Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

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.
...

To be "moral" is to have a conscience. Subjectivists don't believe in absolute and timeless "objective" imperatives, but many of them come up with subjective imperatives.

[Harbal]

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

I like.

Okay, but your continuing to attack subjective morality will not help us to achieve anything, because I am not defending its efficacy, I am just saying I believe, at this point, that it is all there is.

[Harbal]

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

You are more likely to obey a moral imperative if you agree with it, and you always agree with your own, subjective moral opinions.

Just saying.

[Immanuel Can]

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.
...

To be "moral" is to have a conscience. Subjectivists don't believe in absolute and timeless "objective" imperatives, but many of them come up with subjective imperatives.

There are no things which are merely subjective that are "imperative" for anybody to obey.

[Immanuel Can]

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

I like.

Okay, but your continuing to attack subjective morality will not help us to achieve anything,

Yes it will...assuming everybody's being rational. It will eliminate the manifestly irrational option, and reduce the choice of three positions to two...much more manageable.

[Immanuel Can]

You are more likely to obey a moral imperative if you agree with it...

Probably. But it's not the agreement that will make it moral, nor the obedience that makes it moral. It's moral if it's moral -- no matter whether one decides to obey it or reject it.

[Atla]

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.
...

To be "moral" is to have a conscience. Subjectivists don't believe in absolute and timeless "objective" imperatives, but many of them come up with subjective imperatives.

There are no things which are merely subjective that are "imperative" for anybody to obey.

That's just sophistry: you are using "imperative" in an objective-only sense, in a debate where we have an objective and a subjective version of everything.

[Immanuel Can]

To be "moral" is to have a conscience. Subjectivists don't believe in absolute and timeless "objective" imperatives, but many of them come up with subjective imperatives.

There are no things which are merely subjective that are "imperative" for anybody to obey.

That's just sophistry: you are using "imperative" in an objective-only sense...

I KNEW you were going to say that...

You'd better go back and read the thread. I supplied Harbal three respectable dictionary definitions...they'll work for you, too.

[Harbal]

I like.

Okay, but your continuing to attack subjective morality will not help us to achieve anything,

Yes it will...assuming everybody's being rational. It will eliminate the manifestly irrational option, and reduce the choice of three positions to two...much more manageable.

I am willing to embark on an open minded search for objective morality, but not if you are just going to use it as an opportunity to continue bashing the idea of subjective morality. I don't mind which you choose, but you can't have both.

[Atla]

There are no things which are merely subjective that are "imperative" for anybody to obey.

That's just sophistry: you are using "imperative" in an objective-only sense...

I KNEW you were going to say that...

You'd better go back and read the thread. I supplied Harbal three respectable dictionary definitions...they'll work for you, too.

Then that's at least double sophistry: you were the one introducing the word "imperative", knowing that it's typically used in the objective sense, so it can't be introduced into the debate if we stick to that meaning.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, but your continuing to attack subjective morality will not help us to achieve anything,

Yes it will...assuming everybody's being rational. It will eliminate the manifestly irrational option, and reduce the choice of three positions to two...much more manageable.

I am willing to embark on an open minded search for objective morality, but not if you are just going to use it as an opportunity to continue bashing the idea of subjective morality. I don't mind which you choose, but you can't have both.

Subjective morality needs a bashing: it's irrational, and too few of its adherents realize how irrational it is. So an "open minded" person should be "open" to that possibility, should he not?

[Immanuel Can]

That's just sophistry: you are using "imperative" in an objective-only sense...

I KNEW you were going to say that...

You'd better go back and read the thread. I supplied Harbal three respectable dictionary definitions...they'll work for you, too.

Then that's at least double sophistry: you were the one introducing the word "imperative", knowing that it's typically used in the objective sense, so it can't be introduced into the debate if we stick to that meaning.

Go back and read. You'll find that my definition is totally standard.

You'll also find that a moral precept is called, especially in Kantian tradition, an "imperative."

[Atla]

Go back and read. You'll find that my definition is totally standard.

You'll also find that a moral precept is called, especially in Kantian tradition, an "imperative."

Oh good Lord, this one started hiding behind Kant too

Either allow "imperative" to be used in both subjective and objective senses, or don't use the word. Simple as that.

[FlashDangerpants]

Go back and read. You'll find that my definition is totally standard.

You'll also find that a moral precept is called, especially in Kantian tradition, an "imperative."

Oh good Lord, this one started hiding behind Kant too

Either allow "imperative" to be used in both subjective and objective senses, or don't use the word. Simple as that.

Just ask him what hew thinks a hypothetical imperative is.

[Harbal]

Yes it will...assuming everybody's being rational. It will eliminate the manifestly irrational option, and reduce the choice of three positions to two...much more manageable.

I am willing to embark on an open minded search for objective morality, but not if you are just going to use it as an opportunity to continue bashing the idea of subjective morality. I don't mind which you choose, but you can't have both.

Subjective morality needs a bashing: it's irrational, and too few of its adherents realize how irrational it is. So an "open minded" person should be "open" to that possibility, should he not?

Okay, I'll abandon the search for objective morality if you are incapable of meeting me half way. I was even going to start going to Bible classes, but you've blown it now, and I just hope you are proud of yourself.


I support gay rights.