Is morality objective or subjective?

[Age]

If anyone believes in 'objective moral truths', then why do they not just write down what the 'objective moral truths' are, exactly?

If 'objective moral truths' exist, then writing down the list of them would be a very simple and easy task, right?

Belief is not required to objectively consider a topic.

Is there anyone in the Universe thought or believed that belief was required to objectively consider a topic?

Often, no immorality is enough morality.

But, what is 'immorality', and, what is 'morality', to you, exactly?

Also, is it not obvious that if there was no 'immorality' being done, by you human beings, then there would only be 'morality' being done?

The seven deadly sins listed in The Holy Bible are objective statements of immorality.

Why? What makes them 'objective statements of immorality'?

Could I, for example, just write something down in the bible, and then does that make what I wrote down 'objective'?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then why?

Also, if they are so 'objective', then why does absolutely every human being, since they were written down, do them?

That’s because of their predictable effects upon the individual in all societies and cultures.

So, if you, for example, had 'a rest' and 'slothed' around for a few hours or a day or two, for example, then what is the so-claimed 'predictable effect' upon the individual in all societies and cultures, exactly?

The sins affect the doer’s mental and physical health. They affect the society, especially if the society condones them.

Yes this is Right and Correct. If individual's 'rested up' now and then, this is very, very good, and well, for the 'individual doer's' mental and physical health.

Also, if 'greed' is Wrong, then why is every one of you adult human beings greedy, and always wanting more and more money?

What if another human being, for example, had written down, in the bible, that being a 'sloth', and 'resting', and stop chasing after money is a so-called 'sin', would this then be an 'objective statement of morality'?

Or, does it not work this way if another human being wrote the words in the bible?

Those effects are objectively judged to be immoral because without the deleterious effects upon the doer that are caused by those sins, the body and mind naturally function according to design specifications, which in the long run creates a more harmonious society and happier individuals.

So, why then are your doings so 'immoral' "walker"?

Or, do you believe that you do not do 'immorality'?

By this standard, ignoring the routine maintenance of your automobile is also objectively immoral,

Well if this is what 'your standard' leads to, then I think you will find you are a long, long way off.

To me, if one thinks or believes that automobiles, themselves, are included in 'immorality', or included in,'what is immoral?', then I think you will find that you are, literally, 'missing the mark' here, completely.

And, as for being 'objectively immoral', then you are even further off the Right path and track in Life.

because over the long haul the deleterious effects upon the auto will affect the proper functioning according to design specifications, taking into account the normal wear and tear of entropy upon form.

Or, just maybe, the producers of automobiles might be creating False 'maintenance routines', in order to obtain and gain 'more money' from unsuspecting individuals and customers.

Also, if a car just does not end up working, then I have never heard this being in relation to anything 'immoral' before.

[Peter Holmes]

Pete is unusual mainly in that he seems content to argue the basic sceptical point without feeling any particular need to fill in the gap created by that doubt. The question for him, in this thread anyway, doesn't stray from "is morality subjective or objective?" to other questions such as "if morals can't be known in that sense, then how does our moral reasoning actually work?"

Some thoughts.

1 The 'basic sceptical point' is fundamental. If there is no valid and sound argument for moral objectivity, then moral objectivism is incoherent.

2 The rejection of moral objectivism doesn't entail moral scepticism anyway. That strikes as an IC-type false dichotomy: my way or the highway.

3 'Our moral reasoning' - and why it has changed - (St Paul: 'Slaves, obey your earthly masters') - and is still changing - can be described and explained, historically and practically. And every change involved/involves a revolt against the supposed 'moral facts' championed by objectivists, religious or secular. Our history testifies against moral objectivism.

I think the project of explaining where our moral values and codes come from - 'filling the actual gap' - is important. So I'm following your developing argument with interest.

[Harbal]

I think the project of explaining where our moral values and codes come from - 'filling the actual gap' - is important. So I'm following your developing argument with interest.

I think the title of your thread, "Is morality objective or subjective?", is a bit problematic; it leaves the question falsely open. There is no doubt that -despite some claims to the contrary- morality can be subjective. Most, if not all, dictionary definitions of the word, "morality", make reference to subjectivity, and we all know from experience that we have moral values that differ from those of others, so the matter of subjective morality is beyond question. Whether there is such a thing as objective morality, and what would qualify something as such, is where the focus should be. In my opinion, of course.

[Peter Holmes]

I think the project of explaining where our moral values and codes come from - 'filling the actual gap' - is important. So I'm following your developing argument with interest.

I think the title of your thread, "Is morality objective or subjective?", is a bit problematic; it leaves the question falsely open. There is no doubt that -despite some claims to the contrary- morality can be subjective. Most, if not all, dictionary definitions of the word, "morality", make reference to subjectivity, and we all know from experience that we have moral values that differ from those of others, so the matter of subjective morality is beyond question. Whether there is such a thing as objective morality, and what would qualify something as such, is where the focus should be. In my opinion, of course.

Okay. I think I see your point. And I'd push back a little.

Yes, morality is subjective, in the sense that what we call moral rightness and wrongness are matters of opinion, individual or group or collective.

But the objectivist argument is precisely that morality isn't subjective, because there are moral facts, which have nothing to do with opinion, individual or group or collective.

So I agree - the question is: are there moral facts? And perhaps that would have been a better way of asking the question.

[Harbal]

I think the project of explaining where our moral values and codes come from - 'filling the actual gap' - is important. So I'm following your developing argument with interest.

I think the title of your thread, "Is morality objective or subjective?", is a bit problematic; it leaves the question falsely open. There is no doubt that -despite some claims to the contrary- morality can be subjective. Most, if not all, dictionary definitions of the word, "morality", make reference to subjectivity, and we all know from experience that we have moral values that differ from those of others, so the matter of subjective morality is beyond question. Whether there is such a thing as objective morality, and what would qualify something as such, is where the focus should be. In my opinion, of course.

Okay. I think I see your point. And I'd push back a little.

Yes, morality is subjective, in the sense that what we call moral rightness and wrongness are matters of opinion, individual or group or collective.

And everyone knows that to be the case, even if they aren't honest enough to acknowledge it, so the only thing that needs asking is, is there such a thing as objective morality? That might sound like nit picking, but the inclusion of subjective morality in the question has made it easier for certain parties to manipulate the discussion into an attack on it, and manoeuvre me -for one- into putting most of my efforts into defending it, thus taking the attention away from objective morality, which is very difficult to make a convincing case for.

But the objectivist argument is precisely that morality isn't subjective, because there are moral facts, which have nothing to do with opinion, individual or group or collective.

Even if there were moral facts, there would still be subjective moral opinions, so these things aren't mutually exclusive.

So I agree - the question is: are there moral facts? And perhaps that would have been a better way of asking the question.

As I say, I think we all know about subjective morality, so it would be more interesting -I think- to explore how there could even be such things as objective moral truths.

[Walker]

- Every possession carries a responsibility. Although your body is your first possession, you are merely the caretaker of the body, since it wasn’t your creation, and since you didn’t buy it or barter for it to claim ownership.

- Caretakership is an objective moral responsibility.

- Often you will hear folks whining, “I didn’t ask to be born!” This is to absolve themselves of their objectively moral, caretaker responsibility. They are what you could call lazy, immoral turpitudinists.

- You can be very busy and still be lazy, because not being lazy is doing what must be done and paradoxically, although everything you do you must do, everything you do need not be done.

- If you’re a caretaker of a car and call yourself an owner, and you do immoral things to the auto, things which are objectively immoral because they shorten the life and objective quality of the auto (life and quality as defined by the auto’s intended (natural) capacity to fulfill its potentiality), things such as not ever changing the oil or not paying the registration tax which allows it to move on the road, then objectively you are an immoral caretaker for no reason other than your lazy ass that has negatively impacted the auto.

- Because you’re the caretaker of your body, the immoral things that you do to this first possession in your care are listed as the seven deadly sins. The sins are objectively immoral because they affect all humans that commit them, even if society condones the immoral actions as SOP.

- For example, if the society condones gluttony, every human practicing that objectively deadly sin will be affected because the integrity of the body’s designed function has objectively been corrupted.

- The amount of gluttony is subjective, but the intent that causes gluttony and the effects is the same for everyone, no matter the culture.

[Immanuel Can]

Uummm... you've got it backwards. Since we all observe an extremely wide variety of individual moral codes (and ethical standards), identical, statistically, to other commonly agreed upon subjective subjects, it is those who believe in (a single) objectively optimal set of codes and standards who have the burden of justifying their belief system.

Not quite. Those who believe there is ANY thing called "morality" are obligated to provide grounds for us to believe in it, and to recognize in it the features that "morality" has to have -- such as the ability to confer an obligation on people. But our opposition here is not generally composed of Moral Nihilists: so they are proposing in contrast to objective morality what they call "subjective morality." So they have a burden to show that morality can really exist as a subjective state.

But it can't. The fact that you or I believes X is wrong will not enable us to declare to anybody, "It's wrong for you, too." Not if morality is subective. Only if it is objective can a person say to another, "Murder is wrong for me, and it's wrong for you, too...and wrong for our society...and wrong for all people." Since subjective moralizing cannot confer a moral duty on even one person -- and not even on the person experiencing it -- it isn't "morality" at all. It's just Nihilism for those too cowardly or too instinctively moral to become actual Nihilists. And it's inherently irrational, inconsistent, unstable and uninformative...not great qualities for anything purporting to be "morality" to have.

In my experience it's a lot simpler than you're making it out to be. Or in other words, you're asking morality to perform way too many duties.

Au contraire: what I'm proposing is surely nothing but the basic minimum.

All I'm asking is that the view of "morality" one espouses can provide at least one case of a moral requirement to one person. That's awfully minimal...and lacking it, how can anything be called a "moral" view at all, since it imparts no moral information to anybody?

But Subjectivism can't deliver even one bit of moral information to one person. So it's pretty clearly a failure at the most basic level.

Moral codes are what individuals use to decide on how to optimally behave. Of course each individual gets to define "optimally" in whatever way they see fit.

If that's the case, then there's absolutely no use for the word "moral." It means "whim." No more.

If an individual tells another "your behavior is immoral", that can have several actual meanings.

Well, all that says is that a lot of people don't know what's moral and what's not. It doesn't mean that what's actually moral changes.

So let's use your "murder is wrong" example. In my moral code murder is wrong. In my community, murder violates our collective ethical standard. Thus performing murder is immoral from my perspective.

In southern Israel, murdering people is embraced as a high act of "liberation." You can murder civilians, rape with impunity, kidnap, put babies in ovens, and parade corpses of young women...and people will dance in the streets in celebration of your actions.

So now, what information is Subjectivism going to give us about that situation?

If someone in my community is a non repentant murderer, his behavior is a violation of our ethical standard thus he is behaving unethically, however since murder doesn't violate his personal moral code, he is behaving morally (from his perspective).

If what you're saying is true, then nothing "immoral" happened in southern Israel, and nothing "immoral" is happening there today. Nobody has any moral justification in protesting it here, either. Those people were just doing what they subjectively wanted to do.

Do you see how completely impotent Subjectivism is to address even the most egregious evils? What a Subjectivist ends up aguing for is simply that there is no evil we should not permit, because there's no such thing as evil.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't doubt that a lot of people do think of morality, or certain aspects of it, as something that corresponds to some sort of truth, but the topic is about what morality actually is, not what some people happen to believe it is.

Well, we know what it isn't.

It isn't "subjective."

But the "we" you speak of seem to be very few; at least on this forum.

Agreed. Most here seem to be stupified by the smoke-and-mirrors of Subjectivism. That's because they WANT to believe that there's an alternative "morality" to Objectivism, and they WANT to believe they have no rational obligation to be Nihilists, and they WANT not to have to change their thinking about morality, so they pretend. They play like "Moral Subjectivism" is something real and possible, even when it voids "moral" of any meaning at all.

And they can't defend even one moral precept by way of Subjectivism, even on their own terms, and even if they are allowed to choose their own moral valuation.

[Immanuel Can]

After 20k+ comments, his best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail.

[Harbal]

Well, we know what it isn't.

It isn't "subjective."

But the "we" you speak of seem to be very few; at least on this forum.

Agreed. Most here seem to be stupified by the smoke-and-mirrors of Subjectivism. That's because they WANT to believe that there's an alternative "morality" to Objectivism, and they WANT to believe they have no rational obligation to be Nihilists, and they WANT not to have to change their thinking about morality, so they pretend. They play like "Moral Subjectivism" is something real and possible, even when it voids "moral" of any meaning at all.

And they can't defend even one moral precept by way of Subjectivism, even on their own terms, and even if they are allowed to choose their own moral valuation.

All that is just nonsense to me; the only form of morality that I am aware of is that based on human sentiment, and I can't even envisage on what lines a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth might run. All you've got is religious dogma.

[Atla]

After 20k+ comments, his best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail.

You mean it doesn't deliver any objective moral information at all. So again: after 20k+ comments, your best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

[Immanuel Can]

But the "we" you speak of seem to be very few; at least on this forum.

Agreed. Most here seem to be stupified by the smoke-and-mirrors of Subjectivism. That's because they WANT to believe that there's an alternative "morality" to Objectivism, and they WANT to believe they have no rational obligation to be Nihilists, and they WANT not to have to change their thinking about morality, so they pretend. They play like "Moral Subjectivism" is something real and possible, even when it voids "moral" of any meaning at all.

And they can't defend even one moral precept by way of Subjectivism, even on their own terms, and even if they are allowed to choose their own moral valuation.

All that is just nonsense to me; the only form of morality that I am aware of is that based on human sentiment, and I can't even envisage on what lines a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth might run. All you've got is religious dogma.

Let's say that were true. It's not, but let's play along.

Let's make it worse: let's say I have nothing. What does Moral Subjectivism have?

[Immanuel Can]

After 20k+ comments, his best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail.

You mean it doesn't deliver any objective moral information at all.

I neither said that, nor even implied it. In fact, I said the opposite: that I don't need any reference to Objective Moralizing to make the point.

Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody?

[Harbal]

Agreed. Most here seem to be stupified by the smoke-and-mirrors of Subjectivism. That's because they WANT to believe that there's an alternative "morality" to Objectivism, and they WANT to believe they have no rational obligation to be Nihilists, and they WANT not to have to change their thinking about morality, so they pretend. They play like "Moral Subjectivism" is something real and possible, even when it voids "moral" of any meaning at all.

And they can't defend even one moral precept by way of Subjectivism, even on their own terms, and even if they are allowed to choose their own moral valuation.

All that is just nonsense to me; the only form of morality that I am aware of is that based on human sentiment, and I can't even envisage on what lines a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth might run. All you've got is religious dogma.

Let's say that were true. It's not, but let's play along.

Let's say what is true, the religious dogma part? Well I'm already saying it's true, but you are saying it's not, so nothing has changed, has it? Unless you have any evidence of objective moral truth, it doesn't look like anything will change.

Let's make it worse: let's say I have nothing.

I already knew that, and I've already said it.

What does Moral Subjectivism have?

It has you in a bit of a flap, by the look of it.

[iambiguous]

Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody?

Unless, of course, this is the point: what can Moral Objectivism teach anybody?

Well, let's start with any number of objectivists here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Then the part where each of them may or may not attach "or else" to their "spiritual" or "philosophical" or "ideological" agenda. After all, for many Christians, "or else" entails Hell itself!

Since there are many, many, many hopelessly conflicting moral objectivists among us, would it not seem reasonable that they are obligated to actually demonstrate to us that what they believe is in fact true?

In other words, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

And one thing that moral subjectivism can lead to is "moderation, negotiation and compromise". For example, pertaining to our interactions with others. Democracy and the rule of law is predicated largely on the assumption that "existence is prior to essence". Whereas with any number of moral objectivists, they start with the assumption that an essential meaning and purpose can be embodied by mere mortals. After all, they already do embody it.