Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

I am conceding that I am not capable of presenting you with anything you would accept as an argument in favour of my expressed views.

But not realizing that subjectivism is at fault, not me.

Sooner or later, you're probably going to have to subject subjectivism to some sort of scrutiny. And when you do, it will dissolve faster than tissue paper in water. It cannot ground a society, cannot provide information about right and wrong, and can only throw you at the mercy of whatever momentary feeling or sensation strikes you. It's time to relinquish it.

Why is it time to relinquish it; what do you care? I mean, arguing about it on the forum is one thing, but why would you give a damn about how I live the rest of my life?

When you see sense about that, consider nihilism. It's at least a rational possibility. Subjectivism is not.

I'm fine as I am, thanks. But then I understand that rationality plays a very small part in morality, and it is mainly am emotionally based thing. That's why your constant bleating about my view not being rational just makes you look silly. And by the time you have twisted and misinterpreted my words, the thing you end up criticising bears hardly any resemblance to what I've said, anyway.

I have done my best to describe what I think morality is and how it works, and I've said alI I have to say, so to carry on would just amount to my repeating myself over and over. There is nothing to stop you from trying to present a convincing argument for objective moral truth though, as long as you don't mind flogging a dead horse, that is.

I won't keep asking you to respond to this, btw.

So far, all you have done is make claims of objective moral truth, but until you can demonstrate it's existence empirically, those claims can only be regarded as nothing more than your opinions, or personal beliefs. So, for those of us who do not believe there is such a thing as objective moral truth, what can you offer that will rationally force us to reconsider? Even if we allow that God exists, and he issues moral imperatives, he is not giving us truths, because imperatives can be neither true nor false. Imperatives are just commands or instructions, not statements of truth.

It is quite clear you have no intention of making an attempt.

[Immanuel Can]

...why would you give a damn about how I live the rest of my life?

Why would you be here debating, if you didn't?

When you see sense about that, consider nihilism. It's at least a rational possibility. Subjectivism is not.

I'm fine as I am, thanks. But then I understand that rationality plays a very small part in morality, and it is mainly am emotionally based thing. That's why your constant bleating about my view not being rational just makes you look silly. And by the time you have twisted and misinterpreted my words, the thing you end up criticising bears hardly any resemblance to what I've said, anyway.

I won't keep asking you to respond to this, btw.

Oh no! What will I do?

Here's the thing about a conversation: there are two people in it. If one doesn't want to follow logic, the other cannot make him. If one doesn't want to tackle a topic from a particular end, the other can't make him. It's a free...internet...last I looked.

It is quite clear you have no intention of making an attempt.

Actually, I most certainly do. But I'm doing the easy work first: showing that subjectivism is absurd, so we can eliminate that as a possibility. Then we can work on nihilism. Then we can work on objectivism.

Or you can just ask again to do it your way: pretend subjectivism is unproblematic, and assume that if you can refuse to believe objectivism, you've proved subjectivism, even when it's still absurd. Oh, and don't forget to ignore nihilism, which is the real logical end of subjectivist thinking.

[FlashDangerpants]

The non-stupid way to argue on behalf of objective moral fact is to identify the moral properties that pertain to situations, judgments and so on, and then show how those are detectable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This topic keeps coming up ad nauseam.

.........

I've recently been criticised for claiming objective facts, as if they cannot exist. Trump tried to overturn the election. Is a fact. It does not matter whether or not you think it was moral or immoral to do so , but the fact remains.
It is NOT a moral question: it is an empirical matter of evidence, of which there is much. Fraudulent documents exist.
You can argue as much as you like, and even claim objectivity, as to whether or not Trump had the right to do that.
I'd love to hear those "objective" arguments. But you cannot deny my right to offer facts.

Yours is a display of ignorance ad nauseam.

As it is, is only your subjective opinions and those of your like that believe 'Trump tried to overturn the election'.
Trump and Millions of Trump supporters do not believe that, they rejected the results of the election due to cheating.
These are merely opinions, beliefs and personal judgments, how they be facts?

It is only an objective fact if it is confirmed by a court of law based on the US Constitution.
If so, it is an objective fact, i.e. a legal fact that is conditioned upon a human-based legal FSK.
Because the legal FSK is human-based it cannot be what you are claiming as an absolutely mind-independent objective fact.

Ultimately, all facts are fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective; your claim of an absolutely [unqualified] objective fact based on an illusion.

The above process can be applied to moral elements that will generate qualified objective moral fact that are conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.

That said, I don't think you will understand [not necessary agree with] the above principles involved.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whilst it is a fact that "murder is illegal" that is not the same thing as saying that all killing of people is wrong; eventhough some (including myself) would argue that point.

I do not think it possible to find ANY objective basis to construct any sentence which reads" ...........is morall and therefore objectively wrong".
What ever nastiness you can think of there is no factual basis for ANY claim about wrongness and rightness, since these concepts are not factual.
Killing babies is wrong has to be forever an opinion. There i just no getting over that. But it is not a basis for the claim that were it so, then there could be no morality. Morality is a set of opnions about how best to behave. Moralists would do well the embrace that fact, rather than pretend objectivity so they can impose their will on others.

Your ignorance ad nauseam again.

Morality is not about rightness or wrongness.
Morality is the management of evil to enable/facilitate its related good.

That "murder is illegal" cannot standalone unconditionally; it must be conditioned to a specific legal framework and System [FSK] of a Country, a state, international laws or tribal laws, etc.
Because the above is conditioned upon a specific FSK, "murder is illegal" is objective conditionally, but this objectivity is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective based on the consensus of a collective of subjects.

From the above, it is inferred, it is the existence and presence of a FSK at work that dictates objectivity.
If killing of humans is not qualified [as with animals and primitive tribes with no laws], then it is a free-for-all without consideration to any established FSK.

By definition a FSK dictates its qualified facts and objectivity.
Where 'no killing of humans' [babies or adults] is stipulated within a moral FSK,
the 'killing of humans' is an objective fact as qualified to that specific moral FSK.

To ensure the above facts and objectivity are of high credibility and objectivity, the why of no killing of humans' is evil [as defined] must be supported by scientific facts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But not realizing that subjectivism is at fault, not me.

Sooner or later, you're probably going to have to subject subjectivism to some sort of scrutiny. And when you do, it will dissolve faster than tissue paper in water. It cannot ground a society, cannot provide information about right and wrong, and can only throw you at the mercy of whatever momentary feeling or sensation strikes you. It's time to relinquish it.

When you see sense about that, consider nihilism. It's at least a rational possibility. Subjectivism is not.

Moral Relativism is self-refuting.

One can claim Moral Nihilism, but that is insulting one's intelligence when morality as generally accept is so ubiquitous [almost universal].
99.9% of humans [even those who claimed to be moral nihilists] are inherently unlikely to commit incest with their parents, children, siblings, near-relatives.

Incest is a moral issue, and incest deterrence [Inbreeding Avoidance] is a biological and psychological FSK-ed objective fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
When the above is aligned within a moral-FSK [which dictates objectivity] it is then an objective moral fact, thus morality is objective as qualified to this particular moral element [one of the many].

Moral Relativists and moral nihilists by definition will condone incest and perhaps they will do it when their Inbreeding_avoidance inhibitors are overcome or damaged.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's a fact, in my opinion, that Religion is a man-made concept that does not and never will never exist in the real world outside of human conceptual language. It's a freaking tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. End of.

Meanwhile,life just carries on the way it always is, was, and ever will be. Nothing happens, and nothing changes.

I edited to add this;

You cannot ignore Islam as a religion like an ostrich where your back will be an open target for extremists, the so-called good compliant Muslims.

When you are faced with a religious believer[s] putting a knife to your throat, whatever your opinion of religion is useless.
Thus understanding the principles of evil religions [even the belief is false] is critical to get rid of the root causes of real evil before you be a victim to it.

The only way to kill the root of the problem of evil is to stop giving birth to entities who will also become subject to the knowlede of evil passed onto them by the people who came before them who told them about it.

That's where the root lies, if you are talking about a root, then that root must have some sort of location where it can be pinned down to.

It's no good just talking about getting rid of the root causes of evil and then continuing to give birth to new entities who then have to come and live in an evil world that they themselves did not create. The root of all evil must come from the knower of evil, I mean where else does the knowledge of evil come from.. the baked bean can behind the tomato ketchup bottle on the second shelf in the kitchen cupboard above the toaster??

Sorry, I just can't take humanity and it's ways seriously anymore. Seems we're all unfortunately stuck here on this clown planet of people wearing upside down frowns for most of their life, believing it's all just normal human activity, the nature of being human, which it does seem to be true as evidenced.

I just don't get it, why it's seen as perfectly normal and acceptable to bring a child into an evil world where they may become victim and get their throat slit open by some other human. What if this planet is HELL? what if we're all in Hell, and there is a God, and God was right to talk about hell?

Controlling root cause of evil via restricting birth of 'supposed evil' sources is not effective.
Evil is an inherent potential in all humans [deviated from evolutionary defaults].
As such, evil can rear its ugly head from other sources when one source is eliminated.

What is most effective is to identify the neural mechanisms involved in the triggering and inhibition of the evil potential in all humans.
The effective [sure way] is by the development of stronger inhibitors and managers to modulate and mitigate the manifestations of evil acts within those vulnerable to commit evil.

Note for example, how the evil acts of chattel slavery [a moral element] has evolved via neural developments to its current political state, i.e. that all sovereign nations has banned chattel slavery [some - all forms of slavery] in contrast to say 10,000 years ago.
Surely you cannot deny this gradual improvement?

The possible improvements [natural] in the attitude towards chattel slavery [an evil act] is a clue, other mode of evil act can also be improved, if we reflect on it seriously.
Since slavery took >10,000, it is not feasible for existing evil acts to change fast, but if we deliberate on it now and drive it expeditiously, it can be fruitful within the next few generations.

As for that evil religion itself [not the believers], it is critical for the majority to recognize 'that' religion is evil per se and therefrom take steps to suppress that evil ideology via education, rationality, critical thinking, mindfulness training and so on.
The hindrance at present is the majority of people do not understand that, that evil religions is inherent evil; instead that it is supposedly inherently evil is defended as a victim.
Any rational critique of that evil religion is condemned as a 'phobia' when the fear of its evil is real and rational.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Have you read other Kant scholars such as Berlin?

I had a quick review of where Isaiah Berlin stand re Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/

Should I presume that when your bring 'Isaiah Berlin' to my attention, that there is something in his writing that would counter my claims re Morality is Objective?
If there is nothing significant that will counter my claims, then it is not worthwhile for me to read up Berlin's book.

Are you pro-Berlin or against his philosophy?

From ChatGpt [with reservations];

Isaiah Berlin is often considered a pluralist rather than a strict realist or antirealist. Berlin's philosophical stance is characterized by a rejection of monism—the idea that there is a single, all-encompassing truth or value that can be applied universally. Instead, he embraced the idea that there are irreducible and conflicting values, and different individuals or cultures may legitimately hold different and irreconcilable values.

Berlin's pluralism is evident in his famous essay "Two Concepts of Liberty," where he distinguished between negative freedom (freedom from interference) and positive freedom (freedom as self-mastery). He argued that these two concepts of freedom can come into conflict and that there is no easy reconciliation between them. This reflects his broader view that values and goods are plural and sometimes incompatible.

In summary, Isaiah Berlin is often seen as a pluralist who rejects the idea of a single, overarching truth or set of values, and instead, he acknowledges the existence of multiple, conflicting values in the realm of philosophy and political thought.

If the above is true, then based on the first para above
"instead, he embraced the idea that there are irreducible and conflicting values, and different individuals or cultures may legitimately hold different and irreconcilable values"
then, Berlin's philosophical view is a FSK-ed view based on different individuals' or cultural FSKs.

[Harbal]

It is quite clear you have no intention of making an attempt.

Actually, I most certainly do. But I'm doing the easy work first: showing that subjectivism is absurd, so we can eliminate that as a possibility.

But you can't show that it is absurd, so you will never get any farther.

Then we can work on nihilism.

Of course you can "work" on nihilism, but not with me. I have no interest in it, so I won't be taking part in any conversations about it.

Then we can work on objectivism.

There is nothing there to work on; it's just your fantasy.

Or you can just ask again to do it your way: pretend subjectivism is unproblematic,

I can see how it is problematic to a religious dogmatist, but it isn't problematic to me.

and assume that if you can refuse to believe objectivism, you've proved subjectivism

Proved what about subjectivism? There certainly is such a thing as moral subjectivism, we know this because we all have our individual opinions on moral issues. You cannot deny that moral subjectivism exists without sounding like an idiot. It's existence is not in question.

As for objective moral truth; I would not be able to refuse to believe it if you could prove it existed.

Oh, and don't forget to ignore nihilism

No,I won't forget.

[Peter Holmes]

Individually and collectively, we evaluate (subjectively) against criteria all the time. And this can be a rational process - just as can be the choice of criteria against which to evaluate - criteria which can and do change - such as the belated change of attitude towards slavery among followers of the Abrahamic religions.

A case in point. Some people value the life of a zygote more highly than the bodily autonomy - and even the life - of a pregnant person. And they make this evaluation against chosen criteria that others (of which I'm one) disvalue as irrational: the invented intention and wishes of an invented tribal god.

The charge that, if there are no moral facts, there can be no rational moral opinions and decisions - but only the individually selfish whim of the moment - is empty and falsified everywhere and all the time. There are clear reasons for why different human communities have developed - and are developing - moral values and codes with many features in common - and in common with the 'proto-moralities' evident in other species.

Moral objectivists have neither evidence nor valid and sound argument for their belief - and the despairing attempt to deflect attention from this failure by arguing fallaciously from supposed undesirable consequences doesn't work. 'Moral subjectivism fails, so morality must be objective.'

[Veritas Aequitas]

Individually and collectively, we evaluate (subjectively) against criteria all the time. And this can be a rational process ...

The above is valid and sound but what you continued from the above is mere babblings.

Note:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Philosophical Realism mind independent Objectivity = illusory
2. FSK-ed Objectivity = realistic

2. FSK-ed Objectivity = realistic
When we evaluate (subjectively) against criteria all the time, collectively, it has to be conditioned upon a Framework and System [FSR-FSK] that is instituted [explicitly or implicitly] by a collective of humans with a Constitution as its foundation, with a structure, principles and processes that generate a result that is objective.

The resultant conclusions [facts] therefrom the human-based FSK is objective because the conclusions are independent of the individual[s] opinion, beliefs, judgment, and descriptions; they are conditioned upon the Framework and System itself and not on the individual subjects.

But because the Framework and System that generate the fact is based on a collective of subjects, the this objectivity is fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. it follows, it cannot be absolutely independent of humans and the human conditions.

Because there are so many variables underlying each human-based FSK, they cannot have the same degrees of FSK-ed objectivity. [the most credible and objective FSK is the scientific FSK].
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

There is no deniable there are different human-based FSK with their specific FSK-ed facts different degrees of objectivity.
For example,
It is a fact,
Simone Biles is the women's 2023 all-around World Artistic Gymnastics Champion.
Do you deny this fact?

The reality is the above merely a sporting fact conditioned upon the
The International Gymnastics Federation FSK.
Even though not qualified generally, it cannot be a standalone fact.

But because the above objective fact is based on personal judgments of a group of judges assessed on a set of authorized criteria, it cannot be as objective as the the objectivity of the scientific FSK.

As such, it is possible for objective FSK-ed facts from different sources, e.g. science, politics, legal, economics, linguistic, history, finance, and so on as conditioned upon their respective FSK.

Therefore it is possible of objective moral facts from a moral-FSK with its specific degrees of credibility and objectivity; Morality is objective on this basis.

[Sculptor]

This topic keeps coming up ad nauseam.

.........

I've recently been criticised for claiming objective facts, as if they cannot exist. Trump tried to overturn the election. Is a fact. It does not matter whether or not you think it was moral or immoral to do so , but the fact remains.
It is NOT a moral question: it is an empirical matter of evidence, of which there is much. Fraudulent documents exist.
You can argue as much as you like, and even claim objectivity, as to whether or not Trump had the right to do that.
I'd love to hear those "objective" arguments. But you cannot deny my right to offer facts.

Yours is a display of ignorance ad nauseam.
...

And this is far as I bothered to read.

[FlashDangerpants]

Have you read other Kant scholars such as Berlin?

I had a quick review of where Isaiah Berlin stand re Kant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/

It's all just books you haven't read at this moment isn't it? You didn't read those chapters of Blackburn either, did you?

Should I presume that when your bring 'Isaiah Berlin' to my attention, that there is something in his writing that would counter my claims re Morality is Objective?

Every good philosoher who covers ethics even tangentially writes something that is counter to your claims. Berlin was an excellent philosopher.

If there is nothing significant that will counter my claims, then it is not worthwhile for me to read up Berlin's book.

That you would supopose it a waste of your valuable time to read him does you little credit. You must be remarkably conceited to think you are too important for one of the greats.

Are you pro-Berlin or against his philosophy?

I'm smart enough to see good in things I don't agree with. Value Pluralism is a very good theory, I can maybe go with it, or with some form of it. But I did actually mention Berlin because of his great many call backs to Kant.

From ChatGpt [with reservations];

Isaiah Berlin is often considered a pluralist rather than a strict realist or antirealist. Berlin's philosophical stance is characterized by a rejection of monism—the idea that there is a single, all-encompassing truth or value that can be applied universally. Instead, he embraced the idea that there are irreducible and conflicting values, and different individuals or cultures may legitimately hold different and irreconcilable values.

Berlin's pluralism is evident in his famous essay "Two Concepts of Liberty," where he distinguished between negative freedom (freedom from interference) and positive freedom (freedom as self-mastery). He argued that these two concepts of freedom can come into conflict and that there is no easy reconciliation between them. This reflects his broader view that values and goods are plural and sometimes incompatible.

In summary, Isaiah Berlin is often seen as a pluralist who rejects the idea of a single, overarching truth or set of values, and instead, he acknowledges the existence of multiple, conflicting values in the realm of philosophy and political thought.

If the above is true, then based on the first para above
"instead, he embraced the idea that there are irreducible and conflicting values, and different individuals or cultures may legitimately hold different and irreconcilable values"
then, Berlin's philosophical view is a FSK-ed view based on different individuals' or cultural FSKs.

A little bit, yes. Imagine if that FSK theory was proposed by a sane person who didn't want to proceed to a megalomaniacal project to create one FSK to rule them all. Somebody who sees the incommensurable nature of conflicting moral desires and rather than saying "I shall dominate them with my perfect one size eats all moral FSK", instead just observes how things actually are.

There's an awful lot there for you to learn from if you read books and learn from them. But what you are going to do is declare Berlin one of your greatest fans because you think he FSKs aren't you?

[Dontaskme]

...is the God of Islam any different to the Christian God of the Bible...?

Read the Koran, and read the Bible. Then you'll know. There's no other way you will know.

It's Quran not Koran.

I have a copy of both books. So I already know they are of no difference. So, Mr Know-it-all Jordan Peterson wannabe. As you already know, I was talking to VA in a manner that was meant to provoke a prompting to think about how familiar the nature of the two Gods are, and how in fact they are identical.

Two verses in the Quran (6:128 and 11:107) emphasize that consignment to hell is horrible and eternal — but include the caveat "except as God (or your Lord) wills it", which some scholars considered an exemption from the eternity of hell.

It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell. The unrighteous will be condemned to a place of blazing fire and utter darkness. (See Matt. 13:24-30,36-43, 47-50; 22:1-14; 25:14-46.) Jesus called this place “the eternal fire.

[Dontaskme]

Controlling root cause of evil via restricting birth of 'supposed evil' sources is not effective.
Evil is an inherent potential in all humans [deviated from evolutionary defaults].
As such, evil can rear its ugly head from other sources when one source is eliminated.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

If evil is an inherent potential in humans, eliminating that source would eliminate the knowledge that evil is being commited.
So where do you imagine this 'other' source of evil is going to rear-up from... if and when the human source is eliminated?