Is morality objective or subjective?

[Age]

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

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all.

This is very hypocritical claim considering how many times I have asked you to deliver the information of what is actually 'objectively morally' Right and Wrong, in Life.

If you want to claim that 'it' exists, then just list down what is 'objectively morally' Right and what is 'objectively morally' Wrong, in Life.

you, the self-proclaimed 'moral objectivist' continually fails to deliver any information at all, here.

If 'morality' is objective, only, as you propose and claim that 'morality' is, then what is 'objectively moral'?

It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail.

So-called 'moral objectivism' continues to fail also, as you "immanuel can" keep proving true by your failure to provide any information about so-called 'moral objectivism'.

Why do you come here, under the pretense that you know better, but each and every time I question and challenge you, you fail to provide any information at all, which could back up and support your 'superiority position'?

[Age]

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

Agreed. Most here seem to be stupified by the smoke-and-mirrors of Subjectivism. That's because they WANT to believe that there's an alternative "morality" to Objectivism, and they WANT to believe they have no rational obligation to be Nihilists, and they WANT not to have to change their thinking about morality, so they pretend. They play like "Moral Subjectivism" is something real and possible, even when it voids "moral" of any meaning at all.

And they can't defend even one moral precept by way of Subjectivism, even on their own terms, and even if they are allowed to choose their own moral valuation.

All that is just nonsense to me; the only form of morality that I am aware of is that based on human sentiment, and I can't even envisage on what lines a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth might run. All you've got is religious dogma.

I am also still waiting for "immanuel can" to present absolutely any information at all about on 'what lines a rational argument for the existence of 'objective moral true' might run'.

The irrefutable answer is very easy to present, but why "Immanuel can" will not, especially considering just how adamant it is about this here, even "Immanuel can" cannot yet work out and comprehend.

[Age]

Agreed. Most here seem to be stupified by the smoke-and-mirrors of Subjectivism. That's because they WANT to believe that there's an alternative "morality" to Objectivism, and they WANT to believe they have no rational obligation to be Nihilists, and they WANT not to have to change their thinking about morality, so they pretend. They play like "Moral Subjectivism" is something real and possible, even when it voids "moral" of any meaning at all.

And they can't defend even one moral precept by way of Subjectivism, even on their own terms, and even if they are allowed to choose their own moral valuation.

All that is just nonsense to me; the only form of morality that I am aware of is that based on human sentiment, and I can't even envisage on what lines a rational argument for the existence of objective moral truth might run. All you've got is religious dogma.

Let's say that were true. It's not, but let's play along.

Let's make it worse: let's say I have nothing. What does Moral Subjectivism have?

What 'moral subjectivism' has is 'subjective views on what is morally right and wrong in Life'.

Which, obviously, only exists, well in the days when this is being written anyway.

For, if anyone has an 'objective view on what is morally Right and Wrong in Life', then just present it for all of 'us' to look at, and see.

[Age]

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail.

You mean it doesn't deliver any objective moral information at all.

I neither said that, nor even implied it. In fact, I said the opposite: that I don't need any reference to Objective Moralizing to make the point.

Saying and claiming 'this' Is like claiming that God is a "he" and/or that God exists, but then when questioned and challenged over how could God be a "he" and/or what is this God Thing which you claim exists? But you then respond with, 'But I do not need any reference at all to 'these things' to make the point.

Doing this is just a "coward's" way out of admitting that you have absolutely nothing at all that backs up and supports your own personal subjective view and belief here.

Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody?

What can so-called 'moral objectivism' teach anyone?

After all you cannot even inform 'us' of what actually is 'morally objectively true'.

Also, that you under the belief that 'moral objectivism' 'teaches' people things is further proof of just how far you are off and 'missing the mark' here.

What is, already, instinctual known is what is 'morally objective'. 'Moral objectivity' is not some thing some one 'teaches' to another.

you, really, do need to get off of that 'high horse', as some would say here, and start 'learning' a thing or two before you go on like you know 'the best' or 'the most' because you have 'read the bible' or been 'taught' by one only 'theological religion'.

[Age]

What does Moral Subjectivism have?

It has you in a bit of a flap, by the look of it.

Far from it. But I repeat the question: what can Moral Subjectivism teach us about morality? Can you name even one thing?

What can you, "Immanuel can", a self-proclaimed 'moral objectivist' teach 'us' about morality?

Once again, can you name even one thing?

I have asked you this numerous times already. And, each and every time you fail to provide absolutely any informative information, at all.

you claim about how 'you' do not bother with 'me' is the biggest, what is referred to as a, 'cop out' and the sign of one who cannot back up and support its beliefs.

[Age]

Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody?

Unless, of course, this is the point: what can Moral Objectivism teach anybody?

We're supposing (contrary to truth, of course, but for the sake of the argument) that Moral Objectivism isn't true. So now we're left with just Moral Subjectivism. Now what can moral Subjectivism teach us about morality?

See how this one, once again, instead of answering the actual question put forth to it, it twists and turns things around, like a Truly very deceitful person, and tries to fool the readers here.

Look "Immanuel can", you claim that 'moral objectivism' exists, is the only way to find out what is morally Right and Wrong in Life, and is the only 'morality' existing here. So, tell 'us' what can 'moral objectivism' actually, supposedly, 'teach us', AND, what is actually 'morally objectively true' and not true.

you continually trying to deflect and deceive here is just further proving that you have absolutely nothing at all that backs you up and supports you here.

[Age]

Part of the lack of agreement between us is in my experience "morals" are HOW folks make behavioral decisions and you are promoting the idea that "morals" should determine WHAT folks choose to do behaviourally.

I'm not even demanding so much...although it's true, of course.

I'm only asking that Moral Subjectivism become informative of one thing to one person.

'Moral subjectivism' is just different people having different views on what is morally right and wrong in Life.

Obviously you have different 'moral views' than other people do. So, you, like them, are just another 'morally subjective' individual human being.

Now, why are you asking that 'moral subjectivism' become informative of one thing to one person?

you cannot even provide absolutely any information about what is, supposedly, 'morally objectively True or Right', which could in any way inform any one of any thing.

Once again, you are being very, very hypocritical here.

I will now ask you that 'moral objectivism' become informative of one thing to one person.

If you can, show and do this for 'us' "immanuel can".

But, if you do not, then do not expect anyone else to do what you can and will not do.

That seems an awfully simple, basic expectation of something that purports to be "morality," does it not?

Again, the exact same can be said, back to you.

In fact, in what sense could we even call something "moral" if it can't impart any moral information?

Here you are just getting "yourself" all twisted up and distorted.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with if 'morality', itself, is 'objective', 'subjective', neither, or both.

Whether some thing 'imparts' information, or not, has so many other variables. One being, if you want to 'accept' 'that thing'.

Now, something that is a 'subjective moral viewpoint' could impart any, or even lots of, 'moral information' to another human being, obviously. However, does this actually 'fit in' with what 'it' is that you are trying to argue and fight for here, exactly?

It's not about a lack of the concept of, say "evil". Rather that evil (like beauty) is a subjective entity.

If it's a subjective entity, then it can become "good" whenever the subjectivity changes.

Yes this is Right. And, which you have, exactly, been doing throughout 'your life', obviously.

Have you, really, not yet noticed just how often your 'subjective views', subjectively change?

Even to the extent of what you 'now, currently', think or believe is 'morally objective' has changed from what you, previously, thought or believed what 'morally objective'.

Have you really not yet even noticed that this has been happening?

So we don't know a single thing about the status of the action or person in question.

Why do you 'jump' from acting like 'you know' it all or what is right, to 'now' not knowing an absolutely 'single thing'.

Just because you human beings have subjective moral views or beliefs, then this, in absolutely no way, means that 'you' and others do not know a 'single thing' about the status of 'the action', (or 'person'), in question.

What you 'know', or better worded, what you 'think you know' is your own personal subjective view of 'the status' of 'the action'.

Oh, and by the way, having a view or belief of 'the status' of 'the person' is a Truly Wrong thing to do in Life.

When, and if, you discover, or learn, and understand and know how and why all of you human beings get your views and beliefs, then you will stop classing and/or judging 'people' by 'status'.

By you do so "immanuel can", or even wanting to do so, shows and proves just how Wrongly you have been 'brought up' and 'raised'. Now 'we' are talking about what are Truly 'objective morals', or not.

At least, not from Moral Subjectivism.

'Moral subjectivism' is not some thing that exists as though it is on its own and has some influence or control over you human beings.

The words 'moral subjectivism' just refers to the Fact that you older human beings have personal or 'subjective' moral views and/or beliefs.

[Age]

It has you in a bit of a flap, by the look of it.

Far from it. But I repeat the question: what can Moral Subjectivism teach us about morality? Can you name even one thing?

I don't know that it can teach you anything. What do you expect it to teach you?

What can whatever morality you think you have access to teach us?

See here are two very simple questions just asked for clarification. Now, let us see if "Immanuel can" will just answer them, very easily, without trying to deflect and/nor deceive here.

[Age]

Far from it. But I repeat the question: what can Moral Subjectivism teach us about morality? Can you name even one thing?

I don't know that it can teach you anything.

Let's suppose it can. Or let's suppose I'm impossible, but you are a moral agent. What can Subjectivism teach you about morality?

This is like asking, 'What can 'objectivism' teach you about morality?'

The answer is absolutely nothing.

'Objectivism' like 'subjectivism', on their own and not related to absolutely anything else both cannot teach any one anything.

[Immanuel Can]

...you ignore this part...

I ignore most of what you say, because most of it is absurd twaddle, actually.

Now, show that it can inform just one person of one moral thing.

All that my assessment here "informs" is this: that in regard to either moral objectivism or moral subjectivism, individual value judgments are derived existentially from dasein.

A perfect example. Complete blather. I shouldn't have bothered, and now won't.

[Age]

Moral subjectivism is, in my view, no less embodied existentially in dasein.

If you're going to talk more , we're not going to get anywhere.

you are being an absolute imbecile here "immanuel can".

Even in "dubious" sentence "dubious" stated, 'in my view'. So, there is absolutely no way at all your statement and claim about "dubious" talking "shit" could not be further from the actual Truth.

If 'moral subjectivism' is what "dubious" said here, in "dubious's" view, then trying to claim that that is "shit" is Truly illogical.

There is not a human being ever that could dispute, let alone refute, that 'that' is how "dubious" sees things here.

That you might not agree with 'that view' is one thing, but trying to claim that the 'actual view' that another has is "shit" only a Truly blind and/or irrational individual would claim.

That that was/is "dubious" view is True, and thus is not "shit", at all.

What you do here basically is to assume that moral subjectivism must be wrong...

Nope. I'm agreeing to accept, for argument's sake, the premise offered: that Moral Subjectivism is true.

How could any Truly logical and rational thinking human being not agree that human beings have 'subjective moral views'.

To think or believe that this is not possible is beyond absurdism.

There's no more Moral Objectivism now, because we've dismissed it hypothetically. All there is, is Moral Subjectivism.

Now, show that it can inform just one person of one moral thing.

Well my own 'subjective moral view' is that if one does not need to eat meat, to survive, then it is 'morally Wrong' to eat animals.

Now, this might 'inform' you of some thing, or it might not 'inform' you of absolutely any thing at all, "immanuel can". But, this 'moral subjectivism', obviously, can 'inform' one person of one moral thing. This cannot be refuted.

And, if absolutely any one would like to discuss, further, what I just said and proposed here, then by all means let 'us' do so.

Oh, and how that, for 'now', 'subjective moral view' can and will become an 'objective moral view' can also be discussed, as well.

[Age]

Let's suppose it can. Or let's suppose I'm impossible, but you are a moral agent. What can Subjectivism teach you about morality?

It doesn't teach me anything, it guides my conduct. For example, it prohibits my going onto internet forums and lying about stuff.

It doesn't, actually.

Once again this one thinks that it can 'tell' another what is true or not in regards to 'the views' that 'they' have and/or that what the other does is true or not.

Who do you think you are "Immanuel can".

If absolutely any one tells you what 'guides them', then who are you to tell them that that is not true?

You have a subjective twinge.

Are you, really, under some sort of delusion that by adding the word 'twinge' that that will somehow change anything?

you, "immanuel can", exactly like "harbal", and exactly like every other poster here, has 'subjective views'.

Now, what is a 'twinge', exactly? And, if a 'subjective twinge' differs from a 'subjective view', to you, then how and why, exactly?

When it goes away, you won't have it.

Is this like when you do not have your 'subjective views' or have changed your 'subjective views', like on 'morality' for example, then you will not have 'them' also?

What part of that deserves the honourific "moral"?

Nothing. Simply because you never mentioned anything about 'moral' in your 'subjective views' above here.

It's just twinge-following. And Moral Subjectivism cannot even tell you that you owe yourself to follow twinges.

Did you answer what are 'twinges', to you, exactly, when I asked above?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great.

[Age]

It doesn't teach me anything, it guides my conduct. For example, it prohibits my going onto internet forums and lying about stuff.

It doesn't, actually. You have a subjective twinge. When it goes away, you won't have it. What part of that deserves the honourific "moral"? It's just twinge-following. And Moral Subjectivism cannot even tell you that you owe yourself to follow twinges.

So if I ignored my own moral impulses and followed what somebody else told me what was morally right and wrong, how would that be any better?

Obviously it would just be about the exact same thing.

The only thing "Immanuel can" is trying to get to here is that only in 'the bible' is where the only real and true 'objective morality' can be found and that you, and everyone else 'should', if not 'must', follow and abide by 'that', and by 'that' alone.

I know of no source of objective moral truth, so I would be dependant on others to tell me, and just end up following their twinges, instead of my own.

All you have to do now is just work out 'which bible' has had the 'right twinges' inserted into it, by the 'right human being/s'.

Are you able to help 'us' out here "immanuel can" about 'which bible' has the 'right twinges' in it, and thus is the 'right one' to follow and abide by?

[iambiguous]

...you ignore this part...

I ignore most of what you say, because most of it is absurd twaddle, actually.

Now, show that it can inform just one person of one moral thing.

All that my assessment here "informs" is this: that in regard to either moral objectivism or moral subjectivism, individual value judgments are derived existentially from dasein.

A perfect example. Complete blather. I shouldn't have bothered, and now won't.

Absolutely shameless. Unless, if course, it's a "condition"?

[Atla]

No. The argument is that Moral Subjectivism fails to deliver any information at all. It fails on its own two legs, so to speak, and needs no input from Objectivism in order to fail.

You mean it doesn't deliver any objective moral information at all.

I neither said that, nor even implied it. In fact, I said the opposite: that I don't need any reference to Objective Moralizing to make the point.

Here's the point: what can Moral Subjectivism, even if we took it to be entirely true, teach anybody?

It's about group morals, if a group agrees on them. Or personal morals. And since you denied this, after 20k+ comments, your best argument seems to be that morality can't be subjective, because only objective morality can be morality.

What is a category supposed to teach us by itself, by the way? What does substance dualism say beyond substance dualism? What does naive realism say beyond naive realism?