Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Let me ask you, then: can an Atheist believe in a God or gods, and still be an Atheist, as you see it?

I don't accept "atheism" is an ideology with a capital A, nor does anyone else.

Atheists don't like it. That's because they want to pretend they don't believe anything, and don't have any ideology. But as I have shown, that's phony. They do have at least one core belief, and a core belief that has tentacles to many others, as well. You may find my persistence in using the capital "A" offensive: but I find it truthful in a way that many Atheists simply refuse to be.

There is no requirement of atheism to believe anything.

We have seen that there is one thing they require: the belief that there are, and can be, no gods. Lacking that, they simply aren't Atheists at all.

In fact, what we think is "science" could be no more than our deceptive brains throwing up apparent patterns where none actually exist.

That is underdetermination in a nutshell. There are always alternative explanations and mathematical descriptions for exactly the same phenomena; different patterns in the same data. In some experiments there is so much data that we have to think of patterns to look for in what is otherwise a meaningless jumble.

That is the death of science, then. You would have to believe that what seems to us to be findings, or data, or patterns of evidence are nothing more than phenomena thrown up in the brain: like the child who imagines the curtains in his nighttime bedroom are whispering to him, or are the shape of a cloaked murderer, and becomes terrified.

Scientists, then, would be like that: people who imagine patterns where none can possibly exist.

I don't think that's what you think...is it?

There's nothing that promises any "fit" between rationality and the universe anymore.

Well, we live in interesting times. AI will almost certainly be better at designing and finding patterns and in many cases already is, with the implication that while God clearly didn't design a brain that relies on the production of truth for the reproduction of its species, we might.

Survival and reproduction can go on quite ably -- and in some ways better -- without reference to truth. So it isn't true that our brain "relies on the production of truth," at least, not for those things.

The man who believes he's a hot property scores more women, and reproduces better, than the guy who is realistic about his faults. The person who believes there's a crocodile in his swimming pool will refuse to swim, and thus never drown -- though there is no crocodile in the swimming pool. So truth and survival-value are quite different things. Only sometimes is the truth a survival advantage: often, it's a liability.

...it seems to me that the risk of thinking through religion is that you will lose it.

That's sometimes true, but only for irrational religions. In regards to Christianity, I, and countless other scholars as well, down throughout more than two centuries, have found that thinking carefully about their faith has been very confirming.

Of course it has. If you are seeking to confirm your belief you will promote anything that can be taken as evidence and rationalise away the facts that contradict your belief. It is called confirmation bias.

Well, that allegation's a sword that cuts both ways. If "confirmation bias" can happen to Christians, it most certainly can, and does, happen to Atheists. So that argument doesn't really get us any insight.

And if you know the history of science, you'll also know that it's not accidental that science appeared in the Christian West, but not in, say, Confuscian China, Hindu India, animinist Africa, or among the many aboriginal nations of North America. It began because of the metaphysical principles of Christianity, and its very most basic method was first proposed by a theologian, Francis Bacon.

That is an example of confirmation bias. If you really know the history of science, you will agree that Francis Bacon was certainly an important figure, but probably not in the way you apparently suppose.

Look him up. He's the very guy who first invented what we now know as "the scientific method." All science is in his debt. He was also an ardent Christian theologian.

Most of the early scientists, in fact, were even clergymen; and even today, many scientists remain Theists.

More Noblemen than clergy.

Not at all. Look them up. Bacon, Newton, Pascal, Lavoisier, Mendel, Boyle...and today, Collins, Polkinghorn, Penfield, Lennox, Hastings...

So much for the old religion-against-science trope. It may be a convenient belief for Atheists, but is not related to truth. Perhaps it's just like one of those false beliefs that help Atheists survive-As-Atheists; but in any case, it doesn't reflect the history or the real world even today.

What false beliefs of your false Atheists would they be?

Lots of Atheists -- such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others, want us to believe that science is opposed to faith: and that's just historical and factual nonsense, of course. That's all I meant.

[Immanuel Can]

This, along with all your other responses, is a complete misrepresentation of what I have described to you as my concept of morality.

Let's straighten that out, then. Let's simplify.

1. For you, from where does "morality" come?
2. What creates the obligation entailed in "morality"?
3. How is "morality," as you understanding it, different from "what I want, at any given moment"?
4. Why should anybody admire "moral" people, or want to be a "moral" person himself?
5. Does "morality" have any social dimension, or is "morality" just what the individual likes to think?

I think I know the answers to these questions. That is, I think I actually have you right. But if I'm wrong in some way, I think this will show us where.

[bahman]

The size of the universe is an objective number. Can you verify it for me? The number of cups of water in the oceans is an objective number. Can you supply it to me? Mind is an objective reality. Can you explain it to me?

Objectivity means something is so, whether anybody knows it or not. Subjectivity means something only appears to be so, so long as somebody knows it.

I think we should agree on the definition of subjective and objective first. Something is subjective if it is dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, imaginations, or conscious experiences. Something is objective if it can be confirmed by reason and it is independent of biases,..

No, I don't think that will do, and it's not the way I use the terms. It's also not the way the advocates of moral subjectivism will want you to characterize their view, obviously: why would they want to be accused of advocating something "dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, or imaginations," as you put it? They won't.

No, in this context, "subjective" means "derived from the indvidual person." They might accept your term "derived from conscious experiences," but not the rest, I'm sure. So if you insist that "subjective" means all the things you list, you'll find yourself talking at cross-understandings with practically everybody here, I'm also sure.

Because those are what make individuals different in different situations. For example, think of abortion. A woman who thinks that she has the right to abort her child may self-love herself, that is the emotions that derive her, has a different opinion, or imagine a hard life after giving birth to the child. In this sense, she is subjectivist. Think of another example, vanilla and chocolate ice cream. People like these ice creams differently because of perception or opinion. So their perception or opinion is subjective since other people have different perceptions or opinions on ice cream.

"Objective" means, as I have already suggested, "real, independent of cognition or perception." It doesn't mean "confirmable," "verifiable" or "known for certain," because whether people know a thing is a different question from whether or not that thing is real. Before anybody knew about North America, North America existed. It was "objectively there." Before anybody knew what polio was, polio still killed people. Polio was an objective reality. That's what "objective" means.

Objective is the opposite of subjective. It is something that people can agree on. So it is not biased, it does not depend on perception, etc. But how people could agree on something? Either it is obvious like all bachelors are unmarried, or can be confirmed by reason.

So now we know what we mean by "subjective" and "objective," assuming we're clear on that. What did you want to say?

If we agree on the above definition then we can discuss whether morality is objective or subjective. We can agree on one act whether it is morally wrong or not if morality is objective by this I mean we can argue for that instance otherwise that act is morally neither right nor wrong. So what it is going to decide if morality is not objective? It is biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, and imaginations instead of reason.

[Immanuel Can]

Because those are what make individuals different in different situations.

That's not subjectivist morality. That's just having different views or wishes. Moral subjectivism is the claim that all morals are made up within the subjective viewpoint of individuals. People may agree or disagree on their morals, according to subjectivism. But the "subjective" part is the fact that it's up to the individual to be the only authority behind those morals, whether others agree or not. That's subjectivism.

"Objective" means, as I have already suggested, "real, independent of cognition or perception." It doesn't mean "confirmable," "verifiable" or "known for certain," because whether people know a thing is a different question from whether or not that thing is real. Before anybody knew about North America, North America existed. It was "objectively there." Before anybody knew what polio was, polio still killed people. Polio was an objective reality. That's what "objective" means.

Objective is the opposite of subjective. It is something that people can agree on.

No. Their "agreement" is irrelevant.

They should agree that objective truth is right. They may agree. But if they don't agree, it doesn't stop the thing in question from being objectively right anyway. That's moral objectivism. It has nothing to do with their perceptions or agreement. Only with the truth, with reality, with how things are.

So now we know what we mean by "subjective" and "objective," assuming we're clear on that. What did you want to say?

If we agree on the above definition

We didn't. We still need to establish what objective and subjective mean, because you think they have to do with whether or not people agree. And in both cases, it makes no difference at all.

So here. Here's another way of it being explained:

"Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.

In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only."

(Dictionary.com)

[Veritas Aequitas]

So here. Here's another way of it being explained:

"Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.

In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only."

(Dictionary.com)

I believe everyone can agree with is 'subjective' i.e. based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person, a subject.

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The typical meaning of objective is,
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

What is fact?
"that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

What is actual?
"existing in act or fact; real:"

What is real?
"existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:"

What is true
"being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:"

All the above meanings are from Dictionary.com

It is obvious from the above, what is objective is merely going round in circle and do not represent anything of substance, realistic or recognizable.

What is most recognizable as objective and factual [true, real, actual, ] are scientific facts.
But scientific facts only has 'currencies' as qualified to the human-based scientific framework and systems [scientific methods, peer review, etc.].
Since the ground of the scientific framework is human-based, it is based on a collective of subjects, i.e. inter-subjects interactions and consensus.
In this case, scientific facts as objective is based on intersubjective interactions consensus.
As such, what is objective is grounded on the subjective, albeit intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects.

And note, what is the the most real and objective scientific fact is at best a polished conjecture.

Realists will claim that there is something that is really real independent of the scientific methods.
This is merely a speculation and an ASSUMPTION.
To attempt to reify this assumption as real is delusional.
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My point is;
What is objective [fact, real, actual, true] must always be qualified to a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] [of varying degrees of objectivity within a continuum] of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

On this principle, we can have theological facts, truths and objectivity as conditioned to human based theological FSK.
But the objectivity of the theological FSK [based on faith] relative to the empirical based scientific FSK (as a standard index of 100/100) is merely at the other extreme of negligible objectivity.

So the question of what is objectivity must be deliberated within the above considerations without compromise.

[bahman]

Because those are what make individuals different in different situations.

That's not subjectivist morality. That's just having different views or wishes. Moral subjectivism is the claim that all morals are made up within the subjective viewpoint of individuals. People may agree or disagree on their morals, according to subjectivism. But the "subjective" part is the fact that it's up to the individual to be the only authority behind those morals, whether others agree or not. That's subjectivism.

Have you read the example I provided carefully?

"Objective" means, as I have already suggested, "real, independent of cognition or perception." It doesn't mean "confirmable," "verifiable" or "known for certain," because whether people know a thing is a different question from whether or not that thing is real. Before anybody knew about North America, North America existed. It was "objectively there." Before anybody knew what polio was, polio still killed people. Polio was an objective reality. That's what "objective" means.

Objective is the opposite of subjective. It is something that people can agree on.

No. Their "agreement" is irrelevant.

They should agree that objective truth is right. They may agree. But if they don't agree, it doesn't stop the thing in question from being objectively right anyway. That's moral objectivism. It has nothing to do with their perceptions or agreement. Only with the truth, with reality, with how things are.

The agreement is very relevant. We are dealing with subjective morality if people have different opinions on a situation.

So now we know what we mean by "subjective" and "objective," assuming we're clear on that. What did you want to say?

If we agree on the above definition

We didn't. We still need to establish what objective and subjective mean, because you think they have to do with whether or not people agree. And in both cases, it makes no difference at all.

So here. Here's another way of it being explained:

"Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.

In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only."

(Dictionary.com)

What do you mean by the analysis of an object of observation? What does the preference refer to?

[Will Bouwman]

Let me ask you, then: can an Atheist believe in a God or gods, and still be an Atheist, as you see it?

I don't accept "atheism" is an ideology with a capital A, nor does anyone else.

Atheists don't like it.

As I say, nor does anyone else. For the forth time:

Well, being dictionary naive, I am happy for you to guide me to any specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition.

You can't do it because no such dictionary and no such definition exists - you made it up.

That's because they want to pretend they don't believe anything, and don't have any ideology. But as I have shown, that's phony.

Only to yourself.

They do have at least one core belief, and a core belief that has tentacles to many others, as well. You may find my persistence in using the capital "A" offensive: but I find it truthful in a way that many Atheists simply refuse to be.

It is laughable rather than offensive.

There is no requirement of atheism to believe anything.

We have seen that there is one thing they require: the belief that there are, and can be, no gods. Lacking that, they simply aren't Atheists at all.

We have seen that you, and only you, capitalise atheism and call it an ideology.

In some experiments there is so much data that we have to think of patterns to look for in what is otherwise a meaningless jumble.

That is the death of science, then.

Nonsense, you just don't know how science works. Wiki to the rescue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining

You would have to believe that what seems to us to be findings, or data, or patterns of evidence are nothing more than phenomena thrown up in the brain: like the child who imagines the curtains in his nighttime bedroom are whispering to him, or are the shape of a cloaked murderer, and becomes terrified.

Scientists, then, would be like that: people who imagine patterns where none can possibly exist.

Well, one of the things you should know about Francis Bacon is his emphasis on empiricism, which as I pointed out, can be traced back to Miletus, at least in the explicit practice of Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. But, as I also say in the article, the practice of looking at the world and coming up with a theory to explain it has been recorded since the early days of writing. The book of Genesis is just one example and one which is quite obviously influenced by earlier creation myths from Egypt and Mesopotamia. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches The idea that Francis Bacon

the very guy who first invented what we now know as "the scientific method."

invented the process is piffle.

He was also an ardent Christian theologian.

Which is why you vastly inflate his importance and ignore this:

His legacy is less the methods described in the Novum Organum and more the influence of New Atlantis on the founders of the Royal Society a ‘College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning’. The origins of western science go back to Ancient Greece and the empirical work of the Milesians Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, the mathematics of the Pythagoreans and a dash of the logic of the Eleatics all of whom predate Christianity by roughly 500 years.

That, Immanuel Can, is confirmation bias.

[Immanuel Can]

The agreement is very relevant.

No, it isn't. It doesn't change whether something is "objective" or not. Opinion doesn't change the facts, the realities. Opinion is part of subjectivity.

Sorry...that's just flat-out wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

You can't do it because no such dictionary and no such definition exists - you made it up.

It was you who tried to stipulate we needed some sort of "Atheist dictionary," not me. I said no such thing, at all. I made nothing up. In fact, I provided you with proof that multiple types of dictionaries exist, so general dictionaries need to be viewed with some skepticism. And that was the only point I made. And the experts, as you can see, agree with me on that.

I know you're unhappy with what I've pointed out to you. My purpose is not to upset you. But consider whether projecting your own demands onto me and then complaining they're not satisfied is a fair response or not. I think you'll find it's more a product of irritation than logic.

In some experiments there is so much data that we have to think of patterns to look for in what is otherwise a meaningless jumble.

That is the death of science, then.

Nonsense, you just don't know how science works.

The fault is not with science. It's with the cosmology you suggest. If our origins are random, and the forces that act on us are nothing but products of randomness, and no principle exists to impose actual order on them, then how can we trust the accuracy of any of them?

Essentially, t's the human mind you've called into question -- not science itself, but our ability to do it and to trust the issuances of our brains from it.

You would have to believe that what seems to us to be findings, or data, or patterns of evidence are nothing more than phenomena thrown up in the brain: like the child who imagines the curtains in his nighttime bedroom are whispering to him, or are the shape of a cloaked murderer, and becomes terrified.

Scientists, then, would be like that: people who imagine patterns where none can possibly exist.

Well, one of the things you should know about Francis Bacon is his emphasis on empiricism.[/quote]
You should read his essay, "Of Truth." (it's online, of course) That would certainly tell you what he believed was the source of that.

[bahman]

The agreement is very relevant.

No, it isn't. It doesn't change whether something is "objective" or not. Opinion doesn't change the facts, the realities. Opinion is part of subjectivity.

Sorry...that's just flat-out wrong.

Could you please reply to all my comments?

[Immanuel Can]

The agreement is very relevant.

No, it isn't. It doesn't change whether something is "objective" or not. Opinion doesn't change the facts, the realities. Opinion is part of subjectivity.

Sorry...that's just flat-out wrong.

Could you please reply to all my comments?

We need to straighten this out, first. Remember: it was you who said that first we have to get the definitions straight, and indeed, we do.

Taking your point, then, this is one aspect of your understanding of "objective" you've got wildly wrong. And there's little chance we'll be able to avoid making mistakes in thinking or expressing our views to each other until we've sorted it out.

"Objective" and "subjective" are ontological claims, in regard to morality, not epistemological differentiators. That is, they answer the question, "What is morality made of" not "Who knows what morality is?" And you can see this is true, because the second question, the one you think it's answering, actually can't even be asked if the reality of morality is not taken for granted first. So we have to answer the question of whether morality is objective (really real, regardless of our perceptions) or subjective (only made up by our imaginings and perceptions) before we can go on.

[Will Bouwman]

You can't do it because no such dictionary and no such definition exists - you made it up.

It was you who tried to stipulate we needed some sort of "Atheist dictionary," not me. I said no such thing, at all.

You don't understand your own words:

I've had this discussion with the dictionary-naive in other places. Dictionaries are great for general definitions, but not always good for precise ones. What you will find, if you check, is that there are more specialized dictionaries for every discipline that requires a more strict or capacious or specialize vocabulary and a more precise use of language.

To which I responded (for the fifth time)

Well, being dictionary naive, I am happy for you to guide me to any specialised dictionary that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition.

Only someone oblivious to their own confirmation bias would class that as a stipulation for an "Atheist dictionary." Normal people will see it as a challenge to you to demonstrate any "specialized dictionary" that capitalises atheism and includes ideology in the definition. That you cannot find such a dictionary should tell you that your characterisation of "Atheist" exists nowhere but in your head.

That is the death of science, then.

Nonsense, you just don't know how science works.

The fault is not with science. It's with the cosmology you suggest. If our origins are random, and the forces that act on us are nothing but products of randomness, and no principle exists to impose actual order on them, then how can we trust the accuracy of any of them?

We do what Francis Bacon recommended and look at the world to see how it behaves. And whaddya know? There is chaos and quantum uncertainty in nature, but in many cases the same conditions produce the same results. We can recognised those patterns of behaviour, measure, weigh and time it and call the whole enterprise science; exactly as if no God were interfering.
What do you think science is?

[bahman]

No, it isn't. It doesn't change whether something is "objective" or not. Opinion doesn't change the facts, the realities. Opinion is part of subjectivity.

Sorry...that's just flat-out wrong.

Could you please reply to all my comments?

We need to straighten this out, first. Remember: it was you who said that first we have to get the definitions straight, and indeed, we do.

Yes, we need a proper definition of objectivity and subjectivity first.

Taking your point, then, this is one aspect of your understanding of "objective" you've got wildly wrong. And there's little chance we'll be able to avoid making mistakes in thinking or expressing our views to each other until we've sorted it out.

The way you cherry-picking does not get us anywhere. I asked some questions in my last post and I need answers to them before we can proceed further.

"Objective" and "subjective" are ontological claims, in regard to morality, not epistemological differentiators. That is, they answer the question, "What is morality made of" not "Who knows what morality is?" And you can see this is true, because the second question, the one you think it's answering, actually can't even be asked if the reality of morality is not taken for granted first. So we have to answer the question of whether morality is objective (really real, regardless of our perceptions) or subjective (only made up by our imaginings and perceptions) before we can go on.

No, objective in the context of morality does not mean something real like North America or polio. It only applies to human and intellectual beings and not other creatures like animals. Why? Because morality is about the rightness or wrongness of an action in a situation. Only intellectual beings can judge a situation intellectually and decide properly based on moral codes. So objectiveness of morality is tied to intellectuality and reason. If morality is not based on reason then it is arbitrary. By arbitrary I mean different people would choose different actions based on, biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, and imaginations. It is very obvious if you don't have a reason for the moral codes then why people should follow moral codes? Morality if it was objective is like truth. Truth is objective but it does not mean that it is something that exists like North America or polio. In that sense morality if it is objective is real but it cannot exist without an intellectual being.

[Harbal]

This, along with all your other responses, is a complete misrepresentation of what I have described to you as my concept of morality.

Let's straighten that out, then. Let's simplify.

1. For you, from where does "morality" come?
2. What creates the obligation entailed in "morality"?
3. How is "morality," as you understanding it, different from "what I want, at any given moment"?
4. Why should anybody admire "moral" people, or want to be a "moral" person himself?
5. Does "morality" have any social dimension, or is "morality" just what the individual likes to think?

I think I know the answers to these questions. That is, I think I actually have you right. But if I'm wrong in some way, I think this will show us where.

I found this, but it was just one of many similar examples. While they are not my words, they form a good representation of how I would describe morality.

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or

normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

If your demands of morality are greater than this, it is a matter for you, but I am only concerned with the generally accepted definition of the word, "morality".

[Harbal]

I think we should agree on the definition of subjective and objective first. Something is subjective if it is dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, imaginations, or conscious experiences. Something is objective if it can be confirmed by reason and it is independent of biases,..

No, I don't think that will do, and it's not the way I use the terms. It's also not the way the advocates of moral subjectivism will want you to characterize their view, obviously: why would they want to be accused of advocating something "dependent on biases, perceptions, emotions, opinions, or imaginations," as you put it? They won't.

Just for the record; I believe I am what you call an "advocate of moral subjectivism", and I am more than happy to accept bahman's definitions.