Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

But I like the infanticide case better, because it avoids all the "is it a child" nonsense, that we all know is utterly insincere anyway, though we protest we don't. So let's work with the clear case, rather than the one everybody likes to pretend is muddy.

So is the woman who smothers her toddler "moral"?

To avoid confusion, I suggest that we only use the word, "moral", to refer to things relating to morality, and when we are referring to the quality of morality, we us terms like, "morally good" or "morally bad". It's just a suggestion.

She has reasons. She has the means to get away with it...We've seen many such cases, and can't possibly how many more have gotten away with the same action undetected. So if she's crafty, she's very likely to be successful...just bury the body deep in the dumpster, and it's highly unlikely she'll be caught...and if she were, what principle would we employ to indict somebody who acted as a perfectly consistent subjectivist?

Why do you describe her as acting like a subjectivist? I'm sure the police or a judge wouldn't describe her as that. Nor even the newspapers: Subjectivist Murders Child In Fit Of Rage, read all about it.

What do we know about the woman? Does she have a history of violence towards her children? Is she mentally ill? Is she a Christian? What are her views on Nietzsche and Freud?

[Immanuel Can]

I suggest that we only use the word, "moral", to refer to things relating to morality, and when we are referring to the quality of morality, we us terms like, "morally good" or "morally bad". It's just a suggestion.

Okay.

She has reasons. She has the means to get away with it...We've seen many such cases, and can't possibly how many more have gotten away with the same action undetected. So if she's crafty, she's very likely to be successful...just bury the body deep in the dumpster, and it's highly unlikely she'll be caught...and if she were, what principle would we employ to indict somebody who acted as a perfectly consistent subjectivist?

Why do you describe her as acting like a subjectivist?

Because, of course, that's exactly what she's doing. She's subjectively fine with it. It's exactly what she wants to do. She has her reasons.

You're a subjectivist, right? So are you now saying you have a problem with her doing what her subjective values induce her to do?

I'm sure the police or a judge wouldn't describe her as that. Nor even the newspapers:

That's because subjectivism is really phony. We all turn to objectivism when the stakes are a particular thing we want or think we deserve. It's also because no society can function on subjectivism -- the police can't just show up and ask, "Did you feel you were right to axe murder your girlfriend," or "Are you okay with the fact that you robbed the treaasury"?

What do we know about the woman?

Enough. She's fine with it. Subjectively, she wants to do it. She's got her reasons; so what is that to you?

Does she have a history of violence towards her children?

It wouldn't matter; it's only the same action each time. If it's bad once, it's bad ten times; if it's morally fine once, why not ten times?

Is she mentally ill?

Now, that's interesting: why would you guess she's mentally ill if she's being a subjectivist? Are you saying you recognize killing toddlers as "mental illness"? But you're not being a very good subjectivist, if you do...

[Harbal]

Why do you describe her as acting like a subjectivist?

Because, of course, that's exactly what she's doing. She's subjectively fine with it. It's exactly what she wants to do. She has her reasons.

Well I did some research into the case, and it turns out that the woman practises a rather extreme form of Christianity. It seems her little toddler's behaviour was so bad that she became convinced it had been possessed by the Devil. So when she beat the child to death with a heavy wooden crucifix, she was doing God's work. Who'd have thought it? she wasn't a subjectivist, after all.

You're a subjectivist, right? So are you now saying you have a problem with her doing what her subjective values induce her to do?

I don't believe there is objective moral truth, if that's what you mean by "subjectivist". Even so, I never killed any of my kids, not even once, so I think we should get rid of the idea that being a "subjectivist" necessitates the murdering of one's children. Anyway, just for the record, I am very much against the killing of children, no matter how much they deserve it.

I'm sure the police or a judge wouldn't describe her as that. Nor even the newspapers:

That's because subjectivism is really phony. We all turn to objectivism when the stakes are a particular thing we want or think we deserve. It's also because no society can function on subjectivism -- the police can't just show up and ask, "Did you feel you were right to axe murder your girlfriend," or "Are you okay with the fact that you robbed the treaasury"?

Yes, most people do behave as if right and wrong is a matter of objective truth out in the real world, whether they believe in God or not, and that is because most people are not particularly interested in philosophy. I have said this to you before.

I don't think it is a bad thing for people to feel that, and behave as if, morality is a matter of objective truth, I just think it's a bad thing when they think it is anything to do with God, because that makes it harder to question it. Moral attitudes have generally changed for the better over my lifetime, and that has come about in part because people are not as preoccupied with God as they used to be.

What do we know about the woman?

Enough. She's fine with it. Subjectively, she wants to do it. She's got her reasons; so what is that to you?

We are dealing with a very serious matter here, and I find your casual approach towards getting to the bottom of things quite shocking.

I need to know all relevant details before I can say what it is to me.

Is she mentally ill?

Now, that's interesting: why would you guess she's mentally ill if she's being a subjectivist?

I'm guessing she might be mentally ill because sane people don't usually kill their children.

Are you saying you recognize killing toddlers as "mental illness"?

I certainly recognise it as a sign of possible mental illness.

But you're not being a very good subjectivist, if you do...

I wasn't trying to be a good subjectivist, I'm merely trying to present an honest argument without pulling any crooked stunts.

[Immanuel Can]

Because, of course, that's exactly what she's doing. She's subjectively fine with it. It's exactly what she wants to do. She has her reasons.

Well I did some research into the case...

Avoiding the obvious. Yes, I can see why, too.

I am very much against the killing of children, no matter how much they deserve it.

I didn't ask you about you. I asked you about her: is she moral or not?

...most people do behave as if right and wrong is a matter of objective truth out in the real world, whether they believe in God or not...

Well, we can both see that. But why do they do so? Why do they profess to be subjectivists, but then act like objectivists? The answer's obvious: they find subjectivism unliveable when tested.

Enough. She's fine with it. Subjectively, she wants to do it. She's got her reasons; so what is that to you?

We are dealing with a very serious matter here, and I find your casual approach towards getting to the bottom of things quite shocking. [/quote]
No, you don't. Feigned horror won't get you off the hook here: is she moral?

Now, that's interesting: why would you guess she's mentally ill if she's being a subjectivist?

I'm guessing she might be mentally ill because sane people don't usually kill their children.

Why not? If it's just a subjective matter, like everything else, why shouldn't they?

Are you saying you recognize killing toddlers as "mental illness"?

I certainly recognise it as a sign of possible mental illness.

I think you're being disingenuous. I think you know there's something profoundly wrong with subjectivism, when it comes to certain cases. And I think you can see that, too.

[Harbal]

I am very much against the killing of children, no matter how much they deserve it.

I didn't ask you about you. I asked you about her: is she moral or not?

I assume you are asking if her actions were morally good or bad. Assuming the woman is not mentally ill, and has no psychological condition that could account for her actions, and in reference to my sense of morality, I consider what she did was morally wrong.

...most people do behave as if right and wrong is a matter of objective truth out in the real world, whether they believe in God or not...

Well, we can both see that. But why do they do so? Why do they profess to be subjectivists, but then act like objectivists? The answer's obvious: they find subjectivism unliveable when tested.

Who, apart from members of a philosophy forum and real philosophers, profess to be subjectivists? Yes, our moral principles feel like objective truth, but that is a matter of psychology, not objective reality.

We are dealing with a very serious matter here, and I find your casual approach towards getting to the bottom of things quite shocking.

No, you don't. Feigned horror won't get you off the hook here: is she moral?

see above.

I'm guessing she might be mentally ill because sane people don't usually kill their children.

Why not? If it's just a subjective matter, like everything else, why shouldn't they?

You would have to ask a behavioural psychologist that.

I certainly recognise it as a sign of possible mental illness.

I think you're being disingenuous. I think you know there's something profoundly wrong with subjectivism, when it comes to certain cases. And I think you can see that, too.

Okay, you choose. Do you want me to participate in this conversation as someone trying to look at the subject philosophically, or as an ordinary person referencing his own experience of living out in the real world?

[Immanuel Can]

I am very much against the killing of children, no matter how much they deserve it.

I didn't ask you about you. I asked you about her: is she moral or not?

I assume you are asking if her actions were morally good or bad. Assuming the woman is not mentally ill, and has no psychological condition that could account for her actions, and in reference to my sense of morality, I consider what she did was morally wrong.

Well, I have some admiration for your directness in answering.

However, if you think that you've in any way a justification in assessing her behavior, then you're an objectivist -- just a selective one. Maybe you'd say nothing about her behaviour at work or in the bar, but you would when she decides that killing her toddler is a good thing to do. But when you adjudicate even that, you're speaking as if there's a universal prohibition on smothering toddlers...and where would such a thing come from, given subjectivism?

Who, apart from members of a philosophy forum and real philosophers, profess to be subjectivists?

Lots of people. In fact, it's the regnant tone of public discourse in most of the West...in the media, in schools, in political matters. That doesn't mean they know the terminology. What they usually say is something like, "It's up to the individual," or "Whatever you feel is right," or maybe, if they have a little more self-awareness, they might say, "I'm a relativist." It's all the same, essentially.

I'm guessing she might be mentally ill because sane people don't usually kill their children.

Why not? If it's just a subjective matter, like everything else, why shouldn't they?

You would have to ask a behavioural psychologist that.

That's as good an answer as the female judicial applicant who told the senate committee, "I can't tell you what a woman is, because I'm not a biologist."

The behavioural psychologist might be able to predict what she would do. His discipline doesn't even deal with the question of what she should do. The moral is outside of their bailiwick.

Do you want me to participate in this conversation as someone trying to look at the subject philosophically, or as an ordinary person referencing his own experience of living out in the real world?

Why make the difference? Isn't the point, in both cases, to find the truth?

[iambiguous]

https://youtu.be/iMQtQq5XcqU

First, the part where Sam argues in the manner in which one would assume that a libertarian might...as though of his own volition he thought through abortion and morality and came to this particular conclusion "here and now". And that his frame of mind is deemed to be the most rational even though it is only an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Then the part where he is basically suggesting his own assessment of a three-day old human embryo actually reflects, what, the most reasonable manner in which to encompass it in regard to this research?

Whereas I always come back to the part revolving around moral commandments, immortality and salvation. No God and they would all seem to be beyond our reach. So, sure, many come to embrace God and religion precisely because there does not appear to be an alternative. It's all intertwined in turn in how we are indoctrinated as children, the particular world we are "thrown" into at birth, and the set of circumstances that predispose us existentially to go one way rather than another.

[iambiguous]

That's the great thing about the truth. It really doesn't require you to take my word for anything.

Indeed, all you need do is to take the word of those who wrote the Bible. Literally. Or the words of those like William Lane Craig here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Just don't take my own word for that though.

Instead, challenge IC yourself. Or, as I like to suggest, Mr. Wiggle, Wiggle, Wiggle.

[Harbal]

I assume you are asking if her actions were morally good or bad. Assuming the woman is not mentally ill, and has no psychological condition that could account for her actions, and in reference to my sense of morality, I consider what she did was morally wrong.

Well, I have some admiration for your directness in answering.

However, if you think that you've in any way a justification in assessing her behavior, then you're an objectivist --

When I give the matter some thought, I can arrive at no other conclusion than there is no source of objective moral truth. I do not believe in God, and I don't accept that God would be such a source anyway, so where else could objective moral truth reside? On the other hand, there are some ethical and moral issues to which I have an emotional response that feels very much like it is based on objective truth. Were it otherwise, our moral function would be absolutely useless in regulating our behaviour. So yes, in many instances, my approach to morality is identical to that of an "objectivist". I really don't care what category that puts me in, or what sort of ist it makes me, but if you are genuinely interested in the truth of the matter, I suggest you base your assessment on the description I have just given you, rather than pinning some arbitrary label on me that enables you to place me squarely in one box or the other.

Maybe you'd say nothing about her behaviour at work or in the bar, but you would when she decides that killing her toddler is a good thing to do. But when you adjudicate even that, you're speaking as if there's a universal prohibition on smothering toddlers...and where would such a thing come from, given subjectivism?

Exactly, where could such a thing come from, other than from somewhere inside me?

Who, apart from members of a philosophy forum and real philosophers, profess to be subjectivists?

Lots of people. In fact, it's the regnant tone of public discourse in most of the West...in the media, in schools, in political matters. That doesn't mean they know the terminology. What they usually say is something like, "It's up to the individual," or "Whatever you feel is right," or maybe, if they have a little more self-awareness, they might say, "I'm a relativist." It's all the same, essentially.

Okay, well maybe there are more philosophers out there than I realised.

You would have to ask a behavioural psychologist that.

That's as good an answer as the female judicial applicant who told the senate committee, "I can't tell you what a woman is, because I'm not a biologist."

Being human does not enable me to speak with any authority about the unconscious processes that drive human behaviour.

Do you want me to participate in this conversation as someone trying to look at the subject philosophically, or as an ordinary person referencing his own experience of living out in the real world?

Why make the difference? Isn't the point, in both cases, to find the truth?

No. We do philosophy to find the truth, although what we do with it when we think we've found it is another question altogether. In real life we often manufacture our own truth simply to enable us to function in the world.

[Immanuel Can]

I assume you are asking if her actions were morally good or bad. Assuming the woman is not mentally ill, and has no psychological condition that could account for her actions, and in reference to my sense of morality, I consider what she did was morally wrong.

Well, I have some admiration for your directness in answering.

However, if you think that you've in any way a justification in assessing her behavior, then you're an objectivist --

When I give the matter some thought, I can arrive at no other conclusion than there is no source of objective moral truth.

Then why do you assert that infanticide is wrong?

On the other hand, there are some ethical and moral issues to which I have an emotional response that feels very much like it is based on objective truth.

Right. And either those are delusions you should probably ignore, or they're telling you something.

Maybe you'd say nothing about her behaviour at work or in the bar, but you would when she decides that killing her toddler is a good thing to do. But when you adjudicate even that, you're speaking as if there's a universal prohibition on smothering toddlers...and where would such a thing come from, given subjectivism?

Exactly, where could such a thing come from, other than from somewhere inside me?

Well, you know that answer.

Who, apart from members of a philosophy forum and real philosophers, profess to be subjectivists?

Lots of people. In fact, it's the regnant tone of public discourse in most of the West...in the media, in schools, in political matters. That doesn't mean they know the terminology. What they usually say is something like, "It's up to the individual," or "Whatever you feel is right," or maybe, if they have a little more self-awareness, they might say, "I'm a relativist." It's all the same, essentially.

Okay, well maybe there are more philosophers out there than I realised.

That's one of the secrets of philosophy: everybody actually has one, whether they know it or not. Some people can articulate theirs, and some can even do it rationally...maybe those are the folks we call "philosophers." But everybody has to run their life somehow, have some touchstone for making their choices and decisions, and for assessing what's worthwhile and how they're progressing in life. That sort of informal "philosophy" is as unavoidable as breathing.

You strike me as somebody riding the line on that: half the time, you're just talking from how things seem, and the rest of the time you're arguing that X or Y needs to be rationalized properly. Maybe you're more of a philosopher than you know...

There are clinics for that. With proper therapy, you may yet live a normal life.

You would have to ask a behavioural psychologist that.

That's as good an answer as the female judicial applicant who told the senate committee, "I can't tell you what a woman is, because I'm not a biologist."

Being human does not enable me to speak with any authority about the unconscious processes that drive human behaviour.

Being a human being doesn't just entitle you to think about moral matters; it obligates you to do so, really, because like everybody else, you have to make value-judgment-based decisions. That's just what life is, much of the time.

Do you want me to participate in this conversation as someone trying to look at the subject philosophically, or as an ordinary person referencing his own experience of living out in the real world?

Why make the difference? Isn't the point, in both cases, to find the truth?

No. We do philosophy to find the truth, although what we do with it when we think we've found it is another question altogether. In real life we often manufacture our own truth simply to enable us to function in the world.

That's an interesting claim. It sounds like what you're saying is that philosophers try to tell themselves the truth, but ordinary people just try to cultivate delusions in order to "get by" without thinking much. That's fairly cynical about common folks, isn't it?

[Harbal]

However, if you think that you've in any way a justification in assessing her behavior, then you're an objectivist --

When I give the matter some thought, I can arrive at no other conclusion than there is no source of objective moral truth.

Then why do you assert that infanticide is wrong?

Because it feels wrong, of course, and no amount of rationalising can change that, thank God. Oops!

Don't get your hopes up.

On the other hand, there are some ethical and moral issues to which I have an emotional response that feels very much like it is based on objective truth.

Right. And either those are delusions you should probably ignore, or they're telling you something.

I'm going to have a foot in both camps and treat them as delusions that are telling me something.

Exactly, where could such a thing come from, other than from somewhere inside me?

Well, you know that answer.

Yes I do, but I don't want to disappoint you, so I'll keep it to myself.

Okay, well maybe there are more philosophers out there than I realised.

That's one of the secrets of philosophy: everybody actually has one, whether they know it or not. Some people can articulate theirs, and some can even do it rationally...maybe those are the folks we call "philosophers." But everybody has to run their life somehow, have some touchstone for making their choices and decisions, and for assessing what's worthwhile and how they're progressing in life. That sort of informal "philosophy" is as unavoidable as breathing.

There's some wisdom in that, and I agree with you.

You strike me as somebody riding the line on that: half the time, you're just talking from how things seem, and the rest of the time you're arguing that X or Y needs to be rationalized properly. Maybe you're more of a philosopher than you know...

Well if I am, please don't tell anybody.

There are clinics for that. With proper therapy, you may yet live a normal life.

I don't think my family could stand the shock if I turned up one day being normal.

No. We do philosophy to find the truth, although what we do with it when we think we've found it is another question altogether. In real life we often manufacture our own truth simply to enable us to function in the world.

That's an interesting claim. It sounds like what you're saying is that philosophers try to tell themselves the truth, but ordinary people just try to cultivate delusions in order to "get by" without thinking much. That's fairly cynical about common folks, isn't it?

I didn't mean it as criticism, and I do include myself among those common folk, and I suspect most philosophers are in among us as well, when they're not on duty.

[Immanuel Can]

I didn't mean it as criticism, and I do include myself among those common folk, and I suspect most philosophers are in among us as well, when they're not on duty.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm a big fan of the common sense of the ordinary man. I have not found that among academics there is a monopoly on wisdom. That's about as gently as I can state that, I suppose.

[bahman]

I already told you to start with this premise one needs to prove God first.

And I pointed out to you that you only asked for MY premise, not yours, and it works perfectly for the conclusion. So I'm one up on subjectivism, even if you don't believe God exists; because at least my view can be rationally articulated and logical with reference to its own terms: subjectivism doesn't have either of those things going for it.

Many people commit all sorts of crimes in the name of religion. So, no. You are not doing better than subjectivists. In fact, you are a subjectivist as well (see below).

You also need to show that that is only your God who is true among many Gods.

Not yet, I don't. All I need to show is that my view makes sense, and subjectivism simply doesn't. Then we can rule out subjectivism, once and for all -- assuming you and I wish to remain rational, of course.

After that, we can ask secondary questions like, "What kind of God?" If we didn't know God existed, we couldn't even ask that question at all.

So are we there yet? Have you realised that subjectivism isn't even intelligible on its own terms?

You are also subjectivist given the fact that you only believe in God and don't have any evidence for Him. Your premise is only different from what other subjectivist says. You say in my opinion God exists and my God is the right one. God prohibited X then I would not do X. Other subjectivists say that in my opinion, it is not good to do X therefore I won't do X.

[Immanuel Can]

I already told you to start with this premise one needs to prove God first.

And I pointed out to you that you only asked for MY premise, not yours, and it works perfectly for the conclusion. So I'm one up on subjectivism, even if you don't believe God exists; because at least my view can be rationally articulated and logical with reference to its own terms: subjectivism doesn't have either of those things going for it.

Many people commit all sorts of crimes in the name of religion. So, no. You are not doing better than subjectivists.

Well, "religion" is all kinds of nonsense; I'm not "religious," in that sense: I don't believe in all "religions," so that's just irrelevant.

But you missed the meaning of what I said. Many religious explanations of morals -- even those that I would say are factually untrue -- can make a rational account of their view: meaning that IF what they believed were true, then certain moral axioms would rationally follow.

Subjectivism lacks this potential entirely. It cannot be made rational, even on its own terms; and that puts it behind all these various "religions" that can do that.

You are also subjectivist given the fact that you only believe in God and don't have any evidence for Him.

That's certainly untrue. I have abundant evidence for Him. And I'll be happy to supply to you anything I can that you will accept as evidence.

But the original problem persists: we are not agreed on the defintion of "subjective." On a proper definition, I'm not at all a "subjectivist." But on yours, which I find both inconsistent and implausible, you might wrongly suppose I was merely campaigining for some sort of "subjectivity."

I'm not. I'm a moral objectivist.

[bahman]

And I pointed out to you that you only asked for MY premise, not yours, and it works perfectly for the conclusion. So I'm one up on subjectivism, even if you don't believe God exists; because at least my view can be rationally articulated and logical with reference to its own terms: subjectivism doesn't have either of those things going for it.

Many people commit all sorts of crimes in the name of religion. So, no. You are not doing better than subjectivists.

Well, "religion" is all kinds of nonsense; I'm not "religious," in that sense: I don't believe in all "religions," so that's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant. There are over 4000 religions in the world and the followers of each one think that they are right and others are wrong. Followers of each religion firmly believe, like you, that they are right. Now give me one reason why I should accept your belief and your God in this big mess. Have you ever doubted that maybe another religion is the right one and you end up in Hell because you didn't submit to the proper religion? I found doubting a very healthy practice.

But you missed the meaning of what I said. Many religious explanations of morals -- even those that I would say are factually untrue -- can make a rational account of their view: meaning that IF what they believed were true, then certain moral axioms would rationally follow.

Yes, but how could they justify their belief given the fact that there are more than 4000 religions? Without a piece of evidence, all of them are subjectivists.

Subjectivism lacks this potential entirely. It cannot be made rational, even on its own terms; and that puts it behind all these various "religions" that can do that.

Without a piece of evidence, all religious individuals are subjectivists. We need something firm that we can agree with, something that is based on reason or evidence without these our belief is merely an opinion, therefore it is subjective.

You are also subjectivist given the fact that you only believe in God and don't have any evidence for Him.

That's certainly untrue. I have abundant evidence for Him. And I'll be happy to supply to you anything I can that you will accept as evidence.

I have had enough spiritual experiences yet I doubt my experience. I don't think that there is such a thing as strong evidence. Spiritual beings are very powerful and they can cheat us blind. In the past, I used to think that that would be enough if God presents Himself to me and creates another universe as a proof of concept that He is God. But now, I think even that is not enough since what I experienced, the new universe could be a mere illusion caused by a supreme being that is not God. So tell me what kind of evidence you have that could convince me.

But the original problem persists: we are not agreed on the defintion of "subjective." On a proper definition, I'm not at all a "subjectivist." But on yours, which I find both inconsistent and implausible, you might wrongly suppose I was merely campaigining for some sort of "subjectivity."

I don't agree with your definition of subjective. Whenever I use the subjective I mean something that is based on opinions, bias, emotions, and the like.

I'm not. I'm a moral objectivist.

Give me a piece of evidence that your God is a true one.