Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

But to know which facts about human behaviour are relevant to morality, there would first need to be established a set of principles by which to judge it, wouldn't there? Principles like, say, it is wrong to unnecessarily harm another human being.

Your first principle already states the 'wrongness' of 'something'. You have already missed several steps which would lead you to conclude that doing 'something' is wrong in some way.

But the wrongness of hurting another human being is a subjective judgement, and that is why I say morality is subjective. Any moral code of behaviour is the product of someone's subjective judgement about right and wrong.

So you have said.

Not that I object to collective moral behaviour that references a common code of conduct being called objectively based, it's just that, technically, it isn't actually objective, because there is always human judgement at the root of it.

Of course there is human judgement in it.

There is human judgement in deciding that traffic lights are good. That doesn't mean that you can't say that traffic lights objectively improve traffic flow and that they are objectively good.

I don't think we are on quite the same wavelength, so it might be a good time to quit.

[Skepdick]

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms.

Objectivity is the default position. Everything's objective.

My desires. Your desires. The fact that your desires conflict with my desires.
Objective facts everywhere.

There's no contradiction until you make up the notion of "subjectivity".

[Harbal]

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms.

Objectivity is the default position. Everything's objective.

My desires. Your desires. The fact that your desires conflict with my desires.
Objective facts everywhere.

There's no contradiction until you make up the notion of "subjectivity".

I have said all along that the terms, "objective" and "subjective", and the various interpretations of them, are what is causing the main problem here. But those terms are in the thread title, so I am just trying to work with them as best I can. And you are not helping.

[phyllo]

I don't think we are on quite the same wavelength, so it might be a good time to quit.

What would put us on the same wavelength?

Do you agree that there are objective facts about human behavior?

Do you agree that something can be objectively better than something else?

Do you agree that 'better' is a human judgement but can still be objective?

[Harbal]

I don't think we are on quite the same wavelength, so it might be a good time to quit.

What would put us on the same wavelength?

We just seem to think differently, so we probably can't occupy the same wavelength.

Do you agree that there are objective facts about human behavior?

Yes.

Do you agree that something can be objectively better than something else?

No, not really, but I suppose it depends on how you use the word, Objective".

Do you agree that 'better' is a human judgement but can still be objective?

I don't think so, but again, it depends on exactly what you mean.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral. It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.

But when they do so, they are only agreeing that whatever "morality" is, it's universal. They just happen to think the real one is their own.

Moralities are 'objectively moral' if they produce some benefit for the participants.

That's problematic.

Killing Jews produced a decided advantage for Hitler. It gave him a scapegoat for all Germany's problems, and a rallying point for the resentment of the people. The gulags were a benefit to Stalin, and the Red Guard was a benefit to Mao. The war in Ukraine is a huge benefit to the uni-party in the US, which is getting rich off it, and to the cementing of dictatorship in both combatant countries...you get the problem, I'm sure.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral.

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms.

Prove that, the way I've showed that Subjectivism is irrational. Show that it's not even possible for morality to be objective. Never mind whether it is, or it isn't: show that it could not be, and show that because it's "a contradiction in terms."

It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.

Yes, and it is easy to see why some people regard the wrongness of those things as objective truth,...

Yes, it is. But are you saying that you don't?

...but when we think of some other so called immoral issues, such as "fornication" and homosexuality, where there is no human suffering as a consequence, things don't look as clear cut.

That's why moral debates need to be had. It's also why those who misunderstand Christian ethics wrongly suppose that it's a mere matter of "obedience to commandments," just as you assumed. But it's not. To have a principle is not to say that no decisions about application remain to be thought out. It's not to say that all problems are solved. It's not to say that everything is clear as crystal. But it is to say that behind the debate that must continue over the application of the ethics, there is a firm principle to guide the discussion.

So, for example, you and I can disagree over whether abortion is murder. I'm certain it is. You may be confident it's not. But one of us will be right, because a baby is going to be killed; and that, we both know. Furthermore, you and I can agree on the principle that murdering people (whomever we consider "people" to be) is morally reprehensible. Thus, our disagreement on the application of the principle is properly informed by a common value: the value of human life. And you and I can debate how to actualize that principle, but we're not going to start thinking that, say, outright infanticide or genocide are okay, so long as we both recognize the fundamental value of life, as encoded in the dictum, "Thou shalt not murder."

But without such an agreement, such an objective value, you and I can't even begin the ethical debate over application: because in that case, there's no principle that we hold in common to which either of us can even allude in our conversation. How do you debate the murder issue with somebody who thinks murder is just fine?

If someone were to say to me, "it is a self evident truth that slavery is wrong", I would only argue with him if it were being said on a philosophy forum, but were he to say the same thing about sex outside of marriage, I would probably call him an idiot, unless he was much bigger than me.

And I might point out that while slavery is a great evil, extramarital sex isn't made good by that fact. And I dare say that anybody who has experience a cheating spouse will take some time to figure out which is more humanly painful.

But then, you say she'd only be an idiot.

[Harbal]

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral.

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms.

Prove that, the way I've showed that Subjectivism is irrational.

I've explained why I think objective moral truth is an impossibility, and I am content with that. You have invented some strange scenario, called it "Subjectivism", and then gone about beating it with a stick; none of which is of any interest to me.

If someone were to say to me, "it is a self evident truth that slavery is wrong", I would only argue with him if it were being said on a philosophy forum, but were he to say the same thing about sex outside of marriage, I would probably call him an idiot, unless he was much bigger than me.

And I might point out that while slavery is a great evil, extramarital sex isn't made good by that fact. And I dare say that anybody who has experience a cheating spouse will take some time to figure out which is more humanly painful.

Are you completely incapable of behaving honestly? I said nothing about extramarital sex, or cheating on a spouse, I said sex outside of marriage, which means sex between two people who are not married to each other. I'm not saying adultery is okay, but I see no moral issue whatsoever with people having sex without being married to each other. If you feel like a challenge, try explaining what is objectively morally wrong with it.

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I am concerned, "objectively moral", is a contradiction in terms.

Prove that, the way I've showed that Subjectivism is irrational.

I've explained why I think objective moral truth is an impossibility,

I disagree. I've seen you give no reasons at all. You just say that you prefer to think that's the way things are. And quite frankly, the state of one man's innards is not actually an argument for anything.

If someone were to say to me, "it is a self evident truth that slavery is wrong", I would only argue with him if it were being said on a philosophy forum, but were he to say the same thing about sex outside of marriage, I would probably call him an idiot, unless he was much bigger than me.

And I might point out that while slavery is a great evil, extramarital sex isn't made good by that fact. And I dare say that anybody who has experience a cheating spouse will take some time to figure out which is more humanly painful.

Are you completely incapable of behaving honestly?

What's got you knickers in a twist, dolly?

I said nothing about extramarital sex, or cheating on a spouse, I said sex outside of marriage, which means sex between two people who are not married to each other.

Oh. You mean that you think it's different if the two of you weren't married YET. And yet, it's exactly the same act.

...try explaining what is objectively morally wrong with it.

I think I just did. It's exactly the same action -- sex with somebody to whom one is not bonded, in defiance of the person to whom one is, or will be bonded. The Bible just calls it "fornication." I'll go with that.

And what can a Subjectivist say, since that's how I, or Moses, the author of the injunction against it, happens to "feel" subjectively it is, as well?

[Harbal]

Prove that, the way I've showed that Subjectivism is irrational.

I've explained why I think objective moral truth is an impossibility,

I disagree.

I know you do. I can live with it.

I said nothing about extramarital sex, or cheating on a spouse, I said sex outside of marriage, which means sex between two people who are not married to each other.

Oh. You mean that you think it's different if the two of you weren't married YET. And yet, it's exactly the same act.

I have no idea what that means.

Okay, let's see if I can explain this clearly, but without providing you with the opportunity to twist my words into something you know I didn't mean.

If two people, of either opposite or same sex, engage in sexual activity and are not married to each other, or ever intend to be married to each other, or even intend to see each other again, and have no conflicting emotion commitments to anyone else, then they are not doing anything morally wrong. That's what I'm saying.

...try explaining what is objectively morally wrong with it.

I think I just did. It's exactly the same action -- sex with somebody to whom one is not bonded, in defiance of the person to whom one is, or will be bonded. The Bible just calls it "fornication." I'll go with that.

And what can a Subjectivist say, since that's how I, or Moses, the author of the injunction against it, happens to "feel" subjectively it is, as well?

You have done what you usually do. You have replaced the situation I gave you with something completely different. I can only assume it is because the one I gave you was too difficult for you to deal with. Disappointing, but it is what the forum has come to expect of you.

[Immanuel Can]

I said nothing about extramarital sex, or cheating on a spouse, I said sex outside of marriage, which means sex between two people who are not married to each other.

Oh. You mean that you think it's different if the two of you weren't married YET. And yet, it's exactly the same act.

I have no idea what that means.

You don't know what "sex with somebody not your partner" is?

...try explaining what is objectively morally wrong with it.

I think I just did. It's exactly the same action -- sex with somebody to whom one is not bonded, in defiance of the person to whom one is, or will be bonded. The Bible just calls it "fornication." I'll go with that.

And what can a Subjectivist say, since that's how I, or Moses, the author of the injunction against it, happens to "feel" subjectively it is, as well?

You have done what you usually do. You have replaced the situation I gave you with something completely different.

So you didn't mean to imply sex with somebody you're not married to? You meant something "completely different"? "Completely"?

What did you mean, then?

[phyllo]

Maybe that means, "It's an objective fact that there are many things that people call 'moralities.'" And that would be true, of course; but it doesn't mean there are many 'moralities' that are all objectively moral. It just tells us that some people call all kinds of stuff -- including slavery, theft, wife-beating, murder and child abuse, to name a few examples -- 'moral.' And many of them assert that their own 'morality' is the universal, true one.

But when they do so, they are only agreeing that whatever "morality" is, it's universal. They just happen to think the real one is their own.

Moralities are 'objectively moral' if they produce some benefit for the participants.

That's problematic.

Killing Jews produced a decided advantage for Hitler. It gave him a scapegoat for all Germany's problems, and a rallying point for the resentment of the people. The gulags were a benefit to Stalin, and the Red Guard was a benefit to Mao. The war in Ukraine is a huge benefit to the uni-party in the US, which is getting rich off it, and to the cementing of dictatorship in both combatant countries...you get the problem, I'm sure.

The participants were the entire German nation. So I would say that persecuting and killing Jews was a negative. They would have done much better by not doing it.

If you look at one person or some small group of people then you can see a benefit but it disappears when looking at society as a whole.

A thief benefits from stealing if looked at in isolation.

[phyllo]

I've explained why I think objective moral truth is an impossibility, and I am content with that.

Can somebody please, post a link to the post where Harbal explained it. Because I can't find it.

TIA

[Harbal]

You have done what you usually do. You have replaced the situation I gave you with something completely different.

So you didn't mean to imply sex with somebody you're not married to? You meant something "completely different"? "Completely"?

What did you mean, then?

If two people, of either opposite or same sex, engage in sexual activity and are not married to each other, or ever intend to be married to each other, or even intend to see each other again, and have no conflicting emotion commitments to anyone else, then they are not doing anything morally wrong. That's what I mean.

[Immanuel Can]

Moralities are 'objectively moral' if they produce some benefit for the participants.

That's problematic.

Killing Jews produced a decided advantage for Hitler. It gave him a scapegoat for all Germany's problems, and a rallying point for the resentment of the people. The gulags were a benefit to Stalin, and the Red Guard was a benefit to Mao. The war in Ukraine is a huge benefit to the uni-party in the US, which is getting rich off it, and to the cementing of dictatorship in both combatant countries...you get the problem, I'm sure.

The participants were the entire German nation. So I would say that persecuting and killing Jews was a negative. They would have done much better by not doing it.

Well, that's what you would say. So would I. But Hitler would not. The Nazis would not. And what about the other cases...for there are many more than I even listed, all showing that one can have "benefit" from something that, especially for others, might well be recognizable as a profound evil.

If you look at one person or some small group of people then you can see a benefit but it disappears when looking at society as a whole.

A thief benefits from stealing if looked at in isolation.

Well, there are more problems with that, of course. For human beings exist on all kinds of scales: individual, a couple, a family, a neighbourhood, a region, a nation, a continent, and globally. And they are grouped in different ways: by sex, by culture, by belief system, by age, by experience, by education, by wealth...

And at each of these levels, there is the potential for significant conflicts of interest. So if something benefits an individual, that's one level; but what if what benefits him doesn't benefit one of the other levels? Or what if one of those more numerically significant groups clashes with the benefit to another? What if, for example, saving a nation is enhance by banning a culture? Or what if benefit to a family comes into a clash with somebody's global plan for benefit? Or what if a thing benefits men, but fails to benefit women, or even entails some loss of benefit to them?