Is morality objective or subjective?

[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?

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

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true.

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

[Harbal]

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

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true.

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

I don't imagine the average person makes the objective/subjective distinction. Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

[Immanuel Can]

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true.

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

I don't imagine the average person makes the objective/subjective distinction.

But, as the saying goes, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -- Thoreau. They don't think much, at least about the basis for their beliefs...they're too busy just trying to live.

But we're philosophers here, are we not?

Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

Right. But sentiment doesn't stand the test. "I feel I don't like murder" isn't any actual argument that a society ought not to condone murder, or that one's neighbour shouldn't murder, or even that one will not "feel" like murdering one's neighbour in the next five minutes. It's only when we all know that "Thou shalt not commit murder" is objective and true, an actual moral prohibition backed by authority, that we take it seriously at all. And if that authority is only local and limited, like a government, say, then we need take it seriously a) only for wherever that government governs, b) only for as long as the government continues to back it with force, and c) only in cases where we don't have reasonable prospects of not being caught. But it still will never be anything universal, binding and informative of justice. It will still be only a human preference du jour, which, in principle, we have no moral reason not to reject in the next five minutes.

[Harbal]

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

I don't imagine the average person makes the objective/subjective distinction.

But, as the saying goes, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -- Thoreau. They don't think much, at least about the basis for their beliefs...they're too busy just trying to live.

But we're philosophers here, are we not?

Yes, this is a philosophy forum, so we question things like morality, but I was responding to your comment about what most people do.

Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

Right. But sentiment doesn't stand the test. "I feel I don't like murder" isn't any actual argument that a society ought not to condone murder, or that one's neighbour shouldn't murder, or even that one will not "feel" like murdering one's neighbour in the next five minutes. It's only when we all know that "Thou shalt not commit murder" is objective and true, an actual moral prohibition backed by authority, that we take it seriously at all. And if that authority is only local and limited, like a government, say, then we need take it seriously a) only for wherever that government governs, b) only for as long as the government continues to back it with force, and c) only in cases where we don't have reasonable prospects of not being caught. But it still will never be anything universal, binding and informative of justice. It will still be only a human preference du jour, which, in principle, we have no moral reason not to reject in the next five minutes.

I don't doubt that a lot of people do think of morality, or certain aspects of it, as something that corresponds to some sort of truth, but the topic is about what morality actually is, not what some people happen to believe it is.

[Age]

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

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true.

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

If anyone believes in 'objective moral truths', then why do they not just write down what the 'objective moral truths' are, exactly?

If 'objective moral truths' exist, then writing down the list of them would be a very simple and easy task, right?

[Age]

Even so, I think I will follow my whims, just in case they turn out to be objectively true.

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

I don't imagine the average person makes the objective/subjective distinction. Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

But, when 'the matter' here is fully analysed, then what is uncovered is that all 'moral views' are subjective but that there also exists an objective 'moral view'.

One just first needs to uncover, or learn, and understand and know how 'objectivity' is actually obtained and gained.

[Age]

That's what most people seem to do...to say they disbelieve in objective moral truths, and that morality is all subjective, but then act as if their own beliefs are mostly objectively true anyway.

I don't imagine the average person makes the objective/subjective distinction.

But, as the saying goes, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -- Thoreau. They don't think much, at least about the basis for their beliefs...they're too busy just trying to live.

And you "Immanuel can" are a prime living proof of this.

you, LOL, believe that God is a male gendered thing and which created the whole Universe by itself.

Have you, really, thought about the basis for this belief of yours here?

Have you, really, thought about how this could actually fit in with any actual Real Truth?

you, just like every other one of you believing human beings, believe things mostly on the sole basis that some adult human being told you 'that thing'.

See, what you human beings here do not fully recognize, understand, and accept is that when an adult human being told you things, when you were children, and they were telling you those things 'with conviction', or 'with belief', "themselves", then 'that belief' is passed on to you with as much 'conviction', which you 'take on' as being true and right, and 'hold onto' 'that conviction/belief' with a certain amount of conviction as well. Then you, as an adult, 'pass on' or 'attempt to pass on' the exact same beliefs.

This phenomena can be seen and observed very clearly among all of you human beings here, in the days when this is being written.

But we're philosophers here, are we not?

you people here, in this forum, cannot even agree upon and accept just one definition for the 'philosopher' word.

So, asking a question like this is, in fact, just another form of deception.

Which, by the way, you "immanuel can" are a what is called "master of" here.

Which is quite ironic considering that it is you who tries to argue and fight for 'the bible' here.

Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

Right. But sentiment doesn't stand the test. "I feel I don't like murder" isn't any actual argument that a society ought not to condone murder, or that one's neighbour shouldn't murder, or even that one will not "feel" like murdering one's neighbour in the next five minutes. It's only when we all know that "Thou shalt not commit murder" is objective and true, an actual moral prohibition backed by authority, that we take it seriously at all.

Considering in the days when this is being written the amount of countries where the law specifically condones, promotes, and states that the murder of human beings through the actual courts of laws of those countries is the 'right thing to do', then how you are ever going to 'argue' that 'Thou shalt not commit murder' is 'objective' and 'true' I find amusing you believe that this is possible here.

But by all means keep on trying here "immanuel can".

And, I point this out without even going into the amount of 'justification' of murder that is committed through wars, which some of themselves are 'justified' through the very many different theological beliefs that you 'hold onto' very strongly "yourself".

How can you, logically, try to argue that, 'Thou shalt not commit murder', is 'objective and true' when you condone the murdering of human beings "yourself"?

And if that authority is only local and limited, like a government, say, then we need take it seriously a) only for wherever that government governs, b) only for as long as the government continues to back it with force, and c) only in cases where we don't have reasonable prospects of not being caught. But it still will never be anything universal, binding and informative of justice. It will still be only a human preference du jour, which, in principle, we have no moral reason not to reject in the next five minutes.

[Age]

I don't imagine the average person makes the objective/subjective distinction.

But, as the saying goes, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -- Thoreau. They don't think much, at least about the basis for their beliefs...they're too busy just trying to live.

But we're philosophers here, are we not?

Yes, this is a philosophy forum, so we question things like morality, but I was responding to your comment about what most people do.

Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

Right. But sentiment doesn't stand the test. "I feel I don't like murder" isn't any actual argument that a society ought not to condone murder, or that one's neighbour shouldn't murder, or even that one will not "feel" like murdering one's neighbour in the next five minutes. It's only when we all know that "Thou shalt not commit murder" is objective and true, an actual moral prohibition backed by authority, that we take it seriously at all. And if that authority is only local and limited, like a government, say, then we need take it seriously a) only for wherever that government governs, b) only for as long as the government continues to back it with force, and c) only in cases where we don't have reasonable prospects of not being caught. But it still will never be anything universal, binding and informative of justice. It will still be only a human preference du jour, which, in principle, we have no moral reason not to reject in the next five minutes.

I don't doubt that a lot of people do think of morality, or certain aspects of it, as something that corresponds to some sort of truth, but the topic is about what morality actually is, not what some people happen to believe it is.

And, when you people here decide and agree upon what 'morality', itself, actually is, then, and only then, will I show and prove how 'morality' is both 'subjective' and 'objective'.

I will also explain how to differentiate between the two.

So, does absolutely anyone want to begin defining what 'morality', itself, is first, and then see if 'we' can even come to an agreement and acceptance of what that is first, before 'we' begin to look at and see if 'morality', itself, is subjective, objective, both, or neither?

Or, would doing such a thing just be silly or stupid here?

[Immanuel Can]

Our moral opinions, particularly strongly held ones, feel self evidently true. It is only when we analyse the matter that it becomes clear that morality is just human sentiment, and I don't think that most people analyse the matter.

Right. But sentiment doesn't stand the test. "I feel I don't like murder" isn't any actual argument that a society ought not to condone murder, or that one's neighbour shouldn't murder, or even that one will not "feel" like murdering one's neighbour in the next five minutes. It's only when we all know that "Thou shalt not commit murder" is objective and true, an actual moral prohibition backed by authority, that we take it seriously at all. And if that authority is only local and limited, like a government, say, then we need take it seriously a) only for wherever that government governs, b) only for as long as the government continues to back it with force, and c) only in cases where we don't have reasonable prospects of not being caught. But it still will never be anything universal, binding and informative of justice. It will still be only a human preference du jour, which, in principle, we have no moral reason not to reject in the next five minutes.

I don't doubt that a lot of people do think of morality, or certain aspects of it, as something that corresponds to some sort of truth, but the topic is about what morality actually is, not what some people happen to believe it is.

Well, we know what it isn't.

It isn't "subjective." It cannot be, because to be "subjective" is not to have any moral authority or any moral information at all. It's just to have whims; and by no account are whims deserving of some kind of cachet as "moral."

So morality isn't subjective. So it's either objective, or it's nothing. And maybe, you might say, it's nothing...but then you're a Nihilist, not a Moral Subjectivist at all. In fact, the words "Moral Subjectivist" are just a contradiction in terms.

The choice is not between objective and subjective morality, but between objective morality and Nihilism.

[LuckyR]

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.

In my experience it's a lot simpler than you're making it out to be. Or in other words, you're asking morality to perform way too many duties.

Moral codes are what individuals use to decide on how to optimally behave. Of course each individual gets to define "optimally" in whatever way they see fit. Thus that definition is subjective, as are the codes used to attempt to acheive behavior consistant with that definition. In that scenario, "morality" exists for each of us as individuals, though each set of codes only "governs" the actions of that individual. If an individual tells another "your behavior is immoral", that can have several actual meanings. Usually it doesn't refer to individual moral code violations, instead community ethical standards, thus the statement should be "your behavior is unethical" or "illegal". Other times it means "your behavior violates MY moral code and I'm assuming your moral code is (or should be) identical to mine", when, in fact it may not be. This confounding of individual and community "rules", as well as verbal laziness of using terms referencing one, in situations referring to the other, just leads to confusion resulting in folks throwing up their hands and declaring the whole subject matter moot.

So let's use your "murder is wrong" example. In my moral code murder is wrong. In my community, murder violates our collective ethical standard. Thus performing murder is immoral from my perspective. If someone in my community is a non repentant murderer, his behavior is a violation of our ethical standard thus he is behaving unethically, however since murder doesn't violate his personal moral code, he is behaving morally (from his perspective). What about from my perspective? Well if I'm his psychiatrist and thus in a position to perhaps know his moral stance, then I can declare he is a psychopath, thus he acted predictably and he didn't violate his moral code and thus not immorally. But that's pretty unlikely. More commonly, I will (erroneously) assume he shares my moral code on the wrongness of murder and thus state he acted immorally, when a more accurate declaration would actually be: he violated my moral code but not his own, thus I find his actions immoral, yet he does not. Is his performance of murder immoral? That depends on perspective, which is the hallmark of subjectivity. Thus "wrong" can mean: immoral, unethical or illegal. Most murderers are all three, sociopaths/psychopaths are only two.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

To be fair, mister Can there has spent a fair few years now primarily arguing that moral skepticisms must be wrong becuase they aren't good enough to fill in the hole that is left behind if we take the fact out of morality. He's argued from ought to is that way without showing any signs of comprehension, and if you scroll up the page, you will observe that he's argued that same thing at Harbal today.

In effect, all he has is the never-fully-articulated inductive (and invalid) argument that because he, Immanuel Can, has never yet been convinced that any subjectivist theory is objective enough, all subjectivist theories must be false.

Pete is unusual mainly in that he seems content to argue the basic sceptical point without feeling any paricular need to fill in the gap created by that doubt. The question for him, in this thread anyway, doesn't stray from "is morality subjective or objective" to other questions such as "if morals can't be known in that sense, then how does our moral reasoning actually work?"

If your enemy lies in wait to ambush you at the mountain pass, you may very well want to lure him out of that position to fight you on ground of your choosing. But if is disinclined to be lured, then you might need to go round the mountain some other route. Pete laid out his terms in the OP really, and the question is one of whether somebody can take the facts/valiues thing away from him, or can you get where you are hgeaded by just going round him?

I haven't seen him face any real challenge on his own terms in the 6 years this thread has been running on this forum. VA geniunely convinced himself that Hume woudn't argue about facts vs values if he knew what VA knows about genetics and considers this the last word on that matter. Mister Can once hinted that he had a special secret argument aginst Hume that he can only tell to Christians or something. One of them once mentioned something about Puttnam, but to take it further would involve proper reading and I don't think he was up for that.

I don't think it's really Pete's fault if he lays down a challenge to bridge the is-ought gap but other people prefer for him to change the challenge to suit the arguments they wish to present. Mister Can, in particular wants to have his cake and eat it too. His complaint that "having any authority behind morality makes it somehow not moral" simply overlooks that the say so of a divine entity doesn't bridge that gap. Surely if God knows of the moral truth, then it should be a simple matter for Can to explain whether God knows this becuase he has the ablity to directly percieve moral properties inherent to a situation or whatnot, and thus he can bridge the gap. But he doesn't want to say that last little bit for some reason.

[Walker]

If anyone believes in 'objective moral truths', then why do they not just write down what the 'objective moral truths' are, exactly?

If 'objective moral truths' exist, then writing down the list of them would be a very simple and easy task, right?

Belief is not required to objectively consider a topic.
Often, no immorality is enough morality.

The seven deadly sins listed in The Holy Bible are objective statements of immorality. That’s because of their predictable effects upon the individual in all societies and cultures. The sins affect the doer’s mental and physical health. They affect the society, especially if the society condones them.

Those effects are objectively judged to be immoral because without the deleterious effects upon the doer that are caused by those sins, the body and mind naturally function according to design specifications, which in the long run creates a more harmonious society and happier individuals.

By this standard, ignoring the routine maintenance of your automobile is also objectively immoral, because over the long haul the deleterious effects upon the auto will affect the proper functioning according to design specifications, taking into account the normal wear and tear of entropy upon form.

[Harbal]

I don't doubt that a lot of people do think of morality, or certain aspects of it, as something that corresponds to some sort of truth, but the topic is about what morality actually is, not what some people happen to believe it is.

Well, we know what it isn't.

It isn't "subjective."

But the "we" you speak of seem to be very few; at least on this forum.

[Atla]

I don't doubt that a lot of people do think of morality, or certain aspects of it, as something that corresponds to some sort of truth, but the topic is about what morality actually is, not what some people happen to believe it is.

Well, we know what it isn't.

It isn't "subjective."

But the "we" you speak of seem to be very few; at least on this forum.

After 20k+ comments, his best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

I'm always perplexed when people throw away weeks, months, years of their lives, spending all that time on pointless, ridiculous nonsense such as this. Don't they have anything better to do in life?