Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Surely it can't be because, despite my subjective position, you realise I am able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Actually, I very much believe that. But do you mean you are able to distinguish objective right and wrong, or merely that you know when you feel "wrongish" and "rightish"? Because I think your explanation there is going to require you to say you think you have some intuition about what right and wrong really are, not just about your own feelings.

He knows right from wrong. What more do you want him to say, "Well my account of right and wrong is the REAL account of right and wrong, therefore I have it right and everyone else has it wrong..."

[Gary Childress]

That no sensible account can be made of a subjective morality.

What would you like me to do differently so that I can properly "face" that problem?

Are you doing your best to distract from the obvious point stated above by trying to make every term in an obvious question "problematic", or are you having trouble with your medication levels?

No. I'm asking what you think I should do differently. How is no one "facing" the problem but you?

[Gary Childress]

Or how do you "face" the problem which is obviously better than my "facing" of the problem?

[Harbal]

They did a study of South American torturers, in which they found that the major crisis of conscience only happened the first time, and the second time was only about half as hard...and eventually, ordinary family men became capable of torturing political prisoners all day, then coming home and kissing their wives and playing with their kids.

Isn't religious observance higher in South American countries than in, say, mine?

The study was interested in the question of the psychology of a professional torturer. And they discovered it was the same as anybody else: if you violate your conscience, it goes away. And then very normal people can be induced to do very wicked things.

The same was found in the case of Nazi secret policemen and torturers in WW2. Many of them were ordinary Germans and Poles, but once they had bowed to the demand that they harm others, and had violated their consciences, there was little difficulty in doing it again.

In neither study was "religion" (whatever you think that is) either examined or eliminated as a variable. So no conclusion about the relative value of any particular "religion" can be deduced. But the strength of conscience...that's a different matter.

But if the data does not show a difference between those who believe in objective morality, and those who don't, how does any of this support your argument? I am not making any claims about subjective morality that this study of yours refutes, but it does suggest that morality that is based on a belief in objective moral truth is not as robust as you seem to think.

Why do you say that to me as if you assume I will see the problem you are alluding to?

Because you're intelligent, and it's not hard to see.

But you would need a sense of morality to see it, not intelligence, therefore you must assume that I have such a sense.

Surely it can't be because, despite my subjective position, you realise I am able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Actually, I very much believe that. But do you mean you are able to distinguish objective right and wrong, or merely that you know when you feel "wrongish" and "rightish"? Because I think your explanation there is going to require you to say you think you have some intuition about what right and wrong really are, not just about your own feelings.

Why don't we put aside the terms "objective" and "subjective" for a moment? In order to make a moral judgement, you have a reference, and so do I, it is just that your reference is external, and mine is internal.

[Immanuel Can]

Surely it can't be because, despite my subjective position, you realise I am able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Actually, I very much believe that. But do you mean you are able to distinguish objective right and wrong, or merely that you know when you feel "wrongish" and "rightish"? Because I think your explanation there is going to require you to say you think you have some intuition about what right and wrong really are, not just about your own feelings.

He knows right from wrong.

Objective right and wrong, or subjective right and wrong?

The answer's obvious, by the way. If it's not objective, then it's not even worth declaring, because EVERYBODY ALWAYS knows what they subjectively feel. Who else is going to "feel" your feelings for you?

[Immanuel Can]

What would you like me to do differently so that I can properly "face" that problem?

Are you doing your best to distract from the obvious point stated above by trying to make every term in an obvious question "problematic", or are you having trouble with your medication levels?

No. I'm asking what you think I should do differently.

I think you should realize that moral subjectivism is nonsense. But that's assuming you want to see the obvious.

[Gary Childress]

Who else is going to "feel" your feelings for you?

No one. That's why we have language, to communicate our feelings.

[Gary Childress]

Are you doing your best to distract from the obvious point stated above by trying to make every term in an obvious question "problematic", or are you having trouble with your medication levels?

No. I'm asking what you think I should do differently.

I think you should realize that moral subjectivism is nonsense. But that's assuming you want to see the obvious.

Why is moral subjectivism "nonsense"? Who is better at knowing when they've been wronged than the person who has been wronged?

[Immanuel Can]

But if the data does not show a difference between those who believe in objective morality, and those who don't, how does any of this support your argument?

Because my argument is simply that conscience changes.

Why do you say that to me as if you assume I will see the problem you are alluding to?

Because you're intelligent, and it's not hard to see.

But you would need a sense of morality to see it, not intelligence, therefore you must assume that I have such a sense.

It would take both. But since conscience is fragile and variable, you'd need more than mere conscience. You'd need intelligence. And you're smart enough to see the problem: subjective morality (or "conscience," if you prefer) is useless to tell us anything UNLESS it also refers to an objective reality that our intelligence can inform us about. Because only our intelligence can tell us whether or not what our consciences are telling us is true.

Surely it can't be because, despite my subjective position, you realise I am able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Actually, I very much believe that. But do you mean you are able to distinguish objective right and wrong, or merely that you know when you feel "wrongish" and "rightish"? Because I think your explanation there is going to require you to say you think you have some intuition about what right and wrong really are, not just about your own feelings.

Why don't we put aside the terms "objective" and "subjective" for a moment?

We cannot. They're the subject of the OP.

In order to make a moral judgement, you have a reference, and so do I, it is just that your reference is external, and mine is internal.

That doesn't say anything. It only says you have a feeling. And a feeling can be right, or a feeling can be wrong, or foolish, or unanchored to any objective facts at all, or even contrary to truth.

Only reference to an objective standard can tell you whether your conscience is in good order or merely deceiving you.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I'm asking what you think I should do differently.

I think you should realize that moral subjectivism is nonsense. But that's assuming you want to see the obvious.

Why is moral subjectivism "nonsense"? Who is better at knowing when they've been wronged than the person who has been wronged?

Apparently, the subjectivist thinks HE is.

He has to believe that he is the only one who can say whether or not it was an actual "wrong" or nothing at all that should matter. His own feelings will determine that, he supposes.

[Sculptor]

It is "bad" that they don't know it?

And do you mean, "objectively bad," or just "Gary and Harbal feel differently, but those who have no conscience are just fine"?

No it just means that you are wrong yet again

So Gary and Harbal are "wrong"?

No. Just you

[Gary Childress]

I think you should realize that moral subjectivism is nonsense. But that's assuming you want to see the obvious.

Why is moral subjectivism "nonsense"? Who is better at knowing when they've been wronged than the person who has been wronged?

Apparently, the subjectivist thinks HE is.

He has to believe that he is the only one who can say whether or not it was an actual "wrong" or nothing at all that should matter. His own feelings will determine that, he supposes.

Are you saying that you can do whatever you want to someone who says they are a "subjectivist" and they just "think" they are being wronged?

[Immanuel Can]

No it just means that you are wrong yet again

So Gary and Harbal are "wrong"?

No. Just you

So....you've got nothing relevant to offer here. Not surprised.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is moral subjectivism "nonsense"? Who is better at knowing when they've been wronged than the person who has been wronged?

Apparently, the subjectivist thinks HE is.

He has to believe that he is the only one who can say whether or not it was an actual "wrong" or nothing at all that should matter. His own feelings will determine that, he supposes.

Are you saying that you can do whatever you want to a subjectivist and they just "think" they are being wronged?

If you are a subjectivist, that's exactly what you have to believe. Unless you happen, for no objective reason, to feel the same way they do, they've not been wronged at all. You have to think that there's no such thing as "wrong," if subjectively, you don't believe in it.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently, the subjectivist thinks HE is.

He has to believe that he is the only one who can say whether or not it was an actual "wrong" or nothing at all that should matter. His own feelings will determine that, he supposes.

Are you saying that you can do whatever you want to a subjectivist and they just "think" they are being wronged?

If you are a subjectivist, that's exactly what you have to believe. Unless you happen, for no objective reason, to feel the same way they do, they've not been wronged at all. You have to think that there's no such thing as "wrong," if subjectively, you don't believe in it.

I don't believe in God in the sense that the Bible speaks of him and really, I'm agnostic, however, I don't believe if I hit someone on the nose that they just think they are being wronged. I think I wronged them. Am I incorrect?