Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

If morality is just everyone's own personal opinions, then that's just people doing whatever they want. It's no morality at all.

What do you mean by "opinion"? I mean, I have "opinions" such as orange is prettier than brown. However, I don't think it's my "opinion" that if I hit someone in the face with my fist for no reason then I'm doing something harmful to them, it seems more like a fact to me than "opinion". And I don't want to do others harm. Things like that usually come back to haunt me and I wouldn't want anyone doing that to me. I've learned lessons in life about stuff like that.

You need to take that up with Harbal.

Cause I'm in the "it would be harmful and it would be wrong" camp, so I can't help you.

Why do I need to take that up with Harbal? He says morality is important to him. If he thinks morality is "opinion" then at least he seems to respect some opinions of others to whatever degree. I don't think you and IC are giving Harbal fair credit by trying to tell him that he can't be moral just because he's an atheist. That isn't a logical argument-or at least not a sound one as far as I've witnessed.

[phyllo]

Why do I need to take that up with Harbal? He says morality is important to him. If he thinks morality is "opinion" then at least he seems to respect some opinions of others to whatever degree. I don't think you and IC are giving Harbal fair credit by trying to tell him that he can't be moral just because he's an atheist. That isn't a logical argument-or at least not a sound one as far as I've witnessed.

I didn't say anything about atheism. I don't think that's an issue. It's not an issue for me.

I don't know how he thinks subjective morality works. I don't know how he deals with the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers.

[Harbal]

I once had a brother-in-law like you, he wasn't religious or anything silly like that, but he couldn't be honest to save his life.

What on earth is "dishonest" about the above? You asked for MY answer, not one you had prepared in your own mind, presumably. I gave you MY answer. And since you're a Subjectivist, you can only assume I'm being totally honest; how could a Subjectivist assert the contrary? He admits he knows nothing but the current twinging of his own mind -- he has no claim to know anything about anybody else, or anything about an objective moral truth by which he could make such a judgment...

Poor you.

You are so misjudged.

[Gary Childress]

Why do I need to take that up with Harbal? He says morality is important to him. If he thinks morality is "opinion" then at least he seems to respect some opinions of others to whatever degree. I don't think you and IC are giving Harbal fair credit by trying to tell him that he can't be moral just because he's an atheist. That isn't a logical argument-or at least not a sound one as far as I've witnessed.

I didn't say anything about atheism. I don't think that's an issue. It's not an issue for me.

I don't know how he thinks subjective morality works. I don't know how he deals with the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers.

Maybe the same way I would deal with them. I would try to put as much distance between me and them as possible and if someone told me that they had murdered someone and/or had sex with an underage child, I would have to report it out of concern for public safety.

[phyllo]

Maybe the same way I would deal with them. I would try to put as much distance between me and them as possible and if someone told me that they had murdered someone and/or had sex with an underage child, I would have to report it out of concern for public safety.

Why report it if it's just an expression of someone's opinions?

The guy who did it thought it was okay. Who are you to say that it wasn't? Why does your opinion count for more than his?

[Gary Childress]

Maybe the same way I would deal with them. I would try to put as much distance between me and them as possible and if someone told me that they had murdered someone and/or had sex with an underage child, I would have to report it out of concern for public safety.

Why report it if it's just an expression of someone's opinions?

The guy who did it thought it was okay. Who are you to say that it wasn't? Why does your opinion count for more than his?

It's not OK to me. That's all I need to know. As far as I'm concerned I don't want people like that running around in society, even if only for my own sake.

[Harbal]

Maybe the same way I would deal with them. I would try to put as much distance between me and them as possible and if someone told me that they had murdered someone and/or had sex with an underage child, I would have to report it out of concern for public safety.

Why report it if it's just an expression of someone's opinions?

Why report it just because it is contrary to some "objective moral truth"?

[Atla]

Why report it if it's just an expression of someone's opinions?

Because most people in that society agree that it's morally wrong enough to put an end to it?

You and IC never lived in the real world before? The degree to which religion brainwashes people even today, so they live their lives blind and deaf to the real world, is remarkable.

[phyllo]

Because most people in that society agree that it's morally wrong enough to put an end to it?

But it's not objectively wrong, correct?

It's just that some people or 51% of the people or most people don't like it.

"Some people" could just be the people in power.

You and IC never lived in the real world before? The degree to which religion brainwashes people even today, so they live their lives blind and deaf to the real world, is remarkable.

That's you projecting because I never said anything about religion. I never said where I think objective morality comes from.

[Atla]

Because most people in that society agree that it's morally wrong enough to put an end to it?

But it's not objectively wrong, correct?

It's just that some people or 51% of the people or most people don't like it.

Some people could just be the people in power.

You and IC never lived in the real world before? The degree to which religion brainwashes people even today, so they live their lives blind and deaf to the real world, is remarkable.

That's you projecting because I never said anything about religion. I never said where I think objective morality comes from.

Of course it's not objectively wrong. If you and IC look more closely, you will be able to discover the word "subjective" in the expression "subjective morality".

[Immanuel Can]

I once had a brother-in-law like you, he wasn't religious or anything silly like that, but he couldn't be honest to save his life.

What on earth is "dishonest" about the above? You asked for MY answer, not one you had prepared in your own mind, presumably. I gave you MY answer. And since you're a Subjectivist, you can only assume I'm being totally honest; how could a Subjectivist assert the contrary? He admits he knows nothing but the current twinging of his own mind -- he has no claim to know anything about anybody else, or anything about an objective moral truth by which he could make such a judgment...

Poor you.

You are so misjudged.

Don't feel sorry for me. You got what you asked for, and you didn't like it. I can't fix that for you.

[iambiguous]

That's moral relativism.

Not if your own One True Path to Enlightenment revolves around dialectical materialism. And the thing about "political economy" is that Marx and Engels insisted that their own historical assessment was...scientific?

They went all the way back to nomadic, slash and burn, hunter and gatherer, agricultural, feudal and mercantile communities and, in examining the means of production, drew their own conclusions regarding how the superstructure [social, political and economic institutions] functioned to sustain the interest of those in power.

This approach as opposed to, say, "metaethical" philosophers like Ayn Rand. For Rand, private property -- capitalism -- reflected the very epitome of human morality. Why? Because, they insisted, it reflects the very epitome of rational thinking. She actually believed that the only reason much earlier political economies did not embrace "market capitalism" is because those like her and John Galt weren't around then to bring it all about.

The irony here being that there are any number of Christians who will argue that Jesus Christ himself was pretty much a socialist.

Then those like IC who insist that, on the contrary, only their own assessment of Jesus reflects True Christianity.

And he'll argue further there is scientific and historical proof of this. Those YouTube videos. Only he can't/won't address my own interest in why he doesn't come back to them himself, if he is truly interested in saving souls rather than keeping it all up in the spiritual clouds here.

Sure, but that's separate from the central issue here ... subjective morality.

To you, perhaps. From my frame of mind, however, each of us as individuals, given the arguments I make in my signature threads, comes to acquire a uniquely personal [subjective] assessment of morality over the course of actually living their life out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Then the part where given new experiences, some will change their minds. For some [like me] over and over again.

On the other hand, many moral objectivists among us will argue that, God or No God, we do have access to, what, a universal morality?

Okay, I don't deny that this is possible. Instead, I ask those who do believe this to take their own moral philosophy down out of the theoretical clouds [here] and, given a particular moral conflagration of note, explore with me the "for all practical implications" of their conclusions.

And especially for those who do not believe in God...how do they manage to sustain their interactions with others such that, when conflicts do occur, they are not fractured and fragmented?

[Gary Childress]

Not if your own One True Path to Enlightenment revolves around dialectical materialism. And the thing about "political economy" is that Marx and Engels insisted that their own historical assessment was...scientific?

They went all the way back to nomadic, slash and burn, hunter and gatherer, agricultural, feudal and mercantile communities and, in examining the means of production, drew their own conclusions regarding how the superstructure [social, political and economic institutions] functioned to sustain the interest of those in power.

This approach as opposed to, say, "metaethical" philosophers like Ayn Rand. For Rand, private property -- capitalism -- reflected the very epitome of human morality. Why? Because, they insisted, it reflects the very epitome of rational thinking. She actually believed that the only reason much earlier political economies did not embrace "market capitalism" is because those like her and John Galt weren't around then to bring it all about.

The irony here being that there are any number of Christians who will argue that Jesus Christ himself was pretty much a socialist.

Then those like IC who insist that, on the contrary, only their own assessment of Jesus reflects True Christianity.

And he'll argue further there is scientific and historical proof of this. Those YouTube videos. Only he can't/won't address my own interest in why he doesn't come back to them himself, if he is truly interested in saving souls rather than keeping it all up in the spiritual clouds here.

Sure, but that's separate from the central issue here ... subjective morality.

To you, perhaps. From my frame of mind, however, each of us as individuals, given the arguments I make in my signature threads, comes to acquire a uniquely personal [subjective] assessment of morality over the course of actually living their life out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Then the part where given new experiences, some will change their minds. For some [like me] over and over again.

On the other hand, many moral objectivists among us will argue that, God or No God, we do have access to, what, a universal morality?

Okay, I don't deny that this is possible. Instead, I ask those who do believe this to take their own moral philosophy down out of the theoretical clouds [here] and, given a particular moral conflagration of note, explore with me the "for all practical implications" of their conclusions.

And especially for those who do not believe in God...how do they manage to sustain their interactions with others such that, when conflicts do occur, they are not fractured and fragmented?

I've never "believed" in God (at least not the God of the Bible), the closest I've come is agnosticism. I don't have conflict with many people (at least not in person). The Internet brings out the worst in me, though. I'm not sure what you mean by "fractured and fragmented". It kind of sounds worse than what I went through as a young adult studying philosophy. I mean, there's a degree of uncertainty and pause that I take as a result of a certain degree of uncertainty, however, I don't know that I would say it's unhealthy. It seems healthy to me to be a little reserved when dealing with others who have differing views.

[Will Bouwman]

"Feelings?" Anybody who trust his/her feelings is bound to go off course. In regards to the Bible, it's better to do proper textual analysis and exegesis, not rely on feelings.

Well, since you mention the Bible, let's start with your feeling that the Bible is in some sense true; a feeling you clearly trust. No amount of textual analysis and exegesis can establish that objectively. How can you know you haven't gone "off course"?

[iambiguous]

Sure, but that's separate from the central issue here ... subjective morality.

To you, perhaps. From my frame of mind, however, each of us as individuals, given the arguments I make in my signature threads, comes to acquire a uniquely personal [subjective] assessment of morality over the course of actually living their life out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Then the part where given new experiences, some will change their minds. For some [like me] over and over again.

On the other hand, many moral objectivists among us will argue that, God or No God, we do have access to, what, a universal morality?

Okay, I don't deny that this is possible. Instead, I ask those who do believe this to take their own moral philosophy down out of the theoretical clouds [here] and, given a particular moral conflagration of note, explore with me the "for all practical implications" of their conclusions.

And especially for those who do not believe in God...how do they manage to sustain their interactions with others such that, when conflicts do occur, they are not fractured and fragmented?

I've never "believed" in God (at least not the God of the Bible), the closest I've come is agnosticism. I don't have conflict with many people (at least not in person). The Internet brings out the worst in me, though. I'm not sure what you mean by "fractured and fragmented". It kind of sounds worse than what I went through as a young adult studying philosophy. I mean, there's a degree of uncertainty and pause that I take as a result of a certain degree of uncertainty, however, I don't know that I would say it's unhealthy. It seems healthy to me to be a little reserved when dealing with others who have differing views.

Unlike some here, I do not argue there is no God. How on Earth could I possibly know that?

Nor do I argue that, in a No God universe, objective morality does not exist. Instead, I ask those who do believe it does to at least make an attempt to demonstrate why they believe all rational men and women are obligated to embrace their own One True Path.

Or is it more in the way of a "leap of faith"? Or a "wager"?

Anyway, for those who do espouse one or another rendition of objective morality, I invite them to explore the points I make in the OPs on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

How, given a particular issue and set of circumstances of their own choosing, are my own assumptions here not reasonable -- applicable -- to them?

As for the No God advocates of Enlightenment -- ideological, deontological, biologically -- I ask them to note how they themselves manage not to be "drawn and quartered" over and again while, say, "reading the news"?