Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

"Like you, I have reasons for my moral judgement that murder is wrong."

Then, tell me what they are.

Read and try to understand my previous remarks. This is wasting time - yours and mine.

Why can't you just plainly, directly, tell me why you think murder is wrong?

Read and try to understand my previous remarks. This is wasting time - yours and mine.

Or you could just plainly, directly, tell me why you think murder is wrong. Please. Show me how to explain why murder is wrong. I need help.

[Immanuel Can]

One reason for my irritation is that you tell lies. For example, earlier you said this: 'But so far, it seems you won't accept anything I might offer, Peter. You can't even say what "evidence" for or against would look like to you, if you ever saw it.'

That can't even possibly be a lie. It's framed as an observation. It "seems" to me. And that is indeed how it seems. You're free to contradict it as a matter of fact, but you can hardly say, "No, it does not seem that way to you, you liar."

And the claim that I can't say what such evidence would comprise is false - another lie.

This accusation is simply untrue. I did not say "you cannot." I said "it seems you won't." And that is exactly how it seems, because you've refused to. What's the problem?

The reason why I don't say what I would accept as such evidence is that it isn't my job to show you what would persuade me.

Sure it is. If there are no conditions under which you would recognize anything as evidence, then it's impossible to show you anything you'll accept as evidence. That's pretty straightforward.

Yours is the burden of proving your claims, because the burden of proof is always with the claimant.

Absolutely. But you've already precluded that possibility IF nothing will ever meet your standards of evidence.

Heck, I can't even tell what your standards of evidence are: you won't say.

And so far, all you've offered is your objectively unjustified claim that you have a personal relationship with a god -

I did not "offer" that as a claim. I offered it as an example of something that I would not expect another rational person to accept, though it would still be solid evidence for someone who actually experienced it. My point was simply that you and I have to have a common standard of evidence. And maybe we do: but I have no idea what yours is. All I know so far is that you seem to agree with me that personal experience is one thing that should be outside the bounds. But you haven't said anything about what's in.

So your evasion continues.

I'm not evading anything. I'm asking for your standard of proof, so I can meet it -- if I can.

Again, Pete, you're been way too prickly, and unnecessarily so. There's no trap here: just a request for information.

[henry quirk]

Read and try to understand my previous remarks. This is wasting time - yours and mine.

Why can't you just plainly, directly, tell me why you think murder is wrong?

Read and try to understand my previous remarks. This is wasting time - yours and mine.

Or you could just plainly, directly, tell me why you think murder is wrong. Please. Show me how to explain why murder is wrong. I need help.

Pete, you decide your level and method of participation in-forum, yeah? That is: you, and you alone, decide how you'll respond, what strategies you'll use; the nature, the complexion, of your posts is yours, yeah?

Then, please, allow me to respond and inquire as I see fit.

You asked a question at the beginning I couldn't answer to your satisfaction. I'm attempting to answer it in another way,

I'm not tryin' to trip you up (and, frankly, I'm irked you suggest it cuz none of our interactions have been colored by dishonesty comin' from me), I haven't insulted you (but you have repeatedly insulted me, for no good reason except perhaps as a 'trip the other guy up' strategy), I'm simply tryin' to get to the root of things.

Yeah, I can state my reasons (and have, in part, up-thread, and in other conversations with you in other threads) but they don't move you. So, instead of playin' monolith, I'm lookin' for the common ground, sumthin' I thought was obvious.

If you don't wanna answer my question, don't wanna tell me why you think murder is wrong, that's okay, but this is how I wanna proceed, cuz -- again -- like you, I decide how I respond, how I post.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

Yes, and there's no trap here either - just a request for information.

What evidence do you have for your claim that morality is objective?

The sentence begins like this: 'Morality is objective because ...' Then you give the reason or reasons, and then we can discuss what you say. If I don't accept what you call evidence, I'll explain why, and you can respond.

I wait with keen but blunting anticipation.

[Peter Holmes]

Why can't you just plainly, directly, tell me why you think murder is wrong?

Read and try to understand my previous remarks. This is wasting time - yours and mine.

Or you could just plainly, directly, tell me why you think murder is wrong. Please. Show me how to explain why murder is wrong. I need help.

Pete, you decide your level and method of participation in-forum, yeah? That is: you, and you alone, decide how you'll respond, what strategies you'll use; the nature, the complexion, of your posts is yours, yeah?

Then, please, allow me to respond and inquire as I see fit.

You asked a question at the beginning I couldn't answer to your satisfaction. I'm attempting to answer it in another way,

I'm not tryin' to trip you up (and, frankly, I'm irked you suggest it cuz none of our interactions have been colored by dishonesty comin' from me), I haven't insulted you (but you have repeatedly insulted me, for no good reason except perhaps as a 'trip the other guy up' strategy), I'm simply tryin' to get to the root of things.

Yeah, I can state my reasons (and have, in part, up-thread, and in other conversations with you in other threads) but they don't move you. So, instead of playin' monolith, I'm lookin' for the common ground, sumthin' I thought was obvious.

If you don't wanna answer my question, don't wanna tell me why you think murder is wrong, that's okay, but this is how I wanna proceed, cuz -- again -- like you, I decide how I respond, how I post.

Fine. I've explained why I think the question 'why is murder wrong?' misfires - in other words, why it's a stupid question.

And I choose to leave the discussion there, unless you choose to explain why you think it isn't a stupid question - and how you yourself answer it.

And I completely agree - that's entirely up to you.

I apologise if I have insulted you, and I assure you that wasn't my intention.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can
Yes, and there's no trap here either - just a request for information.
What evidence do you have for your claim that morality is objective?

I'd like to tell you. In fact, I'm waiting to tell you.

But I have no idea what you think "evidence" is. You won't say.

Where do you want to set the bar? When you set it, I'll see if I can clear it. But if there's no bar, what's the point?

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can
Yes, and there's no trap here either - just a request for information.
What evidence do you have for your claim that morality is objective?

I'd like to tell you. In fact, I'm waiting to tell you.

But I have no idea what you think "evidence" is. You won't say.

Where do you want to set the bar? When you set it, I'll see if I can clear it. But if there's no bar, what's the point?

I don't set any bar anywhere, because it isn't my place to do so in this discussion. It would be irrational for me to dictate in advance what counts as evidence. I need to see and assess the claim(s). If you want to declare them, why not throw caution to the wind - and just do so? I assume you think they're strong, or you wouldn't believe them yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't set any bar anywhere, because it isn't my place to do so in this discussion. It would be irrational for me to dictate in advance what counts as evidence.

Quite the opposite: it would be indispensable. It's a general principle, well established in courts, in all formal competitions, and in science itself, that terms must be set before terms can be met.

For instance, we know if a thing is "scientific" because a thing called "the scientific method" already exist, and has been specified. If there were no such thing as "the scientific method," with its associated standards of evidence, nobody could possibly say when something was "scientific" and when it was not.

In court, a prosecutor must meet a "burden of proof." But the burden he must meet is specified well beforehand: no hearsay, testimony must be corroborated, eye-witnesses are better than inferences, and if the burden of proof is not met, the accused cannot be jailed.

In games, the parameters of the competition are established before gameplay begins, and all participants agree to them. Cheating is also defined, as is the point at which the match will be won. These things are not left to the judgment of competitors on-the-fly. No one side can unilaterally declare himself victor, but he must meet the terms of the match in order to win.

This is all so routine you cannot possibly not see the rightness of it.

Likewise, if you have a standard of evidence, a person who hopes to meet it needs to know what it is. If you cannot say, I understand -- it would mean you were finding (perhaps somewhat disconcertingly) that all along, you had actually had no standard of evidence in mind at all. If you can say but won't -- it would mean that you were either ashamed of your own standard of evidence, or thought that it could be too easily met, and so did not want to offer it because you didn't want it to be met...or, less charitably, that you were just trying to be difficult, though I will not impute that to you.

At the moment, your position is like that of a girl who has been asked to the prom, and responds, "There are no circumstances under which I would go with you, but now...dance!"

And It can't surprise you if anyone with an ounce of sense would say, "Thank you for your time," and walk away with dignity. It's exactly what a good person would do.

But the exchange would settle nothing: not because the young man in question was unable to meet the challenge, but because there was no challenge he was to be allowed to meet.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

Okay. I've explained my position, and you've explained yours. End of discussion. Perhaps observers have learned something from it, even if you and I haven't.

[henry quirk]

"Fine. I've explained why I think the question 'why is murder wrong?' misfires - in other words, why it's a stupid question."

Well, you've explained that thinkin' murder is wrong is a subjective assertion (an opinion): can't see how that makes the question stupid. Certainly, as shysters and judges go about seating a jury in a murder trial, those folks take the question very seriously.

#

"And I choose to leave the discussion there, unless you choose to explain why you think it isn't a stupid question - and how you yourself answer it."

I don't think it's a stupid question: my own view is that the individual has an intrinsic, not an assigned value, that he owns himself, that he has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; and that his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or in whole, when he knowingly and willingly and without just cause deprives another, in part or in whole, of his life, liberty, or property. This is, as I see it, the core of what can be called Natural Law or Natural Rights or objective morality. The linchpin is the bit about intrinsic value. If there's no intrinsic value to a man, if there's nuthin' about him valuable beyond what others assign, then, as you say, the wrongness of murder has no objective foundation.

My experience of myself, in the world, sez otherwise.

Murder is wrong because it deprives a person of his life, liberty, and property without just cause.

That's my take. If it seems familiar, Pete, it's cuz I explained all of this to you before, in another thread. You rejected it then; I expect you'll reject it now (which is why I sought, but am no longer seeking, common ground).

'nuff said.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can

Okay. I've explained my position, and you've explained yours. End of discussion. Perhaps observers have learned something from it, even if you and I haven't.

Oh, I've learned a lot through this discussion, so thank you for that. That's discussion at its best, even when to people part on differing terms.

I don't know what your personal motives are, as I said before, and I won't venture a guess. However, I've sorted out in my mind one very good reason why skeptics would not want to speak about standards of evidence. That's become quite clear to me.

And while I'm sorry to have made you uncomfortable, I find that a very valuable insight. So no hard feelings on my side, and I hope none on yours.

[Peter Holmes]

"Fine. I've explained why I think the question 'why is murder wrong?' misfires - in other words, why it's a stupid question."

Well, you've explained that thinkin' murder is wrong is a subjective assertion (an opinion): can't see how that makes the question stupid. Certainly, as shysters and judges go about seating a jury in a murder trial, those folks take the question very seriously.

#

"And I choose to leave the discussion there, unless you choose to explain why you think it isn't a stupid question - and how you yourself answer it."

I don't think it's a stupid question: my own view is that the individual has an intrinsic, not an assigned value, that he owns himself, that he has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; and that his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or in whole, when he knowingly and willingly and without just cause deprives another, in part or in whole, of his life, liberty, or property. This is, as I see it, the core of what can be called Natural Law or Natural Rights or objective morality. The linchpin is the bit about intrinsic value. If there's no intrinsic value to a man, if there's nuthin' about him valuable beyond what others assign, then, as you say, the wrongness of murder has no objective foundation.

My experience of myself, in the world, sez otherwise.

Murder is wrong because it deprives a person of his life, liberty, and property without just cause.

That's my take. If it seems familiar, Pete, it's cuz I explained all of this to you before, in another thread. You rejected it then; I expect you'll reject it now (which is why I sought, but am no longer seeking, common ground).

'nuff said.

Thanks for explaining again why you think morality is objective. As I probably pointed out last time, the claim that an individual has an intrinsic value is a value-judgement - not a factual assertion. To say it's a factual assertion (and therefore objective) is to beg the question. So the claim doesn't establish the objectivity of morality. But you didn't agree with me last time either. So agreed - nuff said.

[Peter Holmes]

Immanuel Can

Okay. I've explained my position, and you've explained yours. End of discussion. Perhaps observers have learned something from it, even if you and I haven't.

Oh, I've learned a lot through this discussion, so thank you for that. That's discussion at its best, even when to people part on differing terms.

I don't know what your personal motives are, as I said before, and I won't venture a guess. However, I've sorted out in my mind one very good reason why skeptics would not want to speak about standards of evidence. That's become quite clear to me.

And while I'm sorry to have made you uncomfortable, I find that a very valuable insight. So no hard feelings on my side, and I hope none on yours.

Unsurprisingly, my takeaway is different - that this has been a demonstration of a reluctance to expose the reasons for a belief to the scrutiny of rational skepticism - for fear the belief may have to be abandoned. And I didn't need this demonstration, because I come across the same reluctance frequently. The truth can be hard to take.

But we weren't and aren't going to agree on this. And definitely no hard feeling.

[Immanuel Can]

But we weren't and aren't going to agree on this. And definitely no hard feeling.

Good.

[Peter Holmes]

Murder is wrong because it deprives a person of his life, liberty, and property without just cause.

Henry, I know I said nuff said. But I appreciate your trying to find common ground, and I'm sorry that I didn't reciprocate. So I hope you'll understand if I try to show why there can be no common ground between moral objectivism and subjectivism - by analysing your explanation.

If we say 'murder is wrong because ... ', we're saying that the bit that comes after 'because...' is wrong: 'to deprive a person of his life, liberty, and property without just cause is wrong'.

But if we think that to murder a person IS to deprive him of his life, liberty, and property without just cause, all we're really saying is:

Murder is wrong, because murder is wrong.

or

To deprive a person of his life, etc, is wrong, because to deprive a person of his life, etc, is wrong.

In other words, we've explained one moral judgement by making another moral judgement. And this deflection must go on all the way down for ever. We can never reach what we think of as a fact (something objective - an assertion that's true, independent from judgement or opinion) that can 'ground' the column of moral judgements.

If we say 'A is wrong because B' - 'This is wrong because that' - the next question has to be 'But why is B wrong?' - 'But why is that wrong?' And the answer must always be another moral judgement, which is, by definition, subjective. And that's why morality - moral values and judgements - aren't and can't be objective.

Henry - does that do a better job of explaining my argument? I'd be very interested to know if you think I'm going wrong somewhere - and exactly where.

Needless to say, I hold and care about moral values and judgements just as deeply as you and most decent people.