Philosophy Now Forum

Morality can be both subjective and objective, and how to distinguish between the two is so simple, and easy.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 10:44 am Morality can be both subjective and objective, and how to distinguish between the two is so simple, and easy.

Once you have defined exactly what you mean by the terms, "objective", "subjective" and "morality", then of course it is easy. It's getting people to agree with you that is the hard part, because we all seem to define those words differently.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 11:18 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 10:44 am Morality can be both subjective and objective, and how to distinguish between the two is so simple, and easy.

Once you have defined exactly what you mean by the terms, "objective", "subjective" and "morality", then of course it is easy. It's getting people to agree with you that is the hard part, because we all seem to define those words differently.

Very, very True.

And, this my friends is why human beings have been bickering and arguing over things for millennia.

However, once words were defined in a way, where the definitions fitted together perfectly, forming a crystal clear big picture of all-there-is, then, and only then, the actually irrefutable Truth of things came-to-light, were revealed, and seen and understand, fully. Thus, this is when peace and harmony, also, Truly began.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 8:22 am Religion is just not in my upbringing.

Nor mine. "Religion" is a mere cultural phenomenon.

But "upbringing" has nothing to do with it, really.

But I've lived for 56 years without religion and I will probably finish things out that way as well.

Think of how little sense that makes. "I've lived 50 years as a smoker, so I may as well smoke until I get cancer." "I've lived 50 years as a flat earther, so I may as well die that way."

And to be honest, being told I'm going to hell just for not believing is kind of a put off to me.

Being told one had prostate problems is also probably a big put off. But you're better knowing it and dealing with it than not.

It's like trying to force someone...

No, force destroys the value of the whole thing. Faith cannot be forced or coerced. But it can be offered, and needs to be.

But I'm always interested when somebody uses the word "force" to describe the act of telling somebody the truth. There could be nothing less "forceful" or coercive than giving somebody the dignity of having the truth and making his own decision about what to do with it. But hiding the truth from somebody? That might be worse than "force." That might well be criminal negligence, or indifference to their welfare, or even active hatred through lying-by-omission.

Telling somebody the truth is always doing them a favour...even when it's a truth they are reluctant to hear.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:18 am But I'm always interested when somebody uses the word "force" to describe the act of telling somebody the truth. There could be nothing less "forceful" or coercive than giving somebody the dignity of having the truth and making his own decision about what to do with it. But hiding the truth from somebody? That might be worse than "force." That might well be criminal negligence, or indifference to their welfare, or even active hatred through lying-by-omission.

Telling somebody the truth is always doing them a favour...even when it's a truth they are reluctant to hear.

But neither of us know if it's "truth" or not. Have you died yet? Have you been to either heaven or hell? At this point we're both going off of what is said in books written by other human beings that are just a few of many books that have been written by other human beings, some contradictory of each other. And apparently if I don't believe the unprovable is truth, then I'm going to hell, hence the motive for Pascal's Wager. A wager is something done in hopes that something one is not 100% sure of will happen. That can be construed as a scare tactic.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is the sole property of the conscious subject and never the object. Morality only becomes objectified when a conscious subject decides to objectify his feelings and meanings relative to the world as object. This topic must have been adequately answered several times in this thread. Is anyone interested in the answer, why does it go on and on?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:30 am Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is the sole property of the conscious subject and never the object. Morality only becomes objectified when a conscious subject decides to objectify his feelings and meanings relative to the world as object. This topic must have been adequately answered several times in this thread. Is anyone interested in the answer, why does it go on and on?

Because it's the same set of unsolvable arguments that has gone on since the beginning of large human settlements. It's never going to end until either we're all gone and unable to continue the argument, or else until everyone agrees to the same things. If any of this stuff was solvable, it would have been solved a long time ago.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:49 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:30 am Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is the sole property of the conscious subject and never the object. Morality only becomes objectified when a conscious subject decides to objectify his feelings and meanings relative to the world as object. This topic must have been adequately answered several times in this thread. Is anyone interested in the answer, why does it go on and on?

Because it's the same set of unsolvable arguments that has gone on since the beginning of large human settlements. It's never going to end until either we're all gone and unable to continue the argument, or else until everyone agrees to the same things. If any of this stuff was solvable, it would have been solved a long time ago.

No, this topic is not insolvable, Spinoza laid out pretty clearly that the way we come to know the world is through the energies around us that alter the state of our biological natures. The fact that our reality is entirely subjective underlines the fact that all meaning is the property of a life form and never the object until the subject's meanings he chooses to objectify and attribute these to a meaningless world. I agree some things are unknowable, but I think you take it too far, if it is an exercise in futility why on earth would you choose to indulge in a useless enterprise?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:08 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:49 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:30 am Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is the sole property of the conscious subject and never the object. Morality only becomes objectified when a conscious subject decides to objectify his feelings and meanings relative to the world as object. This topic must have been adequately answered several times in this thread. Is anyone interested in the answer, why does it go on and on?

Because it's the same set of unsolvable arguments that has gone on since the beginning of large human settlements. It's never going to end until either we're all gone and unable to continue the argument, or else until everyone agrees to the same things. If any of this stuff was solvable, it would have been solved a long time ago.

No, this topic is not insolvable, Spinoza laid out pretty clearly that the way we come to know the world is through the energies around us that alter the state of our biological natures. The fact that our reality is entirely subjective underlines the fact that all meaning is the property of a life form and never the object until the subject's meanings he chooses to objectify and attribute these to a meaningless world. I agree some things are unknowable, but I think you take it too far, if it is an exercise in futility why on earth would you choose to indulge in a useless enterprise?

Probably for the same reason everyone else who indulges in it does. If Spinoza had solved the problem, then it wouldn't still be a problem.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:18 am But I'm always interested when somebody uses the word "force" to describe the act of telling somebody the truth. There could be nothing less "forceful" or coercive than giving somebody the dignity of having the truth and making his own decision about what to do with it. But hiding the truth from somebody? That might be worse than "force." That might well be criminal negligence, or indifference to their welfare, or even active hatred through lying-by-omission.

Telling somebody the truth is always doing them a favour...even when it's a truth they are reluctant to hear.

But neither of us know if it's "truth" or not.

What would it take for you to "know" that it's the truth? What would God have to do for you in order for you to "know"?

A wager is something done in hopes that something one is not 100% sure of will happen.

That's the nature of life: the human situation is one of "wagers." You make them all the time; and most of the time, don't even think about them.

It's a "wager" for you to get out of bed in the morning. You don't know a killer isn't lurking, planning to take your life today. But you wager he won't. And that's a good wager.

But there are also very bad wagers. Playing around with fentanyl, for example. You don't know it will addict you, or be tainted, or be in too strong a dosage when the pusher cuts it for you, so why not wager it will be fine? Because there's a very real possibility, or even a high likelihood, that one of the many things that could go wrong eventually will. And the longer you play around, the higher the odds are that things won't end up well for you.

So there are wagers worth making, and very bad wagers. Pascal's question is simply, "What sort of wager is the wager to ignore God, and go to eternity alienated from Him?" And Pascal does the calculations for you, so you can see what he thinks of that wager.

But even Pascal doesn't try to tell you you can't take a bad wager. Of course you can. It just might not be the best idea you've ever had.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:58 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:29 am But neither of us know if it's "truth" or not.

What would God have to do for you in order for you to "know"?

I don't know. Maybe if God presented himself to me, it might help? \_(*_*)_/

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:14 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:08 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:49 am

Because it's the same set of unsolvable arguments that has gone on since the beginning of large human settlements. It's never going to end until either we're all gone and unable to continue the argument, or else until everyone agrees to the same things. If any of this stuff was solvable, it would have been solved a long time ago.

No, this topic is not insolvable, Spinoza laid out pretty clearly that the way we come to know the world is through the energies around us that alter the state of our biological natures. The fact that our reality is entirely subjective underlines the fact that all meaning is the property of a life form and never the object until the subject's meanings he chooses to objectify and attribute these to a meaningless world. I agree some things are unknowable, but I think you take it too far. If it is an exercise in futility why on earth would you choose to indulge in a useless enterprise?

Probably for the same reason, everyone else who indulges in it does. If Spinoza had solved the problem, then it wouldn't still be a problem.

It is not an ever-enduring problem if one has an ear to listen. There is only one logical answer to the thread topic, Your subjectivity should give a hint. This going on indefinitely instead of generating topics for new threads is absurd. Are you stating that Spinoza didn't know what he was talking about? If so start an interesting thread challenging Spinoza's thoughts--- good luck! You'll hear from me for sure should you attempt it.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:49 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:14 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:08 am

No, this topic is not insolvable, Spinoza laid out pretty clearly that the way we come to know the world is through the energies around us that alter the state of our biological natures. The fact that our reality is entirely subjective underlines the fact that all meaning is the property of a life form and never the object until the subject's meanings he chooses to objectify and attribute these to a meaningless world. I agree some things are unknowable, but I think you take it too far, if it is an exercise in futility why on earth would you choose to indulge in a useless enterprise?

Probably for the same reason everyone else who indulges in it does. If Spinoza had solved the problem, then it wouldn't still be a problem.

It is not a problem if one has an ear to listen. There is only one logical answer to the thread topic, Your subjectivity should give a hint. This going on indefinitely instead of generating topics is for new threads is absurd.

Are you suggesting that morality is subjective? And if so, what does subjective mean or why do you say it is subjective?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:49 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:14 am

Probably for the same reason everyone else who indulges in it does. If Spinoza had solved the problem, then it wouldn't still be a problem.

It is not a problem if one has an ear to listen. There is only one logical answer to the thread topic, Your subjectivity should give a hint. This going on indefinitely instead of generating topics is for new threads is absurd.

Are you suggesting that morality is subjective? And if so, what does subjective mean or why do you say it is subjective?

Because all meanings belong to the conscious subject, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is what happens to one's biology and how outside forces/energies alter it to give us experience/meanings and knowledge on a subjective level. It is not out there, meaning that is, it is what is out there and its effects upon us. We do not experience the true or ultimate reality we experience its effects on us and our feelings about that experience.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 5:09 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 4:49 am

It is not a problem if one has an ear to listen. There is only one logical answer to the thread topic, Your subjectivity should give a hint. This going on indefinitely instead of generating topics is for new threads is absurd.

Are you suggesting that morality is subjective? And if so, what does subjective mean or why do you say it is subjective?

Because all meanings belong to the conscious subject, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is what happens to one's biology and how outside forces/energies alter it to give us experience/meanings and knowledge on a subjective level. It is not out there, meaning that is, it is what is out there and its effects upon us. We do not experience the true or ultimate reality we experience its effects on us and our feelings about that experience.

What do you mean by "biology is the measure and meaning of all things"? What is "biology"? I would think meaning is more than just what happens to one's biology. That sounds a bit like psychologism, something that concerned philosophers such as Edmund Husserl who is considered a founder of what is often termed "phenomenology". Husserl thought that psychologism was a mistaken way to look at things. We are subjects, yes, but we are also subjects of...