Is morality objective or subjective?

[seeds]

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.

To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.

In which case,...

(and assuming solipsism to be nonsense)

...the only things - in all of reality - that can be deemed as being objective relative to one's own mind are other minds.

Even if one tries to argue that the stars and planets, or even our own bodies and brains are objective phenomena relative to our minds (of which I agree),...

...I would still assert that, yes, they are objective phenomena relative to the contents of our own minds, but I humbly (and speculatively) suggest that we're still talking about the properties and contents of yet another mind, with that being the mind of God.

So, we're still talking about minds (and their internal agents) being the only objective phenomena in all of reality (again, objective relative to each other).

Now, as to how this relates to the topic of this thread, seeing how the only "things" that exist in all of reality are agent-based minds and their internal/subjective (mentally-manifested phenomena),...

...then even morality must ultimately be thought of as being a subjective creation, for there is absolutely nothing created that is not subjectively derived in one way or another.
_______

[Peter Holmes]

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.

To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.

In which case,...

(and assuming solipsism to be nonsense)

...the only things - in all of reality - that can be deemed as being objective relative to one's own mind are other minds.

Even if one tries to argue that the stars and planets, or even our own bodies and brains are objective phenomena relative to our minds (of which I agree),...

...I would still assert that, yes, they are objective phenomena relative to the contents of our own minds, but I humbly (and speculatively) suggest that we're still talking about the properties and contents of yet another mind, with that being the mind of God.

So, we're still talking about minds (and their internal agents) being the only objective phenomena in all of reality (again, objective relative to each other).

Now, as to how this relates to the topic of this thread, seeing how the only "things" that exist in all of reality are agent-based minds and their internal/subjective (mentally-manifested phenomena),...

...then even morality must ultimately be thought of as being a subjective creation, for there is absolutely nothing created that is not subjectively derived in one way or another.
_______

Thanks. I reject the mind-dependence/independence criterion for subjectivity/objectivity, because the mind as a substance separate from the body is a fiction - if an ancient and pervasive one. There's simply no evidence for its existence. So, of course, the rest of your argument from this premise is unsound, in my opinion.

[Sculptor]

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.

To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.

The obvious problem with that is the whilst everything in fact lives outside your "mind", you cannot know anything because we can only know these things as "objects" IN the mind's eye, and therefore all is subject to our world view.

In which case,...

(and assuming solipsism to be nonsense)

...the only things - in all of reality - that can be deemed as being objective relative to one's own mind are other minds.

Even if one tries to argue that the stars and planets, or even our own bodies and brains are objective phenomena relative to our minds (of which I agree),...

...I would still assert that, yes, they are objective phenomena relative to the contents of our own minds, but I humbly (and speculatively) suggest that we're still talking about the properties and contents of yet another mind, with that being the mind of God.

So, we're still talking about minds (and their internal agents) being the only objective phenomena in all of reality (again, objective relative to each other).

Now, as to how this relates to the topic of this thread, seeing how the only "things" that exist in all of reality are agent-based minds and their internal/subjective (mentally-manifested phenomena),...

...then even morality must ultimately be thought of as being a subjective creation, for there is absolutely nothing created that is not subjectively derived in one way or another.
_______

I saw an interesting demonstration today. The presenter played a meaningless sound to a large audience. No one was able to understand what it meant, except that that it might have been modified human speech. He plays it through several times: nothing.
THen he says "Brexit was a big mistake", then re-plays the sound. THe sound is now easily recognisable - it is the same phrase and no one can here it any differently. I was so amazed by this that I played the video from the start to see if the sound had changed - it had not. I could only hear "Brexit was a big mistake".
THis underlines the simple fact that people perceive with anticipation of what they think they might be going to hear. I'm sure that sometime in the past you have heard something completely differently to what a person is saying to you because you are expecting something else or what they have to say is way off the context of the present moment.
Look into witness statements from police incidents. People at exactly the same place and time remember completely different events, clothing, what was said, to whom and so on.. It can make a massive difference who the questions are phrased and a cop wanting to find the answers they want to hear can ask questions to lead and guide the witnesses to their own expectations, often inadvertently.
What is "OUT THERE" objectively is not the direct object of out perception, which is continually laced with anticipations. And whilst we think we see what we think we see there is so much more we do not see and much we think we see that is embellishment.
When it comes to values which are not even visible or in any way objects of perception the problems accelerate. We have merely to reflect upon political differences. Two people can see the same Person giving a speech and one will see the nation is peril and run to overthrow the Capitol whilst another will see a Bigfatorangebabyman sore loser lying to a bunch of gullible fools.

[popeye1945]

The only way to know the physical world is subjectively, if you firmly believe that the physical world of objects exists in the absence of a conscious subject, then for you, there is an objective world, an objective unknown world in that case. If you believe as I do that objects are energy forms created by the relation between subject/consciousness and object/energy. It is through biological processes that there is a readout of the effects of said energies upon the biology of a conscious subject. You must then realize that life creates it own context out of the energies it receives. That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective. This despite what you may believe about the manifestation of the physical world. all meaning is subjective.

Old Buddhist to his students as he held up a flower inferring what meaning, only one in the audience felt he knew what the old one meant, master, it has no meaning, it just IS.

[Belinda]

Super illustration, Popeye!

[popeye1945]

Thanks Belinda, I don't think it will be appreciated by all----- lol!!

[Belinda]

Thanks Belinda, I don't think it will be appreciated by all----- lol!!

Jejune ideas about divinity are due to undeveloped reasoning about divinity. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on point of view, ministers of religion have to preach to the lowest common denominator.

[FlashDangerpants]

That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective.

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?



Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

[Belinda]

That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective.

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?




Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

If by "these people" do you mean people who are unremittingly sceptical? If so let's discuss the approach to reality that is facilitated by doubting the evidence of our senses.

[FlashDangerpants]

That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective.

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?




Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

If by "these people" do you mean people who are unremittingly sceptical? If so let's discuss the approach to reality that is facilitated by doubting the evidence of our senses.

I first noticed it when Vaginal Aquafresh was doing his notorious "oughtness to breathe" thing, and absolutely nobody was stupid enough to agree with that argument as it is pitiful dogshit. Until you came along and just endorsed it for no reason except that you wanted to offer offer your own accompanying 'moral fact' to go with it, one that was more or less as stupid as VA's and yet didn't bother to use even vaguely similar logic.

Since then I've noticed that every time you congratulate somebody on making a good point, they have kind of always been a madman with a silly point.

[seeds]

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.

To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.

In which case,...

(and assuming solipsism to be nonsense)

...the only things - in all of reality - that can be deemed as being objective relative to one's own mind are other minds.

Even if one tries to argue that the stars and planets, or even our own bodies and brains are objective phenomena relative to our minds (of which I agree),...

...I would still assert that, yes, they are objective phenomena relative to the contents of our own minds, but I humbly (and speculatively) suggest that we're still talking about the properties and contents of yet another mind, with that being the mind of God.

So, we're still talking about minds (and their internal agents) being the only objective phenomena in all of reality (again, objective relative to each other).

Now, as to how this relates to the topic of this thread, seeing how the only "things" that exist in all of reality are agent-based minds and their internal/subjective (mentally-manifested phenomena),...

...then even morality must ultimately be thought of as being a subjective creation, for there is absolutely nothing created that is not subjectively derived in one way or another.
_______

Thanks. I reject the mind-dependence/independence criterion for subjectivity/objectivity, because the mind as a substance separate from the body is a fiction - if an ancient and pervasive one. There's simply no evidence for its existence. So, of course, the rest of your argument from this premise is unsound, in my opinion.

Well, I reject your matter-of-fact assertion that the mind as a substance separate from the body is a "fiction."

However, if you would like to cite some irrefutable source that has proven - once and for all - that the mind/body "problem" has been resolved in favor of pure materialism, then I'll give it a look.

In the meantime, if I were to suggest to you that the fundamental substance from which your body (and all universal matter) is created, seems to be "mind-like" in nature,...

(as in resembling the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created)

...would that have any effect on your "opinion" of the ontology of the universe?
_______

[Belinda]

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?




Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

If by "these people" do you mean people who are unremittingly sceptical? If so let's discuss the approach to reality that is facilitated by doubting the evidence of our senses.

I first noticed it when Vaginal Aquafresh was doing his notorious "oughtness to breathe" thing, and absolutely nobody was stupid enough to agree with that argument as it is pitiful dogshit. Until you came along and just endorsed it for no reason except that you wanted to offer offer your own accompanying 'moral fact' to go with it, one that was more or less as stupid as VA's and yet didn't bother to use even vaguely similar logic.

Since then I've noticed that every time you congratulate somebody on making a good point, they have kind of always been a madman with a silly point.

I don't remember the occasion and in any case maybe I changed my mind
Sane philosophers are unremittingly sceptical.

[Peter Holmes]

To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.

In which case,...

(and assuming solipsism to be nonsense)

...the only things - in all of reality - that can be deemed as being objective relative to one's own mind are other minds.

Even if one tries to argue that the stars and planets, or even our own bodies and brains are objective phenomena relative to our minds (of which I agree),...

...I would still assert that, yes, they are objective phenomena relative to the contents of our own minds, but I humbly (and speculatively) suggest that we're still talking about the properties and contents of yet another mind, with that being the mind of God.

So, we're still talking about minds (and their internal agents) being the only objective phenomena in all of reality (again, objective relative to each other).

Now, as to how this relates to the topic of this thread, seeing how the only "things" that exist in all of reality are agent-based minds and their internal/subjective (mentally-manifested phenomena),...

...then even morality must ultimately be thought of as being a subjective creation, for there is absolutely nothing created that is not subjectively derived in one way or another.
_______

Thanks. I reject the mind-dependence/independence criterion for subjectivity/objectivity, because the mind as a substance separate from the body is a fiction - if an ancient and pervasive one. There's simply no evidence for its existence. So, of course, the rest of your argument from this premise is unsound, in my opinion.

Well, I reject your matter-of-fact assertion that the mind as a substance separate from the body is a "fiction."

However, if you would like to cite some irrefutable source that has proven - once and for all - that the mind/body "problem" has been resolved in favor of pure materialism, then I'll give it a look.

In the meantime, if I were to suggest to you that the fundamental substance from which your body (and all universal matter) is created, seems to be "mind-like" in nature,...

(as in resembling the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created)

...would that have any effect on your "opinion" of the ontology of the universe?
_______

Pending evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, belief in its existence is irrational. If you have or can cite such evidence, do share.

Meanwhile, some questions:

How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect?
How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause?
What is the proposed causal mechanism?

Of course, an appeal to magic is a childish superstition.

[popeye1945]

That all meaning is subjective kind of leaves no doubt that morality is subjective.

Is that supposed to be an objective statement?

Seriously, it's the kiss of death when Belinda congratulates one of these people.

FlashDangerpants

Nothing is objective, any thought, meaning, concept or feeling is subjective, the content of any statement is subjective, where else might you think these things come from? Try to keep your protests civil chaps!! A quote from Schopenhauer, Subject and object stand or fall together, what do you chaps make of that statement? Clarifying this might help tremendously.

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: Subject and object stand or fall together.

Implication: If the object falls, then so does the subject.

Conclusion: If there's no such thing as objectivity, then there's no such thing as subjectivity, and the claim that all meaning is subjective is incoherent.