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
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:14 am Point is morality is the spontaneoujs avoidance of evil to meet the moral standard [the moral fact], there is no need to state it is right or wrong.
And with that Vestibule Aquaduct reclaims the Worst Sentence on the Internet crown.

Will Belinda find a repsonse? Read all about it in the next episode of Bullshit Weekly.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:13 pm VA's argument demonstrates the truth of Hume's assertion: the leap from a description of the way things are - for which there may be empirical evidence - to a claim about the way things ought to be - requires a sleight-of-hand, an unacknowledged assumption - and is therefore always a logical non sequitur.
Strawmaning as usual.
Show me where did I ever make the above argument you accused me of?
Where did I claim with reference to your accusations the way "things ought to be" is based on empirical evidences.

What I claimed is there are inherent moral potentials of ought-ness or ought-not-ness.
I provided the analogy of the inherent ought-ness to breathe and no humans would decide whether the "ought-ness to breathe" is right or wrong.
Similarly there are moral oughtness [subtle to the extent you are unable to understand it] where no humans would decide whether the "ought-ness to breathe" is right or wrong, but rather facilitate the potential to unfold and express itself.
For VA, the assumption is 'the avoidance of evil'. By this trick, s/he vainly imagines that s/he can dismiss what the rest of us think morality is about - the rightness and wrongness of behaviour - as though avoiding evil has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Why we should avoid evil is, well, obvious. Who could disagree with that?
Morality in general is the avoidance of evil. What else can it be in general?

True one can input right or wrong into the avoidance of evil e.g. in laws, social order, religions which is accompanied by threats, but these are not morality proper but rather pseudo-morality.

Morality proper is expressed naturally and spontaneously in alignment with the inherent moral potential without any reference to threats nor enforcement.
To repeat, non-moral premises, such as facts about human nature and potential behaviour, can't entail a moral conclusion - what we ought to do. And that means that moral conclusions - moral assertions - are 'stand-alone' - unless, of course, they follow from other moral assertions, which are also 'stand-alone', and so on.
Yes, they cannot entail a moral conclusion related to judgment, beliefs and opinions.

But these potentials exist physically within the brain and body and can be verified and justified within a moral FSK, thus they are moral facts in that sense.
That's why I say that, at the bottom of all moral arguments, there are moral judgements, beliefs or opinions - such as the opinion that we should avoid evil/moral wrongness. And what constitutes evil/moral wrongness can only ever be a matter of judgement, belief or opinion, because there are no moral facts.

Along with other moral realists and objectivists, VA is determined not to recognise this fact.
Nah! point is you are stuck in a archaic unrealistic paradigm with reference to morality re moral wrongness and rightness. This view as with reference to very subjective matters is obviously ineffective in contributing to moral progress for humanity, which is evident within the history of mankind.

My paradigm of morality [in alignment with empirical evidences] is based on moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable within a credible FSK with scientific facts as inputs.

Note again,
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
despite my highlighting and emphasis of your errors, you don't seem to be able to grasp my points but keep reverting to your old thinking [morality as 'right' or 'wrong'] and imposing that on me.

Btw, your thread is merely trolling because it is so basic and obvious , moral opinions, beliefs, and judgment cannot be moral facts [verifiable and justifiable].
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:13 pm VA's argument demonstrates the truth of Hume's assertion: the leap from a description of the way things are - for which there may be empirical evidence - to a claim about the way things ought to be - requires a sleight-of-hand, an unacknowledged assumption - and is therefore always a logical non sequitur.
Strawmaning as usual.
Show me where did I ever make the above argument you accused me of?
Where did I claim with reference to your accusations the way "things ought to be" is based on empirical evidences.

What I claimed is there are inherent moral potentials of ought-ness or ought-not-ness.
I provided the analogy of the inherent ought-ness to breathe and no humans would decide whether the "ought-ness to breathe" is right or wrong.
Similarly there are moral oughtness [subtle to the extent you are unable to understand it] where no humans would decide whether the "ought-ness to breathe" is right or wrong, but rather facilitate the potential to unfold and express itself.
For VA, the assumption is 'the avoidance of evil'. By this trick, s/he vainly imagines that s/he can dismiss what the rest of us think morality is about - the rightness and wrongness of behaviour - as though avoiding evil has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness. Why we should avoid evil is, well, obvious. Who could disagree with that?
Morality in general is the avoidance of evil. What else can it be in general?

True one can input right or wrong into the avoidance of evil e.g. in laws, social order, religions which is accompanied by threats, but these are not morality proper but rather pseudo-morality.

Morality proper is expressed naturally and spontaneously in alignment with the inherent moral potential without any reference to threats nor enforcement.
To repeat, non-moral premises, such as facts about human nature and potential behaviour, can't entail a moral conclusion - what we ought to do. And that means that moral conclusions - moral assertions - are 'stand-alone' - unless, of course, they follow from other moral assertions, which are also 'stand-alone', and so on.
Yes, they cannot entail a moral conclusion related to judgment, beliefs and opinions.

But these potentials exist physically within the brain and body and can be verified and justified within a moral FSK, thus they are moral facts in that sense.
That's why I say that, at the bottom of all moral arguments, there are moral judgements, beliefs or opinions - such as the opinion that we should avoid evil/moral wrongness. And what constitutes evil/moral wrongness can only ever be a matter of judgement, belief or opinion, because there are no moral facts.

Along with other moral realists and objectivists, VA is determined not to recognise this fact.
Nah! point is you are stuck in a archaic unrealistic paradigm with reference to morality re moral wrongness and rightness. This view as with reference to very subjective matters is obviously ineffective in contributing to moral progress for humanity, which is evident within the history of mankind.

My paradigm of morality [in alignment with empirical evidences] is based on moral facts that are verifiable and justifiable within a credible FSK with scientific facts as inputs.

Note again,
My Stance on Morality and Moral Facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35464
despite my highlighting and emphasis of your errors, you don't seem to be able to grasp my points but keep reverting to your old thinking [morality as 'right' or 'wrong'] and imposing that on me.

Btw, your thread is merely trolling because it is so basic and obvious , moral opinions, beliefs, and judgment cannot be moral facts [verifiable and justifiable].
Face palm.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

VA's Bonkers Argument.

1 Morality-proper is not about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

2 Morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil.

Question.

Why should we avoid evil? Could it be that it's morally right to avoid evil, and morally wrong to embrace it?

Yeah, but... No, but...
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:21 am VA's Bonkers Argument.

1 Morality-proper is not about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

2 Morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil.

Question.

Why should we avoid evil? Could it be that it's morally right to avoid evil, and morally wrong to embrace it?

Yeah, but... No, but...
Strawmaning as usual.

Didn't you read the critical context I wrote above?

Morality proper is expressed naturally and spontaneously in alignment with the inherent moral potential without any reference to threats nor enforcement.
This is what will lead to the avoidance of evil.

Avoidance of evil in the above sense of morality proper is NEVER about deliberating whether evil is morally wrong or right.

Btw, the majority of people [presumably including you] are naturally and spontaneously in alignment with the inherent moral potential, i.e. they don't arbitrary decide to kill another human every moment or everyday or judge it is right or wrong to kill another human.
But this alignment within the majority is very flimsy and for many their evil potential could be triggered to kill another human under various conditions.

The purpose of morality proper is thus to recognize the moral fact of the moral potential so that the natural and spontaneous alignment with the inherent moral potential can be strengthen to the extent their evil potential in killing another human is strongly modulated by the moral potential.

There is no question of right or wrong with morality proper, rather it is a question of developing and improving the moral competence within one self.

I don't deny the question of right or wrong would crop up, but that would not be morality-proper but rather its pseudo-morality as in criminal laws, god morality [sin, threat of hell] and those that involve the deliberation of consequences, threats, etc.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:21 am VA's Bonkers Argument.

1 Morality-proper is not about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

2 Morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil.

Question.

Why should we avoid evil? Could it be that it's morally right to avoid evil, and morally wrong to embrace it?

Yeah, but... No, but...
His new bit (I never noticed it's arrival) is that morality-proper also isn't about decisions or practical logic either. It's now about harmoniously integration for human robots.

He's finally reached his full Stalin potential and is openly basing his theory on the erasure of human frailties and the perfection of the human hive. It's just awesome that Henry the fringe individualist is his main ally, a perfect example of horseshoe theory.
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 »

It's just awesome that Henry the fringe individualist is his main ally
Just his friend.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:21 am VA's Bonkers Argument.

1 Morality-proper is not about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

2 Morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil.

Question.

Why should we avoid evil? Could it be that it's morally right to avoid evil, and morally wrong to embrace it?

Yeah, but... No, but...
His new bit (I never noticed it's arrival) is that morality-proper also isn't about decisions or practical logic either. It's now about harmoniously integration for human robots.

He's finally reached his full Stalin potential and is openly basing his theory on the erasure of human frailties and the perfection of the human hive. It's just awesome that Henry the fringe individualist is his main ally, a perfect example of horseshoe theory.
Nice one. The harmonious integration of human robots = the avoidance of evil = the harmonious integration of human robots, etc. But note: there's to be no compulsion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:10 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:21 am VA's Bonkers Argument.

1 Morality-proper is not about the moral rightness and wrongness of behaviour.

2 Morality-proper is about the avoidance of evil.

Question.

Why should we avoid evil? Could it be that it's morally right to avoid evil, and morally wrong to embrace it?

Yeah, but... No, but...
His new bit (I never noticed it's arrival) is that morality-proper also isn't about decisions or practical logic either. It's now about harmoniously integration for human robots.

He's finally reached his full Stalin potential and is openly basing his theory on the erasure of human frailties and the perfection of the human hive. It's just awesome that Henry the fringe individualist is his main ally, a perfect example of horseshoe theory.
Nice one. The harmonious integration of human robots = the avoidance of evil = morality-proper. But note: there's to be no compulsion.

Thesis: inside every moral realist and objectivist, there's an un-self-aware fascist. That's why some of the nastiest people are those most convinced there are moral facts - and they know what they are.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:16 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:10 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:29 am
His new bit (I never noticed it's arrival) is that morality-proper also isn't about decisions or practical logic either. It's now about harmoniously integration for human robots.

He's finally reached his full Stalin potential and is openly basing his theory on the erasure of human frailties and the perfection of the human hive. It's just awesome that Henry the fringe individualist is his main ally, a perfect example of horseshoe theory.
Nice one. The harmonious integration of human robots = the avoidance of evil = morality-proper. But note: there's to be no compulsion.

Thesis: inside every moral realist and objectivist, there's an un-self-aware fascist. That's why some of the nastiest people are those most convinced there are moral facts - and they know what they are.
Giving way to my influences, that presumption that imperfect humanity is perfectible via the imposition of one influence or character trait is something Berlin identifies as a key component in both fascism and communism
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:16 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:10 pm
Nice one. The harmonious integration of human robots = the avoidance of evil = morality-proper. But note: there's to be no compulsion.

Thesis: inside every moral realist and objectivist, there's an un-self-aware fascist. That's why some of the nastiest people are those most convinced there are moral facts - and they know what they are.
Giving way to my influences, that presumption that imperfect humanity is perfectible via the imposition of one influence or character trait is something Berlin identifies as a key component in both fascism and communism
Well. Maybe 'communism' as mendaciously defined and imposed by fascists, such as Stalin and Mao. No true Scotsmen.

Back to labels and their baggage.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:41 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:16 pm
Nice one. The harmonious integration of human robots = the avoidance of evil = morality-proper. But note: there's to be no compulsion.

Thesis: inside every moral realist and objectivist, there's an un-self-aware fascist. That's why some of the nastiest people are those most convinced there are moral facts - and they know what they are.
Giving way to my influences, that presumption that imperfect humanity is perfectible via the imposition of one influence or character trait is something Berlin identifies as a key component in both fascism and communism
Well. Maybe 'communism' as mendaciously defined and imposed by fascists, such as Stalin and Mao.
Sure, I guess. But democracy is the political form that changes according to the needs of the people. Totalitarianism is the political form that changes the people to meed the needs of the politics. So any form of political order that requires teh improvement of the human being is probably headed down the wrong path. That applies to VA, but I don't see how subsuming the individual within a class for the good of all is any better.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:41 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:31 pm
Giving way to my influences, that presumption that imperfect humanity is perfectible via the imposition of one influence or character trait is something Berlin identifies as a key component in both fascism and communism
Well. Maybe 'communism' as mendaciously defined and imposed by fascists, such as Stalin and Mao.
Sure, I guess. But democracy is the political form that changes according to the needs of the people. Totalitarianism is the political form that changes the people to meed the needs of the politics. So any form of political order that requires teh improvement of the human being is probably headed down the wrong path. That applies to VA, but I don't see how subsuming the individual within a class for the good of all is any better.
Okay. But 'the needs of the people' is the issue. And that capitalism (private ownership of the means, etc - 'the market will provide') best meets those needs is the big con. Just look around at the world capitalists have created. Good job?

Thesis: The (typically gross) economic inequality, that capitalism both creates and depends on, is both immoral and economically inefficient.

Call the alternative communism or democratic socialism - choose your label. But we have to get over capitalism in the end. It's destroying us.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6659
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:12 pm Thesis: The (typically gross) economic inequality, that capitalism both creates and depends on, is both immoral and economically inefficient.
Capitalism is such an enormous vague term.
I'll jump to a completely different topic: animal testing.
People generally focus on, say, testing for medical applications for humans. The proside. The anti-side picks some horrible useless animal testing.

It seems to me one should start wherever their is potential common ground.

I think testing make up rabbits is something we could do without. Perhaps there is something even more trivial that entails mammalian suffering.

That would be a good place to start the debate. The anti can agree not to put all testing on the table. The pro can agree to listen to the specific extreme case.

Perhaps they can agree, hey, I see what you mean. Next case.

So shifting to capitalism....
Does capitalism entail...
fiat banking as it is now, where banks can create 10 times the money they are owed by pushing computer buttons.
Should corporate charters been rescinded in certain cases as they could be in the beginning?
And so on...
what specific cases can we pick away at.
Otherwise the debate is always system vs. system.

And I don't think most procapitalists like to look at 'details' like this. In fact some of these details would have shocked the founders.
Most will agree with some kind of anti-trust legislation, but then don't worry about industry control of government oversight in many areas.

Could we still call it capitalism if we removed some of the arcane methods of making money through not doing any labor or creating anything via the stock market. I am not talking about simple investment, but the ornate hallucinatory math games the led to 2008. There could be restrictions there and still have capitalism. Or not.

But I don't really see this discussion. It's as if it is all or nothing, but no one says what the all is. And the all, currently, however tweaked by the rich, still has many restrictions on free trade and insider trading and so on. So, it is far from binary already.

But if you ask, what form of capitalism, in a forum like this one, generally no pro-capitalists are interested. And react to anything specific as socialist. Despite things like revoking corporate charters very intentionally put in place by Jefferson and others because they'd seen things like the giant East India Company and knew the threat of powerful 'corporations'.
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 »

Free Enterprise: that there is good for what ails you.

Gonna have to hang the state-capitalists and -socialists first, though.
Post Reply