Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Maybe you don't want to know that moral subjectivism is absurd.

You have proclaimed that morality is no more and no less than following the wishes of God, so absolutely any account of morality that does not conform to that definition is going to be absurd.

My understanding of the term morality -and that of most people, if the comments so far are any indication- is that subjectivity is part of its definition. So, under my/our definition, most of what you have to say about morality sounds absurd.

"Imperative" is another word to which you have applied your own rigid definition. To you, an imperative is a command that must be obeyed in order to satisfy God, and that is not what most people understand the word to mean.

Arguing with you and expecting to get anywhere is like pouring money into a rigged slot machine.

[Skepdick]

But socialization is often the moral problem, not the solution to morality.

Ehh, the notion of "problem" doesn't even exist outside of a social setting.

Death solves all problems — no man, no problem --Joe Stalin.

[Skepdick]

My understanding of the term morality -and that of most people, if the comments so far are any indication- is that subjectivity is part of its definition. So, under my/our definition, most of what you have to say about morality sounds absurd.

There are no absurdities in moral subjectivism.

There's just differences in moral understandings and subjective common sense.

absurd
/əbˈsəːd/
adjective
wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

In moral subjectivism your wildly unreasonable is my wildly reasonable, your illogical is my logical, your inappropriate is my appropriate.

[Dontaskme]

By induction moral subjectivism necesarily erases the possibility of lying or even uttering false statements.

A subjectivist is illusory, it's only existence is within the illusion of objective reality, in this conception.

There's no such thing as lying; or a false claim. There's only your version of the truth and my version of the truth.

The 'your' in question here is a subjectivist objectified appearing as one and the same true illusory reality, in this conception.

Your opinion and my opinion.
Your use of language and my use of language.
Different ways to use language.
Different descriptions of one and the same reality.

A seeming difference where there is none in reality. ( Oxymoron )

In your version of the truth this color is red.
In my version of the truth this color is blue.

What makes either of the descriptions/claims above "false" if moral subjectivism is true?

A discription of any conceptual object, requires a linguistic descripter - usually a brain. Therefore, within the mental linguistic language of brain function, there appears to emerge a sense of knowing. This knowing sense of self can only exist within an objective reality in this conception, as and when the concept is known, one with the knowing.
But since objective reality is illusory, the conceptually known colour blue or red can only be objectively true, according to the subjective knowing of the concept that only exists as an objective reality. Therefore, the known concept blue can NEVER be the concept red or the concept red can NEVER be the concept blue. In other words...Red will always be known as red objectively, never blue, and vice versa. So it will always be objectively true that red is red and blue is blue, and NEVER objectively true that red is blue or blue is red.

[Harbal]

My understanding of the term morality -and that of most people, if the comments so far are any indication- is that subjectivity is part of its definition. So, under my/our definition, most of what you have to say about morality sounds absurd.

There are no absurdities in moral subjectivism.

There's just differences in moral understandings and subjective common sense.

absurd
/əbˈsəːd/
adjective
wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

In moral subjectivism your wildly unreasonable is my wildly reasonable, your illogical is my logical, your inappropriate is my appropriate.

Yet again, I experience the excitement of seeing I have been quoted, only to go through the let down of realising it was only you.

[Skepdick]

My understanding of the term morality -and that of most people, if the comments so far are any indication- is that subjectivity is part of its definition. So, under my/our definition, most of what you have to say about morality sounds absurd.

There are no absurdities in moral subjectivism.

There's just differences in moral understandings and subjective common sense.

absurd
/əbˈsəːd/
adjective
wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

In moral subjectivism your wildly unreasonable is my wildly reasonable, your illogical is my logical, your inappropriate is my appropriate.

Yet again, I experience the excitement of seeing I have been quoted, only to go through the let down of realising it was only you.

You should get used to the colorless and soulsucking indifference of moral subjectivism.

There's no nuance, or quality to anything - just an ocean of alternative perspectives.
No tastes or distastes - just your opinion and my opinion.
All of them the same - none of them different in any way that matters.

[Harbal]

There are no absurdities in moral subjectivism.

There's just differences in moral understandings and subjective common sense.




In moral subjectivism your wildly unreasonable is my wildly reasonable, your illogical is my logical, your inappropriate is my appropriate.

Yet again, I experience the excitement of seeing I have been quoted, only to go through the let down of realising it was only you.

You should get used to the colorless and soulsucking indifference of moral subjectivism.

There's no nuance, or quality to anything - just an ocean of alternative perspectives.
No tastes or distastes - just your opinion and my opinion.
All of them the same - none of them different in any way that matters.

Do you get a kick out of disappointing me?

[Skepdick]

Do you get a kick out of disappointing me?

Disappointment. Satisfaction.

What's the difference?

[Harbal]

Do you get a kick out of disappointing me?

Disappointment. Satisfaction.

What's the difference?

I prefer one to the other, that's the difference.

[Skepdick]

Do you get a kick out of disappointing me?

Disappointment. Satisfaction.

What's the difference?

I prefer one to the other, that's the difference.

So switch preferences

It's all subjective. Opinions and fads change on a whim, right?

[Harbal]

Disappointment. Satisfaction.

What's the difference?

I prefer one to the other, that's the difference.

So switch preferences

It's all subjective. Opinions and fads change on a whim, right?

I don't have total control of my whims; they have more control over me.

[Skepdick]

I don't have total control of my whims; they have more control over me.

What? Like gravity?

[Harbal]

I don't have total control of my whims; they have more control over me.

What? Like gravity?

Do you seriously think that what you are implying is something the rest of us are not aware of and haven't taken into account? When people are constantly swapping definitions and changing the context of the terms, "objective and subjective", it is impossible to have a sensible discussion, and you are no less guilty of that than anyone else here. You are not bringing anything to anyone's attention that is not already known about, and the role you are playing here is no more than that of useless irritant.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe you don't want to know that moral subjectivism is absurd.

You have proclaimed that morality is no more and no less than following the wishes of God, so absolutely any account of morality that does not conform to that definition is going to be absurd.

Au contraire, I've been talking only about what subjectivism will rationalize on its own terms...and even were it the only option we knew, we would still find it's irrational and absurd. It's flatly self-contradicting.

The minimum we can ask of any belief is that it be at least consistent and sustainable on its own terms. Subjectivism is not. It can't even clear the first hurdle of rational explanation. That should concern subjectivists: they can know for certain they're wrong, even if they don't consider such alternatives as moral objectivism or moral nihilism at all.

"Imperative" is another word to which you have applied your own rigid definition.

Just a dictionary definition, you mean? You've seen the evidence. Why would you want to deny what your own eyes have seen?

[Skepdick]

I don't have total control of my whims; they have more control over me.

What? Like gravity?

Do you seriously think that what you are implying is something the rest of us are not aware of and haven't taken into account? When people are constantly swapping definitions and changing the context of the terms, "objective and subjective", it is impossible to have a sensible discussion, and you are no less guilty of that than anyone else here. You are not bringing anything to anyone's attention that is not already known about, and the role you are playing here is no more than that of useless irritant.

I am just trying to understand what you mean by the word "subjective" when you are talking about things you can't change on a whim

Rather than swapping definitions and recontextualising terms - I am just doing empiricism... Trying to understand your use of the term.