What could make morality objective?

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: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:03 pm But I think the damage done by people convinced there are moral facts - *that, big surprise, happen to be what they believe anyway - **that's why showing that morality isn't objective is so important. It has practical, moral consequences.

*But that's not universally true. I've described my own move from subjectivism to objectivism. Bein' a subjectivist was easier, cleaner (do as thy will is whole of the law); objectivism (moral realism) is harder, requires me to pay attention (there is that which is always impermissible between and among men).

I'd be a liar if I said my old ways didn't still have an appeal...to live without principle can make for a spicy life. Instead, I choose to recognize a certain reality about man (and *ahem* the reality of the Creator) and restrain myself.

Point is: no, not every moral realist is a moral realist cuz he's naturally disposed to be.

**I wonder how many moral realists have been moved by any arguments presented in-forum? How many non-realists, I wonder, have moved becuz of arguments presented in-forum?
Oh, please, Henry. Do you really want do what you like - steal, rape, murder? - you know, what you did when you were a moral subjectivist living 'without principle'? But, now you're a moral realist and objectivist, you 'restrain' yourself?

Well, since your delusion makes you a safer person for everyone else - stick to it, man. I advise all the religious sociopaths I know to do that.

(I don't think we should start on the creator stuff. Just another can of worms.)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:03 pm But I think the damage done by people convinced there are moral facts - *that, big surprise, happen to be what they believe anyway - **that's why showing that morality isn't objective is so important. It has practical, moral consequences.

*But that's not universally true. I've described my own move from subjectivism to objectivism. Bein' a subjectivist was easier, cleaner (do as thy will is whole of the law); objectivism (moral realism) is harder, requires me to pay attention (there is that which is always impermissible between and among men).

I'd be a liar if I said my old ways didn't still have an appeal...to live without principle can make for a spicy life. Instead, I choose to recognize a certain reality about man (and *ahem* the reality of the Creator) and restrain myself.

Point is: no, not every moral realist is a moral realist cuz he's naturally disposed to be.

**I wonder how many moral realists have been moved by any arguments presented in-forum? How many non-realists, I wonder, have moved becuz of arguments presented in-forum?
Being a moral antirealist/subjectivist doesn't imply that one lives without principles, of course. One just recognizes that those principles emerge from one's self, and from persons in general.

What convinced you that moral realism was the case, by the way?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:29 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:03 pm But I think the damage done by people convinced there are moral facts - *that, big surprise, happen to be what they believe anyway - **that's why showing that morality isn't objective is so important. It has practical, moral consequences.

*But that's not universally true. I've described my own move from subjectivism to objectivism. Bein' a subjectivist was easier, cleaner (do as thy will is whole of the law); objectivism (moral realism) is harder, requires me to pay attention (there is that which is always impermissible between and among men).

I'd be a liar if I said my old ways didn't still have an appeal...to live without principle can make for a spicy life. Instead, I choose to recognize a certain reality about man (and *ahem* the reality of the Creator) and restrain myself.

Point is: no, not every moral realist is a moral realist cuz he's naturally disposed to be.

**I wonder how many moral realists have been moved by any arguments presented in-forum? How many non-realists, I wonder, have moved becuz of arguments presented in-forum?
Oh, please, Henry. Do you really want do what you like - steal, rape, murder? - you know, what you did when you were a moral subjectivist living 'without principle'? But, now you're a moral realist and objectivist, you 'restrain' yourself?

Well, since your delusion makes you a safer person for everyone else - stick to it, man. I advise all the religious sociopaths I know to do that.

(I don't think we should start on the creator stuff. Just another can of worms.)
Wow. Thanks for pissin' on me, Pete.

I'll return the favor real soon.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

What convinced you that moral realism was the case, by the way?

I believe in free will (agent causation). Obviously, that particular kind of free will doesn't jibe with cause & effect.

Moral realism (and the deism that's part & parcel) is where my thinkin' on the subject brought me.

There's more to it, but that's the gist.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:04 pm What convinced you that moral realism was the case, by the way?

I believe in free will (agent causation). Obviously, that particular kind of free will doesn't jibe with cause & effect.

Moral realism (and the deism that's part & parcel) is where my thinkin' on the subject brought me.

There's more to it, but that's the gist.
I believe in free will, too, but in my view this has nothing to do with the moral realism/antirealism issue.

Though that might be because I don't at all believe that the physical world is strongly deterministic.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:58 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:29 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:03 pm But I think the damage done by people convinced there are moral facts - *that, big surprise, happen to be what they believe anyway - **that's why showing that morality isn't objective is so important. It has practical, moral consequences.

*But that's not universally true. I've described my own move from subjectivism to objectivism. Bein' a subjectivist was easier, cleaner (do as thy will is whole of the law); objectivism (moral realism) is harder, requires me to pay attention (there is that which is always impermissible between and among men).

I'd be a liar if I said my old ways didn't still have an appeal...to live without principle can make for a spicy life. Instead, I choose to recognize a certain reality about man (and *ahem* the reality of the Creator) and restrain myself.

Point is: no, not every moral realist is a moral realist cuz he's naturally disposed to be.

**I wonder how many moral realists have been moved by any arguments presented in-forum? How many non-realists, I wonder, have moved becuz of arguments presented in-forum?
Oh, please, Henry. Do you really want do what you like - steal, rape, murder? - you know, what you did when you were a moral subjectivist living 'without principle'? But, now you're a moral realist and objectivist, you 'restrain' yourself?

Well, since your delusion makes you a safer person for everyone else - stick to it, man. I advise all the religious sociopaths I know to do that.

(I don't think we should start on the creator stuff. Just another can of worms.)
Wow. Thanks for pissin' on me, Pete.

I'll return the favor real soon.
Not pissing on you, Henry. Taking the piss.

What pisses me off is the idea that moral subjectivism means living without principles, doing what you want regardless of others, not paying attention, not recognising other people's humanity. And i don't believe you were that kind of person.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Sculptor »

Being a moral subjectivist or relativism means having a goddam opinion about morality and not just obeying some other person's opinions, rules or moral system.
Rejecting the so obvious absurdity of moral objectivism means rejecting the wise words of the church. It was moral subjectivists that fought against slavery , and fought for human rights for all, because you they had to challenge the moral objectivists who knew the mind of god.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Not pissing on you, Henry. Taking the piss.

Not seein' the difference.

As I say: I'll return the favor real soon.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:55 pm Not pissing on you, Henry. Taking the piss.

Not seein' the difference.

As I say: I'll return the favor real soon.
Be offended and take revenge, if you wish. But I wasn't trying to offend or insult you.

You wrote that, when you were a moral subjectivist, you lived without principle or noticing others' humanity - but that, now you're a moral objectivist, and religious believer, you've presumably acquired those virtues.

If that's the story of your moral progress, so be it. I'm just puzzled by your characterisation of moral-subjectivist-Henry - and I apologise for my misjudged mockery.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:01 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:55 pm Not pissing on you, Henry. Taking the piss.

Not seein' the difference.

As I say: I'll return the favor real soon.
Be offended and take revenge, if you wish. But I wasn't trying to offend or insult you.

You wrote that, when you were a moral subjectivist, you lived without principle or noticing others' humanity - but that, now you're a moral objectivist, and religious believer, you've presumably acquired those virtues.

If that's the story of your moral progress, so be it. I'm just puzzled by your characterisation of moral-subjectivist-Henry - and I apologise for my misjudged mockery.
As I had stated you have been infected by the LPs malignant virus in looking down on, condemn and harass those who favor moral realism.
The LPs were the philosophical mafia in their days.

The below response is insulting.
Peter Holmes wrote:Oh, please, Henry. Do you really want do what you like - steal, rape, murder? - you know, what you did when you were a moral subjectivist living 'without principle'?
But, now you're a moral realist and objectivist, you 'restrain' yourself?

Well, since your delusion makes you a safer person for everyone else - stick to it, man.
I advise all the religious sociopaths I know to do that.
What Henry implied in the above was when he was a moral subjectivist, anything goes, i.e. one could even adopts Hitler's ideology and that would be sound subjectively since there is no Generic and Universal moral standard to insist that is evil.

It is not that Henry 'restrained' himself but rather he will be guided and strive towards the real inherent moral standard which in his case is intuited [good enough] rather than rationally justified as real.

I am sure Henry will claim not with certainty he will not relapse into some of his old ways, but the point he now affix on the real moral standard which will guide him back to intrinsic morality.

Since Henry is striving to be better morally, your above statements are an insult.
Worst you are insulting based on ignorance of what is morality-proper.

It is very "evil" for one to promote moral subjectivism to anyone because that would mean any moral subjectivist can adopts Hitler's and other evil ideology and that would be sound since there are no fixed inherent moral standards to insist that is evil.

If you are a moral subjectivist and while you are doing 'good' so far and at present, and without proper moral [as defined] standards, you could easily be influenced by powerful forces to commit evil any time in the future by merely shifting from one subjective view re morality [your definition, not morality-proper] to another.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:50 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:01 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:55 pm Not pissing on you, Henry. Taking the piss.

Not seein' the difference.

As I say: I'll return the favor real soon.
Be offended and take revenge, if you wish. But I wasn't trying to offend or insult you.

You wrote that, when you were a moral subjectivist, you lived without principle or noticing others' humanity - but that, now you're a moral objectivist, and religious believer, you've presumably acquired those virtues.

If that's the story of your moral progress, so be it. I'm just puzzled by your characterisation of moral-subjectivist-Henry - and I apologise for my misjudged mockery.
As I had stated you have been infected by the LPs malignant virus in looking down on, condemn and harass those who favor moral realism.
The LPs were the philosophical mafia in their days.

The below response is insulting.
Peter Holmes wrote:Oh, please, Henry. Do you really want do what you like - steal, rape, murder? - you know, what you did when you were a moral subjectivist living 'without principle'?
But, now you're a moral realist and objectivist, you 'restrain' yourself?

Well, since your delusion makes you a safer person for everyone else - stick to it, man.
I advise all the religious sociopaths I know to do that.
What Henry implied in the above was when he was a moral subjectivist, anything goes, i.e. one could even adopts Hitler's ideology and that would be sound subjectively since there is no Generic and Universal moral standard to insist that is evil.

It is not that Henry 'restrained' himself but rather he will be guided and strive towards the real inherent moral standard which in his case is intuited [good enough] rather than rationally justified as real.

I am sure Henry will claim not with certainty he will not relapse into some of his old ways, but the point he now affix on the real moral standard which will guide him back to intrinsic morality.

Since Henry is striving to be better morally, your above statements are an insult.
Worst you are insulting based on ignorance of what is morality-proper.

It is very "evil" for one to promote moral subjectivism to anyone because that would mean any moral subjectivist can adopts Hitler's and other evil ideology and that would be sound since there are no fixed inherent moral standards to insist that is evil.

If you are a moral subjectivist and while you are doing 'good' so far and at present, and without proper moral [as defined] standards, you could easily be influenced by powerful forces to commit evil any time in the future by merely shifting from one subjective view re morality [your definition, not morality-proper] to another.
It's possible to take the trashing and mockery of your argument personally. Or you can duke it out and defend your argument - which is what matters.

I've taken little but insult and abuse from you for a very long time. And if I've returned like for like sometimes, I apologise. But pointing out that a claim is false or an argument unsound isn't insulting or abusing the proponent.

Your claim that moral subjectivism is the denial of moral values and judgements is fatuous and insulting nonsense, betraying a staggering lack of understanding, and patently worthy of mockery.

But this vicarious tenderness to criticism and refutation of someone elses's argument is unconvincing. And Henry can and may well speak for himself anyway.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:50 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:01 am
Be offended and take revenge, if you wish. But I wasn't trying to offend or insult you.

You wrote that, when you were a moral subjectivist, you lived without principle or noticing others' humanity - but that, now you're a moral objectivist, and religious believer, you've presumably acquired those virtues.

If that's the story of your moral progress, so be it. I'm just puzzled by your characterisation of moral-subjectivist-Henry - and I apologise for my misjudged mockery.
As I had stated you have been infected by the LPs malignant virus in looking down on, condemn and harass those who favor moral realism.
The LPs were the philosophical mafia in their days.

The below response is insulting.
Peter Holmes wrote:Oh, please, Henry. Do you really want do what you like - steal, rape, murder? - you know, what you did when you were a moral subjectivist living 'without principle'?
But, now you're a moral realist and objectivist, you 'restrain' yourself?

Well, since your delusion makes you a safer person for everyone else - stick to it, man.
I advise all the religious sociopaths I know to do that.
What Henry implied in the above was when he was a moral subjectivist, anything goes, i.e. one could even adopts Hitler's ideology and that would be sound subjectively since there is no Generic and Universal moral standard to insist that is evil.

It is not that Henry 'restrained' himself but rather he will be guided and strive towards the real inherent moral standard which in his case is intuited [good enough] rather than rationally justified as real.

I am sure Henry will claim not with certainty he will not relapse into some of his old ways, but the point he now affix on the real moral standard which will guide him back to intrinsic morality.

Since Henry is striving to be better morally, your above statements are an insult.
Worst you are insulting based on ignorance of what is morality-proper.

It is very "evil" for one to promote moral subjectivism to anyone because that would mean any moral subjectivist can adopts Hitler's and other evil ideology and that would be sound since there are no fixed inherent moral standards to insist that is evil.

If you are a moral subjectivist and while you are doing 'good' so far and at present, and without proper moral [as defined] standards, you could easily be influenced by powerful forces to commit evil any time in the future by merely shifting from one subjective view re morality [your definition, not morality-proper] to another.
It's possible to take the trashing and mockery of your argument personally. Or you can duke it out and defend your argument - which is what matters.

I've taken little but insult and abuse from you for a very long time. And if I've returned like for like sometimes, I apologise. But pointing out that a claim is false or an argument unsound isn't insulting or abusing the proponent.

Your claim that moral subjectivism is the denial of moral values and judgements is fatuous and insulting nonsense, betraying a staggering lack of understanding, and patently worthy of mockery.

But this vicarious tenderness to criticism and refutation of someone elses's argument is unconvincing. And Henry can and may well speak for himself anyway.
WHO ARE YOU to impose that 'ought-not_ness' on me?

Note I do not start a tit-for-tat until the opponent did so.

I do express arguments as shallow, narrow, dogmatic, where I give reasons based what is posted and I do not view that as an insult but rather with hope the other will do more research.
If I state 'stupid' that is qualified as 'stupid [literally lack intelligence] even then I don't do that except as a retaliation in a tit-for-tat.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:50 am What Henry implied in the above was when he was a moral subjectivist, anything goes, i.e. one could even adopts Hitler's ideology and that would be sound subjectively since there is no Generic and Universal moral standard to insist that is evil.
The problem with that is that it's not actually what humans are like, though. We have moral dispositions due to our brain structure and function, and you can no more simply "adopt" an alternate moral disposition than you can simply adopt an alternate brain. This doesn't imply that your moral dispositions can't change, that you can't reach different conclusions, etc., but it's also the case, of course (a fortiori because this is how you have moral dispositions in the first place), that your brain can change. But it's not something one can just on a whim decide to do, and it's not something that you can simply control in any arbitrary way you'd like to control it.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:50 am
As I had stated you have been infected by the LPs malignant virus in looking down on, condemn and harass those who favor moral realism.
The LPs were the philosophical mafia in their days.

The below response is insulting.



What Henry implied in the above was when he was a moral subjectivist, anything goes, i.e. one could even adopts Hitler's ideology and that would be sound subjectively since there is no Generic and Universal moral standard to insist that is evil.

It is not that Henry 'restrained' himself but rather he will be guided and strive towards the real inherent moral standard which in his case is intuited [good enough] rather than rationally justified as real.

I am sure Henry will claim not with certainty he will not relapse into some of his old ways, but the point he now affix on the real moral standard which will guide him back to intrinsic morality.

Since Henry is striving to be better morally, your above statements are an insult.
Worst you are insulting based on ignorance of what is morality-proper.

It is very "evil" for one to promote moral subjectivism to anyone because that would mean any moral subjectivist can adopts Hitler's and other evil ideology and that would be sound since there are no fixed inherent moral standards to insist that is evil.

If you are a moral subjectivist and while you are doing 'good' so far and at present, and without proper moral [as defined] standards, you could easily be influenced by powerful forces to commit evil any time in the future by merely shifting from one subjective view re morality [your definition, not morality-proper] to another.
It's possible to take the trashing and mockery of your argument personally. Or you can duke it out and defend your argument - which is what matters.

I've taken little but insult and abuse from you for a very long time. And if I've returned like for like sometimes, I apologise. But pointing out that a claim is false or an argument unsound isn't insulting or abusing the proponent.

Your claim that moral subjectivism is the denial of moral values and judgements is fatuous and insulting nonsense, betraying a staggering lack of understanding, and patently worthy of mockery.

But this vicarious tenderness to criticism and refutation of someone elses's argument is unconvincing. And Henry can and may well speak for himself anyway.
WHO ARE YOU to impose that 'ought-not_ness' on me?

Note I do not start a tit-for-tat until the opponent did so.

I do express arguments as shallow, narrow, dogmatic, where I give reasons based what is posted and I do not view that as an insult but rather with hope the other will do more research.
If I state 'stupid' that is qualified as 'stupid [literally lack intelligence] even then I don't do that except as a retaliation in a tit-for-tat.
If I did want to impose an 'oughtness' on anyone else, they remain, or should be, free to ignore me. But I don't - though I'll try harder to avoid giving the impression that I do. In return, instead of beginning every response by saying I'm stupid, shallow, ignorant, and so on, perhaps you could get straight to the point I'm making.

For example, do you think that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist?

Try going straight to your answer and explanation. And try to be concise. Or do neither of those things. It's up to you, of course.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Be offended and take revenge, if you wish. But I wasn't trying to offend or insult you.

I am, but, I'll pass...you aren't worth the trouble. And: yeah, you were.

One more thing...

Your friend, you know, the one who got raped?

You signaled your virtue quite nicely in-forum, but I wonder how she views her violation.

Ask her if she thinks she's been wronged and why she's been wronged...mebbe you can inform her that she really doesn't belong to herself...sumthin' tells me she, no matter her view on things before bein' raped, might just disagree.
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply