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

seeds
Posts: 2144
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by seeds »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:08 am How indeed is a mind-body problem maintained when the body is part of mind as the mind interprets what is happening to the body without body there is no mind. What is the distinction that causes a problem, I am quite sincere in my ignorance here, please enlighten.
Your body and brain can be broken down into subatomic particles that can be measured with physical apparatuses.

Try doing that with the palm trees depicted in my little dream scenario...

Image

Or better yet, try doing that with the dreamer of the palm trees.^^^

And, no, you will not find the palm trees, nor the dreamer of the palm trees, anywhere amidst the constituent properties of the brain.

And that's because, in essence, the human mind (and its contents), along with the self-aware, internally-based owner of the mind, represent a separate "universe" unto itself.

(Indeed, I suggest that the Biblical assertion that we humans are "...created in the image..." of the owner and Creator of this universe, is far more profound than humans realize.)

The bottom line is that, sure, your physical body and brain were essential in facilitating the awakening of your mind into existence, however, your body and brain are not a part of your mind, no, they are a part of God's mind.

Or, more accurately, your body and brain are a part of the inner ("womb-like") workings of God's "spirit body," so to speak, that God uses to conceive and awaken her own literal offspring (human minds/souls, just like her mind/soul) into existence.

Now, of course, it is needless to say that it can (and will) be argued that the human mind, with its unmeasurable dreams and unmeasurable dreamer, is nothing more than an epiphenomenal (emergent) feature of the brain - a feature that will blink-out of existence once the brain dies,...

...however, that's only if hardcore materialism is true, and all metaphysical notions of the existence of God and a life after death are false.

Yet, if one wants to believe that hardcore materialism is true, then one is forced to entertain the utterly ridiculous assumption that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless meanderings of chance, which is pure nonsense.

And therein lies the crux of the perennial debate regarding the ultimate truth of reality - a debate taking place in this very thread in which the obvious hardcore materialist Peter Holmes' argument implies that life is basically a meaningless accident that holds no ultimate and eternal purpose for us as individuals.

While I, on the other hand, argue that our lives are imbued with a purpose that is so amazing, and so wonderful, that it must be kept hidden from us until death so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

And consequently, in order to keep the truth of that higher purpose hidden from us, humans are born with an attenuated level of consciousness that prevents most of us...

(as is obvious in Peter Holmes' case)

...from realizing that we are basically "sleep-walking" through life, and completely unaware of the fact that there is a higher level of reality (and wakefulness) above and outside of the "dream-like" illusion taking place within the "cosmic womb" of our ultimate parent.

And that is something that I have attempted to metaphorically depict in yet another of my (no doubt, too-often-used) illustrations...

Image

The captions read as follows:
"...let us make man in our image..."
"...one of us..."
"...The occupants of the realm on the other side of this barrier are as profoundly "more awake" relative to adult humans on earth, as adult humans on earth are "more awake" relative to a fetus in the human womb..."
(Click on the following link to see a series of illustrations tied to the one directly above: http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2144
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by seeds »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:25 am What evidence do you have that a dream, an itch, dark energy and dark matter are non-physical things, or have non-physical causes? Or that there's a non-physical 'substance underlying mind and consciousness'?

These are just speculative claims without evidence - so far, and to my knowledge. The myth of so-called non-physical or abstract things runs deep and strong. Witness - what you say.

Here's an argument: We have no physical explanation for this phenomenon; therefore, this phenomenon must be non-physical.

I assume you understand why that's a fallacy.
Well, first of all, read my response to popeye1945 just prior to this one.

And secondly, you keep asking questions of me, yet you don't have the courtesy of answering the one question I have been asking of you, which, for the third time now is:

...what evidence can you show (or cite) that the mind/body "problem" has been irrefutably resolved?

Furthermore, while you're at it, define what you mean by "physical" substance?

Because if you are talking about "physical" matter, then not only are you talking about something that is allegedly made up of 99.9999999% empty space,...

...but also, according to physicist and author Nick Herbert's analysis of Heisenberg's "Copenhagen Interpretation" of the status of the foundation of matter, the substance from which "physical matter" is created is...
"...no more substantial than a promise..."
So, again, define what you mean by "physical" things?
_______
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:31 am 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 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:15 pm To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:48 pm 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.
That's a good point, Sculptor, however, it's only a problem if one is silly enough to think that their mind (and only their mind) is the only mind in existence (solipsism).
I think the real problem is that people act as if they think that but do not know it. Many Objectivists think that their personal view ought to be taken as universal.

Now I realize that none of us can know the answer with absolute certainty, nevertheless, do you honestly think that solipsism is logical? And if you do, then which one of us is having this strange and lonely conversation with himself/herself/itself?
Solipsism is what it is. Logic does not come into it.
to be able to establish a thing to be true requires of people to acknowledge the fact that others have equally valid points of view. This is a rare quality especially in objectivists.

On the other hand, if you believe (as I do) that solipsism is nonsense, then it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that other minds exist in an objective state relative to our own mind.
_______
I do not think that makes sense, since we can never know a "mind" of another.
Last edited by Sculptor on Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:43 am
seeds wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:31 am 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 wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:15 pm To me, "objective" (as in "objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:48 pm 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.
That's a good point, Sculptor, however, it's only a problem if one is silly enough to think that their mind (and only their mind) is the only mind in existence (solipsism).
I think the real problem is that people act as if they think that but do not know it. Many Objectivists think that their personal view ought to be taken as universal.

Now I realize that none of us can know the answer with absolute certainty, nevertheless, do you honestly think that solipsism is logical? And if you do, then which one of us is having this strange and lonely conversation with himself/herself/itself?
Solipsism is what it is. Logic does come into it.
to be able to establish a thing to be true requires of people to acknowledge the fact that others have equally valid points of view. This is a rare quality especially in objectivists.

On the other hand, if you believe (as I do) that solipsism is nonsense, then it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that other minds exist in an objective state relative to our own mind.
_______
I do not think that makes sense, since we can never know a "mind" of another.
MANY do NOT even YET KNOW what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, nor if there is even a so-called 'mind of another'.

But a LOT speak as though they DO.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Sculptor »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:43 am
seeds wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pm


That's a good point, Sculptor, however, it's only a problem if one is silly enough to think that their mind (and only their mind) is the only mind in existence (solipsism).
I think the real problem is that people act as if they think that but do not know it. Many Objectivists think that their personal view ought to be taken as universal.

Now I realize that none of us can know the answer with absolute certainty, nevertheless, do you honestly think that solipsism is logical? And if you do, then which one of us is having this strange and lonely conversation with himself/herself/itself?
Solipsism is what it is. Logic does come into it.
to be able to establish a thing to be true requires of people to acknowledge the fact that others have equally valid points of view. This is a rare quality especially in objectivists.

On the other hand, if you believe (as I do) that solipsism is nonsense, then it seems obvious (to me, anyway) that other minds exist in an objective state relative to our own mind.
_______
I do not think that makes sense, since we can never know a "mind" of another.
MANY do NOT even YET KNOW what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, nor if there is even a so-called 'mind of another'.

But a LOT speak as though they DO.
WHY the FUCK do YOU keep on CAPITALISING words, you MORON?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by popeye1945 »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:15 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:08 am How indeed is a mind-body problem maintained when the body is part of mind as the mind interprets what is happening to the body without body there is no mind. What is the distinction that causes a problem, I am quite sincere in my ignorance here, please enlighten.
Your body and brain can be broken down into subatomic particles that can be measured with physical apparatuses.

Try doing that with the palm trees depicted in my little dream scenario...

Or better yet, try doing that with the dreamer of the palm trees.^^^

And, no, you will not find the palm trees, nor the dreamer of the palm trees, anywhere amidst the constituent properties of the brain.

And that's because, in essence, the human mind (and its contents), along with the self-aware, internally-based owner of the mind, represent a separate "universe" unto itself.

(Indeed, I suggest that the Biblical assertion that we humans are "...created in the image..." of the owner and Creator of this universe, is far more profound than humans realize.)

The bottom line is that, sure, your physical body and brain were essential in facilitating the awakening of your mind into existence, however, your body and brain are not a part of your mind, no, they are a part of God's mind.

Or, more accurately, your body and brain are a part of the inner ("womb-like") workings of God's "spirit body," so to speak, that God uses to conceive and awaken her own literal offspring (human minds/souls, just like her mind/soul) into existence.

Now, of course, it is needless to say that it can (and will) be argued that the human mind, with its unmeasurable dreams and unmeasurable dreamer, is nothing more than an epiphenomenal (emergent) feature of the brain - a feature that will blink-out of existence once the brain dies,...

...however, that's only if hardcore materialism is true, and all metaphysical notions of the existence of God and a life after death are false.

Yet, if one wants to believe that hardcore materialism is true, then one is forced to entertain the utterly ridiculous assumption that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless meanderings of chance, which is pure nonsense.

And therein lies the crux of the perennial debate regarding the ultimate truth of reality - a debate taking place in this very thread in which the obvious hardcore materialist Peter Holmes' argument implies that life is basically a meaningless accident that holds no ultimate and eternal purpose for us as individuals.

While I, on the other hand, argue that our lives are imbued with a purpose that is so amazing, and so wonderful, that it must be kept hidden from us until death so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

And consequently, in order to keep the truth of that higher purpose hidden from us, humans are born with an attenuated level of consciousness that prevents most of us...

(as is obvious in Peter Holmes' case)

...from realizing that we are basically "sleep-walking" through life, and completely unaware of the fact that there is a higher level of reality (and wakefulness) above and outside of the "dream-like" illusion taking place within the "cosmic womb" of our ultimate parent.

The captions read as follows:
"...let us make man in our image..."
"...one of us..."
"...The occupants of the realm on the other side of this barrier are as profoundly "more awake" relative to adult humans on earth, as adult humans on earth are "more awake" relative to a fetus in the human womb..."
(Click on the following link to see a series of illustrations tied to the one directly above: http://theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm)
_______
Seeds,

I can see where you and Peter would butt heads. I think in this case I am a little more aligned with Peter, but perhaps that is just a lack of my understanding presently of your views. At any rate, we do know that the brain/mind is a production of the body, in other words, the body created the brain/mind, the mind did not create the body. The brain is an organ with a function called the mind just as the stomach's function is digestion that this function of the brain is bewildering does not make it due to anything supernatural, awesome yes, supernatural no.

I think it obvious that we are all part of something larger than ourselves, but rationally we should not project an anthropomorphic being which is doing the real thinking for us, that is really stretching it into the realm of fantasy. We are called by biologists, multicellular organism meaning we are made up of a legion of organisms that constitute a living community, our mind is in serves to that community/body. Richard Dawkins has said this compound of systems is a vehicle constructed by our genes, so this vehicle/body is in serves to our genes, and the brain/mind in serves to the community/body. I really am still puzzles over what might be this said body mind problem from my perspective an organism is a functional unit of with the ability of experience.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:36 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:43 am
I think the real problem is that people act as if they think that but do not know it. Many Objectivists think that their personal view ought to be taken as universal.

Solipsism is what it is. Logic does come into it.
to be able to establish a thing to be true requires of people to acknowledge the fact that others have equally valid points of view. This is a rare quality especially in objectivists.


I do not think that makes sense, since we can never know a "mind" of another.
MANY do NOT even YET KNOW what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, nor if there is even a so-called 'mind of another'.

But a LOT speak as though they DO.
WHY the FUCK do YOU keep on CAPITALISING words, you MORON?
As I have EXPLAINED and SAID countless times BEFORE, ALREADY, TO EMPHASIZE SOME words.

And, NOT necessarily for 'you', posters, here. Will I have to REPEAT this AGAIN, for you? Or do you think you will REMEMBER, this time?

Also, and by the way, WHY did you capitalize the 'moron' word here?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

seeds wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:17 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:25 am What evidence do you have that a dream, an itch, dark energy and dark matter are non-physical things, or have non-physical causes? Or that there's a non-physical 'substance underlying mind and consciousness'?

These are just speculative claims without evidence - so far, and to my knowledge. The myth of so-called non-physical or abstract things runs deep and strong. Witness - what you say.

Here's an argument: We have no physical explanation for this phenomenon; therefore, this phenomenon must be non-physical.

I assume you understand why that's a fallacy.
Well, first of all, read my response to popeye1945 just prior to this one.

And secondly, you keep asking questions of me, yet you don't have the courtesy of answering the one question I have been asking of you, which, for the third time now is:

...what evidence can you show (or cite) that the mind/body "problem" has been irrefutably resolved?

Furthermore, while you're at it, define what you mean by "physical" substance?

Because if you are talking about "physical" matter, then not only are you talking about something that is allegedly made up of 99.9999999% empty space,...

...but also, according to physicist and author Nick Herbert's analysis of Heisenberg's "Copenhagen Interpretation" of the status of the foundation of matter, the substance from which "physical matter" is created is...
"...no more substantial than a promise..."
So, again, define what you mean by "physical" things?
_______
1 I thought my answer to your question about the so-called mind-body problem was obvious: there's no problem, so it doesn't need solving.

2 Physical things consist of energy, including the form of energy we call matter. They're the things that physicists and other natural scientists study and try to explain with scientific theories.

3 Your blather about non-physical things and causation is nothing more than the claptrap that theists and other supernaturalists have been peddling, without one jot of evidence, probably for as long as humans have been thinking about existence. You have nothing but arguments from ignorance and incredulity, which are, of course, fallacious.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Agent Smith »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:35 am The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

We use the word objective to mean to ‘relying on facts’. And facts are true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know, and regardless of their source. But all factual assertions are falsifiable, because they assert something about reality that may not be the case. So evidence is needed to justify them.

By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’. Judgements can be individual or collective. They can be more or less rationally justifiable. And because they express values, we often refer to such judgements as value judgements or just values.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity has been called the fact-value distinction. But discussions about specifically moral values are about how we ought to behave, so here the difference has been called the is-ought distinction.

Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective, because they express value judgements, rather than make falsifiable factual claims. And two examples illustrate the distinction.

1 The assertion people eat animals and their products is a fact – a true factual assertion. But the vegan assertion eating animals and their products is wrong expresses a moral judgement, not a fact. The two assertions have completely different functions.

2 That some states execute some criminals is true. But that states should execute some criminals – that execution is morally justifiable – is a judgement. If there were a moral fact of the matter, we could not argue about the judgement.

An argument that objective morality is evidence for the existence of anything – let alone a god – is unsound, because morality is not objective. It is rational to have sound reasons for our moral judgements, such as wanting to promote individual well-being. But they remain judgements, so they are subjective.

Trouble is, the assertion morality is subjective seems wrong and offensive. It seems to mean that whatever someone judges to be morally right or wrong is indeed morally right or wrong – so that anything goes, and moral relativism and anarchy is the result.

But that is to forget the is-ought distinction. To say an action is morally right or wrong is to express a judgement, not to state a fact. So an action is not – and does not become - morally right or wrong just because someone believes it is.

The expressions objective morality and moral fact are contradictions – or they could be called oxymorons. But our moral values and assertions matter deeply to us, so the mistake of believing there are moral facts is easy to explain. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

But, ironically, if there were moral facts, their source would be irrelevant. The assertion this is good because I say – or a god says – it is good has no place in a rational moral debate. An argument from authority is as mistaken for moral as it is for factual assertions. So the theistic argument from objective morality undermines itself.

The full version of this argument is at: http://www.peasum.co.uk/420676773
To my knowledge, p is a subjective claim simply means truth value is N/A. If, on the other hand, p is objective, it has to be either true or false, but not both and impossible that neither.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Agent Smith wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:05 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:35 am The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

We use the word objective to mean to ‘relying on facts’. And facts are true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know, and regardless of their source. But all factual assertions are falsifiable, because they assert something about reality that may not be the case. So evidence is needed to justify them.

By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’. Judgements can be individual or collective. They can be more or less rationally justifiable. And because they express values, we often refer to such judgements as value judgements or just values.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity has been called the fact-value distinction. But discussions about specifically moral values are about how we ought to behave, so here the difference has been called the is-ought distinction.

Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective, because they express value judgements, rather than make falsifiable factual claims. And two examples illustrate the distinction.

1 The assertion people eat animals and their products is a fact – a true factual assertion. But the vegan assertion eating animals and their products is wrong expresses a moral judgement, not a fact. The two assertions have completely different functions.

2 That some states execute some criminals is true. But that states should execute some criminals – that execution is morally justifiable – is a judgement. If there were a moral fact of the matter, we could not argue about the judgement.

An argument that objective morality is evidence for the existence of anything – let alone a god – is unsound, because morality is not objective. It is rational to have sound reasons for our moral judgements, such as wanting to promote individual well-being. But they remain judgements, so they are subjective.

Trouble is, the assertion morality is subjective seems wrong and offensive. It seems to mean that whatever someone judges to be morally right or wrong is indeed morally right or wrong – so that anything goes, and moral relativism and anarchy is the result.

But that is to forget the is-ought distinction. To say an action is morally right or wrong is to express a judgement, not to state a fact. So an action is not – and does not become - morally right or wrong just because someone believes it is.

The expressions objective morality and moral fact are contradictions – or they could be called oxymorons. But our moral values and assertions matter deeply to us, so the mistake of believing there are moral facts is easy to explain. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

But, ironically, if there were moral facts, their source would be irrelevant. The assertion this is good because I say – or a god says – it is good has no place in a rational moral debate. An argument from authority is as mistaken for moral as it is for factual assertions. So the theistic argument from objective morality undermines itself.

The full version of this argument is at: http://www.peasum.co.uk/420676773
To my knowledge, p is a subjective claim simply means truth value is N/A. If, on the other hand, p is objective, it has to be either true or false, but not both and impossible that neither.
Thanks. I think that's right, And, as I understand the distinction, moral cognitivism is the claim that moral assertions do have truth-value. So, though I have reservations about the offensive baggage that comes with the label, my position is non-cognitivist: moral assertion don't have truth-value. They're what I call non-factual.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:47 am Thanks. I think that's right, And, as I understand the distinction, moral cognitivism is the claim that moral assertions do have truth-value. So, though I have reservations about the offensive baggage that comes with the label, my position is non-cognitivist: moral assertion don't have truth-value. They're what I call non-factual.
Well, If cognitivist claims have no truth-value then... you aren't really thirsty when you are cognisant of your thirst.
And you don't really love your wife when you are cognisant of your love for her.

What a way to gaslight yourself...

Dumb. Fucking. Philosopher.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Agent Smith »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:47 am
Agent Smith wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:05 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:35 am The key to answering this question is the difference between factual and moral assertions – and how this relates to what we call objectivity and subjectivity.

We use the word objective to mean to ‘relying on facts’. And facts are true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know, and regardless of their source. But all factual assertions are falsifiable, because they assert something about reality that may not be the case. So evidence is needed to justify them.

By contrast, we use the word subjective to mean ‘relying on judgement, belief or opinion’. Judgements can be individual or collective. They can be more or less rationally justifiable. And because they express values, we often refer to such judgements as value judgements or just values.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity has been called the fact-value distinction. But discussions about specifically moral values are about how we ought to behave, so here the difference has been called the is-ought distinction.

Given this understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, moral assertions are subjective, because they express value judgements, rather than make falsifiable factual claims. And two examples illustrate the distinction.

1 The assertion people eat animals and their products is a fact – a true factual assertion. But the vegan assertion eating animals and their products is wrong expresses a moral judgement, not a fact. The two assertions have completely different functions.

2 That some states execute some criminals is true. But that states should execute some criminals – that execution is morally justifiable – is a judgement. If there were a moral fact of the matter, we could not argue about the judgement.

An argument that objective morality is evidence for the existence of anything – let alone a god – is unsound, because morality is not objective. It is rational to have sound reasons for our moral judgements, such as wanting to promote individual well-being. But they remain judgements, so they are subjective.

Trouble is, the assertion morality is subjective seems wrong and offensive. It seems to mean that whatever someone judges to be morally right or wrong is indeed morally right or wrong – so that anything goes, and moral relativism and anarchy is the result.

But that is to forget the is-ought distinction. To say an action is morally right or wrong is to express a judgement, not to state a fact. So an action is not – and does not become - morally right or wrong just because someone believes it is.

The expressions objective morality and moral fact are contradictions – or they could be called oxymorons. But our moral values and assertions matter deeply to us, so the mistake of believing there are moral facts is easy to explain. It is an understandable misunderstanding.

But, ironically, if there were moral facts, their source would be irrelevant. The assertion this is good because I say – or a god says – it is good has no place in a rational moral debate. An argument from authority is as mistaken for moral as it is for factual assertions. So the theistic argument from objective morality undermines itself.

The full version of this argument is at: http://www.peasum.co.uk/420676773
To my knowledge, p is a subjective claim simply means truth value is N/A. If, on the other hand, p is objective, it has to be either true or false, but not both and impossible that neither.
Thanks. I think that's right, And, as I understand the distinction, moral cognitivism is the claim that moral assertions do have truth-value. So, though I have reservations about the offensive baggage that comes with the label, my position is non-cognitivist: moral assertion don't have truth-value. They're what I call non-factual.
Moral claims, ex mea (humble) sententia, definitely are true/false. Why would you say they aren't? Perhaps we might need to delve deeper into what "fact" means, oui?
Last edited by Agent Smith on Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Agent Smith wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:57 am Moral claims, ex mea (humble) sententia, definitely are true/false. Why would you ssy they aren't? Perhaps we might need to delve deeper into what "fact" means, oui?
You are going to dive right into the abyss of infinite Philosophical stupidity when you start unpacking what "meaning" means, because of the symbol-grounding problem.

Just give it some time. Maybe the philosophical kindergarten will work its way up to global expressivism - our language and thoughts don't represent; or correspond to the world. They represent/correspond to our experiences of the world, so "objectivity" needs to be accounted for in a subjective framework.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Agent Smith »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:01 am
Agent Smith wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:57 am Moral claims, ex mea (humble) sententia, definitely are true/false. Why would you ssy they aren't? Perhaps we might need to delve deeper into what "fact" means, oui?
You are going to dive right into the abyss of infinite Philosophical stupidity when you start unpacking what "meaning" means, because of the symbol-grounding problem.

Just give it some time. Maybe the philosophical kindergarten will work its way up to global expressivism - our language and thoughts don't represent; or correspond to the world. They represent/correspond to our experiences of the world, so "objectivity" needs to be accounted for in a subjective framework.
My naïvety "shines through"!

Anyway, are you sayin' there's no such thing as objectivity? Perhaps our definitions don't match!
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Agent Smith wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:09 am My naïvety "shines through"!

Anyway, are you sayin' there's no such thing as objectivity? Perhaps our definitions don't match!
I am saying that you can play it whichever way you want. The distinciton itself is bullshit.

We could both agree that "there is no such thing as subjectivity" and then proceed the conversation from this reference frame. The subjective/objective distinction itself is objective - the distinction itself exists objectively. In my mind.

OR

We could both agree that "there is no such thing as objectivity" and then proceed the conversation from this reference frame. The subjective/objective distinction itself is subjective - the distinction itself exists subjectively. In my mind.

But I am am object in the universe, am I not? So everything about me is objective. Even my subjectivity!
Post Reply