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: 1602
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:52 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:07 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:42 am
If that's true, then you do not expect even one person to think they "ought" to share your opinion.

Is that correct?
If you agree there's no inconsistency between the claims 'there are no moral facts' and 'X is morally wrong' - then this discussion is over.
I don't, of course. They're utterly inconsistent.
Expectation as to the effect of making an assertion - for example, belief that people should agree with it - is not relevant here.

I agree.

So the subjectivist has no basis for suggesting anybody else OUGHT to BE a subjectivist. So why are you still arguing, if not because you expect to get some effect from making the assertion?

You can't have any rational basis for your moral claim, for if you did, you'd be a moral objectivist. So it's not bad if we should happen to choose to disbelieve you, and happen to prefer objective morality. That's not objectively immoral, you have to believe.
1 You did agree there's no inconsistency in saying there are no moral facts, while maintaining X is morally right/wrong. I pointed out where you said it earlier. Can't be bothered to do it again.

2 I'm arguing that moral objectivism is incorrect, because there are no moral facts. But I don't maintain anyone else ought to be a moral subjectivist. That's your straw man. The claim that there are no moral facts is not a moral claim at all, as I'm sure you realise. It's a factual claim with a truth-value.

3 In sum, you have no evidence to support your moral objectivism, so you're pissing about with diversionary flak, as usual.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:04 pm You did agree there's no inconsistency in saying there are no moral facts, while maintaining X is morally right/wrong. I pointed out where you said it earlier. Can't be bothered to do it again.
You didn't pay attention. I said YOU could SAY it, but only to yourself. But I also said that you couldn't say it and expect another person to have a duty to believe it.

You can call anything you want anything you want. You can call an elephant an emu. So you can say, "For me, murder is subjectively 'wrong.'" It won't objectively be; but you can say it.

But you cannot expect to say to your neighbour, "I believe murder is wrong, and so should you," without him asking the very natural question,"Why?"

And the answer cannot be anything objective; so you're going to have to say, "No reason."
I don't maintain anyone else ought to be a moral subjectivist.

So it isn't in any sense at all morally "wrong" for a person to be an objectivist.

Why, therefore, are you arguing? You don't actually want to say anything to another person, you insist. Or are you misrepresenting yourself?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

We can always clarify the function of a a non-factual assertion, such as 'this painting is beautiful' or 'slavery is morally wrong' by adding 'in my view'. Are you insisting that we all do that all the time? If so, I look forward to your saying 'in my view, slavery is morally wrong' every time. Job done. End of conversation.

what I'm insisting, pete, is...

when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

you're no dummy...you know exactly what you're doin' & why
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:26 pm We can always clarify the function of a a non-factual assertion, such as 'this painting is beautiful' or 'slavery is morally wrong' by adding 'in my view'. Are you insisting that we all do that all the time? If so, I look forward to your saying 'in my view, slavery is morally wrong' every time. Job done. End of conversation.

what I'm insisting, pete, is...

when you say ORANGE MAN is utterly morally disgusting you state it as fact

when you say ORANGE MAN, in my opinion, is utterly morally disgusting you offer opinion

the first, by your reckoning, is false

the second, by your reckoning, is all you have

you're no dummy...you know exactly what you're doin' & why
Henry, I don't understand what you're on about. The first moral assertion isn't false, 'by my reckoning', any more than it's true. By my reckoning, it has no truth-value, because it expresses an opinion. Which is not to say it isn't rationally defensible.

I don't make a moral assertion as though it's a fact. That you think I do is your problem, not mine. And what matters anyway is the actual function of the assertion, which is to express a moral opinion. And that's what we've been arguing about all along. You think a moral assertion can make a factual claim with a truth-value independent from opinion. And I'm saying it can't.

I insist you answer my question. Do you want everyone who expresses an opinion to qualify it with 'in my opinion...'? Do you think that's an essential clarification for good communication?
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Henry, I don't understand what you're on about.

yeah, you do


I don't make a moral assertion as though it's a fact.

you present your opinion in the guise of fact


Do you want everyone who expresses an opinion to qualify it with 'in my opinion...'?

in this place, in this thread, yeah, you ought to

as I say: quit tryin' to have it both ways
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:39 pm Henry, I don't understand what you're on about.

yeah, you do


I don't make a moral assertion as though it's a fact.

you present your opinion in the guise of fact


Do you want everyone who expresses an opinion to qualify it with 'in my opinion...'?

in this place, in this thread, yeah, you ought to

as I say: quit tryin' to have it both ways
You think your opinion IS a fact, and you're wrong. But here, let me re-state your standard claim:

A woman owns herself; therefore, in Henry's opinion, it's morally wrong to own her.

No more kidding yourself it was ever anything different, please.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:51 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:39 pm Henry, I don't understand what you're on about.

yeah, you do


I don't make a moral assertion as though it's a fact.

you present your opinion in the guise of fact


Do you want everyone who expresses an opinion to qualify it with 'in my opinion...'?

in this place, in this thread, yeah, you ought to

as I say: quit tryin' to have it both ways
You think your opinion IS a fact, and you're wrong. But here, let me re-state your standard claim:

A woman owns herself; therefore, in Henry's opinion, it's morally wrong to own her.

No more kidding yourself it was ever anything different, please.
you claim it's nuthin' but opinion all the way down while presentin' your opinion as fact...quit tryin' to have it both ways, pete
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:48 pm "All known to me," you mean. Other people claim there are other bases, of course. It seems you just happen to choose to just deny those bases are real
They can't support their claims as we all know, in other words they are making self-serving shit up. A morally disgusting practice.
But that's just a tu quoque fallacy. Even if we suppose that all other bases people propose for morality are illusions, that doesn't help the subjectivist one bit; for he is still utterly without a basis himself. So, if he's honest, he has to admit that, and say, "I have opinion X about action Y, and you have opinion Z about action Y; both are nothing more than opinions, so we are equal, and you can continue to believe Z, rather than my X.

So you can't even say, "Morally, you ought to believe in moral subjectivism." For in that case, there's nothing morally wrong with believing in moral objectivism instead.

So why are you arguing, if you're so honest a subjectivist that you would never try to compel anyone else to your view? As a subjectivist, you must know that there are no reasons or evidence you can bring to bear on the question, as that would turn you objectivist.

So what are you saying? :shock: All you CAN say is that there is no morality at all -- that, or you can turn mere propagandist, campaigning for moral precepts as if they were objective, whereas you yourself know they are all nothing more than subjective.

Are you being a propagandist? Are you pushing for moral subjectivism, all the while knowing nobody can have rational bases or grounds for choosing it? Or do you actually believe moral subjectivism is objectively morally right? But if you do, then you're not a moral subjectivist anymore.

That's a dilly of a pickle you've got there.
You seem to think that the 'ought' is objective/absolute here. And you seem to think that subjective morals mean no morals at all.

This imo is a pretty good demonstration why many moral objectivists can be considered malignant/dangerous, and it's morally right to crush them.

Campaigning is something you have to do, to have something accepted that's not true.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

This imo is a pretty good demonstration why many moral objectivists can be considered malignant/dangerous, and it's morally right to crush them.

🤔
Atla
Posts: 3156
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:59 pm This imo is a pretty good demonstration why many moral objectivists can be considered malignant/dangerous, and it's morally right to crush them.

🤔
You can whine and squeal all you want, but the civilized world has already decided to do away with the self-serving evils of moral objectivism. Because overall that's the morally right choice.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:48 pm "All known to me," you mean. Other people claim there are other bases, of course. It seems you just happen to choose to just deny those bases are real
They can't support their claims as we all know,
No..."as you suppose." Not "as we all know." The majority of people still believe morality is objective...as do you, if you think " making self-serving shit up" ought to be classified as "a morally disgusting practice."

See? You can't even keep your own story straight.
You seem to think that the 'ought' is objective/absolute here.
Ought I not to think it is? You seem to think I ought not... :D
And you seem to think that subjective morals mean no morals at all.
Essentially, that is correct. For "morality" can definitionally never be solipsistic, since it always implies an appeal for agreement from others. After all, what does the statement "I'm a moral person" mean, if you are not expecting any other person ever to have to agree with you about that? For then your claim reduces to nothing more than "I choose..." or "I do not choose." And being a subjectivist, you have to assume that no other person has to agree with your choice or approve of it.

That's not moral, and not immoral (unless morality IS objective, in which case it is immoral). But definitionally, it's amoral...meaning, "devoid of any moral status or content."

So subjectivism is inherently amoral at least, immoral at worst.
...it's morally right to crush them.
There you go again. You can't stop being an objectivist for even one message. :D
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

You can whine and squeal all you want, but the civilized world has already decided to do away with the self-serving evils of moral objectivism. Because overall that's the *morally right choice.

*in your opinion
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:03 pm You can whine and squeal all you want,
Is it wrong to do so? Moralizing.
...but the civilized world...
Is "civilized" a term of moral approval? Are you trying to make Henry ashamed of being "uncivilized"? More moralizing.
...has already decided to do away
So your assumption has to be that the "civilized" world's consensus is right? More moralizing.
... with the self-serving
Self-serving is wrong, you say? Moralizing.
evils of
Moralizing.
... moral objectivism. Because overall that's the morally right choice.
Definitely an attempt at objective moral condemnation of Henry's view.

Hmmm...seems to be a fair whack of moralizing going on. But since you don't mean any of it is objectively justified, nobody really has to agree with any of it. But I'll just bet you're not happy with that...

I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but rather of falling into the common subjectivist self-defeating patterns of invoking moral ire while denying that objective grounds exist for moral ire.

Don't feel bad. Moral subjectivism is something nobody can practice, no matter how hard they try. It is, in fact, an oxymoron.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:55 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:03 pm You can whine and squeal all you want,
Is it wrong to do so? Moralizing.
...but the civilized world...
Is "civilized" a term of moral approval? Are you trying to make Henry ashamed of being "uncivilized"? More moralizing.
...has already decided to do away
So your assumption has to be that the "civilized" world's consensus is right? More moralizing.
... with the self-serving
Self-serving is wrong, you say? Moralizing.
evils of
Moralizing.
... moral objectivism. Because overall that's the morally right choice.
Definitely an attempt at objective moral condemnation of Henry's view.

Hmmm...seems to be a fair whack of moralizing going on. But since you don't mean any of it is objectively justified, nobody really has to agree with any of it. But I'll just bet you're not happy with that...

I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but rather or falling into the common subjectivist self-defeating patterns of invoking moral ire while denying that objective grounds exist for moral ire.

Don't feel bad. Moral subjectivism is something nobody can practice, no matter how hard they try. It is, in fact, an oxymoron.
if moral anti-realists wanna be taken seriously they oughta stop writin' & and talkin' like moral realists
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:01 pm if moral anti-realists wanna be taken seriously they oughta stop writin' & and talkin' like moral realists
Yep.

That's it, but in a whole lot fewer words.
Post Reply