla]

Fun fact: not only is morality subjective, but a few humans may have more than one subjective moralities. I'm thinking of humans with multiple personalities and humans with one fragmented personality/mind.

Actually, rational inconsistency is not rare among humans.

Plenty of people say they believe one thing, but also say they believe the opposite. They're simply unaware of their self-contradiction, or unfamiliar with the requirements of basic logic, or ideologically-driven rather than rational. That's extremely common, and no mental illness is implicated.

Those are different issues, yes a good example are the ideologically driven objective moralists. They abandon reason in favour of their belief in Heaven and God.

[Immanuel Can]

I only require one that I cannot choose to ignore.

And don't forget: You can still provide an example of a moral imperative that has to be obeyed, if you like.

Well, you're choosing to ignore the standard definition of "imperative," very clearly.

I didn't do it intentionally; I just didn't know what your standard definition of the word was.

As for an objective imperative, I can easily provide one. But as you are ignoring the definition of "imperative," how can I not see that you'll simply ignore it, too,

But, according to your (standard) definition of "imperative", I would not be able to ignore the imperative itself. So just give me a moral imperative that I am unable to reject or ignore.

There is only moral nihilism, if subjectivism is taken seriously and followed through to its logical conclusions.

How can you, as a self proclaimed moral objectivist, know what I, or any subjectivist, takes seriously? I think morality is important, and do not take a nihilistic view of it. Your conclusion isn't logical at all.

Fortunately for us all, subjectivists almost never take their subjectivism seriously, or follow out its logic to moral nihilism. Instead, they fudge their beliefs and say both that "morality is real and binding" and also that "morality is only subjective and optional". They just refuse to recognize the irrationality of that.

What's that supposed to be?

Rational. Intelligible. Non-contradictory. Those are surely basic requirements of any sensible position, regardless of its ideological slant.

That isn't an argument for anything; it's just a biased and fictitious account that you've plucked out of thin air.

It's actually quite evident. And you can see it yourself, if you pause and look at it.

If morality is "subjective," then it's binding on nobody...not even the person articulating it. Nobody has a duty to care, to respect it, or to follow it, even for five minutes, and not even the speaker.

That's undeclared moral nihilism. It can be nothing else.

And I will ask you once more; please give me an example of an objective moral imperative that I am forced to take more seriously than any of my own subjective moral imperatives.

You can't be "forced" to do anything. That's not what "moral imperative" means. It means that you CAN ignore it, but that you SHOULD NOT ignore it, and that IF YOU DO ignore it, you will be in the wrong. But that also implies that it's quite possible for you to refuse to obey it at all.

So you are perfectly free to insist on your irrational "subjective morality" belief. Nobody can stop you. Force is not the issue. And what you'll "take seriously," well, that's up to you, isn't it?

Meanwhile, if I can use force to compel you to do something, then I don't need to appeal to morality to get the job done. I only need to appeal to morality if your free will is involved. Otherwise, I would just be somebody using force -- and there's nothing moral in the use of pure force.

But I sure can give you examples of what you objectively should/shouldn't be doing. As for whether or not you'll listen, I can't compel that, obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

Fun fact: not only is morality subjective, but a few humans may have more than one subjective moralities. I'm thinking of humans with multiple personalities and humans with one fragmented personality/mind.

Actually, rational inconsistency is not rare among humans.

Plenty of people say they believe one thing, but also say they believe the opposite. They're simply unaware of their self-contradiction, or unfamiliar with the requirements of basic logic, or ideologically-driven rather than rational. That's extremely common, and no mental illness is implicated.

Those are different issues, yes a good example are the ideologically driven objective moralists.

Well, that's the matter under present question: who is being driven by ideology, and who by the facts. But you won't settle it unilaterally and without facts.

One fact that counts heavily against subjectivism is that it's irrational, and cannot be made rational. At least moral objectivism isn't irrational. Of course, neither would moral nihilism be...it could make sense. The one position that has zero chance of making sense is the one that tries to speak about morality as if it both exists and doesn't: subjectivism.

[Harbal]

That isn't an argument for anything; it's just a biased and fictitious account that you've plucked out of thin air.

It's actually quite evident. And you can see it yourself, if you pause and look at it.

Well Anyone could do exactly the same thing with, say, religious people: Religious people blah, blah this, blah, blah that. And finish of with, "It's actually quite evident". It is an absolutely meaningless thing to do.

If morality is "subjective," then it's binding on nobody...not even the person articulating it. Nobody has a duty to care, to respect it, or to follow it, even for five minutes, and not even the speaker.

No, morality isn't binding. Nobody said it was binding except you. I am not going to waste my time defending the concept of subjective moral opinion against that accusation when it is totally irrelevant. No morality is binding.

And I will ask you once more; please give me an example of an objective moral imperative that I am forced to take more seriously than any of my own subjective moral imperatives.

You can't be "forced" to do anything. That's not what "moral imperative" means. It means that you CAN ignore it, but that you SHOULD NOT ignore it, and that IF YOU DO ignore it, you will be in the wrong. But that also implies that it's quite possible for you to refuse to obey it at all.

So you are perfectly free to insist on your irrational "subjective morality" belief. Nobody can stop you. Force is not the issue. And what you'll "take seriously," well, that's up to you, isn't it?

Meanwhile, if I can use force to compel you to do something, then I don't need to appeal to morality to get the job done. I only need to appeal to morality if your free will is involved. Otherwise, I would just be somebody using force -- and there's nothing moral in the use of pure force.

What is free will if not having the ability to exercise choice, and what is choice without the option of using your personal judgement to make it? If you tell me a moral "truth", and I believed there was such a thing, I would still be left having to decide whether to believe your claim of having it, and making that decision would inevitably be a subjective exercise. What happens when I am presented with two conflicting moral "truths"? I should go for the one IC endorses, no doubt.

But I sure can give you examples of what you objectively should/shouldn't be doing. As for whether or not you'll listen, I can't compel that, obviously.

No, you cannot. You can only give me an example of what you think, or believe, I objectively should/shouldn't be doing. Even if I believed in objective moral truth, I might not believe that you know what it is.

[Immanuel Can]

No, morality isn't binding...No morality is binding.

Then no morality exists. We're back to moral nihilism, by the express route.

For if we ask somebody, "Are you being moral," we have to mean something by the word "moral." If we merely mean "subjectively self-satisfied," then anybody can be that, about any action, any time. It makes the word "moral" fail to describe anything but that vague and transient emotional state of liking what one is doing at the present moment.

But when we ask "Is that moral?" we mean something quite different from "Are you happy?" Very often, the moral option is the one that requires us, at least for a time, to be rather unhappy, in fact, or to be put at a disadvantage in some way. Being moral often requires a sacrificing of immediate pleasures, especially in favour of longer-term and more ultimate 'goods.'

Morality is "binding" by way of moral duty. Again, it does not compel us, even if we are moral people. Rather, it woos our conscience and our knowledge of good and evil, to encourage us to make a better choice than to satisfy ourselves in the short term or superficially at the expense of longer-term and more important 'goods.'

Can we resist that? Sure. Are we right when we do so? No.

What is free will if not having the ability to exercise choice, and what is choice without the option of using your personal judgement to make it?

You're perhaps confusing two things:

1. Freedom to make choices.

2. The ability to render any choice at all "moral" just by declaring it so.

Everybody has #1. #2 cannot even be rendered coherent, since it voids "moral" of any specific meaning.

...making that decision would inevitably be a subjective exercise.

The action of making a choice is indeed a 'subjective' exercise. A subject exercises it. But so is the choice to be concerned about gravity, or to ignore it. That's a subjective exercise. That does not make it a rational or consequence-free one, though. And it does not make gravity "subjective."

What happens when I am presented with two conflicting moral "truths"? I should go for the one IC endorses, no doubt.

You should follow the one that is genuinely moral, no matter who "endorses" it or does not. That's how morality actually is supposed to operate.

[Harbal]

What happens when I am presented with two conflicting moral "truths"? I should go for the one IC endorses, no doubt.

You should follow the one that is genuinely moral, no matter who "endorses" it or does not. That's how morality actually is supposed to operate.

How will I recognise the moral truth when I see it?

[Immanuel Can]

What happens when I am presented with two conflicting moral "truths"? I should go for the one IC endorses, no doubt.

You should follow the one that is genuinely moral, no matter who "endorses" it or does not. That's how morality actually is supposed to operate.

How will I recognise the moral truth when I see it?

As a "subjectivist"? You won't. You can't. All you could say is, "I feel good about what I'm doing." And that's the limit to which subjectivism can take you.

Except that even that much won't stick. Because "good" has no moral connotation in that sentence. Instead, you must say something like, "When I do that, I feel a rush of pleasure-hormones." But there's no moral content in such a statement. It's merely descriptive of a transient biological sensation.

[Atla]

Well, that's the matter under present question: who is being driven by ideology, and who by the facts. But you won't settle it unilaterally and without facts.

One fact that counts heavily against subjectivism is that it's irrational, and cannot be made rational. At least moral objectivism isn't irrational. Of course, neither would moral nihilism be...it could make sense. The one position that has zero chance of making sense is the one that tries to speak about morality as if it both exists and doesn't: subjectivism.

It's a settled issue, subjectivism is rational while objectivism is irrational. The smarter ones figure this out when they are 12, for some others it may take longer.