Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

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.

Let's say I wanted to give moral objectivism a spin. Then how do I recognise moral truth?

[Iwannaplato]

Let's say I wanted to give moral objectivism a spin. Then how do I recognise moral truth?

You find an authority to give you the rules or guidelines or priorities. You follow those. You assume that you cannot trust yourself and need to have a permanent split between at least many of your urges and some kind of internal jailer. Instead of trying integrate the various parts of yourself, the complicated pushes and pulls in yourself, you choose the list of rules and the authority and then consider the part of yourself that uses follows this authority the part of you you indentify with.

Then you live as jailer and jailed, cop and suspect, split against yourself.

When stuff happens, the jailer looks at the rules and determines your behavior. How do you recognize the rules, well often they are written in books. But there are also experts you can put above you.

Sometimes this is handled is a disorganized, ad hoc way via introjection....

In psychology, introjection is the unconscious adoption of the thoughts or personality traits of others.[1] It occurs as a normal part of development, such as a child taking on parental values and attitudes. It can also be a defense mechanism in situations that arouse anxiety.

Of course some people disagree with their parents or rebell and so that introject stuff from TV, movies, peers and stuff trickling out of whatever subculture they are a part of.

You decide that you cannot be a good person unless you stay split and in control.

Of course, even subjectivists can be like this. But it's much easier for objectivists. I mean, often the rules are just so easy to find and smack yourself, your id, your desires and your heart with.

It's a kind of self-hate, but people are generally proud of it.

[iambiguous]

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[/color]

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.[/color]

Oxford:

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

Okay, we have all of these dictionary definitions of imperative.

But what on Earth do they have to do with objective morality?

How do these definitions of imperative allow one to rationally connect the dots between accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior and acquiring immortality and salvation?

According to any number Christians, it is "absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable" that we accept Jesus Christ as the one true path...or else. Or else eternal damnation.

How many times do we have to be reminded that it's not for nothing those like Plato and Descartes and Kant linked their own imperative moral obligations to God.

Well, rooted existentially in dasein, whatever God came to mean "philosophically" to them.

[iambiguous]

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.

Indeed, take me and abortion: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

In the OP above I note that I believe both sides in the abortion wars make reasonable arguments: https://abortion.procon.org/

I'm drawn and quartered.

Now, what some Christians here will argue is that the one and the only entirely rational and virtuous behavior in regard to abortion is to be found in the Christian Bible: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/09/84505/

On the other hand, in regard to those estimated 2,000,000 still births and those estimated 23,000,000 miscarriages a year around the globe?

One morality for us, another [apparently] for God?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Something doesn't get "settled" by claiming it's "settled." It gets settled by having rational demonstration. So where's your rational demonstration of subjectivism?

Doesn't sound very "settled," does it? That's because it's not.

However, it's very easy to demonstrate that moral subjectivism doesn't add up, rationally speaking. It isn't imperative or obligatory to anybody, anytime, anyplace. There are zero means to prove what is right or wrong, according to subjectivism, and nobody needs to agree about it at all. That means it's utterly uninformative as to what "morality" is, if such exists.

A subjectivist is like a man jumping off a cliff, and wanting to stop half way down. The truth is, a moral subjectivist is dangling himself over the pit of moral nihilism. He's just not admitting it to himself. But not everybody is so reluctant to do the math on this one: Nietzsche wasn't.

[Immanuel Can]

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

As a "subjectivist"? You won't. You can't.

Let's say I wanted to give moral objectivism a spin. Then how do I recognise moral truth?

The methodology is going to be different for moral subjectivism and for any form of moral objectivism. The sole question a subjectivist can ask himself about morality is, "How do I feel right now?" That's it. That's all. Pretty weak, no?

As for the objectivist, his methodology will not be to consult his/her feelings, but to consult something else. Kant thought it was reason. Mill thought it was pleasure-pain. Aristotle thought it was a conception of "the blessed life." And there are other answers, as well. You'd have to decide what branch of moral objectivism you're interested in pursuing.

But the common feature of all moral objectivism is that one does not merely consult one's "subjectivity" to find answers; one has to consult something objective, something external to mere feelings, the nature of which will, of course, depend on the seeker's chosen ontology.

So what kind do you want to "give a spin"?

[iambiguous]

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.

Again, here I am basically in agreement with this. No omniscient and omnipotent God and you may or may not be get caught for doing all manner ghastly things. And you may or may not be punished.

With God and, well, you will be caught, you will be punished. Indeed, tell me that isn't a fundamental reason why we invent Gods in the first place. Dozens of them.


Which is why I am particularly interested to coming upon arguments that others make which are able to demonstrate that in fact there is a God. Their God.

I just don't quite grasp why some would feel compelled to go up into the philosophical clouds here in discussing objective morality deontologically. Not when they themselves recognize that come Judgment Day how likely is God Himself to take philosophy into account before His thumb goes up or down?

[Harbal]

As a "subjectivist"? You won't. You can't.

Let's say I wanted to give moral objectivism a spin. Then how do I recognise moral truth?

The methodology is going to be different for moral subjectivism and for any form of moral objectivism. The sole question a subjectivist can ask himself about morality is, "How do I feel right now?" That's it. That's all. Pretty weak, no?

As for the objectivist, his methodology will not be to consult his/her feelings, but to consult something else. Kant thought it was reason. Mill thought it was pleasure-pain. Aristotle thought it was a conception of "the blessed life." And there are other answers, as well. You'd have to decide what branch of moral objectivism you're interested in pursuing.

But the common feature of all moral objectivism is that one does not merely consult one's "subjectivity" to find answers; one has to consult something objective, something external to mere feelings, the nature of which will, of course, depend on the seeker's chosen ontology.

So what kind do you want to "give a spin"?

I don't know. How do I decide without letting my feelings get in the way of making the right choice?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's say I wanted to give moral objectivism a spin. Then how do I recognise moral truth?

The methodology is going to be different for moral subjectivism and for any form of moral objectivism. The sole question a subjectivist can ask himself about morality is, "How do I feel right now?" That's it. That's all. Pretty weak, no?

As for the objectivist, his methodology will not be to consult his/her feelings, but to consult something else. Kant thought it was reason. Mill thought it was pleasure-pain. Aristotle thought it was a conception of "the blessed life." And there are other answers, as well. You'd have to decide what branch of moral objectivism you're interested in pursuing.

But the common feature of all moral objectivism is that one does not merely consult one's "subjectivity" to find answers; one has to consult something objective, something external to mere feelings, the nature of which will, of course, depend on the seeker's chosen ontology.

So what kind do you want to "give a spin"?

I don't know. How do I decide without letting my feelings get in the way of making the right choice?

Start with your ontology. Decide what you think objectively exists. Not what you feel you wish would exist or not, but what you believe actually does exist.

Once your ontology is sorted out, you can decide what resources you have available to guide your moral reflection.

[Harbal]

Start with your ontology. Decide what you think objectively exists. Not what you feel you wish would exist or not, but what you believe actually does exist.

People exist, and their physical and emotional needs exist. I can't think of anything else that's relevant as far as an approach to morality is concerned.

Once your ontology is sorted out, you can decide what resources you have available to guide your moral reflection.

The only resources I have are a few disorganised principles and a desire not to do any harm. Well, perhaps a little bit of harm, but nothing that's going to do anybody any significant damage.

[Immanuel Can]

Start with your ontology. Decide what you think objectively exists.

People exist, and their physical and emotional needs exist.

Well, unfortunately, that doesn't give you anything to work with, really.

Once your ontology is sorted out, you can decide what resources you have available to guide your moral reflection.

The only resources I have are a few disorganised principles and a desire not to do any harm. Well, perhaps a little bit of harm, but nothing that's going to do anybody any significant damage.

Okay, well, let's try to work with that: let's say you have the axiom, "Do no (serious) harm."

Where did you get the axiom, and what makes you responsible to adhere to it?

[Iwannaplato]

Start with your ontology. Decide what you think objectively exists.

People exist, and their physical and emotional needs exist.

Well, unfortunately, that doesn't give you anything to work with, really.

Once your ontology is sorted out, you can decide what resources you have available to guide your moral reflection.

The only resources I have are a few disorganised principles and a desire not to do any harm. Well, perhaps a little bit of harm, but nothing that's going to do anybody any significant damage.

Okay, well, let's try to work with that: let's say you have the axiom, "Do no (serious) harm."

Where did you get the axiom, and what makes you responsible to adhere to it?

Some people don't need to have some extenal authority or introjected rule to prevent them from doing this. My sense is Harbal is one of them.Generally you have to abuse people to make them not have it or brainwash them into entitlement or, for example, racism, to undermine the tendency to abuse others. And even many of the abused avoid doing it and many of the attempted-brainwashed.

Even the idea of original sin can lead to people harming others. Even the idea itself causes harm, especially when aimed at children.

If you need to have what you believe is on objective morality to prevent you from harming others, please maintain that. And please keep assuming it is objective. I don't think it's the only solution, but if it's working and without it you would do harm to others, or more harm, then by all means keep it.

But Harbal doesn't need it. He's OK without it.

Once the objective morality is seen as something like the correctional system and necessary, it can seem like anyone without it is more of a danger, because the very jailer/jailed split this kind of morality entails, inside oneself, gets projected onto others. He must be like me, really. And I know what my prisoner would do if he was let out of jail, so I know what his would do.

But there are so many assumptions in this, you're not really seeing other people. I would guess your not really seeing yourself. But whatever protects others from the harm you might do, please do it./have it in place.

[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.

Something doesn't get "settled" by claiming it's "settled." It gets settled by having rational demonstration. So where's your rational demonstration of subjectivism?

Doesn't sound very "settled," does it? That's because it's not.

However, it's very easy to demonstrate that moral subjectivism doesn't add up, rationally speaking. It isn't imperative or obligatory to anybody, anytime, anyplace. There are zero means to prove what is right or wrong, according to subjectivism, and nobody needs to agree about it at all. That means it's utterly uninformative as to what "morality" is, if such exists.

A subjectivist is like a man jumping off a cliff, and wanting to stop half way down. The truth is, a moral subjectivist is dangling himself over the pit of moral nihilism. He's just not admitting it to himself. But not everybody is so reluctant to do the math on this one: Nietzsche wasn't.

But lying about the fact that the issue is settled as there never was any evidence for objective morality, doesn't make you look any better. On the contrary.

[Immanuel Can]

People exist, and their physical and emotional needs exist.

Well, unfortunately, that doesn't give you anything to work with, really.

The only resources I have are a few disorganised principles and a desire not to do any harm. Well, perhaps a little bit of harm, but nothing that's going to do anybody any significant damage.

Okay, well, let's try to work with that: let's say you have the axiom, "Do no (serious) harm."

Where did you get the axiom, and what makes you responsible to adhere to it?

Some people don't need to have some extenal authority or introjected rule to prevent them from doing this. My sense is Harbal is one of them.

Let's assume you're right.

Generally you have to abuse people to make them not have it...

Actually, I don't think you do.

Look at any young child, and you'll find a person capable of all kinds of rage, selfishness and lashing out, who far from being a paragon of "no harm" virtue, needs to be socialized out of being both narcissistic and volatile. That's pretty much the standard description of the famed "terrible twos," in fact.

I'd suggest it runs quite the other way: that it takes a fair bit of maturation, socialization and self-control to learn how not to harm others. A child devoid of moral instruction and restraint is not a particularly charming character, I think you'll find.

Even the idea of original sin can lead to people harming others.

I don't think it can. It's actually just a realistic assessment of human nature. And, on the flip side, to fail to provide for a child the necessary experiences and socialization to learn not to be self-centered, irresponsible or immature is a form of abuse, and one that harms not only society but the child him or herself.

What's really beneficial is a balanced understanding of human nature: that it is capable of both greatness and of evil, and that suppression of the latter and magnification of the former are extremely arduous and lengthy processes, with many setbacks along the way...and with dubious chances of success, without divine intervention. And I would say that's the fairest and most realistic way to begin any moral education process -- the realization that one is not what one ought to be, and could benefit from some learning in that department.

Once the objective morality is seen as something like the correctional system...

That's no model I ever suggested. I don't think anyone will find that the function of the so-called "correctional" system is really to "correct" anybody, far less to rehabilitate them. It's unbelievably unsuccessful, if that's its goal, as the recidivism rates clearly attest.

I would guess your not really seeing yourself.

Oh, I see myself very well, I must say. And I do not regard myself as some kind of special moral case. I am as capable of doing harm as anybody, by nature. It's only the grace of God that has made any difference in my life.

And that's why, even though I'm a harsh realist about human nature, I cannot afford to look down on others for their moral failures. I know all too well what kinds of persons are around, and what they're capable of. And I have only to consult my own nature to know that. But I have not found that I am an exception, either: and the contrary belief -- that men are basically good and moral -- seems not to generate any saints but rather a more refined, unrepentant and high-minded kind of sinner, the self-satisified Pharisee.

But let us go on. Are we to suppose, then, that the real problem is that human beings are receiving too much moral instruction? That the reason some have moral problems is that they haven't been left alone enough? Are they taking morality too seriously? That if we simply let them bloom like flowers in fertilizer, that all would become sweetness and light?

[Immanuel Can]

But lying about the fact that the issue is settled as there never was any evidence for objective morality,...

I didn't say anything of the kind. But I will now. I think there is evidence for objective morality.

But that's a different matter from what I was actually saying. I was pointing out that moral subjectivism cannot be rational. It makes no sense, even if we believe its own basic assumptions. Moral nihilism does, but moral subjectivism is just self-contradicting.

But let us not lose another point, which is more pressing: are you trying to say that if I HAD lied, I would have been objectively wrong? Did you believe that by telling me that, I ought to feel shame? Were you thinking that other people ought to agree with that, too? If you didn't mean that, then I don't know that you could have meant anything at all. Lying's not "wrong" by subjective standards, if the person in question doesn't think he/she lied, or if lying is something they like to do, or find excusable for some other reason.

But if you did mean to impute wrongdoing, to curry shame, and to rally others to your point, then you're a moral objectivist unawares.

If you didn't mean that, if you were speaking as a moral subjectivist, then all you could have meant is, "Atla no happy." Well, sad for Atla. But it's a matter of complete indifference for anybody else, since nothing subjective is binding or compelling in any way for anybody else.

There's that inability to live consistently as a moral subjectivist, again -- further evidence of its irrationality.