Is morality objective or subjective?

[Iwannaplato]

I'm sorry for your loss.

[Skepdick]

I'm sorry for your loss.

All aboard the moral high horse!

Where morality is subjective, yet moral condescention still rules the roost.

[Harbal]

I'm sorry for your loss.

All aboard the moral high horse!

Where morality is subjective, yet moral condescention still rules the roost.

Do you have to put a lot of effort into coming across as such an annoying little man, or does it come naturally to you?

[Skepdick]

I'm sorry for your loss.

All aboard the moral high horse!

Where morality is subjective, yet moral condescention still rules the roost.

Do you have to put a lot of effort into coming across as such an annoying little man, or does it come naturally to you?

It's always hard work being a gadfly.

[Iwannaplato]

All aboard the moral high horse!

Where morality is subjective, yet moral condescention still rules the roost.

Well, it certainly was condescending. And now you're making that easy.

[Skepdick]

All aboard the moral high horse!

Where morality is subjective, yet moral condescention still rules the roost.

Well, it certainly was condescending. And now you're making that easy.

My pleasure.

I am morally obliged to make other people's life easy; and not difficult.

I could make it even easier for you... Nobody in the history of humanity has ever been as right as you.

Too bad you are not even wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

My pleasure.

I am morally obliged to make other people's life easy; and not difficult.

I could make it even easier for you... Nobody in the history of humanity has ever been as right as you.

Too bad you are not even wrong.

I'm sorry your retirement years are so lonely. (again, not a correspondance theory based statement, just trying to de-escalate. I have no idea what the triggers are.)

[Skepdick]

My pleasure.

I am morally obliged to make other people's life easy; and not difficult.

I could make it even easier for you... Nobody in the history of humanity has ever been as right as you.

Too bad you are not even wrong.

I'm sorry your retirement years are so lonely. (again, not a correspondance theory based statement, just trying to de-escalate. I have no idea what the triggers are.)

Retirement years?

I just turned 40.

The triggers are philosophy as it's currently being viewed and practiced. As a zero-sum language game.

Trust a police officer (with his fair dose of PTSD) to think manufacturing conflict is idiotic.

[Immanuel Can]

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,

I suppose the idea that doing harm is a bad thing was passed on to me through social influence. Parents and teachers give you that message, and it's quite a prevalent theme in fiction; particularly in children's stories. When this has been going on since your earliest childhood, it becomes embedded in your psyche. It becomes a belief, in effect.

I know you don't like me raising this particular case: but it's flagrant, current, and in everybody's face right now. It's stark evidence for the truth of what I'm going to say.

The same is exactly true of anti-semitism in Gaza. Children there are raised to hate Jews. It's not just among parents, but in their media, on their streets, in their mosques...they even have a sort of "Sesame Street" program (an educational children's program) on TV to promote it. And now, we see the fruit off that tree.

So socialization can be good or bad.

and what makes you responsible to adhere to it?

I can't tell you the psychological process that controls our behaviour in respect of such conditioned beliefs, but at the conscious level, it is not so much that I feel a responsibility to adhere to the axiom, but more that I do not want the responsibility of being the cause of harm to anyone. I realise that, when looked at in this way, moral behaviour does not seem quite so praiseworthy, and even starts to look like a selfish exercise, in fact.

Well, I'd say I'd be glad for it anyway. I'd rather people be squeamish about harming others -- whatever the reasons they accept.

But I would also point out that human beings are capable of incredible cruelty. You may not be disposed to it, but a good many clearly are, as history -- both present events and past -- demonstrates.

Without any objective standard with which to evaluate such actions, what can any of us say about them except, "I don't like them"? Subjective morality has no more it can coherently say. What's even worse, if I change my mind about harming others, and decide to start doing it, there isn't even a subjectivity-based reason for me not to do that: in fact, since my subjective feelings have changed, subjectivism positively opens up the way for me to be cruel.

[Immanuel Can]

But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality. If you were socialized by Hamas, what is your moral standing? How about if you were socialized into the Nazi Party, or the Red Brigade? How about if your socialization took place in North Korea?

You make this point quite frequently, and it definitely is a point, but it is the way the world -the human world- works. I can see why you call it a problem, and I can see why convincing people there is actually objective moral truth could be looked on as a possible solution, but none of this makes an argument that there actually is such a thing as objective moral truth.

Quite right. But there are other, better ways to argue that.

For the moment, I'm just showing a much more simple and clear point: namely, that moral subjectivism is a conceptual failure. It's not even coherent on its own terms. Both moral objectivism and moral nihilism can at least make sense, but moral subjectivism cannot. Therefore, I think we can rule it out completely, as an incoherent belief, and talk about moral nihilism and moral objectivism. They're the only two actual possibilities. Moral subjectivism is a fraud. It's what people go to when they can't face moral nihilism, and don't want to face moral objectivism. But it makes no sense, even if we grant it all its terms.

Could it be, I wonder, that you not so much believe in objective moral truth, but just think the world would be a better place if everyone else believed in it?

No, because that's not what morality does. It's not even what it should do.

Morality doesn't make people good. It tells them when they're being good, and it tells them when they're being wrong.

A thermometer does not ever change the temperature -- it does not make the weather warm or cold, and nobody thinks it should. What it does is give us objective measurement of just how hot or cold the day is. That's what we expect from it, and all we can.

Similarly, morality is the thermometer of our spiritual condition. It tells us when we're going right or wrong. What we do with that information, well, morality does not arrange that for us. We still have to make our choices. But at least it gives us the information we need in order to make a good choice.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's see how that would run: "Son, you don't have to do any of this, because it's just my personal opinion, and nobody else's...but..."

Really? That's the best you could come up with? The person has to explain their metaethical position to the child? I know you don't mean to be uncharitable but I have to wonder when reading this how stupid you think I am?

You have me wrong, but it's my fault, perhaps. I'm not trying to insult you, but merely trying to see how that view would play out in actuality. If I sound glib, I apologize.

I'm all in favour of a metaethical position. But let's make that practical, too. How would you explain to a child this metaethical background that would make sense of subjective morality for him/her?

Right. And they reward or punish you for doing certain things. But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality. If you were socialized by Hamas, what is your moral standing? How about if you were socialized into the Nazi Party, or the Red Brigade? How about if your socialization took place in North Korea?

You just mentioned three groups with objective morals. Who believe in objective morals. Is this supposed to make me think objective morals are better and necessary? I can't see how.

They're all Atheistic. None of them believes in accountability to God. And that bunch has killed more human beings than all other groups combined, save the Maoists, who are number 1, and who were another group of ardent Atheists.

What happens is that we cannot live without some kind of standards of behaviour. No society can form without them. So when the true morality is not known, people make up their own. Tragically, they often make up something rather wicked, according to their own personal subjective tastes. They don't make it objective, but rather make it a product of force...quite a different rationalization, I think you'll agree.

In secular moralizing, one is not convinced of a moral code by being wooed to the belief that it's objective. One is forced to an arbitrary code because if you don't, you'll be sent to the prison, the gulag, the concentration camp and the salt mines, or lined up against the wall and shot.

I mean, I really think this needs time. Just imagine for a second that you are so immersed in your position that you make a lot of assumptions about what someone who is not an objective moralist MUST DO and CAN'T DO and so on.

I only speak about what subjectivism rationally compels them to believe, or about what people have done historically. Of course, if they are neither typical nor interested in making their moral beliefs rational, they may behave quite differently: but we can neither predict that, nor can we discuss the rationality of that.

The gap is huge here. I can only hope you will think for a while about how you immediately jump to conclusions like: the child will just be allowed to do whatever it wants.

No, other things are possible: for example, the child could obey out of fear, or out of indoctrination. Or he could be an atypically well-behaved kid, by disposition. But rationally, logically, according to subjectivism, if he is not obedient then subjectivism leaves us devoid of a reasonable way of understanding or explaining what's wrong (or right) with his behaviour.

And that's what I'm saying. I'm not speaking about what people will do, necessarily, but what they are logically free to do. And I think, given human nature, that should concern us enough.

That's what you did in the last post. When I point out this is not the case. No real acknowledgement of the fact that you made a really rather huge assumption, but we jump to a new assumption about how people have to communicate when they don't believe in objective morals.

I didn't make that assumption, so that's why. Again, I was speaking about rationalizing our morality, not describing the momentary behaviour of any particular persons.

I don't mean that any of this demonstrates that you are wrong. But the oddity of the jumps and the assumptions...

Sorry...you've got me wrong again, but this time it's not my fault, I think. I never said what you attribute to me.

You could still be right, of course, and make a lot of false assumptions about what subjective morality entails.

Well, I hope we've straightened out that misunderstanding now.

[Atla]

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.
...

There's nothing self-contradicting about moral subjectivism. Such a claim only shows that you don't know what subjectivism is, or pretend not to know.

Imo it's a good idea to know what we are arguing against before we spend 5-10 years arguing.

[Harbal]

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,

I suppose the idea that doing harm is a bad thing was passed on to me through social influence. Parents and teachers give you that message, and it's quite a prevalent theme in fiction; particularly in children's stories. When this has been going on since your earliest childhood, it becomes embedded in your psyche. It becomes a belief, in effect.

I know you don't like me raising this particular case: but it's flagrant, current, and in everybody's face right now. It's stark evidence for the truth of what I'm going to say.

The same is exactly true of anti-semitism in Gaza. Children there are raised to hate Jews. It's not just among parents, but in their media, on their streets, in their mosques...they even have a sort of "Sesame Street" program (an educational children's program) on TV to promote it. And now, we see the fruit off that tree.

So socialization can be good or bad.

And so can the idea of objective moral truth. As Iwannaplato pointed out, these people no doubt believe they have it. So I don't think that genuine moral truth would make a difference, because it would need to be believed to be effective.

But I would also point out that human beings are capable of incredible cruelty. You may not be disposed to it, but a good many clearly are, as history -- both present events and past -- demonstrates.

I completely agree that human beings are capable of incredible cruelty, and I have said so numerous times in various threads, but although that could be an argument for getting people to believe in an objective morality, it doesn't say anything about whether there is such a thing.

Without any objective standard with which to evaluate such actions, what can any of us say about them except, "I don't like them"? Subjective morality has no more it can coherently say. What's even worse, if I change my mind about harming others, and decide to start doing it, there isn't even a subjectivity-based reason for me not to do that: in fact, since my subjective feelings have changed, subjectivism positively opens up the way for me to be cruel.

I don't agree that our (subjective) sense of morality is as flimsy as you suggest, but I get your point. But again, you might make a case for the need for objective morality, but not one for its actual existence.

I think it fair to say the vast majority of human beings would prefer to live in a world without major conflicts, where their material and emotional needs are satisfied, so it would be rational for us all to promote the achievement of this as a common aim of humanity. Any claim that the rightness of this goal is a moral truth would be reasonable, I suppose, and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but under the rules of philosophy, it would not, strictly speaking, be an objective truth, I don't think.

But, anyway, that is as close as I can get to objective moral truth. Nevertheless, we can continue the search, if you like.

[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.
...

There's nothing self-contradicting about moral subjectivism.

You need to go back and read the previous thread. There certainly is.

To be "subjective" is to have no objective standards or reality. To be "moral" is to have imperatives. Subjectivity, by definition, is not moral.

But subjectivists are not being moral, even though they are "moralizing." That is, they talk like there are standards, but then they deny that there are any -- particularly when those standards are applied to them, but also when they are applied in any way they deem "uninclusive" or "intolerant" of others actions.

Subjective moralizing is:

1. Not binding to anybody, even logically...not "imperative."
2. Dependent on the temporary mood of one person.
3. Incapable of providing anything to inform a society about its rules or systems of justice.
4. Unable to provide credible indictment of any evil at all.
5. Not morally informative.
6. An open window to moral nihilism, in the case of those who take it seriously.

Basically, subjective moralizing is moralizing without morality. However, the one thing it has going for it is this: that since most people live their lives instinctually, and without serious or disciplined moral reflection, subjective moralizing is characteristic of how most people in the modern West seem to choose to operate on a daily basis -- inconsistently, impulsively, irrationally, and in an automatically self-justifying kind of way. In other words, they essentially operate amorally, calling that "subjective morality."

. So it's sociologically descriptive of the modern West, even though it's utterly irrational.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose the idea that doing harm is a bad thing was passed on to me through social influence. Parents and teachers give you that message, and it's quite a prevalent theme in fiction; particularly in children's stories. When this has been going on since your earliest childhood, it becomes embedded in your psyche. It becomes a belief, in effect.

I know you don't like me raising this particular case: but it's flagrant, current, and in everybody's face right now. It's stark evidence for the truth of what I'm going to say.

The same is exactly true of anti-semitism in Gaza. Children there are raised to hate Jews. It's not just among parents, but in their media, on their streets, in their mosques...they even have a sort of "Sesame Street" program (an educational children's program) on TV to promote it. And now, we see the fruit off that tree.

So socialization can be good or bad.

And so can the idea of objective moral truth.

Oh, indeed so. A false "objective" moral claim is not the equal of an objective moral truth, of course.

I don't think that genuine moral truth would make a difference, because it would need to be believed to be effective.

What it would do is provide that thermometer that would give us a proper reading on our moral condition. And that is exceedingly valuable...and so useful that in its absence, people are tempted to invent pseudo-objective moralities, because we (as a society) simply cannot function on subjectivism.

But I would also point out that human beings are capable of incredible cruelty. You may not be disposed to it, but a good many clearly are, as history -- both present events and past -- demonstrates.

I completely agree that human beings are capable of incredible cruelty, and I have said so numerous times in various threads, but although that could be an argument for getting people to believe in an objective morality, it doesn't say anything about whether there is such a thing.

I wasn't making that argument. I was just pointing out that subjectivism forces us to trust human nature utterly -- and human nature is not trustworthy.

...you might make a case for the need for objective morality, but not one for its actual existence.

Well, I'm trying to build that case now. But my strategy starts with debunking moral subjectivism, because that's the first delusion we need to get rid of. Even if there were no objective morality, I'm suggesting, the logical alternative is moral nihlism, not some phony appeal to individualistic and idiosyncratic "subjectivity." That just won't work, on any terms.

I think it fair to say the vast majority of human beings would prefer to live in a world without major conflicts, where their material and emotional needs are satisfied, so it would be rational for us all to promote the achievement of this as a common aim of humanity.

That would be good. The problem is that it wouldn't change human nature. And unfortunately, as you can see from things like the WEF, Blackrock, or any totalitarian dictatorship, there are serious elements of greed, cruelty and viciousness in human nature.

Any claim that the rightness of this goal is a moral truth would be reasonable, I suppose, and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but under the rules of philosophy, it would not, strictly speaking, be an objective truth, I don't think.

Well, if it's not an objective truth, then you have no duty to pay it any attention at all. You might. But equally, you might not. Either way, you wouldn't be a bad person or a good person, because there is no such information in subjectivism.

...we can continue the search, if you like.

I like.