Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Or what if there is no God at all? Then what?

Easy. Then all morality is fake. Nihilism follows.

I don't see what meaning God gives to anything.

Because it means there's an independent Center of meaning. Things are right and wrong not because people think they are, but because they actually are, in their relation to the Center. That makes objectivity possible. Absent God as the Center, there's nothing one can invent that can substitute and perform that "buck-stops-here" kind of role.

[Immanuel Can]

There are many interpretations of the divine.

There might be many imaginings of who Gary Childress is. But only one will still be right.

Are you sure only one interpretation of who I am is "right"?

Whether it is or not will have zero impact on who Gary Childress actually, objectively is. If I'm wrong in my opinion, the fault lies with me, not with the objective truth about Gary.

Or what if there is no God at all? Then what?

Easy. Then all morality is fake. Nihilism follows.

Why does it follow that if there is no God, then all morality is "fake"?

What Nietzsche said: in that case, all "moralizing" is simply a ruse, an attempt by the weak to suppress the advantage of the strong. It veils "the will to power." "Moral language" is nothing but a power grab. It cannot ever be legitimate, and if we see things as they really are, we are "beyond good and evil," to use his terms.

What is it about "rose by time and chance" from "primordial ooze" that negates the possibility for a person to agree that humans are moral entities?

Then there's no such thing as "morality." It's all a fake.

So "human beings are moral entities," means no more than "human beings are mxtplzt." There is no objective fact we can get out of such an utterance, even if we imagine that when we say "moral" instead of "mxtplzt" we actually mean something. The truth is, there's nothing for us to mean.

[Harbal]

Easy. Then all morality is fake. Nihilism follows.

I don't see what meaning God gives to anything.

Because it means there's an independent Center of meaning. Things are right and wrong not because people think they are, but because they actually are, in their relation to the Center. That makes objectivity possible. Absent God as the Center, there's nothing one can invent that can substitute and perform that "buck-stops-here" kind of role.

I still don't see what difference God makes. When you say what is right or wrong according to God, it doesn't change what I think is right or wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see what meaning God gives to anything.

Because it means there's an independent Center of meaning. Things are right and wrong not because people think they are, but because they actually are, in their relation to the Center. That makes objectivity possible. Absent God as the Center, there's nothing one can invent that can substitute and perform that "buck-stops-here" kind of role.

I still don't see what difference God makes. When you say what is right or wrong according to God, it doesn't change what I think is right or wrong.

God is an objective fact, and the stopping-place of all moral questions. Whether you "think" X or Y is right or wrong has zero impact on what God knows is actually right or wrong in a given situation. That's what "objective morality" implies: a morality that does not change with the beliefs of any particular people.

If you disagree with God, then you're allowed to...but only at the cost of being wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

How does God know what's right or wrong? Does he know what objective property of a situation makes it right, or are we just elevating his opinions above those of Harbal because we think Harbal is smaller and therefore less important than God?

[Harbal]

Because it means there's an independent Center of meaning. Things are right and wrong not because people think they are, but because they actually are, in their relation to the Center. That makes objectivity possible. Absent God as the Center, there's nothing one can invent that can substitute and perform that "buck-stops-here" kind of role.

I still don't see what difference God makes. When you say what is right or wrong according to God, it doesn't change what I think is right or wrong.

God is an objective fact,

He's a made up character, actually.

and the stopping-place of all moral questions.

For those of you who have decided it is so, maybe.

Whether you "think" X or Y is right or wrong has zero impact on what God knows is actually right or wrong in a given situation.

And what you say God knows about right or wrong has zero impact on what I think is right or wrong.

That makes objectivity possible.

Only once you have subjectively decided to regard it as such.

That's what "objective morality" implies: a morality that does not change with the beliefs of any particular people.

I prefer morality that is subject to change; otherwise we would still have legal slavery and capital punishment, and all sorts of other horrible things.

If you disagree with God, then you're allowed to...but only at the cost of being wrong.

And if you believe in God, you are allowed to, and with exactly the same cost.

[Gary Childress]

There might be many imaginings of who Gary Childress is. But only one will still be right.

Are you sure only one interpretation of who I am is "right"?

Whether it is or not will have zero impact on who Gary Childress actually, objectively is. If I'm wrong in my opinion, the fault lies with me, not with the objective truth about Gary.

OK. So who am I "objectively"?

Easy. Then all morality is fake. Nihilism follows.

Why does it follow that if there is no God, then all morality is "fake"?

What Nietzsche said: in that case, all "moralizing" is simply a ruse, an attempt by the weak to suppress the advantage of the strong. It veils "the will to power." "Moral language" is nothing but a power grab. It cannot ever be legitimate, and if we see things as they really are, we are "beyond good and evil," to use his terms.

OK. Was Nietzsche objectively right or wrong? If Nietzsche was a nihilist then he couldn't even say that it's wrong for the weak to prevent the strong from taking advantage of them. Therefore, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He believed in some things. A nihilist believes in nothing.

What is it about "rose by time and chance" from "primordial ooze" that negates the possibility for a person to agree that humans are moral entities?

Then there's no such thing as "morality." It's all a fake.

So "human beings are moral entities," means no more than "human beings are mxtplzt." There is no objective fact we can get out of such an utterance, even if we imagine that when we say "moral" instead of "mxtplzt" we actually mean something. The truth is, there's nothing for us to mean.

If there is no God, can't we say some things about human beings that aren't "mxtpizt"? It seems to me that we can still say many things that are true and others can understand what we are saying. I can say I have blonde hair. I can say that person who hit me with his fist caused me harm.

Sometimes we learn we're wrong about something that we thought was right or correct and in a kind of existential 'retaliation' we throw up our arms in frustration and say, "there is no right or wrong". But we have not in fact proven that there's no right or wrong just because we turned out to be wrong about something in particular that was very important to us.

For example, I think another thing that may help is to clarify what "objective" and "subjective" means. Kierkegaard is considered by many Christians to be very much a Christian and is famous for saying "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." So what do "objectivity" and "subjectivity" mean?

[Lorikeet]

A nihilist is someone who believes that the non-existence of manmade concepts, like god, universal ethics, meaning, understood as universal purpose, makes existence a 'negative' state.
In fact, it is because these manmade concepts do not exist that makes existence positive.
If they did there would be no existence.

A nihilist insists that the concepts in his brain do or ought to exist outside his brain, but they do not.

Even the concept of 'nihilism' - as it is conventionally defined - is part of the nihilistic paradigm.

We have two kinds of nihilists, the ones I call ''positive' because their positive concepts would nullify existence if they actually did exist outside their brains, and pure nihilist who simply believe existence is a negative state and one can only endure it and die as soon as possible.

Al of it is, of course, founded on how men define the words representing the concepts they hold dear.

For example.....god defined in the Abrahamic or gnostic tradition does not, nor can ever exist.....because it contradicts experienced existence, whereas god as pagans defined it does exist, and is experienced daily.
So, its non-existence is not a negative but a positive.
Another example.... meaning is rendered meaningless when it is used as a synonym for purpose.
Nihilists find it all meaningless because they want to be given a purpose, and they want it to be universal.

But if we properly define meaning as relationships - interactions, interconnections - then the cosmos is full of meaning.

Furthermore, the desire for universal meaning is a desire to remain a child, a slave....dependent on something other than oneself.
This is related to the denial of free-will.
Purpose, properly understood, can only ever be subjective. It refers to an objective.
A man gives himself purpose, and through this gives his life meaning.
Wanting purpose to exist independent form human willing, is a concealed desire to remain a child or a slave - to evade the costs and risks of responsibility.
They seek absolution.
Abrahamism may be debunked but its influence is not gone. It continues in secular, ideological, philosophical forms.

[Lorikeet]

Nietzsche was a nihilist of nihilism, ergo he proposed a transvaluation of values....meaning the transformation of the nihilistic values that he perceived were infecting men since his time.
To nullify the nil, makes you a positive thinker.

His contributions were entirely psychological, and only there did he contribute the products of his genius.
He adopted Schopenhauer's metaphysics, only altering how one ought to respond to the state of affairs he described.
Ironically, he never managed to live up to his own prescriptions and lived the same reclusive celibate life Schopenhauer had, as did many philosophers.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether you "think" X or Y is right or wrong has zero impact on what God knows is actually right or wrong in a given situation.

And what you say God knows about right or wrong has zero impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Nobody has to be concerned about what you think is right or wrong -- remember? You're a professing Subjectivist. Even you don't need to take seriously whatever it is you're thinking at the moment.

That's what "objective morality" implies: a morality that does not change with the beliefs of any particular people.

I prefer morality that is subject to change;

Except when it comes to Trump. There, you become utterly dogmatic.

Interesting that you would choose that, of all issues, to take a stand. I wonder what it means that you do that...

[Immanuel Can]

Are you sure only one interpretation of who I am is "right"?

Whether it is or not will have zero impact on who Gary Childress actually, objectively is. If I'm wrong in my opinion, the fault lies with me, not with the objective truth about Gary.

OK. So who am I "objectively"?

I don't know. And that I don't know is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. You are who you are, regardless of what I think. It's objective.

Why does it follow that if there is no God, then all morality is "fake"?

What Nietzsche said: in that case, all "moralizing" is simply a ruse, an attempt by the weak to suppress the advantage of the strong. It veils "the will to power." "Moral language" is nothing but a power grab. It cannot ever be legitimate, and if we see things as they really are, we are "beyond good and evil," to use his terms.

OK. Was Nietzsche objectively right or wrong?

Oh, I think he was totally wrong. But if you believed, like Nietzsche believed, that you and I are mere accidental products of time and chance, and if you were rational, then you'd come to the same conclusion Nietzsche did: that there is no such thing as real morality. It's all fake.

If Nietzsche was a nihilist then he couldn't even say that it's wrong for the weak to prevent the strong from taking advantage of them. Therefore, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He believed in some things. A nihilist believes in nothing.

Good critique! You're absolutely right. Nietzsche does the same underhanded game that both Nihilists and Subjectivists do: they reserve their skepticism for everything but some of their own most cherished or crucial values. Then they become closet objectivists.

What is it about "rose by time and chance" from "primordial ooze" that negates the possibility for a person to agree that humans are moral entities?

Then there's no such thing as "morality." It's all a fake.

So "human beings are moral entities," means no more than "human beings are mxtplzt." There is no objective fact we can get out of such an utterance, even if we imagine that when we say "moral" instead of "mxtplzt" we actually mean something. The truth is, there's nothing for us to mean.

If there is no God, can't we say some things about human beings that aren't "mxtpizt"?

The point is that we've said nothing, even when we've used the word "morality." Such a thing, for the Subjectivist, simply does not exist, at least not as something real. It "exists" as only an illusion that stupid and cowardly people try to promote belief in...says Nietzsche: it's "slave morality," to use his term.)

[Age]

Whether it is or not will have zero impact on who Gary Childress actually, objectively is. If I'm wrong in my opinion, the fault lies with me, not with the objective truth about Gary.

OK. So who am I "objectively"?

I don't know. And that I don't know is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. You are who you are, regardless of what I think. It's objective.

What Nietzsche said: in that case, all "moralizing" is simply a ruse, an attempt by the weak to suppress the advantage of the strong. It veils "the will to power." "Moral language" is nothing but a power grab. It cannot ever be legitimate, and if we see things as they really are, we are "beyond good and evil," to use his terms.

OK. Was Nietzsche objectively right or wrong?

Oh, I think he was totally wrong. But if you believed, like Nietzsche believed, that you and I are mere accidental products of time and chance, and if you were rational, then you'd come to the same conclusion Nietzsche did: that there is no such thing as real morality. It's all fake.

If Nietzsche was a nihilist then he couldn't even say that it's wrong for the weak to prevent the strong from taking advantage of them. Therefore, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He believed in some things. A nihilist believes in nothing.

Good critique! You're absolutely right. Nietzsche does the same underhanded game that both Nihilists and Subjectivists do: they reserve their skepticism for everything but some of their own most cherished or crucial values. Then they become closet objectivists.

Then there's no such thing as "morality." It's all a fake.

So "human beings are moral entities," means no more than "human beings are mxtplzt." There is no objective fact we can get out of such an utterance, even if we imagine that when we say "moral" instead of "mxtplzt" we actually mean something. The truth is, there's nothing for us to mean.

If there is no God, can't we say some things about human beings that aren't "mxtpizt"?

The point is that we've said nothing, even when we've used the word "morality." Such a thing, for the Subjectivist, simply does not exist, at least not as something real. It "exists" as only an illusion that stupid and cowardly people try to promote belief in...says Nietzsche: it's "slave morality," to use his term.)

If 'morality' is 'objective', then why do the so-called "objectivists" just say what is 'morally objective', exactly?

"They" do not have to explain how 'moral objectivity' exists, nor how it came to exist, "they" just have to write down what is, supposedly, 'objectively moral'. And, obviously, if 'moral objectivity' exists, then absolutely no one would, nor could, disagree with 'the list' of 'objective morals'.

But, if absolutely no one writes down 'a list' of 'objective morals', then this might prove how so-called "moral objectivists" do not even actually exist. Well not back in the days when this was being written anyway.

So, if you are trying to claim that you are an "objectivist" "Immanuel can", then please, by all means, show 'your list' of what is actually 'objectively moral'.

But, if you do not, then why not?

Why are you not able to?

[Immanuel Can]

Why are you not able to?

Able. Just not interested in you. Sorry.

[Age]

Why are you not able to?

Able. Just not interested in you. Sorry.

So, this one claims that it can list what is 'morally objective', and thus what no one could refute, but that it will just not do it.

LOL "Immanuel can". The only one you are fooling and deceiving here is "yourself".

[Age]

Oh, and by the way, listing what is 'morally objective', which absolutely no one could refute, and which is what is inherently known by All human beings, (as "veritas aequitas" goes on about), is about one of the most simplest and easiest things to do.

That is, of course, once knows the True Self, or knows how to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and Correctly, then they have also discovered, or come to learn, and know what is Truly Objective and thus morally Right, in Life.

See, although absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer, how Objectivity, Itself, is actually obtained and gained, of and for things, is something else that becomes 'known', and well understood.

But, as can be clearly seen throughout this forum, these adult human beings, back then, were still a long way off from uncovering, and/or from learning, and understanding and knowing the actual Truth of things, and of even Life, Itself.