Philosophy Now Forum

Thanks, uwot.

It does feel like conversing in a vacuum. Good to know we're not.

Blimey. Has no one ever got Mr Can to the sticking point where he has to admit he's wrong? Perhaps he's a teflon troll.

The power of a delusion - and of the ideological commitment that requires you to sustain it.

Immanuel Can wrote Subjectivism implies, as you have stated, that there is no such thing as a moral fact, that there is no element of reality to which it corresponds. Why we believe in any such morality remains a mystery (on that account). As Nietzsche well understood, a moral subjectivist who think...

Immanuel Can Thanks for your disquisition. As usual, you don't address the crucial question. And an appeal to popularity - that many or most people believe morality is objective - is, as I'm sure you'll agree on reflection, a fallacy. Your claim that moral subjectivism must or is likely to lead to m...

Immanuel Can wrote: ----we only need morals when what we want to do, and what we should do are different things. That happens often enough; but when it doesn't, we have no need to consult morality at all...we are fine just doing what we want. No, only very arrogant individuals think we are fine doi...

By the definitions of 'objective' and 'subjective', a moral assertion expresses a judgement, so it's subjective - a matter of judgement, belief or opinion - rather than factual. I think that's very important, and it informs any discussion of the nature of morality.

Hi, Belinda. How delightful to come across a fellow Wittgensteinian - or at least someone who's interested in his ideas. After many years of reading and trying to understand the 'Investigations' and the other later texts, and what he went through to overcome his misconceptions in the 'Tractatus', I ...

It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists. An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't kno...

Immanuel Can To say that, if morality is subjective - a matter of judgement - we can't 'know' what is good or bad - if, say, slavery is right or wrong - is to assume that there is indeed something to be known, something with regard to which we can exercise our judgement - something that objectively ...

immanuel Can Pending your reply, I'll pursue the argument. 1 The absence of evidence for objective moral obligation may not mean it doesn't exist. But it does mean that to believe it does exist is irrational, because unjustified. 2 Autonomous moral judgement and choice is invalidated by moral obliga...

Immanuel Can Your sticking point seems to be that if morality is subjective, there is no obligation to behave morally. Consider the following. 1 Why do you think there must be moral obligation? Where is that rule laid down? Is moral obligation a feature of reality? 2 Do you think moral values, judge...

Thanks, Belinda. So I think your reservations are: 1 Empirical facts are subjective. 2 Empirical evidence is subjectively selected, but it's the best we can do regarding objective meanings. 1 I'm a bit lost here. A fact is a true factual assertion - true given the way we use those words of other sig...

Hi, Belinda. I think you've explained our actual moral position very well. We have to make moral judgements, based on our moral values. And it's rational to have sound reasons - based on facts - to justify our judgements. And individual and social survival and progress depend on collective agreement...

Belinda, I've been explaining why moral judgements can't be objective all the way through this discussion. It's a simple matter of definition. The word 'objective' means 'independent of judgement, belief or opinion'. A factual assertion such as 'the earth orbits the sun' is objective because it clai...

Hi, Belinda. I just wanted to endorse what you say. The moral values and judgements that flow from secular humanism provide a sound basis for our morality. And they're superior to any theistic morality because they don't depend on unjustified claims about the supernatural. But I think it's a mistake...

Hi again, Immanuel Can. I'm merely saying that one anthropogenic narrative, if believed, has a chance of establishing the bona fides or legitimacy of objective moral conviction, such as "slavery is evil." Unfortunately, the other has absolutely no chance at all of establishing any moral pr...