Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Whether you "think" X or Y is right or wrong has zero impact on what God knows is actually right or wrong in a given situation.

And what you say God knows about right or wrong has zero impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Nobody has to be concerned about what you think is right or wrong -- remember?

That applies to anyone without authority of some kind. Nobody has to be concerned about what you think is right or wrong, or about what it says in the Bible.

You're a professing Subjectivist.

No, that's just one of your beloved labels.

Even you don't need to take seriously whatever it is you're thinking at the moment.

I am as free to decide what to take seriously as you are.

I prefer morality that is subject to change;

Except when it comes to Trump. There, you become utterly dogmatic.

It's hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt.

Interesting that you would choose that, of all issues, to take a stand. I wonder what it means that you do that...

The main reason is probably that he is a shameless liar. You must know by now how much I hate that sort of thing.

[CIN]

You've required us to assume that morality is subjective, and that having any authority behind morality makes it somehow not moral. But that's your key weakness: you need to prove those suppositions, not just to tell us to assume them, and then build your case out of them.

Good luck with that. I've been waiting 8 years to hear Peter provide a rational justification for his ethical subjectivism. He doesn't have one. All he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Peter Holmes, has never yet been convinced that any objectivist theory is true, all objectivist theories must be false.

I hope you have a lot of patience, because you're in for a long wait.

[LuckyR]

You've required us to assume that morality is subjective, and that having any authority behind morality makes it somehow not moral. But that's your key weakness: you need to prove those suppositions, not just to tell us to assume them, and then build your case out of them.

Good luck with that. I've been waiting 8 years to hear Peter provide a rational justification for his ethical subjectivism. He doesn't have one. All he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Peter Holmes, has never yet been convinced that any objectivist theory is true, all objectivist theories must be false.

I hope you have a lot of patience, because you're in for a long wait.

Uummm... you've got it backwards. Since we all observe an extremely wide variety of individual moral codes (and ethical standards), identical, statistically, to other commonly agreed upon subjective subjects, it is those who believe in (a single) objectively optimal set of codes and standards who have the burden of justifying their belief system.

[Immanuel Can]

And what you say God knows about right or wrong has zero impact on what I think is right or wrong.

Nobody has to be concerned about what you think is right or wrong -- remember?

That applies to anyone without authority of some kind.

My comment actually has zero to do with authority. It has to do with rationality. Your Subjectivism will not rationalize any explanation to the effect that anybody else should be concerned about what you think. That's definitional, since you believe that morality is entirely made up by individuals.

You're a professing Subjectivist.

No, that's just one of your beloved labels.

It's the accurate one. You may not like it, but it is exactly what you describe your view as being.

Even you don't need to take seriously whatever it is you're thinking at the moment.

I am as free to decide what to take seriously as you are.

Of course. But whereas, being a Moral Objectivist, I know that I cannot change morality by merely changing my view or my mind, as a Subjectivist, you have to believe the opposite: that your own views are no more durable or obligatory to you than your present mood.

I prefer morality that is subject to change;

Except when it comes to Trump. There, you become utterly dogmatic.

It's hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt.

Your deficiency of skepticism about the narrative you've been fed is very interesting...but a little discouraging for those who think you have perspecuity.

Interesting that you would choose that, of all issues, to take a stand. I wonder what it means that you do that...

The main reason is probably that he is a shameless liar. You must know by now how much I hate that sort of thing.

Not enough, apparently.

[Immanuel Can]

You've required us to assume that morality is subjective, and that having any authority behind morality makes it somehow not moral. But that's your key weakness: you need to prove those suppositions, not just to tell us to assume them, and then build your case out of them.

Good luck with that. I've been waiting 8 years to hear Peter provide a rational justification for his ethical subjectivism. He doesn't have one. All he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Peter Holmes, has never yet been convinced that any objectivist theory is true, all objectivist theories must be false.

I hope you have a lot of patience, because you're in for a long wait.

I think Peter has, at least for the moment, made up his mind. In fact, it came "made," when he made the original post. Nothing will persuade him, because he's voluntarily in a state of unpersuadability.

But others may not be so intransigent. And there are many on the forum.

[Immanuel Can]

You've required us to assume that morality is subjective, and that having any authority behind morality makes it somehow not moral. But that's your key weakness: you need to prove those suppositions, not just to tell us to assume them, and then build your case out of them.

Good luck with that. I've been waiting 8 years to hear Peter provide a rational justification for his ethical subjectivism. He doesn't have one. All he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Peter Holmes, has never yet been convinced that any objectivist theory is true, all objectivist theories must be false.

I hope you have a lot of patience, because you're in for a long wait.

Uummm... you've got it backwards. Since we all observe an extremely wide variety of individual moral codes (and ethical standards), identical, statistically, to other commonly agreed upon subjective subjects, it is those who believe in (a single) objectively optimal set of codes and standards who have the burden of justifying their belief system.

Not quite. Those who believe there is ANY thing called "morality" are obligated to provide grounds for us to believe in it, and to recognize in it the features that "morality" has to have -- such as the ability to confer an obligation on people. But our opposition here is not generally composed of Moral Nihilists: so they are proposing in contrast to objective morality what they call "subjective morality." So they have a burden to show that morality can really exist as a subjective state.

But it can't. The fact that you or I believes X is wrong will not enable us to declare to anybody, "It's wrong for you, too." Not if morality is subective. Only if it is objective can a person say to another, "Murder is wrong for me, and it's wrong for you, too...and wrong for our society...and wrong for all people." Since subjective moralizing cannot confer a moral duty on even one person -- and not even on the person experiencing it -- it isn't "morality" at all. It's just Nihilism for those too cowardly or too instinctively moral to become actual Nihilists. And it's inherently irrational, inconsistent, unstable and uninformative...not great qualities for anything purporting to be "morality" to have.

[Peter Holmes]

I've been waiting 8 years to hear Peter provide a rational justification for his ethical subjectivism. He doesn't have one. All he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Peter Holmes, has never yet been convinced that any objectivist theory is true, all objectivist theories must be false.

I hope you have a lot of patience, because you're in for a long wait.

Rather like the long wait for a valid and sound argument for moral objectivity - the existence of moral facts.

[Harbal]

Nobody has to be concerned about what you think is right or wrong -- remember?

That applies to anyone without authority of some kind.

My comment actually has zero to do with authority. It has to do with rationality. Your Subjectivism will not rationalize any explanation to the effect that anybody else should be concerned about what you think. That's definitional, since you believe that morality is entirely made up by individuals.

As far as other people are concerned, you and I are in exactly the same position; we express our views, and they will either agree or disagree, and the mere fact that you might tell them you are speaking objective truth will make not a jot of difference.

No, that's just one of your beloved labels.

It's the accurate one. You may not like it, but it is exactly what you describe your view as being.

You are free to label me as you like, but just know that I won't be acknowledging any of them.

I am as free to decide what to take seriously as you are.

But whereas, being a Moral Objectivist, I know that I cannot change morality by merely changing my view or my mind,

Of course you can; what's to stop you? If you get your "truth" from the Bible, you will just interpret that "truth" to suit your own preferences.

as a Subjectivist, you have to believe the opposite: that your own views are no more durable or obligatory to you than your present mood.

You are mistaken, that is not how it works.

It's hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt.

Your deficiency of skepticism about the narrative you've been fed is very interesting

My assessment of Trump is based almost entirely on the speeches and interviews he has given. I am judging him on my direct observation, not on what I have heard or read about him.

The main reason is probably that he is a shameless liar. You must know by now how much I hate that sort of thing.

Not enough, apparently.

I don't know what you mean by that.

[Immanuel Can]

That applies to anyone without authority of some kind.

My comment actually has zero to do with authority. It has to do with rationality. Your Subjectivism will not rationalize any explanation to the effect that anybody else should be concerned about what you think. That's definitional, since you believe that morality is entirely made up by individuals.

As far as other people are concerned, you and I are in exactly the same position; we express our views, and they will either agree or disagree, and the mere fact that you might tell them you are speaking objective truth will make not a jot of difference.

Unless it IS objective. And since we know that if it's "subjective," it's merely personal and temporary, then it cannot be anything BUT objective...or nothing.

No, that's just one of your beloved labels.

It's the accurate one. You may not like it, but it is exactly what you describe your view as being.

You are free to label me as you like, but just know that I won't be acknowledging any of them.

Nobody can make you acknowledge anything. But the fault isn't mine, on that.

I am as free to decide what to take seriously as you are.

But whereas, being a Moral Objectivist, I know that I cannot change morality by merely changing my view or my mind,

Of course you can; what's to stop you?

That I will become wrong...morally wrong.

as a Subjectivist, you have to believe the opposite: that your own views are no more durable or obligatory to you than your present mood.

You are mistaken, that is not how it works.

It's exactly how it is.

It's hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt.

Your deficiency of skepticism about the narrative you've been fed is very interesting

My assessment of Trump is based almost entirely on the speeches and interviews he has given.

I won't question your word. I do doubt that that's at all true.

The main reason is probably that he is a shameless liar. You must know by now how much I hate that sort of thing.

Not enough, apparently.

I don't know what you mean by that.

You've clearly imbibed the various deceptions foisted on you by the Dems and the mainstream media, and you parrot their talking points. Your skepticism, therefore, is reserved for one side only, and your antipathy to lies is clearly limited.

[Harbal]

My comment actually has zero to do with authority. It has to do with rationality. Your Subjectivism will not rationalize any explanation to the effect that anybody else should be concerned about what you think. That's definitional, since you believe that morality is entirely made up by individuals.

As far as other people are concerned, you and I are in exactly the same position; we express our views, and they will either agree or disagree, and the mere fact that you might tell them you are speaking objective truth will make not a jot of difference.

Unless it IS objective. And since we know that if it's "subjective," it's merely personal and temporary, then it cannot be anything BUT objective...or nothing.

there is no such thing as objective moral truth; that is not what morality is. But even those who believe there is such a thing, will not necessarily refer to the same "objective" truth as you do.

Of course you can; what's to stop you?

That I will become wrong...morally wrong.

If being morally wrong bothered you, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

You are mistaken, that is not how it works.

It's exactly how it is.

It doesn't surprise me that you can't understand.

My assessment of Trump is based almost entirely on the speeches and interviews he has given.

I won't question your word. I do doubt that that's at all true.

I don't believe that you doubt it at all.

I don't know what you mean by that.

You've clearly imbibed the various deceptions foisted on you by the Dems and the mainstream media, and you parrot their talking points. Your skepticism, therefore, is reserved for one side only, and your antipathy to lies is clearly limited.

I don't watch or read news, and I have no interest in American politics. I just happen to think that men like Trump should be condemned, whatever walk of life they are in, and your defence of him is certainly not an enactment of what I have always understood Christian values to be.

[Immanuel Can]

As far as other people are concerned, you and I are in exactly the same position; we express our views, and they will either agree or disagree, and the mere fact that you might tell them you are speaking objective truth will make not a jot of difference.

Unless it IS objective. And since we know that if it's "subjective," it's merely personal and temporary, then it cannot be anything BUT objective...or nothing.

there is no such thing as objective moral truth; that is not what morality is.

Well, so you say: but no reasonable person should agree with that statement.

But even those who believe there is such a thing, will not necessarily refer to the same "objective" truth as you do.

For objective morality, your agreement is not required. Moral truth will proceed, regardless of you. All you can do is decide whether you're on the right side or the wrong one. But you can't change the terms.

If being morally wrong bothered you, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

You forget -- according to you, I can't BE "morally wrong." Whatever values I subjectively decide to hold at a given moment are all there is, and are as "right" as anything can ever be. And I don't even owe myself a duty to follow them, either.

Again, you're behaving as an Objectivist. So you're just being inconsistent, and not even keeping faith with yourself. Why, then, should anybody else take your view seriously, since YOU clearly don't.

My assessment of Trump is based almost entirely on the speeches and interviews he has given.

I won't question your word. I do doubt that that's at all true.

I don't believe that you doubt it at all.

And yet, I do.

[Harbal]

For objective morality, your agreement is not required. Moral truth will proceed, regardless of you.

Proceed to be ignored by those who don't happen to agree with it, and who may even have an alternative objective morality of their own, you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

For objective morality, your agreement is not required. Moral truth will proceed, regardless of you.

Proceed to be ignored by those who don't happen to agree with it, and who may even have an alternative objective morality of their own, you mean?

Well, they can ignore the truth, it's true...and always, as it is with truth, at their own peril. But yeah, they can do that.

However, there's no such thing as "an alternate morality of one's own." Even the inventor of a subjective axiom is not morally obligated to follow it. So it isn't, in any intelligible sense at all, a "moral" edict. It's simply an arbitrary whim...a twinge.

And twinges are not moral entities. They're just twinges.

[Harbal]

Even the inventor of a subjective axiom is not morally obligated to follow it. So it isn't, in any intelligible sense at all, a "moral" edict. It's simply an arbitrary whim...a twinge.

So the question is, do we follow our own arbitrary whims, or those of a fictitious god?

[Immanuel Can]

Even the inventor of a subjective axiom is not morally obligated to follow it. So it isn't, in any intelligible sense at all, a "moral" edict. It's simply an arbitrary whim...a twinge.

So the question is, do we follow our own arbitrary whims, or those of a fictitious god?

If He's fictitious, it doesn't matter what you follow. There's no obligation to follow anything...not even your own whims.