Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8524
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:20 pm Sculptor , I am happy you agree that What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

I don't evaluate any of Peter Holmes moral tenets because I believe that morality is a human creation.
I do not think I agree with any universal moral principle as well you know.
There is no evil.
I do not think we can even agree with the concept of soul.
But I'll never bow down to anyone who seeks to control others actions because of some personal fetish.
My only principle is do no harm to others where possible.Peter Holmes does not share this principle.
stevie
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:43 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by stevie »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:35 am The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

We use the word objective to mean to ‘relying on facts’. And facts are true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know, and regardless of their source. But all factual assertions are falsifiable, because they assert something about reality that may not be the case. So evidence is needed to justify them.

By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’. Judgements can be individual or collective. They can be more or less rationally justifiable. And because they express values, we often refer to such judgements as value judgements or just values.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity has been called the fact-value distinction. But discussions about specifically moral values are about how we ought to behave, so here the difference has been called the is-ought distinction.

Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective, because they express value judgements, rather than make falsifiable factual claims. And two examples illustrate the distinction.

1 The assertion people eat animals and their products is a fact – a true factual assertion. But the vegan assertion eating animals and their products is wrong expresses a moral judgement, not a fact. The two assertions have completely different functions.

2 That some states execute some criminals is true. But that states should execute some criminals – that execution is morally justifiable – is a judgement. If there were a moral fact of the matter, we could not argue about the judgement.

An argument that objective morality is evidence for the existence of anything – let alone a god – is unsound, because morality is not objective. It is rational to have sound reasons for our moral judgements, such as wanting to promote individual well-being. But they remain judgements, so they are subjective.

Trouble is, the assertion morality is subjective seems wrong and offensive. It seems to mean that whatever someone judges to be morally right or wrong is indeed morally right or wrong – so that anything goes, and moral relativism and anarchy is the result.

But that is to forget the is-ought distinction. To say an action is morally right or wrong is to express a judgement, not to state a fact. So an action is not – and does not become - morally right or wrong just because someone believes it is.

The expressions objective morality and moral fact are contradictions – or they could be called oxymorons. But our moral values and assertions matter deeply to us, so the mistake of believing there are moral facts is easy to explain. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

But, ironically, if there were moral facts, their source would be irrelevant. The assertion this is good because I say – or a god says – it is good has no place in a rational moral debate. An argument from authority is as mistaken for moral as it is for factual assertions. So the theistic argument from objective morality undermines itself.

The full version of this argument is at: http://www.peasum.co.uk/420676773
Morality is neither exclusively objective nor exclusively subjective. Why? Because every concept applied in the context of moral thinking originates from both, collective knowledge as such which - as an object of mind - is objective and subjective interpretation.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:20 pm Sculptor , I am happy you agree that What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

I don't evaluate any of Peter Holmes moral tenets because I believe that morality is a human creation.
I do not think I agree with any universal moral principle as well you know.
There is no evil.
I do not think we can even agree with the concept of soul.
But I'll never bow down to anyone who seeks to control others actions because of some personal fetish.
My only principle is do no harm to others where possible.Peter Holmes does not share this principle.
Universal does not imply objective.

You and I may disagree with Peter's persistence and faithfulness to objectively true ethics, but we have to agree PH is oriented towards truth however much of a maze his path be.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8524
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 8:53 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:20 pm Sculptor , I am happy you agree that What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

I don't evaluate any of Peter Holmes moral tenets because I believe that morality is a human creation.
I do not think I agree with any universal moral principle as well you know.
There is no evil.
I do not think we can even agree with the concept of soul.
But I'll never bow down to anyone who seeks to control others actions because of some personal fetish.
My only principle is do no harm to others where possible.Peter Holmes does not share this principle.
Universal does not imply objective.
Yes it does. It might not necessitate objective, but there is no doubt that any one making a universal moral claim is ipso facto a claim of objectivity, simply because it is a claim that pretends to apply to all.
I think it is possible to say that objective is not universal, but not the other way round.

You and I may disagree with Peter's persistence and faithfulness to objectively true ethics, but we have to agree PH is oriented towards truth however much of a maze his path be.
This is a non sequitur.
As for Peter, if he wants to seek "truth", then he needs to accomodate himself to the universe and not try to bend the universe to his will.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12333
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:20 pm Sculptor , I am happy you agree that What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

I don't evaluate any of Peter Holmes moral tenets because I believe that morality is a human creation.
I do not think I agree with any universal moral principle as well you know.
There is no evil.
I do not think we can even agree with the concept of soul.
But I'll never bow down to anyone who seeks to control others actions because of some personal fetish.
My only principle is do no harm to others where possible. Peter Holmes does not share this principle.
Can't you see when you propose "do no harm to others" in the moral context, it is implicitly a Universal principle that is applicable [not necessary enforceable] to all.

Obviously from the above while you agree with "do no harm to others" you cannot at the same time in the same context be agreeing with 'do harm to others', i.e. a contradiction.
To avoid the law of contradiction, your proposal "do no harm to others' is a universal moral principle.

But a proposed universal principle is supposedly objective but only confirmed until it is verified and justified to be objective within a Framework and System of Knowledge [Morality in this case].

"Seek to control actions of others"???
-a verified and justified universal objective moral principle need not be imposed nor enforced on anyone in the moral context, but merely to be used as a standard and guideline for moral progress.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8524
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:04 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:42 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:20 pm Sculptor , I am happy you agree that What is universally evil, immoral, and repugnant is to brutalise or deaden others' souls.

I don't evaluate any of Peter Holmes moral tenets because I believe that morality is a human creation.
I do not think I agree with any universal moral principle as well you know.
There is no evil.
I do not think we can even agree with the concept of soul.
But I'll never bow down to anyone who seeks to control others actions because of some personal fetish.
My only principle is do no harm to others where possible. Peter Holmes does not share this principle.
Can't you see when you propose "do no harm to others" in the moral context, it is implicitly a Universal principle that is applicable [not necessary enforceable] to all.
Yes. That is the only one.
It protects everyone from others.
It is not a principle though, but an aspiration.
I do not claim it to be objective morally.

Obviously from the above while you agree with "do no harm to others" you cannot at the same time in the same context be agreeing with 'do harm to others', i.e. a contradiction.
To avoid the law of contradiction, your proposal "do no harm to others' is a universal moral principle.
No. It's an aspiration not a universal moral principle.

But a proposed universal principle is supposedly objective but only confirmed until it is verified and justified to be objective within a Framework and System of Knowledge [Morality in this case].

"Seek to control actions of others"???
-a verified and justified universal objective moral principle need not be imposed nor enforced on anyone in the moral context, but merely to be used as a standard and guideline for moral progress.
THis is self defeating, so does not even qualify as a UMP, as different moral communities will seek to control the other; or individuals will seek to control other individuals. The result is oppression and slavery.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12333
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:04 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:42 pm

I do not think I agree with any universal moral principle as well you know.
There is no evil.
I do not think we can even agree with the concept of soul.
But I'll never bow down to anyone who seeks to control others actions because of some personal fetish.
My only principle is do no harm to others where possible. Peter Holmes does not share this principle.
Can't you see when you propose "do no harm to others" in the moral context, it is implicitly a Universal principle that is applicable [not necessary enforceable] to all.
Yes. That is the only one.
It protects everyone from others.
It is not a principle though, but an aspiration.
I do not claim it to be objective morally.

Obviously from the above while you agree with "do no harm to others" you cannot at the same time in the same context be agreeing with 'do harm to others', i.e. a contradiction.
To avoid the law of contradiction, your proposal "do no harm to others' is a universal moral principle.
No. It's an aspiration not a universal moral principle.
Point is 'your' aspiration is in the form of a moral universal principle.
As I had stated, it has to be, else you are engaging in a contradiction.
'You' cannot propose "do no harm to others" and at the same time accept 'do harm to others'. Thus what 'you' propose [aspiration of otherwise] is a universal principle.

That others do whatever the want [as expected] is beside the point.

But a proposed universal principle is supposedly objective but only confirmed until it is verified and justified to be objective within a Framework and System of Knowledge [Morality in this case].

"Seek to control actions of others"???
-a verified and justified universal objective moral principle need not be imposed nor enforced on anyone in the moral context, but merely to be used as a standard and guideline for moral progress.
THis is self defeating, so does not even qualify as a UMP, as different moral communities will seek to control the other; or individuals will seek to control other individuals. The result is oppression and slavery.
Where there is control that is not morality nor ethics in the philosophical sense. That is politics rather than morality.

In Morality & Ethics proper, there is no enforcement on anyone but merely providing justified objective moral principles as standards and guides.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8524
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:20 am
Point is 'your' aspiration is in the form of a moral universal principle.
As I had stated, it has to be, else you are engaging in a contradiction.
Whatever way you want to spin it. You still have a choice to follow or not.
There is no implication that it is objective.
It can only be subjective since we each have a choice to follow or not.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12333
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:20 am
Point is 'your' aspiration is in the form of a moral universal principle.
As I had stated, it has to be, else you are engaging in a contradiction.
Whatever way you want to spin it. You still have a choice to follow or not.
There is no implication that it is objective.
It can only be subjective since we each have a choice to follow or not.
Of course others have a choice to follow or not.

But from your personal perspective it is a moral universal principle because you cannot adopt a 'do no harm to others' while at the same time accept 'do harm to others'.

The only way out is you do not propose any thing moral at all, i.e. no aspirations & the likes and just like let things be as they are, i.e. anything goes.

The moral principles I proposed are also aspirations [i.e. not enforceable, thus others has a choice to follow or not] which are universal moral principles, the difference is I am able to verify and justify them as objective within a defined moral framework and system.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8524
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:20 am
Point is 'your' aspiration is in the form of a moral universal principle.
As I had stated, it has to be, else you are engaging in a contradiction.
Whatever way you want to spin it. You still have a choice to follow or not.
There is no implication that it is objective.
It can only be subjective since we each have a choice to follow or not.
Of course others have a choice to follow or not.

But from your personal perspective it is a moral universal principle because you cannot adopt a 'do no harm to others' while at the same time accept 'do harm to others'.
No. Since there can always been found exceptions based on contingent and subjective qualities.
I'm sure your imagination can stretch to an example.
If you need help ask!

The only way out is you do not propose any thing moral at all, i.e. no aspirations & the likes and just like let things be as they are, i.e. anything goes.
Wrong.
See above.

The moral principles I proposed are also aspirations [i.e. not enforceable, thus others has a choice to follow or not] which are universal moral principles, the difference is I am able to verify and justify them as objective within a defined moral framework and system.
No you can never justify them objectively in any way. You are a subject and your justification can only ever be subjective as it is based on your opinion .
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6263
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:37 am But from your personal perspective it is ... universal
Dumbest. Shit. Ever. Written.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12333
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 am

Whatever way you want to spin it. You still have a choice to follow or not.
There is no implication that it is objective.
It can only be subjective since we each have a choice to follow or not.
Of course others have a choice to follow or not.

But from your personal perspective it is a moral universal principle because you cannot adopt a 'do no harm to others' while at the same time accept 'do harm to others'.
No. Since there can always been found exceptions based on contingent and subjective qualities.
I'm sure your imagination can stretch to an example.
If you need help ask!
You are conflating Principles and the practical.

1. What you are aspiring and proposing is 'do no harm to others' has to be a Universal Moral Principles, i.e. applicable to everyone, otherwise you are engaging a contradictions as I had explained. Note the point here is "in Principle" contrasting with 'in practice.'
It is the same with someone aspiring 'there be no slavery' who cannot at the same time aspire 'there be slavery'.

2. It is an obvious fact, due to contingent and subjective qualities not everyone will do in accordance to the principle you are aspiring and proposition above. This is a separate issue which cannot be conflated with 1 above.

There is no denial you are proposing a Universal Moral Principle in 1.
The only way out is you do not propose any thing moral at all, i.e. no aspirations & the likes and just like let things be as they are, i.e. anything goes.
Wrong.
See above.
Repeat, you have to be indifferent with moral proposals yourself.
The moral principles I proposed are also aspirations [i.e. not enforceable, thus others has a choice to follow or not] which are universal moral principles, the difference is I am able to verify and justify them as objective within a defined moral framework and system.
No you can never justify them objectively in any way. You are a subject and your justification can only ever be subjective as it is based on your opinion .
As I had stated many times, just as Science can justify subjective empirical observations as objective [scientific sense] within its defined Scientific Framework and System, so can I with subjective moral elements within a defined moral framework and system.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8524
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:40 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:37 am
Of course others have a choice to follow or not.

But from your personal perspective it is a moral universal principle because you cannot adopt a 'do no harm to others' while at the same time accept 'do harm to others'.
No. Since there can always been found exceptions based on contingent and subjective qualities.
I'm sure your imagination can stretch to an example.
If you need help ask!
You are conflating Principles and the practical.
No, that is exactly YOUR problem.

1. What you are aspiring and proposing is 'do no harm to others' has to be a Universal Moral Principles,
Wrong. It's a working principle that I PERSONALLY would urge others to consider when they act in a moral landscape.
It is not a rule of principle. It is just a suggestion.
The world is very different from the way your fetid brain conceives it.
i.e. applicable to everyone, otherwise you are engaging a contradictions as I had explained. Note the point here is "in Principle" contrasting with 'in practice.'
It is the same with someone aspiring 'there be no slavery' who cannot at the same time aspire 'there be slavery'.

2. It is an obvious fact, due to contingent and subjective qualities not everyone will do in accordance to the principle you are aspiring and proposition above. This is a separate issue which cannot be conflated with 1 above.
1 (above) is just your fantasy world. It does not exist except in your own mind. It's just like god - a phantom like delusion, by which you seek to reassure yourself that the world is safe and coherent.

There is no denial you are proposing a Universal Moral Principle in 1.
You are laughable. You are responding to a denial, now you deny the existence of the denial!!
I think a psychiatrist would say that you were in denial.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:12 pm Objective means mind independent but morality cannot be objective because only facts are. That there exist different and
conflicting moralities within philosophy and religion is also evidence of this. So there cannot be any such thing as objective
morality. The very term itself is an oxymoron. Morality can therefore only be subjective or intersubjective and nothing else
1. It is a fact that murder harms people as people suffer through murder. This suffering can be seen as objective in the respect it results in movements connected to pain on behalf of the party and surrounding parties affected. Murder results in a pain reaction with pain as a deficiency in working health. This deficiency in health is objective.

2. Dually to say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by henry quirk »

1. It is a fact that murder harms people as people suffer through murder. This suffering can be seen as objective in the respect it results in movements connected to pain on behalf of the party and surrounding parties affected. Murder results in a pain reaction with pain as a deficiency in working health. This deficiency in health is objective.

It's universal, this idea that unjustified killing (murder) is wrong. And when such unjustified killing happens, the outrage is universal as well.


2. Dually to say morality is subjective is to make an objective claim that morality is due to personal positioning; this requires that moral is subject to context therefore somethings are appropriate in one context and not appropriate in another furthermore adding to the fact that there is a right and wrong way to act under specific situations. To say morality is subjective, with this being an objective statement, is to argue that a person who does not follow there own subjective experiences, in practicing morality, is immoral. In other terms it is immoral to not follow one's personal situation and act in context to it.

The amoralist, the anti-moralist, the relativist, the subjectivist sez, in effect, morality is just opinion while simultaneously takin' strong moral positions. He'll condemn the rapist, the murderer, the slaver (especially if he himself has been touched by the actions of those people) in the strongest possible terms, but when you probe as to why rape, murder, or slaving is wrong, or point out he has no true undergirding for his anger against the rapist, murderer, or slaver (becuz morality is just opinion), he'll ignore you or his hackles will rise. His amorality, anti-moralism, relativism, subjectivism conflicts with his intuitions about himself and other people.

Fundamentally: he doesn't really believe his own spiel.
Post Reply