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: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:21 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:43 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:09 am I assume you think...your regime would be beneficent.

My regime...that's funny...you made a funny... 👍

Yep, my regime would be beneficent for those who respect individual life, liberty, and property...not so much for those who don't.
And under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility. And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists. Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.
PH: And under my regime,

Who will give the F... to YOUR 'moral' maxims when it is so personal and subjective to only yourself.

At least with Henry's moral realism, there is some semblance of universality among moral realists thus objective, albeit ultimately intersubjective co-shared truth of moral reality.
I think my belief that women should control their own bodies and fertitlity is universally applicable - through time and space. That's the nature of moral beliefs. And, I'm glad to say, increasing numbers of people worldwide share that belief - though not enough yet, because the subjugation of women is still widely practised.

You do understand the bandwagon fallacy, I assume. And I assume you understand that 'some semblance of universality of opinion' isn't a condition, let alone a sufficient condition, for what we call objectivity - independence from opinion with regard to the facts.
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 »

And under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility.

Right up to the end of week 12 she can as she likes. But she can't off a person without just cause...no one can, and -- by the end of week 12 -- wha she carries is a person.


And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists.

Reduce gov to proxy, set its only goal as preservin' life, liberty, and property, and there won't be any state-caplitalism. The workers and the little guy won't get screwed (in that way) cuz the big guys won't be able to buy legislators who'll favor them...cuz there won't be any legislators.


Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.

Unequal outcomes are normal....some folks will fail...what you really want is to end institutional skew that favors one group and squelches honest competition...trust me: you really don't wanna empower legislators, or special interests/lobbyists, to impose equality...we've been doin' that for awhile and things are worse, not better.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:19 am And under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility.

Right up to the end of week 12 she can as she likes. But she can't off a person without just cause...no one can, and -- by the end of week 12 -- wha she carries is a person.


And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists.

Reduce gov to proxy, set its only goal as preservin' life, liberty, and property, and there won't be any state-caplitalism. The workers and the little guy won't get screwed (in that way) cuz the big guys won't be able to buy legislators who'll favor them...cuz there won't be any legislators.


Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.

Unequal outcomes are normal....some folks will fail...what you really want is to end institutional skew that favors one group and squelches honest competition...trust me: you really don't wanna empower legislators, or special interests/lobbyists, to impose equality...we've been doin' that for awhile and things are worse, not better.
1 In my opinion, no person should have the right to use another person's body without that person's consent. To me, that's what, if anything, 'self-ownership' means. Special pleading for a post-12-week foetus needs justification. We certainly don't confer that right on a new-born child.

2 The claim that, after 12 weeks' gestation, a foetus becomes a person is completely arbitrary - a matter of opinion.

3 Capitalism involves the enforced theft of surplus value from workers, which is immoral, in my opinion, as it disrespects property rights. A system that creates and relies on (usually gross) economic inequality is immoral - and, as it happens, economically less than optimally efficient.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

In my opinion, no person should have the right to use another person's body without that person's consent.

I agree. But, in the case of pregnancy, a person didn't come along and say I'm climbin' in and usin' you, like it or not...no, a man and woman engaged in behavior guaranteed to cause conception...in effect: they invited the baby. It doesn't seem at all moral to make a person then kill him.


We certainly don't confer that right on a new-born child.

But we certainly expect the parents to care for it...we take exception if a parent kills, abuses, or neglects a child. Would you argue a parent is bein' used without his or her consent?

And yes, rape is an awful violation, but most abortions aren't about rape...they're done for convenience.


The claim that, after 12 weeks' gestation, a foetus becomes a person is completely arbitrary - a matter of opinion.

Let's examine that: let's take a purely materialistic position...a person is nuthin' but material organized in a certain way...if this is the case, then we can say when a person comes to be...at 12 weeks, what a woman carries has the same kind, arrangement, and complexity of material as you or me...so, if I'm a person, if you're a person, becuz we are a particular and peculiar arrangement of matter, then we can say what a woman carries at 12 weeks is a person becuz it is the same kind of peculiar and particular arrangement of the same kind of material as us.

If you disagree then I must ask: at what point in a pregnancy does what a woman carries become a person?


Capitalism involves the enforced theft of surplus value from workers, which is immoral, in my opinion, as it disrespects property rights. A system that creates and relies on (usually gross) economic inequality is immoral - and, as it happens, economically less than optimally inefficient.

Where there is government, capitalism always becomes state capitalism which brings about what you describe above, becuz the capitalist can buy legislation that favors his industry, that disadvantages competition, that works against workers. As I say: eliminate the ability to skew the market by eliminatin' the legislator, and state capitalism becomes simple free enterprise which favors all equally, allows no enforced skew, allows for no enforced monopolies and empowers employees to most clearly control their own labor.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:41 pm In my opinion, no person should have the right to use another person's body without that person's consent.

I agree. But, in the case of pregnancy, a person didn't come along and say I'm climbin' in and usin' you, like it or not...no, a man and woman engaged in behavior guaranteed to cause conception...in effect: they invited the baby. It doesn't seem at all moral to make a person then kill him.


We certainly don't confer that right on a new-born child.

But we certainly expect the parents to care for it...we take exception if a parent kills, abuses, or neglects a child. Would you argue a parent is bein' used without his or her consent?

And yes, rape is an awful violation, but most abortions aren't about rape...they're done for convenience.


The claim that, after 12 weeks' gestation, a foetus becomes a person is completely arbitrary - a matter of opinion.

Let's examine that: let's take a purely materialistic position...a person is nuthin' but material organized in a certain way...if this is the case, then we can say when a person comes to be...at 12 weeks, what a woman carries has the same kind, arrangement, and complexity of material as you or me...so, if I'm a person, if you're a person, becuz we are a particular and peculiar arrangement of matter, then we can say what a woman carries at 12 weeks is a person becuz it is the same kind of peculiar and particular arrangement of the same kind of material as us.

If you disagree then I must ask: at what point in a pregnancy does what a woman carries become a person?


Capitalism involves the enforced theft of surplus value from workers, which is immoral, in my opinion, as it disrespects property rights. A system that creates and relies on (usually gross) economic inequality is immoral - and, as it happens, economically less than optimally inefficient.

Where there is government, capitalism always becomes state capitalism which brings about what you describe above, becuz the capitalist can buy legislation that favors his industry, that disadvantages competition, that works against workers. As I say: eliminate the ability to skew the market by eliminatin' the legislator, and state capitalism becomes simple free enterprise which favors all equally, allows no enforced skew, allows for no enforced monopolies and empowers employees to most clearly control their own labor.
1 You agree with the moral principle that no person should have the right to use another person's body without that person's consent. And, in my opinion, that principle trumps any special pleading exceptions. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. And, of course, there's no moral fact of the matter to settle the argument.

2 Given the above principle, whether a foetus is, or when it becomes, a person is irrelevant.

3 The distinction between kinds of capitalist organisation has no bearing on the nature of capitalist exploitation, which is theft: you can work for me iff I own what you produce and can therefore profit from your labour. So-called free enterprise doesn't favour all equally - that's just capitalist propaganda.
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 »

You agree with the moral principle that no person should have the right to use another person's body without that person's consent.

Yes, I do. A man belongs to himself. His life, liberty, and property are his.


And, in my opinion, that principle trumps any special pleading exceptions.

So abortion right up to the day of delivery is permissible, yes? And after delivery, should the parents decide to leave it on a doorstep, or in a dumpster, this too is permissible, yes?


Given the above principle, whether a foetus is, or when it becomes, a person is irrelevant.

When does personhood become relevant? Does it ever become relevant?


The distinction between kinds of capitalist organisation has no bearing on the nature of capitalist exploitation, which is theft: you can work for me iff I own what you produce and can therefore profit from your labour. So-called free enterprise doesn't favour all equally - that's just capitalist propaganda.

I can choose to work for someone else who may negotiate with me on terms, or I can (as I actually do) work for myself, and these things, which I can do now in a state capitalism, I can do far more easily in a true free market/free enterprise.

And, actually, capitalists dislike free enterprise, for the reasons I laid out above. And, yes, free enterprise does favor all equally ...it doesn't however, guarantee equal outcomes, which I think is your concern.

What system, in your view, does or could, guarantee equality of outcome?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:38 pm You agree with the moral principle that no person should have the right to use another person's body without that person's consent.

Yes, I do. A man belongs to himself. His life, liberty, and property are his.


And, in my opinion, that principle trumps any special pleading exceptions.

So abortion right up to the day of delivery is permissible, yes? And after delivery, should the parents decide to leave it on a doorstep, or in a dumpster, this too is permissible, yes?


Given the above principle, whether a foetus is, or when it becomes, a person is irrelevant.

When does personhood become relevant? Does it ever become relevant?


The distinction between kinds of capitalist organisation has no bearing on the nature of capitalist exploitation, which is theft: you can work for me iff I own what you produce and can therefore profit from your labour. So-called free enterprise doesn't favour all equally - that's just capitalist propaganda.

I can choose to work for someone else who may negotiate with me on terms, or I can (as I actually do) work for myself, and these things, which I can do now in a state capitalism, I can do far more easily in a true free market/free enterprise.

And, actually, capitalists dislike free enterprise, for the reasons I laid out above. And, yes, free enterprise does favor all equally ...it doesn't however, guarantee equal outcomes, which I think is your concern.

What system, in your view, does or could, guarantee equality of outcome?
1 Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is morally wrong, in my opinion, because of the given moral principle. And after birth, no person should be forced to donate a body-part to benefit a child. The parental duty of care for the child is different.

2 Personhood is assumed in the moral principle. Its relevance is a given.

3 That some may not sell their labour to a capitalist doesn't make the theft of surplus value from those that do any less a theft.
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 »

The parental duty of care for the child is different.

Why? Why is the parent obligated to care for the child after pregnancy, but not during?


That some may not sell their labour to a capitalist doesn't make the theft of surplus value from those that do any less a theft.

So, it's theft no matter what, yeah? John gets 100 grand a year to produce computer chip designs for a company. The freely entered into agreement between John and the company sez all those designs belong to the company...this is theft?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:21 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:43 am

And under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility. And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists. Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.
PH: And under my regime,

Who will give the F... to YOUR 'moral' maxims when it is so personal and subjective to only yourself.

At least with Henry's moral realism, there is some semblance of universality among moral realists thus objective, albeit ultimately intersubjective co-shared truth of moral reality.
I think my belief that women should control their own bodies and fertitlity is universally applicable - through time and space. That's the nature of moral beliefs. And, I'm glad to say, increasing numbers of people worldwide share that belief - though not enough yet, because the subjugation of women is still widely practised.
I agree both spouses and the individual males and females should have control over their own bodies BUT as long as they do not deviate from the inherent moral standard.
Thus they should strive to adhere to the inherent moral standard within themselves.

Btw, I am not an anti-abortionist for the present given the present psychological state humanity is in at the moment where the majority are unable to modulate their sexual lusts efficiently.

I believe, in the future, all and each individuals [males and females] need to learn how to "fish" by themselves so that they can flow spontaneously with the inherent moral standard within themselves related to killing, slavery, abortion, etc.
You do understand the bandwagon fallacy, I assume. And I assume you understand that 'some semblance of universality of opinion' isn't a condition, let alone a sufficient condition, for what we call objectivity - independence from opinion with regard to the facts.
What is the relevance?
I have already stated a "1000" times, individual opinions, beliefs, judgments and decisions supposedly related to 'morality' is not morality-proper.

Re Henry's I was referring to his intuitive alignment with the moral standard on slavery ONLY and not on others.
The moral standard on slavery is based on the verified and justified moral truths empirically and philosophy from within a credible FSK.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:23 am I have already stated a "1000" times, individual opinions, beliefs, judgments and decisions supposedly related to 'morality' is not morality-proper.

Re Henry's I was referring to his intuitive alignment with the moral standard on slavery ONLY and not on others.
The moral standard on slavery is based on the verified and justified moral truths empirically and philosophy from within a credible FSK.
You don't have a credible FSK, all you have is an opinion that one day you will have a credible FSK.
Until your FSK contains credibility, it does no contain knowledge either. So it is your Framework and System of Opinion.

That framework is not credible enough to justify this "morality-proper" thing, which is a construct of your individual opinion, and worth no more to anybody else than your FSK that nobody thinks is credible.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12231
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:23 am I have already stated a "1000" times, individual opinions, beliefs, judgments and decisions supposedly related to 'morality' is not morality-proper.

Re Henry's I was referring to his intuitive alignment with the moral standard on slavery ONLY and not on others.
The moral standard on slavery is based on the verified and justified moral truths empirically and philosophy from within a credible FSK.
You don't have a credible FSK, all you have is an opinion that one day you will have a credible FSK.
Until your FSK contains credibility, it does no contain knowledge either. So it is your Framework and System of Opinion.

That framework is not credible enough to justify this "morality-proper" thing, which is a construct of your individual opinion, and worth no more to anybody else than your FSK that nobody thinks is credible.
In the continuum from opinion [low credibility], beliefs then to knowledge, I have to admit my proposed moral FSK is a belief with high personal conviction that is qualified to be credible "on paper" based on the incorporated features of credibility.
Like I said, it is something like an architect who is confident his building according to plan will stand an 8.0 earthquake because he has imputed all necessary features of credibility into his plan.
I have also stated my proposed moral FSK is based on existing moral systems that are already working to some degrees, but mine is a few folds better in credibility.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:23 am I have already stated a "1000" times, individual opinions, beliefs, judgments and decisions supposedly related to 'morality' is not morality-proper.

Re Henry's I was referring to his intuitive alignment with the moral standard on slavery ONLY and not on others.
The moral standard on slavery is based on the verified and justified moral truths empirically and philosophy from within a credible FSK.
You don't have a credible FSK, all you have is an opinion that one day you will have a credible FSK.
Until your FSK contains credibility, it does no contain knowledge either. So it is your Framework and System of Opinion.

That framework is not credible enough to justify this "morality-proper" thing, which is a construct of your individual opinion, and worth no more to anybody else than your FSK that nobody thinks is credible.
In the continuum from opinion [low credibility], beliefs then to knowledge, I have to admit my proposed moral FSK is a belief with high personal conviction that is qualified to be credible "on paper" based on the incorporated features of credibility.
Like I said, it is something like an architect who is confident his building according to plan will stand an 8.0 earthquake because he has imputed all necessary features of credibility into his plan.
I have also stated my proposed moral FSK is based on existing moral systems that are already working to some degrees, but mine is a few folds better in credibility.
Then why do you keep trying to claim facts on the basis of it, and why do you keep calling everyone who doesn't agree with it a dogmatic bastard?

You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:23 am You haven't persuaded a single person in the whole world that your FSK counts for anything at all. You have zero credibility.
What a fucking stupid criterion! How would you even know if you've persuaded me of anything?

What is that you would observe if persuasion obtains?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:48 amWhat a fucking stupid criterion!
As charming as ever. Plus ça change. Oh wait...
Skepdick wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:48 amWhat is that you would observe if persuasion obtains?
You've learnt what obtain means. Give that boy a biscuit.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:27 am As charming as ever. Plus ça change. Oh wait...
Hey old fart! Where have you been?
uwot wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:27 am You've learnt what obtain means. Give that boy a biscuit.
I have no idea what it means, but it seems I am using it as you would use it.

All the worse for you and other obscurantists ;)

Now that I am speaking "your language" you don't get to pretend you don't understand my points.
Post Reply