Is morality objective or subjective?

[phyllo]

The objectivist offers reasons why something is moral or immoral. The subjectivist offers only his own feelings.

[Harbal]

The objectivist offers reasons why something is moral or immoral. The subjectivist offers only his own feelings.

Can you give us an example of an objectivist's reasoning regarding the wrongness of stealing?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course I have a way of knowing. We all know that stealing is a moral issue, so if I have feelings about stealing, I know I have feelings about a moral issue.

The thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right?

Well each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism.

Not so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: steeling and non-stealing. And if we don't know which is which, then we have an epistemological problem...not an ontological-moral one.

Stealing will still be objectively wrong. Harbal thinks it is wrong. The thief thinks it's not. Harbal is correct. The thief is wrong. And that the thief does not KNOW he's wrong is immaterial to the question of whether or not he IS wrong.

One doesn't have to KNOW something for it to still BE so.

To put it in another example, I sometimes don't know the posted speed of a road. Maybe I haven't checked the signs lately. Maybe I was daydreaming. Maybe I'm between speed signs. But I'm not sure. Am I on a highway or a byway? Is this a one-lane road or a superhighway? Are we going through a town, or is it open land? All these things affect what speed it will be.

But when I get to the next sign, I find it's 100 km/hr, or 60 miles/hr. Did my lack of knowledge mean there was no particular legal speed for that section of highway? No. It just means that I happened, at that particular moment, to be unaware of it. And now I know better. But the legal speed was still the legal speed, whether I knew what it was, or not.

What I know, and what is the case are two different things. I can't plead that I didn't know what I should have known, and what was actually legal. If I was inattentive, the fault was mine. I wasn't paying attention to the signs. But the speed limit did not become subjective.

For that matter, how do we know that the fact that you have a feeling about stealing means that it's a "moral" feeling.

I am the one who needs to know, not you.

But you don't. Because, being a Subjectivist, you can't know anything more than than that you have a twinge.

Maybe it's just a feeling of queasy. Maybe you ate a bad burrito. Maybe you'll feel differently after you have some sleep, or if you find better reasons to steal.

What is "moral" in that situation? What is "the right thing to do"?

Stop eating burritos?

Hey, burritos are highly moral. That's an absolute.

My subjectivism thinks that stealing is wrong, so it seems it does have an opinion.

For now. And the thief has a different feeling. Who's right?

By normal social standards, I would be right, but objectively speaking, the question doesn't even make sense.

Why does your "society" get to tyrannize his? Is that moral? Why should your subjectivity trump his subjectivity?

It tells me what the moral status of theft is,...

No, it doesn't. It tells you you feel queasy. Nothing more.

As long as it's the kind of queasy that stops me from stealing, what's it matter?

Well, morality is for more than you. It has to do with our relations with others.

Consider stealing. Stealing means taking somebody else's property, or them taking yours. Immediately, there are at least two people involved in the moral situation. But there are more, because there is your family, your community, your society, your justice system, your courts and penal system, your mercantile system, and the world as a whole, all of which have a stake in whether or not stealing is to be allowed.

It doesn't leave me clueless, because I have a sense of right and wrong that I can refer to.

You have a feeling. You don't know if it's a morally right feeling, a morally wrong feeling, or just a feeling.

I suppose it's a matter of trusting my feelings,

And you can. But why does your neighbour have to trust your feelings? And do you want to just trust his, especially if his include theft as a legitimate social interaction?

[iambiguous]

Then this part...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_ ... eft!%22%20

[phyllo]

The objectivist offers reasons why something is moral or immoral. The subjectivist offers only his own feelings.

Can you give us an example of an objectivist's reasoning regarding the wrongness of stealing?

I already gave an example ... if stealing is accepted as moral, then people would have to waste time, effort and money on securing their property.

[phyllo]

Then this part...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_ ... eft!%22%20

That's moral relativism.

[iambiguous]

Then this part...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_ ... eft!%22%20

That's moral relativism.

Not if your own One True Path to Enlightenment revolves around dialectical materialism. And the thing about "political economy" is that Marx and Engels insisted that their own historical assessment was...scientific?

They went all the way back to nomadic, slash and burn, hunter and gatherer, agricultural, feudal and mercantile communities and, in examining the means of production, drew their own conclusions regarding how the superstructure [social, political and economic institutions] functioned to sustain the interest of those in power.

This approach as opposed to, say, "metaethical" philosophers like Ayn Rand. For Rand, private property -- capitalism -- reflected the very epitome of human morality. Why? Because, they insisted, it reflects the very epitome of rational thinking. She actually believed that the only reason much earlier political economies did not embrace "market capitalism" is because those like her and John Galt weren't around then to bring it all about.

The irony here being that there are any number of Christians who will argue that Jesus Christ himself was pretty much a socialist.

Then those like IC who insist that, on the contrary, only their own assessment of Jesus reflects True Christianity.

And he'll argue further there is scientific and historical proof of this. Those YouTube videos. Only he can't/won't address my own interest in why he doesn't come back to them himself, if he is truly interested in saving souls rather than keeping it all up in the spiritual clouds here.

[Age]

The thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right?

Well each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism.

Not so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: steeling and non-stealing. And if we don't know which is which, then we have an epistemological problem...not an ontological-moral one.

Stealing will still be objectively wrong. Harbal thinks it is wrong. The thief thinks it's not. Harbal is correct. The thief is wrong. And that the thief does not KNOW he's wrong is immaterial to the question of whether or not he IS wrong.

One doesn't have to KNOW something for it to still BE so.

Putting 'labels' on human beings like, for example, "thief", is why you human beings are taking so long to uncover, or work out, what the actually irrefutable Truth is here.

What happens if the so-called "thief" is just 'stealing' something in order to save the life of another. Now how is this 'morally wrong', or how could this be 'objectively morally Wrong'?

'Stealing' is not always wrong, as there are just way too many variables that have to be looked at and discussed, prior.

What is 'objectively morally Wrong' is a much simpler and easier thing to comprehend, understand, and 'know'. After all it is 'instinctively known' by all of you human beings 'now', anyway.

All of you 'here' are just not conscious of this Fact.

To put it in another example, I sometimes don't know the posted speed of a road. Maybe I haven't checked the signs lately. Maybe I was daydreaming. Maybe I'm between speed signs. But I'm not sure. Am I on a highway or a byway? Is this a one-lane road or a superhighway? Are we going through a town, or is it open land? All these things affect what speed it will be.

But when I get to the next sign, I find it's 100 km/hr, or 60 miles/hr. Did my lack of knowledge mean there was no particular legal speed for that section of highway? No. It just means that I happened, at that particular moment, to be unaware of it. And now I know better. But the legal speed was still the legal speed, whether I knew what it was, or not.

This, obviously, has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'morality', nor with what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life.

your example here also has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'objectivity' nor with 'subjectivity', nor 'objectivism' and 'subjectivism'.

What I know, and what is the case are two different things. I can't plead that I didn't know what I should have known, and what was actually legal. If I was inattentive, the fault was mine. I wasn't paying attention to the signs. But the speed limit did not become subjective.

But you could very easily, very simply, and very honestly say, or what you might call 'plead', 'I did not know'. But, by being honest, if you are, will not make a 'monetary paid' human being paid by a 'monetary seeking' government allow you to leave without giving you a 'monetary obtaining fine', necessarily.

I am the one who needs to know, not you.

But you don't. Because, being a Subjectivist, you can't know anything more than than that you have a twinge.

When you also being a "subjectivist" "immanuel can" is why you have failed every time to provide 'us' with just one actual 'objective moral Right, or Wrong', in Life.

you, obviously, also only have what you call a 'twinge' in regards to expressing what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life.

In other words, you only 'think you know' what you know.

Maybe it's just a feeling of queasy. Maybe you ate a bad burrito. Maybe you'll feel differently after you have some sleep, or if you find better reasons to steal.

What is "moral" in that situation? What is "the right thing to do"?

Stop eating burritos?

Hey, burritos are highly moral. That's an absolute.

For now. And the thief has a different feeling. Who's right?

By normal social standards, I would be right, but objectively speaking, the question doesn't even make sense.

Why does your "society" get to tyrannize his? Is that moral? Why should your subjectivity trump his subjectivity?

No, it doesn't. It tells you you feel queasy. Nothing more.

As long as it's the kind of queasy that stops me from stealing, what's it matter?

Well, morality is for more than you. It has to do with our relations with others.

Consider stealing. Stealing means taking somebody else's property, or them taking yours.

you adult human beings 'believing' that you 'own' things/property is part of the reason why, in the days when this is being written, you are all in 'the mess' that you are in and, still, have absolutely no consciously able to be expressed actual idea nor clue about what is Truly Right, and Wrong, in Life.

Immediately, there are at least two people involved in the moral situation. But there are more, because there is your family, your community, your society, your justice system, your courts and penal system, your mercantile system, and the world as a whole, all of which have a stake in whether or not stealing is to be allowed.

For one, for example, to claim, 'This is my land', which was obviously stolen/taken, from another, and then also claim, ' you cannot take nor come onto 'my land' ', is beyond absurd and being hypocritical. The blindness and stupidity in claiming things like this would be beyond comprehension, if it was not, already, fully known and understood why you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, were exactly like 'the way' that you all are.

And you can. But why does your neighbour have to trust your feelings? And do you want to just trust his, especially if his include theft as a legitimate social interaction?

Will you ever provide an example of why 'your so-called' 'feelings' are the only True and Right ones here "immanuel can"?

Or, are you just going to go on pretending that you are an "objectivist" while it is only every one else who is a "subjectivist"?

The only one that you, really, fooling and deceiving here is "yourself" "immanuel can".

[popeye1945]

You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects?

We are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is everything is to elevate biology above all else and that is a second hand experience, not the way we experience life when we get right down to it.

Well, that is an interesting slant. We are not subjects of, in the sense of being observed and/or directed. We are part of a relational coupling between subject and object, the existence of both, as they are interdependent, determines our existence or non-existence. Take one away and the other ceases to be. Relational I don't believe equates with being subject to, it is the relation that makes it one reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If there are facts [even if there are no facts], opinions, beliefs and judgment of them do translate into real actions.

So yes, to repeat: the important question is: are there moral facts - moral features of reality - so that moral assertions have factual truth-value, regardless of opinion, individual or collective? And I think that's what I've been addressing all along.

There are physical moral facts within all humans and you, e.g. the fact that 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' which is represent by its physical neural correlates thus objective within the scientific and moral Framework and System.

False. The claim 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' is not a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value. It has no moral entailment whatsoever - as neither would it's negation: 'all humans torture and kill babies for pleasure'.

As ever, your insertion of a moral entailment is question-begging - you just assume it, with flummery about 'the moral fsk' - or whatever you call it now. And you just don't understand the mistake. Probably never will.

Again, your what is fact is grounded on an illusion.
You have been running away and not countering my argument.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

I have stated your 'what is fact' is outdated, here is the generally accepted meaning of what is a fact.

What is a Fact? ref: WIKI
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

[Veritas Aequitas]

The objectivist offers reasons why something is moral or immoral. The subjectivist offers only his own feelings.

I agree with that.

Moral Objectivists offer an objective moral standards [justified and verified] within a moral framework and system as ONLY a guide for all to strive for.
It is merely a guide [some fixed goal post] for natural moral growth, as such must not be enforceable and imposed on the individual moral agent.

Applied Ethics will facilitate the moral agent to strive with continuous improvement towards the standard [self moral progress] in the most optimal way subject to his current moral conditions and state.

The objective moral standards must be justified and verified based on the best efforts, so can be changed in time if necessary, thus it is not immutable like God's moral commands.

"The subjectivist offers only his own feelings", i.e. a moral subjectivist by definition has no fixed moral goals or standard as a guide, so, it is 'yeah, it is up to you, do what you deemed is moral within your culture'.
A moral subjectivist by definition do not have any moral-voice on the genocides of the Jews, Oct 7 and other evil acts committed and deemed as 'moral' by various evil doers.

[Peter Holmes]

If there are facts [even if there are no facts], opinions, beliefs and judgment of them do translate into real actions.


There are physical moral facts within all humans and you, e.g. the fact that 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' which is represent by its physical neural correlates thus objective within the scientific and moral Framework and System.

False. The claim 'all humans do not torture and kill babies for pleasure' is not a moral assertion. It's a factual assertion with a truth-value. It has no moral entailment whatsoever - as neither would it's negation: 'all humans torture and kill babies for pleasure'.

As ever, your insertion of a moral entailment is question-begging - you just assume it, with flummery about 'the moral fsk' - or whatever you call it now. And you just don't understand the mistake. Probably never will.

Again, your what is fact is grounded on an illusion.
You have been running away and not countering my argument.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

I have stated your 'what is fact' is outdated, here is the generally accepted meaning of what is a fact.

What is a Fact? ref: WIKI
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

I say that what we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case, regardless of opinion. And I say that's why we value facts and objectivity.

You say that such facts are illusions, because humans 'construct' reality - the facts of reality. To put it simply: what we call a fact is a human construct.

But now, go very slowly here. If a fact is a human construct, then the fact that a fact is a human construct is also a human construct.

To put it another way. If humans construct reality, then there can be no perspective or vantage point from which to observe that humans construct reality.

But wait. Anti-realism is the claim that it's a 'fact' that humans construct reality - that it's a feature of reality that just is the case, regardless of opinion.

But - such a thing - such a fact - is supposed to be an illusion.

Conclusion? Anti-realism rests on flatly contradictory premises. And that's a fact.

Now, instead of mindlessly repeating that my 'what is fact' is an illusion - and instead of mindlessly giving a link to your silly argument - have a long, slow think about what I've said. Please.

PS To put it another way. If reality is a human construct, then humans are also a human construct. And the human construction of reality is also a human construct. So there is no bottom or stopping point. If my 'what is fact' is an illusion, then all is illusion.

[Harbal]

The objectivist offers reasons why something is moral or immoral. The subjectivist offers only his own feelings.

Can you give us an example of an objectivist's reasoning regarding the wrongness of stealing?

I already gave an example ... if stealing is accepted as moral, then people would have to waste time, effort and money on securing their property.

And why do we not want people to steal from our property? I would say the reason is subjective; it's because we don't like it. If nobody minded spending time, effort and money on securing their property, and they didn't mind having their possessions stolen, then what reason would they have for thinking stealing was wrong?

[Atla]

You're not reading. My argument is that Subjectivism doesn't work at all, even on its own terms. And that's regardless of whether or not objective morality is even possible.

But your argument was, once again, that subjectivism doesn't give us any information on objectivist terms.

No, my argument was that Subjectivism gives us no information on ITS OWN terms. Objectivism is not assumed. You can become a Nihilist, if you like.

No, your argument was that subjectivism doesn't give us information on objectivist terms, as subjectivism does give information on its own terms. You are an idiot.

[Harbal]

The thief has different feelings. How do we know, given Subjectivism, whose feelings are right?

Well each thinks they are right, just like it is with objectivism.

Not so. Each may "think" they are right. But both cannot possibly "be" right, because they're opposite actions: steeling and non-stealing. And if we don't know which is which, then we have an epistemological problem...not an ontological-moral one.

Stealing will still be objectively wrong. Harbal thinks it is wrong. The thief thinks it's not. Harbal is correct. The thief is wrong. And that the thief does not KNOW he's wrong is immaterial to the question of whether or not he IS wrong.

One doesn't have to KNOW something for it to still BE so.

To put it in another example, I sometimes don't know the posted speed of a road. Maybe I haven't checked the signs lately. Maybe I was daydreaming. Maybe I'm between speed signs. But I'm not sure. Am I on a highway or a byway? Is this a one-lane road or a superhighway? Are we going through a town, or is it open land? All these things affect what speed it will be.

But when I get to the next sign, I find it's 100 km/hr, or 60 miles/hr. Did my lack of knowledge mean there was no particular legal speed for that section of highway? No. It just means that I happened, at that particular moment, to be unaware of it. And now I know better. But the legal speed was still the legal speed, whether I knew what it was, or not.

What I know, and what is the case are two different things. I can't plead that I didn't know what I should have known, and what was actually legal. If I was inattentive, the fault was mine. I wasn't paying attention to the signs. But the speed limit did not become subjective.

I am the one who needs to know, not you.

But you don't. Because, being a Subjectivist, you can't know anything more than than that you have a twinge.

Maybe it's just a feeling of queasy. Maybe you ate a bad burrito. Maybe you'll feel differently after you have some sleep, or if you find better reasons to steal.

What is "moral" in that situation? What is "the right thing to do"?

Stop eating burritos?

Hey, burritos are highly moral. That's an absolute.

For now. And the thief has a different feeling. Who's right?

By normal social standards, I would be right, but objectively speaking, the question doesn't even make sense.

Why does your "society" get to tyrannize his? Is that moral? Why should your subjectivity trump his subjectivity?

No, it doesn't. It tells you you feel queasy. Nothing more.

As long as it's the kind of queasy that stops me from stealing, what's it matter?

Well, morality is for more than you. It has to do with our relations with others.

Consider stealing. Stealing means taking somebody else's property, or them taking yours. Immediately, there are at least two people involved in the moral situation. But there are more, because there is your family, your community, your society, your justice system, your courts and penal system, your mercantile system, and the world as a whole, all of which have a stake in whether or not stealing is to be allowed.

You have a feeling. You don't know if it's a morally right feeling, a morally wrong feeling, or just a feeling.

I suppose it's a matter of trusting my feelings,

And you can. But why does your neighbour have to trust your feelings? And do you want to just trust his, especially if his include theft as a legitimate social interaction?

You continue to come up with spurious reasoning to pick holes in whatever I say about the subjective nature of morality, but you are completely unable to show how objective morality exists, or even how it could possibly exist.

There is no such thing as objective moral truth.