Is morality objective or subjective?

[uwot]

Thanks again, uwot.

My pleasure.

Wished I'd known I was a hamster in the Teflon Troll's wheel. Mind you, it's exercise both necessary and entertaining for hamsters.

Well yes. I prefer it to crosswords, but I've been round that particular wheel myself and Mr Can no longer acknowledges me directly.

Okay. We know that moral judgements don't make falsifiable factual claims, so that morality isn't objective, in any anthropogenic narrative. And that to maintain that it is is irrational - and motivated by the need to justify a strain of theism.

What gets me is that such theists believe it is only the disapproval of their sky pilot that prevents them from behaving in ways that most people wouldn't countenance.

But what puzzles me is that moral subjectivism isn't at all incompatible with classical theism.

Never thought I'd miss them, but with the Discovery Institute, Alvin Plantinga's modal logic flim-flam, WL Craig and his 'reasonable faith', Michael Behe's irreducible complexity and all the other creationist gobbledygook stirring up end of days apocalypticists, the VP of the USA for instance, I feel a pang of nostalgia.
Having said that, it's not really my field; so what is it about classical theism that admits moral subjectivism?

Oh, wait - there's another wheel spinning.

As long as it keeps spinning.

[Peter Holmes]

Walker wrote

Theft of material goods is also wrong when measured against the objective standard of life, because what is stolen is the life-force that was required for another to acquire those material goods. This is why income redistribution is wrong.

Yay. Or. The enforced extraction of surplus value from labour by capital is theft when measured against the objective standard of life, because what is stolen is the life-force that was required for another to produce that value. That is why income redistribution is morally required.

[Immanuel Can]

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 thinks his position through will simply end up "beyond good and evil," to use his terms. He will be a moral nihilist, inevitably. It's only those who "taxicab" their beliefs, not following them through to the end, but jumping out midway, that can continue to believe that morality is subjective but somehow also binding.

Your persistence in making this unjustified claim is strange. Why we collectively hold to moral values and judgements is not a mystery at all.

That's not the mystery. We hold them because if we didn't then both we and our society would go very bad places, because we'd be without moral guidance at all. That's simple. What's not so simple is RATIONALLY JUSTIFYING the correctness and obligatory nature of the moral judgments we try to assert.

And if, as you say, morality is subjective, then the answer is "There is no way to do it at all."

So, I repeat the crucial question: what is it about a moral assertion, such as slavery is wrong, that makes it objective - a falsifiable factual claim - rather than a subjective value judgement?

It can only ever be objective if anthropogenic narrative 2 is true. It can never be true if anthropogenic narrative 1 is true, as you can see.

Please answer the question, using your anthropogenic narrative 2.

But you don't believe that narrative. Therefore, you will not see any reason to believe anything I say about that. That much I have already conceded to you, because it's the only honest way to argue. I believe one thing about ontology, and you believe a different one. So we will never be able to reconcile our views on common ground: our base assumptions are opposite.

Now, If you did believe in anthropogenic narrative 2, it would be easy to show why slavery is objectively wrong. But I think it would be too much to ask to ask you simply to grant the truth of anthropogenic narrative 2, if you actually believe it's false. I can' t make you believe what you do not: and I think we all have to live consistently with the paradigm of reality we have chosen. You may expect me to live and die consistently with Theism. And you, if you're a rational man, may be expected to live an die as a moral subjectivist -- with all the problems that entails.

Anyway, the point we're left at is this: you asserted, right back in the OP, that we all know morality is subjective. Well, 92-96% of us don't "know" that at all. So statistically, that statement was incorrect. Your only argument to sustain that claim is that we SHOULD know, even if we somehow don't. But then, the question is "How should we know that?" And reasons must follow.

I asked you how we should know that morality is inherently subjective. You had nothing on that, so far. If that's how it stands, the OP is defeated at the first step, no matter what else we say. But beyond that, I argued that no matter what subjectivists may hope, subjective morality rationally leads to Nihilism. And Nihilism entails that there is not even the possibility of talking about morality -- for as you said, there are then no moral facts, no objective truths about morality, and the whole belief in the thing is nothing but a bizarre human quirk that is ultimately unrelated to reality. You did not refute that either.

In short, your OP was manifestly incorrect in its basic assumption. And since your whole OP argument depended on it, I think you've got a problem for the OP. Now, do I need to go beyond that? No. You are free to keep your assumptions. But can you live with the consequences of your assumptions, and with a society that chooses to believe what you said in the OP and to practice it? I think not, but I can't keep you from trying.

And there my point -- at this particular moment -- ends.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Well, Hume blithely hoped Emotivism would prove to be the answer. But Hume had already shot himself in the foot on that one: there is no "ought from an is," (Hume's Gulloutine). Rationally, you can't explain any bridge that goes from the claim, "I feel sympathy" to the claim "I owe the object of my sympathy my help."

True, you cannot deduce an ought from an is. However it's a prerequisite of an ought that the subject can feel sympathy. We don't expect a crocodile or even a wild ape to empathise with us and so we don't attribute moral agency to them.

As regards autistic people,the famous autistic zoologist, Temple Grandin, was able to do groundbreaking work with animals notably cattle because of her extraordinary empathy (what Hume called 'sympathy') with them

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

I didn't assert that everyone knows that morality is subjective. So that is a lie. Don't tell lies.

And, as I expected, you don't show how morality is objective in your anthropogenic narrative 2. Whether I or anyone accepts that narrative is irrelevant. If it's true that moral assertions are objective within that narrative, then that can be demonstrated. You are being evasive and dishonest.

You haven't shown that my OP is unsound or invalid - you've simply repeatedly asserted that it is. And that is intellectually and - in my opinion - morally dishonest.

I have no more time for you, and I'm surprised you have time for yourself. It hasn't been a pleasure.

[Walker]

Walker wrote

Theft of material goods is also wrong when measured against the objective standard of life, because what is stolen is the life-force that was required for another to acquire those material goods. This is why income redistribution is wrong.

Yay. Or. The enforced extraction of surplus value from labour by capital is theft when measured against the objective standard of life, because what is stolen is the life-force that was required for another to produce that value. That is why income redistribution is morally required.

That in no way justifies to me, that my income is yours.

I must be deplorable, eh?

[Peter Holmes]

Never said your income is mine.

But if your income comes from the enforced extraction of surplus value from other people's labour, I was just applying your moral principle.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can

I didn't assert that everyone knows that morality is subjective. So that is a lie. Don't tell lies.

Your words, in cut-and-paste, were...
"...Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective..."

Having provided no evidence to support such a claim, you continued to argue as if we all must agree. But we don't. And we needn't agree, since you provided no reasons.

And, as I expected, you don't show how morality is objective in your anthropogenic narrative 2. Whether I or anyone accepts that narrative is irrelevant. If it's true that moral assertions are objective within that narrative, then that can be demonstrated.

I assert that that is not true. What rationalizes with narrative 1 is that belief in morality has no relation to reality. Only if you believed narrative 2 would you be able to agree that morality is objective. But you don't. And I can't force you to do so. So with what would I "show" you?

If I said, let's begin with the character of God, you'd say, "Well, God doesn't exist, so has no character." The same would happen if I referred to His purposes in creation: you'd say, "There was none." If I said, let's refer to divine revelation, you'd say, "I believe there has been none." If I referred to the teleology of the human race, you'd say, "The teleology of the human race is to disappear into heat death forever." In short, there's nothing to which I could refer that you would concede even exists. Morality itself doesn't exist as a real thing in your worldview...at least, not if you follow it rationally to its result.

So on the terms you believe, how would I go about convincing you of anything? I could not. For you are quite right to say that on your worldview, morality is no feature of reality, there are no moral facts, and there is no obligation to do one thing more than another. Even rape, pedophelia or slavery cannot be, in any true and binding sense, "wrong" by that standard. So what's the next move from there? How do I prove anything to you about a morality the reality of which -- if you're consistent -- you cannot even believe?

[Immanuel Can]

Don't tell lies.

Would I be objectively wrong, if I were to do so?

[uwot]

How do I prove anything to you about a morality the reality of which -- if you're consistent -- you cannot even believe?

The thing is, Mr Can, those of us who can think don't have to believe.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

You claim that morality is objective because there is a god who made the universe and us with a moral purpose. Please show why, if there is a god, morality is objective. What, in that case, makes it objective? That's what you keep dodging. Let me start it off for you:

If there is a god, then morality is objective because ... ( Notice, belief is irrelevant. This is a simple logical deduction.)

You claim that, unless I believe there is a god, etc, I can't believe that, or even understand why, morality is objective - so there's no point in your bothering to demonstrate it. That is both fallacious and ungenerous.

Your demonstrating why the existence of a god makes morality objective may prove enlightening or even revelatory. If your argument is valid and sound, to be rational, I'd have to accept it. And I would. You'd have proved to me logically that the existence of a god makes morality objective. Belief that there is a god is an entirely separate matter, and not what we're talking about here.

Why not cut the diversionary crap and just state your case? Are you afraid its invalidity or unsoundness will be evident? Just how convinced are you of your argument? Please - enough blather already.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

Oh, and by the way, I've never claimed that everyone believes morality is subjective.

Immanuel Can wrote

Your words, in cut-and-paste, were...

"...Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective..."

Having provided no evidence to support such a claim, you continued to argue as if we all must agree. But we don't. And we needn't agree, since you provided no reasons.

As is obvious, I don't claim here that everyone believes morality is subjective. I just claim that it is by definition. And my arguing on that basis in no way implies a claim that everyone believes as I do.

I await your apology for the lie - but without much hope.

And while we're at it. Since I used dictionary definitions in my OP to show that morality is subjective and not objective - your persistent claim that I've never justified my claim is a flat misrepresentation of the situation. I didn't (and don't) arbitrarily define morality as subjective. I show that morality is subjective, going by a dictionary definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'.

So, another lie. Your contribution to this discussion has been either obtuse or dishonest from the start. Perhaps you can redeem yourself now.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

I'm tired of this. So I want you and everyone following this argument to see clearly what you have to do.

1 Show why a moral assertion, such as slavery is wrong, is objective because it makes a falsifiable factual claim, in any secular or theistic scenario.

2 Show why there being a god, how ever defined, makes morality objective.

If these claims can't be justified, it's irrational to believe they're true. Your reluctance to conclude that, logically, morality is subjective - and its real or imagined consequences - are irrelevant.

No more from me until you address those two tasks.

[Immanuel Can]

[/quote]

Immanuel Can

You claim that morality is objective because there is a god who made the universe and us with a moral purpose. Please show why, if there is a god, morality is objective.

I have said a couple of things about this, but you're having difficulty seeing them, because you're determined that I must answer you on terms you are providing. However, those terms are inadequate to the task -- no answer is possible on them.

Then you're imagining I'm evading you, because you can't seem to imagine an answer on any terms but those you're giving. But I'm not. What I'm doing is contesting the premises upon which you're relying.

1. You have said that morality is definitely subjective. When you accused me of lying, I quoted you, to show I was not.

(I was not peeved, but I was bemused by the fact that you seem to believe lying is objectively wrong; because otherwise, there's no accounting for why you would think I should be obliged to stop it at all.)

2. I have replied that only on the basis of a particular worldview or anthropogenic narrative can one make any case that morality is objective -- or that it even exists.

3. I have shown that subjectivism cannot even account for morality as if it were a real thing...so it issues rationally in Nihilism.

4. I have recognized your right to your particular anthropogenic narrative. All I have insisted is that if one wishes to be rational one has to follow it out to its logical conclusion, which is that there is no such thing as morality at all, beyond a temporary individual or sociological delusion, with no basis in facts or the real world.

At no point did I promise you that so long as you remain in anthropogenic narrative #1 I could prove to you that morality is objective. I cannot. You've cut us off from that possibility.

So there's no "dodge" here. I'm freely admitting that if anthropogenic narrative #1 is true, there is no morality of any kind, no proofs, no arguments that will hold any water at all. In short, on the terms you have supplied, I'm handing you a "win" of sorts. But you don't seem to want it.

I don't really wonder why: I wouldn't want to live with the implications of moral subjectivism either.

You claim that, unless I believe there is a god, etc, I can't believe that, or even understand why, morality is objective - so there's no point in your bothering to demonstrate it. That is both fallacious and ungenerous.

You misrepresent me above. (I'm not offended, but I have to note the fact.) I have "bothered" a great deal in replying to you. And I have not told you you must believe in anything. Moreover, I have not said there's no point in my demonstrating it. What I have said is that there is no possibility of my demonstrating it to you on the terms you provide.

Belief that there is a god is an entirely separate matter, and not what we're talking about here.

I realize that is your claim. But it is incorrect. It's not a separate matter at all, since there is no coherent and satisfying account of this strange thing called "morals" available based on subjectivism. There's only Nihilism, ultimately.

You want us to debate on some neutral ground in which an anti-theist and a Theist can discuss morals. What you are asking is impossible. Those proofs, arguments, evidence and the reasons for morals are massively against your side. The subjectivist is coming to a sword fight unarmed: he has no basis for morality at all, so how can he discuss that which, ultimately, he does not even believe can exist?

You're right to say you won't find the rationale for morals out there somewhere in the world. Slavery won't turn out to be wrong just because it's slavery. You'll need a bigger reason, one that comes before the particular act of slavery, one grounded in the deep nature of what a human being is, before you will ever have a reason to speak of slavery as objectively wrong. And the same is true for all morality.

And that should point you to something: if you have a persistent belief in morals, and your worldview cannot explain to you why your morals are so compelling to you, then maybe, just maybe, your worldview has missed something.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can

Oh, and by the way, I've never claimed that everyone believes morality is subjective.

Immanuel Can wrote

Your words, in cut-and-paste, were...

"...Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective..."

Having provided no evidence to support such a claim, you continued to argue as if we all must agree. But we don't. And we needn't agree, since you provided no reasons.

As is obvious, I don't claim here that everyone believes morality is subjective. I just claim that it is by definition. And my arguing on that basis in no way implies a claim that everyone believes as I do.

I did not make the claim that you were saying everybody DOES believe morality is subjective. As I've said already, that would be an ad populum fallacy, and we all know that the idea that everybody believes morality is subjective is very obviously untrue. But what you were saying is that everybody SHOULD assume morality is subjective, because that's all morality could be --- and now you've further underlined the accuracy of that point by saying it was actually definitionally true.

But it's not definitionally true. It needs to be proved. There is nothing analytic in the word "morality" that entails "subjective." So that's not the obvious point that you think it is.

I didn't (and don't) arbitrarily define morality as subjective. I show that morality is subjective, going by a dictionary definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'.

That simply won't do. Those are adjectives, as I said earlier. They do not settle the matter of their own justification with respect to any particular noun -- in this case, "morality."

What you did was like going to the dictionary for the word "tall," and then arguing that the world is full of "tall men" because of what the word "tall" means.

So, another lie.

This is once again a source of bemusement. What Imp. said earlier is relevant here. As a moral subjectivist, you don't believe morality can be objective until you feel yourself offended. Then suddenly you're an objectivist, loudly declaiming that someone has done you a moral wrong.

If I honour your own definition, I must interpret this as meaning only "Peter doesn't like it," or at most "Peter's society doesn't like it." Not that it's in any durable or obligatory sense, "wrong."

Once again, subjectivism in morality fails to do what you hope it will do for you. You cannot convict me of a "lie" if I did not tell one; more importantly than that, even, you can't tell me a thing about it if a "lie" is not objectively wrong.