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

popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:43 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:04 pm All meaning is biologically dependent.
Some meanings depend on culture beliefs and values.
Hi Belinda,
Cultural beliefs and values are but biological extensions, expressions of human nature, granted these take a few twists and turns when one considers differing cultures but the source is the same. All meaning is biologically dependent simply because all meaning is subjective, there is no objective meaning to the physical world that is not bestowed upon it be a conscious subject, and even this, is subjective.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 5:22 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:43 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:04 pm All meaning is biologically dependent.
Some meanings depend on culture beliefs and values.
Hi Belinda,
Cultural beliefs and values are but biological extensions, expressions of human nature, granted these take a few twists and turns when one considers differing cultures but the source is the same. All meaning is biologically dependent simply because all meaning is subjective, there is no objective meaning to the physical world that is not bestowed upon it be a conscious subject, and even this, is subjective.
Yes, they are but biological extensions, expressions of human nature. However cultural beliefs and values are much more salient in human nature than in dogs' (even Border collies') natures.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Peter,

If all meaning is subjective how could it be otherwise------go for it!!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 3:48 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Peter,

If all meaning is subjective how could it be otherwise------go for it!!
The word 'meaning' doesn't appear in my little dialogue. But anyway...

You seem to think the abstract noun 'meaning' is the name of something that can therefore be described. By all means, if you can show what that thing is - go for it!

And when you find you can't, then we can look at all the many and various ways we do or could use the word 'meaning' and its cognates. It's the only cure for metaphysical delusion.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:28 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 3:48 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Peter,

If all meaning is subjective how could it be otherwise------go for it!!
The word 'meaning' doesn't appear in my little dialogue. But anyway...

You seem to think the abstract noun 'meaning' is the name of something that can therefore be described. By all means, if you can show what that thing is - go for it!

And when you find you can't, then we can look at all the many and various ways we do or could use the word 'meaning' and its cognates. It's the only cure for metaphysical delusion.
Peter,

Meaning is the experience of a conscious subject of apparent reality or your everyday experience. Meaning is a biological readout of the energies that make alterations in the biology of a conscious subject, thought of as the world as an object or objects in general. All meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never, read never the property of the object. This might help, the physical world is utterly meaningless in the absence of a conscious subject, until the conscious subject bestows meaning upon a meaningless world.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by seeds »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Yes, I see a problem.

And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Yes, I see a problem.

And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by seeds »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Yes, I see a problem.

And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
I think I clearly implied that there is such a thing as objectivity. In which case, your statement makes no sense to me.

Who is it that is consistently rejecting and invoking a distinction?

Can you please clarify what you mean?
_______
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:00 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:56 am Question: Is morality objective or subjective?

Answer: There's no such thing as objectivity, so morality must be subjective.

Can anyone see a problem with this answer?
Yes, I see a problem.

And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
This is just arguing from adverse consequences. ALl objective statements are only relative to the criteria upon which they are made. It is perfectly reasonable that having established such criteria statements may be measured against such criteria, yet the criteria are always subject to argumentation; every thing is in fact subjective when moral values are concerned.


Since we can clearly identify the source of a subjective statement, we can reasonably say that such as statement is subject to the interests of a particular subject. THough there may be elements of truth in in you have to ask where would the objective stem from.
We cannot similarly identify the source of any statement claimed as being objective.
Instead we are forced to marshal a series of criteria upon which to judge the objectivity of a statement. But there can be no final judgement or source of a completely objective criterion upon which to determine objectivity.
No source can be objective. We can nominate a source as objective such as a machine or measure of some kind but we are continually forced to ask what value such a choice is. Upon what grounds could such a judgement be made and in doing so how would you avoid the subjectiveness of any judge or judges.
These discussions come up all the time. And never have I seen an objectivist make a claim which is defensible.
If you think an objective statement of a moral nature is objective then please make that statement; defend it; and say why the objections to it are invalid on objective grounds!
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 4:36 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:00 pm
Yes, I see a problem.

And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
This is just arguing from adverse consequences. ALl objective statements are only relative to the criteria upon which they are made. It is perfectly reasonable that having established such criteria statements may be measured against such criteria, yet the criteria are always subject to argumentation; every thing is in fact subjective when moral values are concerned.
I'd put it like this: any description - and so any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. It's always 'given the way we use these signs in this context'. But this is trivially true and inconsequential - and it doesn't undermine the possibility of what we call objectivity: reliance or dependence on facts.
Since we can clearly identify the source of a subjective statement, we can reasonably say that such as statement is subject to the interests of a particular subject. THough there may be elements of truth in in you have to ask where would the objective stem from.
We cannot similarly identify the source of any statement claimed as being objective.
Instead we are forced to marshal a series of criteria upon which to judge the objectivity of a statement. But there can be no final judgement or source of a completely objective criterion upon which to determine objectivity.
I don't think the objective/subjective distinction is to do with the source of the assertion. Instead, it's to do with its function: to assert something about reality that may or may not be the case; or to express a value-judgement or opinion. So 'water is H2O' is a factual assertion with a truth-value; but 'abortion is morally wrong' expresses an opinion and has no factual truth-value - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.
No source can be objective. We can nominate a source as objective such as a machine or measure of some kind but we are continually forced to ask what value such a choice is. Upon what grounds could such a judgement be made and in doing so how would you avoid the subjectiveness of any judge or judges.
As above, I think your approach to the issue is mistaken.
These discussions come up all the time. And never have I seen an objectivist make a claim which is defensible.
If you think an objective statement of a moral nature is objective then please make that statement; defend it; and say why the objections to it are invalid on objective grounds!
No, I agree with you that morality can't be objective, because there are no moral facts. But I disagree with you about the possibility of objectivity, because there are what we call facts: features of reality that are or were the case - such as the chemical constitution of water.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 4:23 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:00 pm
Yes, I see a problem.

And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
I think I clearly implied that there is such a thing as objectivity. In which case, your statement makes no sense to me.

Who is it that is consistently rejecting and invoking a distinction?

Can you please clarify what you mean?
_______
I think popeye 1945 argues that what we call objectivity is impossible, because 'all meaning is subjective' - and that is both to reject and invoke a distinction. So I'm trying to counter that claim - and agree with you that objectivity is possible.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 4:36 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
This is just arguing from adverse consequences. ALl objective statements are only relative to the criteria upon which they are made. It is perfectly reasonable that having established such criteria statements may be measured against such criteria, yet the criteria are always subject to argumentation; every thing is in fact subjective when moral values are concerned.
I'd put it like this: any description - and so any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. It's always 'given the way we use these signs in this context'. But this is trivially true and inconsequential - and it doesn't undermine the possibility of what we call objectivity: reliance or dependence on facts.
Since we can clearly identify the source of a subjective statement, we can reasonably say that such as statement is subject to the interests of a particular subject. THough there may be elements of truth in in you have to ask where would the objective stem from.
We cannot similarly identify the source of any statement claimed as being objective.
Instead we are forced to marshal a series of criteria upon which to judge the objectivity of a statement. But there can be no final judgement or source of a completely objective criterion upon which to determine objectivity.
I don't think the objective/subjective distinction is to do with the source of the assertion. Instead, it's to do with its function: to assert something about reality that may or may not be the case; or to express a value-judgement or opinion. So 'water is H2O' is a factual assertion with a truth-value; but 'abortion is morally wrong' expresses an opinion and has no factual truth-value - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.
No source can be objective. We can nominate a source as objective such as a machine or measure of some kind but we are continually forced to ask what value such a choice is. Upon what grounds could such a judgement be made and in doing so how would you avoid the subjectiveness of any judge or judges.
As above, I think your approach to the issue is mistaken.
These discussions come up all the time. And never have I seen an objectivist make a claim which is defensible.
If you think an objective statement of a moral nature is objective then please make that statement; defend it; and say why the objections to it are invalid on objective grounds!
No, I agree with you that morality can't be objective, because there are no moral facts. But I disagree with you about the possibility of objectivity, because there are what we call facts: features of reality that are or were the case - such as the chemical constitution of water.
It's not "trivial" in any sense.
Even H2O = water has a subjective context, simply for the fact that it is not universally meaningful. It works well in an English speaking community. But the subjectivity goes further. The simple selection of such a statement in a given instance is interested.
¬
Then you contradict yourself by saying that the S/O distinction is not to do with the source, then give an example of "expressing an opinion" which say that it is about the source.

Then you absurdly say I am mistaken without giving a reason.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:43 am
seeds wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 4:23 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
I think I clearly implied that there is such a thing as objectivity. In which case, your statement makes no sense to me.

Who is it that is consistently rejecting and invoking a distinction?

Can you please clarify what you mean?
_______
I think popeye 1945 argues that what we call objectivity is impossible, because 'all meaning is subjective' - and that is both to reject and invoke a distinction. So I'm trying to counter that claim - and agree with you that objectivity is possible.
In the most commonly held definition of objective- objectivity is impossible.
We just need to clarify what we mean by objectivity to make the word useful.
To be objective requires a definable context, and bound by agreed criteria.
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by seeds »

_______

Image

_______
Post Reply