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: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

HI Peter,

You are inferring that there is another way of knowing other than on the biological level, please enlighten me as to what that might be.
[/quote]

Hi, popeye.

Not at all. I'd guess we agree on quite a lot.
2025
But your point about what we call objects seems to be ontological, rather than epistemological. And I think we have to make a sharp distinction between features of reality that are or were the case (facts, including the existence of objects), and what we believe and know about them. We do perceive reality - and believe and know things about it - as human beings, with our specific neural equipment. But that reality isn't our 'cognitive property'. That seems to me a confusing projection, muddling up the two quite different things. quote

Those two factors necessary involve the perception of apparent reality, the ontological nature of the object is wave frequencies, the epistemological involves the interpretation of those wave frequencies as knowledge of object,

The third (also sharply distinguished) element of my methodological taxonomy (sorry!) is what we say about things such as objects. We can describe things in many different ways, but a description doesn't create the thing being described, any more than our knowing it does. quote

If you did not already know the object there would be no description forthcoming, the object may contain variables we are not able to sense, I believe that to be the case. That given, I completely agree with you that, outside language, what we call reality has no meaning, no truth-value. It just exists.
[/quote]

Truth value is what your biology tells you it is. As I've said before, it comes down to understanding Schopenhauer's statement, "Subject and object stand or fall together." There is that, and also physics tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, in other words, its all wave frequencies.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

1What we call objects are real things, completely independent from perceiving or 'knowing' observers.[/quote]
2What do you mean by 'real things'?
3'Thoughts' are 'real things', to some people, but they are NOT 'objects', to some people.
'Unicorns' are 'objects', to some people, but they are NOT 'real things', to some people.
4 So, what are 'objects', to you? And,
What are 'real things', to you?
5 Will you provide examples and definitions?
If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, when 'you' use the 'we' word who and/or what are 'you' referring to, EXACTLY?

Age,

Number one, physics disagrees with you, if they state that ultimate reality is a place of no things, this means all is wave frequencies.
Number two, what I mean by real things are the objects we perceive in the physical world, but, they are products of the effect of wave frequencies on one's biology.
Number three, thought is a function and not an object in the physical world.
Number four, I believe I've already answered that, objects are how wave frequencies are interpreted by your body.
Number five, will I provide examples and definitions. In what form, the form of an object, if it were that apparent there would be no dialogue.

As to the use of the word who and/or what I have no idea what your talking about. Perhaps, if you put it in context, somewhat like an object, I would find it meaningful.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Advocate »

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Subjective - contingent, on the salience, perspective, and priorities of everyone involved.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

As one considers the question, is morality objective or subjective, it might help to remember that morality is a societal construct and autonomy is not possible, one abides by the morality of the context/society or one is at odds with that society. The members of that society have created that society out of their collective subjective desire to guarantee the well-being of the individual in the collective, morality is a biological extension, a creation of subjective desire made manifest in the world.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:27 pm As one considers the question, is morality objective or subjective, it might help to remember that morality is a societal construct and autonomy is not possible, one abides by the morality of the context/society or one is at odds with that society. The members of that society have created that society out of their collective subjective desire to guarantee the well-being of the individual in the collective, morality is a biological extension, a creation of subjective desire made manifest in the world.
Thanks for this. But I think there are are two separate issues here: why humans have developed moral rules; and whether those rules are morally right or wrong. It seems to me the first issue or question is factual and rationally explicable. But the second issue or question is different in nature. So, that we should 'guarantee the well-being of the individual in the collective' - which I believe - is, and can only be, a matter of opinion - how ever many of us hold that opinion.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:15 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:27 pm As one considers the question, is morality objective or subjective, it might help to remember that morality is a societal construct and autonomy is not possible, one abides by the morality of the context/society or one is at odds with that society. The members of that society have created that society out of their collective subjective desire to guarantee the well-being of the individual in the collective, morality is a biological extension, a creation of subjective desire made manifest in the world.
Thanks for this. But I think there are are two separate issues here: why humans have developed moral rules; and whether those rules are morally right or wrong. It seems to me the first issue or question is factual and rationally explicable. But the second issue or question is different in nature. So, that we should 'guarantee the well-being of the individual in the collective' - which I believe - is, and can only be, a matter of opinion - how ever many of us hold that opinion.
Hi Peter,

I think the majority of the inconsistencies in the rules of morality across the board is due to the differing foundations of the moral structures of the given societies. That being said, I believe there would be fewer inconsistencies if morality was based upon what we all have in common, our common biology, at present they are mostly based upon differing myths. If there were not benefits of belonging to society then the inclination to gather into groups and enjoy group cooperation for the general well-being of each individual would be negated. The self would not recognize the self in others and groups or societies would not form. The self-interest of ones well being through recognition and thus compassion is the glue that holds societies together.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by RCSaunders »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:23 pm The self-interest of ones well being through recognition and thus compassion is the glue that holds societies together.
Which is a good thing, else they would not be able to build huge military machines and go to war with each other, killing as many as they possibly can and destroying as much property as they possibly can.

But compassion ("the fellow feeling of the unsound," GBS said) and sentiment enable one to feel their patriotism (empathy and sympathy for their own) and hate for all those not part of their own state or society. What fun would there be in a world where every individual only pursued their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:13 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:23 pm The self-interest of ones well being through recognition and thus compassion is the glue that holds societies together.
Which is a good thing, else they would not be able to build huge military machines and go to war with each other, killing as many as they possibly can and destroying as much property as they possibly can.

But compassion ("the fellow feeling of the unsound," GBS said) and sentiment enable one to feel their patriotism (empathy and sympathy for their own) and hate for all those not part of their own state or society. What fun would there be in a world where every individual only pursued their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life.
Do you think 'every individual' should pursue 'their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life'? (This is, of course, impossible, because we're inter-dependent social animals. But were it possible, would your scenario be morally justifiable?)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by RCSaunders »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 5:37 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:13 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:23 pm The self-interest of ones well being through recognition and thus compassion is the glue that holds societies together.
Which is a good thing, else they would not be able to build huge military machines and go to war with each other, killing as many as they possibly can and destroying as much property as they possibly can.

But compassion ("the fellow feeling of the unsound," GBS said) and sentiment enable one to feel their patriotism (empathy and sympathy for their own) and hate for all those not part of their own state or society. What fun would there be in a world where every individual only pursued their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life.
Do you think 'every individual' should pursue 'their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life'?
Absolutely! Inteference is uninvited intrusion in another's life. It has nothing to do with social intercourse, cooperation, or benevolent social relationships.

Only those relationships between individuals in which every individual voluntarily participates to their individual benefit can be positive relationships. Cooperation is only possible to those individuals who voluntarily contribute to any effort or project because it is in their interest. Any enterprise that requires the involuntary subjugation of some individuals to the choices of others is a form of slavery, oppression, or tyranny.

Only those who would never interfere in another's life, uninvited, and would never seek or participate in any relationship with others except those all others chose to be part of because it is in their mutual interest to do so, at any social level. form friendship to business. are capable of or worthy of the society of others. They are the only ones who are never a danger or threat to others and the only ones capable of making a positive contributions to any society.
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 5:37 pm (This is, of course, impossible, because we're inter-dependent social animals. But were it possible, would your scenario be morally justifiable?)
It is very sad that you believe human beings cannot choose to enjoy and work with one another without intruding in one another's lives.

I have no idea how it came to be believed that human beings are some kind of animal whose nature determines how they are supposed to relate to one another socially. Human beings are not herd animals, pack animals, solitary animals, grazers, parasites, or predators by nature, though human can and do behave like all of those. Human beings are volitional animals and must choose how they will live. Most find societies both useful and generally benevolent (with serious reservations), but some have as little to do with society as possible. Every human being is different. There is no one right way for every human being to live.

There is no so-called, "moral," code or ideology that does not justify some kind of intrusion by some human beings in others' lives. There is nothing called, "morality," which is not malevolent to human life, corrupting all benevolent social relationships.
Last edited by RCSaunders on Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Which is a good thing, else they would not be able to build huge military machines and go to war with each other, killing as many as they possibly can and destroying as much property as they possibly can.

But compassion ("the fellow feeling of the unsound," GBS said) and sentiment enable one to feel their patriotism (empathy and sympathy for their own) and hate for all those not part of their own state or society. What fun would there be in a world where every individual only pursued their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life.
[/quote]
Do you think 'every individual' should pursue 'their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life'? (This is, of course, impossible, because we're inter-dependent social animals. But were it possible, would your scenario be morally justifiable?)
[/quote]

Peter.
Interdependence is the key, even if one wish to ignore reality, interdependent is what we are. It looks very much like humanity will not survive due to the refusal to think globally. In the context of society and its interrelations, ones self-interest is the interest of the given society and hopefully one day to expand upon the concept to include the world society. Another vital thing needed to survive is self-control, without which there is no control, as it stands it spells doom. Given the above, the only thing that will save the condition of the world from changing to one utterly hostile to life, is if humanity dies out on a grand scale, read ongoing pandemics, I think we are on a roll here, mother nature is going to take back what is hers.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 3:26 am Which is a good thing, else they would not be able to build huge military machines and go to war with each other, killing as many as they possibly can and destroying as much property as they possibly can.

But compassion ("the fellow feeling of the unsound," GBS said) and sentiment enable one to feel their patriotism (empathy and sympathy for their own) and hate for all those not part of their own state or society. What fun would there be in a world where every individual only pursued their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life.
Do you think 'every individual' should pursue 'their own interest without ever interfering in anyone else's life'? (This is, of course, impossible, because we're inter-dependent social animals. But were it possible, would your scenario be morally justifiable?)
[/quote]

Peter.
Interdependence is the key, even if one wish to ignore reality, interdependent is what we are. It looks very much like humanity will not survive due to the refusal to think globally. In the context of society and its interrelations, ones self-interest is the interest of the given society and hopefully one day to expand upon the concept to include the world society. Another vital thing needed to survive is self-control, without which there is no control, as it stands it spells doom. Given the above, the only thing that will save the condition of the world from changing to one utterly hostile to life, is if humanity dies out on a grand scale, read ongoing pandemics, I think we are on a roll here, mother nature is going to take back what is hers.
[/quote]

popeye

Okay. I'd emphasise that our interdependence is a fact that, like any fact, has no moral entailment. (Moral objectivists are stuck in a hamster wheel.) And the scope of our moral concerns is itself a moral question - who are the others we should try to help and avoid harming? - which has no factual answer. We just have to decide.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

Peter.
Interdependence is the key, even if one wish to ignore reality, interdependent is what we are. It looks very much like humanity will not survive due to the refusal to think globally. In the context of society and its interrelations, ones self-interest is the interest of the given society and hopefully one day to expand upon the concept to include the world society. Another vital thing needed to survive is self-control, without which there is no control, as it stands it spells doom. Given the above, the only thing that will save the condition of the world from changing to one utterly hostile to life, is if humanity dies out on a grand scale, read ongoing pandemics, I think we are on a roll here, mother nature is going to take back what is hers.
[/quote]

popeye

Okay. I'd emphasise that our interdependence is a fact that, like any fact, has no moral entailment. (Moral objectivists are stuck in a hamster wheel.) And the scope of our moral concerns is itself a moral question - who are the others we should try to help and avoid harming? - which has no factual answer. We just have to decide.
[/quote]

Peter.

The dialogue around morality would be a lot less shaky if morality had as its foundation our common biology our common well being all other forms are really missing the mark. If we ever desire peace within a global community we have to extend the concept of the self and realize the self in all others. This is what makes community if one does not identify the self in others compassion does not arise and compassion is what enables community.


By the way you have miss quoted me in your last post. I've done it myself but it makes for confusion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:03 pm
The dialogue around morality would be a lot less shaky if morality had as its foundation our common biology our common well being all other forms are really missing the mark. If we ever desire peace within a global community we have to extend the concept of the self and realize the self in all others. This is what makes community if one does not identify the self in others compassion does not arise and compassion is what enables community.


By the way you have miss quoted me in your last post. I've done it myself but it makes for confusion.
Sorry. Hope I got it right this time.

That we should, given our common biology, promote human well-being, is an opinion, a decision, a choice. And the choice of a foundation or goal is always subjective. There's no fact of the matter, much as we may wish there were. Here are two formulations.

If there are no moral facts, then there can be only moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.

The conclusion that, if there are only moral opinions, then nothing is or can be said to be morally right or wrong, doesn't follow. It is to ignore the hypothetical antecedent and cling to the delusion that there are moral facts.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by RCSaunders »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 9:45 am 2What do you mean by 'real things'?
3'Thoughts' are 'real things', to some people, but they are NOT 'objects', to some people.
The mistake you are making is called a, "category error."

"Real," means something that actually exists and actually has the nature (attributes or characteristics) it is asserted it have.

Both a cakes and a cake recipes are real things. A cake is real because it exists as an actual physical entity that can be directly perceived and eaten. A cake recipe is a real thing because it exists as a collection concepts that can be used to make a cake.

If you described a cake recipe as a physical entity or implied that it existed independently of human consciousness, a cake recipe in that sense would not be real. If you suggested a cake only existed as ideas, as some mystics and idealists do, cake in that sense would not be real.

The difference is a confusion of the metaphysical and epistemological. Actual cakes exist metaphysically--they are what they are and have the nature they have totally independently of any human consciousness or knowledge of them. A cake recipe only exists epistemologically as a product of a human mind and otherwise does not exist at all.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

["That we should, given our common biology, promote human well-being, is an opinion, a decision, a choice. And the choice of a foundation or goal is always subjective. There's no fact of the matter, much as we may wish there were. Here are two formulations.

If there are no moral facts, then there can be only moral opinions, which are necessarily subjective.

The conclusion that, if there are only moral opinions, then nothing is or can be said to be morally right or wrong, doesn't follow. It is to ignore the hypothetical antecedent and cling to the delusion that there are moral facts.
[/quote]

Peter,
There is nothing meaningful out there in the physical world. All meaning is subjective and when the subjective mind bestows it upon the physical world it is then objective in the form of some biological extension called morality, systems, values or what have you. The physical world as apparent reality your daily reality is a biological readout thus there is only one place to look for answers and that is the experience and understanding of biological subjects. Facts are meanings and again there is only one source.
Post Reply