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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:34 am 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.
To deny moral objectivity is not to be an 'amoralist', an 'anti-moralist' or a moral relativist.

Here are two assertions: there are no moral facts; slavery is morally wrong. There is absolutely no contradiction between them.

Lazy response: Ah, but if there are no moral facts, why is slavery morally wrong? (After all, if slavery is morally wrong, then it must be a fact that slavery is morally wrong. Der.)

Remember this: if there are no moral facts, the rightness or wrongness of slavery - or anything else - can only be a matter of judgement, belief or opinion. Notice the conditional. The objectivist claim that there are moral facts incurs the burden of proof. Unmet so far, to my knowledge.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Moral objectivists want there to be moral facts - moral features of reality (?) that exist independently from opinion - in the way that, for example, water's being H2O is a feature of reality that exists independently from opinion.

Unable to provide evidence for the existence of such moral facts - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent - a category error - objectivists then have to argue fallaciously from undesirable consequences: no moral facts means no morality at all - moral anarchy. This conclusion doesn't follow, but even if it did, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.

So whence the persistence of moral objectivism? I think there are two reasons for the tenacity of this delusion. First, we think of our moral assertions as universal. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, then we think it always was and will be morally wrong, everywhere. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent. And we confuse that universality with objectivity.

And second, we care deeply about our moral values, beliefs, judgements and opinions. So we invest them with the power and aura of factuality. 'There are moral facts, and I happen to know what they are'.

Moral objectivism is an understandable misunderstanding. But it's a faith, not a rationally justifiable position.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter |Homes wrote:
Moral objectivists want there to be moral facts - moral features of reality (?) that exist independently from opinion - in the way that, for example, water's being H2O is a feature of reality that exists independently from opinion.
But water's being H2O is a fact only of chemistry which in its turn is a man-made academic discipline.
Unable to provide evidence for the existence of such moral facts - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent - a category error - objectivists then have to argue fallaciously from undesirable consequences: no moral facts means no morality at all - moral anarchy. This conclusion doesn't follow, but even if it did, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.
But some objectivists argue that nature is an orderly system and that good natural men are social animals who cooperate with each other to harmonise with the orderly system of nature.

So whence the persistence of moral objectivism? I think there are two reasons for the tenacity of this delusion. First, we think of our moral assertions as universal. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, then we think it always was and will be morally wrong, everywhere. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent. And we confuse that universality with objectivity.

But historians, anthropologists and millions of others don't think moral assertions are universal. These do not confuse universality with objectivity.
And second, we care deeply about our moral values, beliefs, judgements and opinions. So we invest them with the power and aura of factuality. 'There are moral facts, and I happen to know what they are'.
Again, you say "we" when it's only some people who are unaware of their confirmation biases.
Moral objectivism is an understandable misunderstanding. But it's a faith, not a rationally justifiable position.

It's a faith stance I agree. On occasions some leader of popular opinion is justified in objectifying morality for instance in the case of Churchill in the just war against the Nazis.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:26 am Peter |Homes wrote:
Moral objectivists want there to be moral facts - moral features of reality (?) that exist independently from opinion - in the way that, for example, water's being H2O is a feature of reality that exists independently from opinion.
But water's being H2O is a fact only of chemistry which in its turn is a man-made academic discipline.
Not so. Water's being H2O is a feature of reality. Our description of that feature of reality is, indeed, man-made.
Unable to provide evidence for the existence of such moral facts - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent - a category error - objectivists then have to argue fallaciously from undesirable consequences: no moral facts means no morality at all - moral anarchy. This conclusion doesn't follow, but even if it did, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.
But some objectivists argue that nature is an orderly system and that good natural men are social animals who cooperate with each other to harmonise with the orderly system of nature.
But this is to explain why we have developed morality as social animals. It doesn't establish that there are moral facts.

So whence the persistence of moral objectivism? I think there are two reasons for the tenacity of this delusion. First, we think of our moral assertions as universal. For example, if we think slavery is morally wrong, then we think it always was and will be morally wrong, everywhere. To think otherwise would be morally inconsistent. And we confuse that universality with objectivity.

But historians, anthropologists and millions of others don't think moral assertions are universal. These do not confuse universality with objectivity.
I said that we think of our moral assertions as universal, not that they are universal. I think it's just a fact that, when we think X is morally wrong, we necessarily think it always was and will be morally wrong, everywhere. Can you suggest an exception?
And second, we care deeply about our moral values, beliefs, judgements and opinions. So we invest them with the power and aura of factuality. 'There are moral facts, and I happen to know what they are'.
Again, you say "we" when it's only some people who are unaware of their confirmation biases.
I don't think awareness of confirmation bias is the issue here.

Moral objectivism is an understandable misunderstanding. But it's a faith, not a rationally justifiable position.

It's a faith stance I agree. On occasions some leader of popular opinion is justified in objectifying morality for instance in the case of Churchill in the just war against the Nazis.
A just war isn't an objectification of morality - whatever that means. Morality can't be objective. That the Nazis were evil and had to be defeated was a blessedly widespread moral belief. And that's all.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:26 am
Unable to provide evidence for the existence of such moral facts - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent - a category error - objectivists then have to argue fallaciously from undesirable consequences: no moral facts means no morality at all - moral anarchy. This conclusion doesn't follow, but even if it did, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.
But some objectivists argue that nature is an orderly system and that good natural men are social animals who cooperate with each other to harmonise with the orderly system of nature.
That begs the question about what fact of the universe makes harmony good. If every human in existence were on the bandwagon of shared belief that harmony is better than dischord does that mean that humans naturally hold a certain belief, or does it somehow imply that the universe imparts that as a truth?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:26 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:26 am
Unable to provide evidence for the existence of such moral facts - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent - a category error - objectivists then have to argue fallaciously from undesirable consequences: no moral facts means no morality at all - moral anarchy. This conclusion doesn't follow, but even if it did, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.
But some objectivists argue that nature is an orderly system and that good natural men are social animals who cooperate with each other to harmonise with the orderly system of nature.
That begs the question about what fact of the universe makes harmony good. If every human in existence were on the bandwagon of shared belief that harmony is better than dischord does that mean that humans naturally hold a certain belief, or does it somehow imply that the universe imparts that as a truth?
Agreed. At bottom there's always a judgement that objectivists refuse to recognise: harmony is better than disharmony; happiness is better than unhappiness; well-being is better than not-well-being. 'Well, of course they are! These aren't opinions - they're facts!'

An opinion, even if held by everyone, is still an opinion.
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 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:35 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:34 am 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.
To deny moral objectivity is not to be an 'amoralist', an 'anti-moralist' or a moral relativist.

Here are two assertions: there are no moral facts; slavery is morally wrong. There is absolutely no contradiction between them.

Lazy response: Ah, but if there are no moral facts, why is slavery morally wrong? (After all, if slavery is morally wrong, then it must be a fact that slavery is morally wrong. Der.)

Remember this: if there are no moral facts, the rightness or wrongness of slavery - or anything else - can only be a matter of judgement, belief or opinion. Notice the conditional. The objectivist claim that there are moral facts incurs the burden of proof. Unmet so far, to my knowledge.
As I say: fundamentally: the amoralist, the anti-moralist, the relativist, the subjectivist doesn't really believe his own spiel.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Moral objectivists never believe their own spiel.

Mannie believes the Bible is a source of moral objectivity, but he reads it subjectively in such a way that God always agrees with what Mannie thinks. It's hard to work out which entity is actually worshipping the other.

Henry has some objective thing going that entitles him to commit a lot of what many among us would consider murders, but that's ok because he just has a subjective definition of murder that grants him the right to kill people for shit reasons.

Virginal Aquarium has a plan to subjectively select a set of experts who will all agree that his prior opinions are objective moral fact.

None of these people has ever in their whole life investigated moral fact and found an answer that was contrary to their prejudices. That's just not how the investigation of actual facts works. If you can't recieve counterintuitive results you weren't investigating facts at all, you were just rationalising opinions.
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 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:14 pm Moral objectivists never believe their own spiel.

Mannie believes the Bible is a source of moral objectivity, but he reads it subjectively in such a way that God always agrees with what Mannie thinks. It's hard to work out which entity is actually worshipping the other.

Henry has some objective thing going that entitles him to commit a lot of what many among us would consider murders, but that's ok because he just has a subjective definition of murder that grants him the right to kill people for shit reasons.

Virginal Aquarium has a plan to subjectively select a set of experts who will all agree that his prior opinions are objective moral fact.

None of these people has ever in their whole life investigated moral fact and found an answer that was contrary to their prejudices. That's just not how the investigation of actual facts works. If you can't recieve counterintuitive results you weren't investigating facts at all, you were just rationalising opinions.
gamma thinkin'
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:26 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:26 am
Unable to provide evidence for the existence of such moral facts - because the very idea of a moral fact is incoherent - a category error - objectivists then have to argue fallaciously from undesirable consequences: no moral facts means no morality at all - moral anarchy. This conclusion doesn't follow, but even if it did, that wouldn't mean there are moral facts.
But some objectivists argue that nature is an orderly system and that good natural men are social animals who cooperate with each other to harmonise with the orderly system of nature.
That begs the question about what fact of the universe makes harmony good. If every human in existence were on the bandwagon of shared belief that harmony is better than dischord does that mean that humans naturally hold a certain belief, or does it somehow imply that the universe imparts that as a truth?
I agree. Morality is man made, or 'mind dependent.

For a thought experiment let's say there is ultimate material reality called God. Now one may claim

a) God is material reality e.g. water is H2O. But God is morally neutral.

b) God is material reality and also moral reality Who says e.g. slavery is wrong.

c) God is neither material reality nor moral reality.

I claim all ideas are mind-dependent so I choose c).I can see no reason to agree with Peter that God would be material reality apropos some ideas and not others.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:16 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:26 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:26 am

But some objectivists argue that nature is an orderly system and that good natural men are social animals who cooperate with each other to harmonise with the orderly system of nature.
That begs the question about what fact of the universe makes harmony good. If every human in existence were on the bandwagon of shared belief that harmony is better than dischord does that mean that humans naturally hold a certain belief, or does it somehow imply that the universe imparts that as a truth?
I agree. Morality is man made, or 'mind dependent.

For a thought experiment let's say there is ultimate material reality called God. Now one may claim

a) God is material reality e.g. water is H2O. But God is morally neutral.

b) God is material reality and also moral reality Who says e.g. slavery is wrong.

c) God is neither material reality nor moral reality.

I claim all ideas are mind-dependent so I choose c).I can see no reason to agree with Peter that God would be material reality apropos some ideas and not others.
As a notorious and wicked atheist it's possible there's something in that thought experiment I didn't pick up on. But if morality is mind dependent then I just don't get what difference those other options make. God can be bigger than you and me in I don't know how many ways, but how does that make his opinion about whether it is bad manners to fart at the dinner table more True than yours? Why can't you just think God is wrong about something?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:16 pm I can see no reason to agree with Peter that God would be material reality apropos some ideas and not others.
I'm lost here, Belinda. I don't see what you're getting at.

The existence of a god, or anything else, is an ontological question, which has nothing to do with ideas - things supposedly going on in brains - or with morality. A god, or anything else, either does or doesn't exist.

But anyway, I agree with Flash that the existence of a creator-god with a plan for humans wouldn't make morality objective. The argument that apologists such as Lane Craig peddle - from objective morality to the existence of a god - collapses at the first premise. Morality isn't and can't be objective.

Sorry if I've missed your point.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:08 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:16 pm I can see no reason to agree with Peter that God would be material reality apropos some ideas and not others.
I'm lost here, Belinda. I don't see what you're getting at.

The existence of a god, or anything else, is an ontological question, which has nothing to do with ideas - things supposedly going on in brains - or with morality. A god, or anything else, either does or doesn't exist.

But anyway, I agree with Flash that the existence of a creator-god with a plan for humans wouldn't make morality objective. The argument that apologists such as Lane Craig peddle - from objective morality to the existence of a god - collapses at the first premise. Morality isn't and can't be objective.

Sorry if I've missed your point.
My thought experiment misfired.

I disagree. If there were a single and unique creator god whose entire creation was his intention then neither 'facts' nor what was good and what bad would be excluded from his entire creation.

However I see no reason to believe creation is intentional. All ideas including both 'facts' and moral tenets, are human creations.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:48 am All ideas including both 'facts' and moral tenets, are human creations.
There's what something is made of, and there's what it actually does, and over and over again people are only looking at the first of those aspects and then insinuating that two artifacts constructed from the same stuff (the mental for instance) are somehow equivalent.

"facts" might be human creations, but they don't do the same thing as "beliefs", so being constructs of mind or whatever doesn't make them the same.

Facts are exclusive, if one person states as fact that all moral truths derive from some principle of self-ownership, and another states as fact that all moral truths derive from a god-given principle, either one of these people must be wrong, or both of them are wrong, it is strictly senseless to suggest that they are both right.

If Henry believes that all moral stuff emanates from a principle of self-ownership, and Emmanuel believes that all good things are donated by god, that's fine, they can both believe their thing no problem.

This is because FACT AND BELIEF DO DIFFERENT STUFF and what they are made out of has no bearing on that. Anal beads and toothbrushes are also made out of similar substances, but I don't recommend assuming an equivalent function on that basis.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:37 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:48 am All ideas including both 'facts' and moral tenets, are human creations.
There's what something is made of, and there's what it actually does, and over and over again people are only looking at the first of those aspects and then insinuating that two artifacts constructed from the same stuff (the mental for instance) are somehow equivalent.

"facts" might be human creations, but they don't do the same thing as "beliefs", so being constructs of mind or whatever doesn't make them the same.

Facts are exclusive, if one person states as fact that all moral truths derive from some principle of self-ownership, and another states as fact that all moral truths derive from a god-given principle, either one of these people must be wrong, or both of them are wrong, it is strictly senseless to suggest that they are both right.

If Henry believes that all moral stuff emanates from a principle of self-ownership, and Emmanuel believes that all good things are donated by god, that's fine, they can both believe their thing no problem.

This is because FACT AND BELIEF DO DIFFERENT STUFF and what they are made out of has no bearing on that. Anal beads and toothbrushes are also made out of similar substances, but I don't recommend assuming an equivalent function on that basis.
There is substance in what you wrote. The substance is in your meaning not in the electronic traces of your keyboard activity.

I submit that there is no essence of anything , and the meaning of anything is what it does relative to its environment.

The difference between facts and beliefs applies to social truth, not absolute truth
Post Reply