Is morality objective or subjective?

[Age]

Question: What makes capital punishment morally wrong?
Answer: I wouldn't want it done to me.
Conclusion: It's a fact, as sure as eggs is eggs, that capital punishment is morally wrong. What I do and don't want done to me is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

QED. Genius.

If you say so.

I don't say so, right? It's a joke. A real thigh-slapper.

Again, if you say so?

Oh, and by the way, are you ever going to inform us of what 'objective' actually means, or refers to, to you?

[Peter Holmes]

If you say so.

I don't say so, right? It's a joke. A real thigh-slapper.

Again, if you say so?

Oh, and by the way, are you ever going to inform us of what 'objective' actually means, or refers to, to you?

In case anyone missed my countless explanations...

Objectivity: independence from opinion when considering the facts. Objective: factual; based on facts. (Expression: an objective decision/judgement - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

Fact: a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case; or a linguistic assertion of such a feature of reality that is true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

Truth: an attribute of a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality that is or was the case. (In classical logic, a factual assertion may be true or false.)

[Age]

I don't say so, right? It's a joke. A real thigh-slapper.

Again, if you say so?

Oh, and by the way, are you ever going to inform us of what 'objective' actually means, or refers to, to you?

In case anyone missed my countless explanations...

Objectivity: independence from opinion when considering the facts.

BUT you are implying here that 'facts' are ALREADY KNOWN, independent of 'opinion'.

How do you 'consider' 'facts'? If you are ALREADY calling some 'things' 'facts', then they OBVIOUSLY have ALREADY been decided? And, how is ANY 'thing' decided if NOT through 'opinion', itself?

I have been questioning you about WHERE EXACTLY do 'facts' come from?

Objective: factual; based on facts.

LOL And the 'circle' continues. How, EXACTLY, are 'facts' decided upon if not on, and from, 'opinions'?

(Expression: an objective decision/judgement - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

Will you provide an example of a so-called 'objective decision/judgment'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT.

And, is the OPINION, "There are absolutely NO moral facts, FOREVER MORE", an 'objective decision/judgment'?

If yes, then what is 'this' opinion and view of YOURS based on EXACTLY?

(Expression: looking at 'things' objectively - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

But, how does one DECIDE what are 'facts' or NOT?

Fact: a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case; or a linguistic assertion of such a feature of reality that is true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

LOL What is 'reality'?

And, we do NOT want YOUR OPINION. We WANT the One and ONLY IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Please proceed.

Truth: an attribute of a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality that is or was the case. (In classical logic, a factual assertion may be true or false.)

LOL The CIRCLE WIDENS.

Will you PROVIDE 'a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality'?

And, if you WILL, then what is 'it', whatever you WANT TO PROVIDE, based upon if it is NOT a human being's 'opinion'.

[Skepdick]

Question: What makes capital punishment morally wrong?
Answer: I wouldn't want it done to me.
Conclusion: It's a fact, as sure as eggs is eggs, that capital punishment is morally wrong. What I do and don't want done to me is the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.

QED. Genius.

Seeming as you reject the criterion... If nothing makes capital punishment objectively wrong then lets hang you in public for being a moral subjectivist.

Any and all your subjective objections against capital punishment have already been dismissed. By you.

There's a subtle but significant difference between pursuing ingenuity and avoiding stupidity. And you continue to demonstrate stupidity.

[Peter Holmes]

Again, if you say so?

Oh, and by the way, are you ever going to inform us of what 'objective' actually means, or refers to, to you?

In case anyone missed my countless explanations...

Objectivity: independence from opinion when considering the facts.

BUT you are implying here that 'facts' are ALREADY KNOWN, independent of 'opinion'.

How do you 'consider' 'facts'? If you are ALREADY calling some 'things' 'facts', then they OBVIOUSLY have ALREADY been decided? And, how is ANY 'thing' decided if NOT through 'opinion', itself?

I have been questioning you about WHERE EXACTLY do 'facts' come from?

Objective: factual; based on facts.

LOL And the 'circle' continues. How, EXACTLY, are 'facts' decided upon if not on, and from, 'opinions'?

(Expression: an objective decision/judgement - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

Will you provide an example of a so-called 'objective decision/judgment'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT.

And, is the OPINION, "There are absolutely NO moral facts, FOREVER MORE", an 'objective decision/judgment'?

If yes, then what is 'this' opinion and view of YOURS based on EXACTLY?

(Expression: looking at 'things' objectively - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

But, how does one DECIDE what are 'facts' or NOT?

Fact: a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case; or a linguistic assertion of such a feature of reality that is true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

LOL What is 'reality'?

And, we do NOT want YOUR OPINION. We WANT the One and ONLY IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Please proceed.

Truth: an attribute of a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality that is or was the case. (In classical logic, a factual assertion may be true or false.)

LOL The CIRCLE WIDENS.

Will you PROVIDE 'a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality'?

And, if you WILL, then what is 'it', whatever you WANT TO PROVIDE, based upon if it is NOT a human being's 'opinion'.

Here are some factual assertions:

1 Water is H2O.
2 In my opinion, water is H2O.
3 In everyone's opinion, water is H2O.
4 The scientific subjective consensus is that water is H2O.

To say a fact is a matter of opinion is to confuse an attitude towards a fact with the fact itself - or to confuse how we arrive (individually or collectively) at a conclusion with the conclusion itself. And that's why the outdated (and self-defeating) postmodern canard - 'facts are opinions' - is patent nonsense.

(Damn. I forgot about your block caps fetish.)

[Peter Holmes]

So the criterion for moral objectivity is this: what I do and don't want done to me is (objectively) morally right and wrong.

Okay: I don't want to be punished for my crimes; therefore, punishing people for their crimes is (objectively) morally wrong.

QED. Genius.

[Skepdick]

So the criterion for moral objectivity is this: what I do and don't want done to me is (objectively) morally right and wrong.

Okay: I don't want to be punished for my crimes; therefore, punishing people for their crimes is (objectively) morally wrong.

QED. Genius.

Why should anyone care about your subjective wants?

Objectively speaking objective morality is better than subjective morality.

Objectively speaking moral subjectivism is immoral, therefore my objective morals supercede your subjective morals.

Your subjective objections are irrelevant. On grounds of the self-proclaimed subjectivity of your claims.

[Peter Holmes]

So there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, boiling down to: what I do and don't want done to me.

So morality is subjective. Now, where have come across that argument before?

[Skepdick]

So there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, boiling down to: what I do and don't want done to me.

So morality is subjective. Now, where have come across that argument before?

Nobody is disagreeing with you.

I agree 100% that your morality is subjective.
I understand your beliefs perfectly. You believe there are no moral facts, only moral opinions.

From my moral point of view (moral objectivism) moral subjectivism is immoral. This is a moral fact. You don't like it? Tough shit - your subjective moral oppinion doesn't matter.

If you don't want to be so easily dismissable - stop dismissing youreslf.

[Belinda]

So there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, boiling down to: what I do and don't want done to me.

So morality is subjective. Now, where have come across that argument before?

Nobody is disagreeing with you.

I agree 100% that your morality is subjective.
I understand your beliefs perfectly. You believe there are no moral facts, only moral opinions.

From my moral point of view (moral objectivism) moral subjectivism is immoral. This is a moral fact. You don't like it? Tough shit - your subjective moral oppinion doesn't matter.

If you don't want to be so easily dismissable - stop dismissing youreslf.

But what would make all the moral difference to moral subjectivism and render it moral is uncertainty. Uncertainty makes you think and learn.Uncertainty usually makes you pay attention to what others are thinking and doing.

[Skepdick]

But what would make all the moral difference to moral subjectivism and render it moral is uncertainty. Uncertainty makes you think and learn.Uncertainty usually makes you pay attention to what others are thinking and doing.

Uncertainty is indecision. Indecision is uncertainty. It's the same emotion and the same state of mind.

If one is uncertain/indecisive then one should not be able to determine whether any particular choice is better than another choice.

If I were uncertain then I would be unable to choose between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism.
One wouldn't be better; or worse than the other.

[Age]

In case anyone missed my countless explanations...

Objectivity: independence from opinion when considering the facts.

BUT you are implying here that 'facts' are ALREADY KNOWN, independent of 'opinion'.

How do you 'consider' 'facts'? If you are ALREADY calling some 'things' 'facts', then they OBVIOUSLY have ALREADY been decided? And, how is ANY 'thing' decided if NOT through 'opinion', itself?

I have been questioning you about WHERE EXACTLY do 'facts' come from?

Objective: factual; based on facts.

LOL And the 'circle' continues. How, EXACTLY, are 'facts' decided upon if not on, and from, 'opinions'?

(Expression: an objective decision/judgement - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

Will you provide an example of a so-called 'objective decision/judgment'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT.

And, is the OPINION, "There are absolutely NO moral facts, FOREVER MORE", an 'objective decision/judgment'?

If yes, then what is 'this' opinion and view of YOURS based on EXACTLY?

(Expression: looking at 'things' objectively - one based on facts rather than subjective opinion or bias.)

But, how does one DECIDE what are 'facts' or NOT?

Fact: a feature of reality, or a state-of-affairs, that is or was the case; or a linguistic assertion of such a feature of reality that is true, in context, given the way we use the words or other signs involved.

LOL What is 'reality'?

And, we do NOT want YOUR OPINION. We WANT the One and ONLY IRREFUTABLE Fact.

Please proceed.

Truth: an attribute of a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality that is or was the case. (In classical logic, a factual assertion may be true or false.)

LOL The CIRCLE WIDENS.

Will you PROVIDE 'a factual assertion that correctly describes a feature of reality'?

And, if you WILL, then what is 'it', whatever you WANT TO PROVIDE, based upon if it is NOT a human being's 'opinion'.

Here are some factual assertions:

1 Water is H2O.

ALL 'things' are said to be made up of some things.

2 In my opinion, water is H2O.

This is ACTUALLY absolutely and irrefutably True.

3 In everyone's opinion, water is H2O.

This is OBVIOUSLY just plain False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

4 The scientific subjective consensus is that water is H2O.

So, you are RESORTING BACK TO 'consensus'. Which, AGAIN, is SELF-CONTRADICTORY, and HYPOCRITICAL, FROM 'you'.

By the way, 'factual assertions' are NOT necessarily FACTS, themselves.

The 'assertions' word PROVES this Fact, and IRREFUTABLY, by the way.

To say a fact is a matter of opinion is to confuse an attitude towards a fact with the fact itself - or to confuse how we arrive (individually or collectively) at a conclusion with the conclusion itself.

You, AGAIN, have MISSED the point.

And that's why the outdated (and self-defeating) postmodern canard - 'facts are opinions' - is patent nonsense.

WHERE do 'facts' come from if NOT from 'views' AND 'opinions'?

I have asked you this PREVIOUSLY. You have REFUSED to reply to this ACTUAL QUESTION. And, we are STILL WAITING for YOUR answer and CLARIFICATION.

(Damn. I forgot about your block caps fetish.)

As if capital letters would have absolutely ANY bearing on the ACTUAL MEANING of the 'words' that I am USING.

I write the way I do for a SPECIFIC REASON.

Oh, and by the way, here is ANOTHER factual assertion:

1. Abuse IS, morally, Wrong.

Does ANY one DISAGREE with this?

Would ANY one like to CLAIM that this is NOT a Fact.

[Age]

So there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, boiling down to: what I do and don't want done to me.

So morality is subjective. Now, where have come across that argument before?

WHY do you write your OWN 'arguments', and then REFUTE 'them', "yourself"?

[Peter Holmes]

So there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions, boiling down to: what I do and don't want done to me.

So morality is subjective. Now, where have come across that argument before?

WHY do you write your OWN 'arguments', and then REFUTE 'them', "yourself"?

You may be confused. I'm clarifying an argument from an unpleasant and intellectually-challenged self-confessed troll. Silly, I know. Feeding them only encourages them. Come to think of it, I have my doubts about the 'human being' going by the name of Age.

[Belinda]

But what would make all the moral difference to moral subjectivism and render it moral is uncertainty. Uncertainty makes you think and learn.Uncertainty usually makes you pay attention to what others are thinking and doing.

Uncertainty is indecision. Indecision is uncertainty. It's the same emotion and the same state of mind.

If one is uncertain/indecisive then one should not be able to determine whether any particular choice is better than another choice.

If I were uncertain then I would be unable to choose between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism.
One wouldn't be better; or worse than the other.

There are other possibilities; you may calmly shelve the problem until you have more information: or you may decide to await a sympathetic impulse.