Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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?

[Immanuel Can]

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?

[LuckyR]

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.

Au contraire: what I'm proposing is surely nothing but the basic minimum.

All I'm asking is that the view of "morality" one espouses can provide at least one case of a moral requirement to one person. That's awfully minimal...and lacking it, how can anything be called a "moral" view at all, since it imparts no moral information to anybody?

But Subjectivism can't deliver even one bit of moral information to one person. So it's pretty clearly a failure at the most basic level.

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.

If that's the case, then there's absolutely no use for the word "moral." It means "whim." No more.

If an individual tells another "your behavior is immoral", that can have several actual meanings.

Well, all that says is that a lot of people don't know what's moral and what's not. It doesn't mean that what's actually moral changes.

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.

In southern Israel, murdering people is embraced as a high act of "liberation." You can murder civilians, rape with impunity, kidnap, put babies in ovens, and parade corpses of young women...and people will dance in the streets in celebration of your actions.

So now, what information is Subjectivism going to give us about that situation?

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).

If what you're saying is true, then nothing "immoral" happened in southern Israel, and nothing "immoral" is happening there today. Nobody has any moral justification in protesting it here, either. Those people were just doing what they subjectively wanted to do.

Do you see how completely impotent Subjectivism is to address even the most egregious evils? What a Subjectivist ends up aguing for is simply that there is no evil we should not permit, because there's no such thing as evil.

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.

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

[Immanuel Can]

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. That seems an awfully simple, basic expectation of something that purports to be "morality," does it not? In fact, in what sense could we even call something "moral" if it can't impart any moral information?

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. So we don't know a single thing about the status of the action or person in question. At least, not from Moral Subjectivism.

[Harbal]

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?

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?

[iambiguous]

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?

Well, let's start with any number of objectivists here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Then the part where each of them may or may not attach "or else" to their "spiritual" or "philosophical" or "ideological" agenda. After all, for many Christians, "or else" entails Hell itself!

Since there are many, many, many hopelessly conflicting moral objectivists among us, would it not seem reasonable that they are obligated to actually demonstrate to us that what they believe is in fact true?

In other words, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

And one thing that moral subjectivism can lead to is "moderation, negotiation and compromise". For example, pertaining to our interactions with others. Democracy and the rule of law is predicated largely on the assumption that "existence is prior to essence". Whereas with any number of moral objectivists, they start with the assumption that an essential meaning and purpose can be embodied by mere mortals. After all, they already do embody it.

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?

Moral subjectivism is, in my view, no less embodied existentially in dasein. And arguing about morality theoretically here is one thing, taking those arguments out into the world of actual conflicting goods another thing altogether.

What you do here basically is to assume that moral subjectivism must be wrong because your own rendition of moral objectivism -- Christianity -- is necessarily, inherently right.

Only unlike Kierkegaard who took a truly introspective "leap of faith" to God, or those Christians who fall back on "because the Bible says so", you claim instead that there is actual scientific and historical proof that the Christian God resides in Heaven.


And it still boggles my mind that you refuse to come back to those YouTube videos again and again and again in order to bolster your claim. If not on this thread, then on the Christianity thread.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

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?

[Harbal]

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?

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

[Immanuel Can]

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.

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. 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.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

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. 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.

From my frame of mind, this encompasses you in a nutshell: Mr. Snippet meet Mr. Wiggle.

And that, over and over again, you ignore this part...

And it still boggles my mind that you refuse to come back to those YouTube videos again and again and again in order to bolster your claim. If not on this thread, then on the Christianity thread.

...speaks volumes.

It's as though actually saving souls is of little interest to you at all. Instead, it's keeping everything up in the philosophical clouds that seems to matter more.

Though, sure, this is the Ethical Theory board.

Which is why I suggest that you take this part over to the Christianity board. Or if, in other venues, you have in fact defended the points made by Craig in those videos, link me to them.

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. And then the part where attempts are made to close the gap between what someone "believes" in their head about God and religion and what they are able to demonstrate that all rational -- wise? -- men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

You merely argue that, in the end, at Judgment Day, if someone does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, their soul may well be doomed for all of eternity.

[Harbal]

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. 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? 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.

[Age]

- Every possession carries a responsibility. Although your body is your first possession, you are merely the caretaker of the body, since it wasn’t your creation, and since you didn’t buy it or barter for it to claim ownership.

Hang on, who, exactly, is the 'one' that supposedly is in 'possession' of 'your body'?

Also, how does 'the possession', itself, supposedly carry a responsibility?

- Caretakership is an objective moral responsibility.

Is 'caretakership' an actual word?
Also, what, exactly, makes 'it', or absolutely anything else, 'objective'?

- Often you will hear folks whining, “I didn’t ask to be born!” This is to absolve themselves of their objectively moral, caretaker responsibility. They are what you could call lazy, immoral turpitudinists.

Why did you say that I would call 'them' this here?

I would never ever say absolutely anything like this.

- You can be very busy and still be lazy, because not being lazy is doing what must be done and paradoxically, although everything you do you must do, everything you do need not be done.

What are you going on about here, exactly?

- If you’re a caretaker of a car and call yourself an owner, and you do immoral things to the auto, things which are objectively immoral because they shorten the life and objective quality of the auto (life and quality as defined by the auto’s intended (natural) capacity to fulfill its potentiality), things such as not ever changing the oil or not paying the registration tax which allows it to move on the road, then objectively you are an immoral caretaker for no reason other than your lazy ass that has negatively impacted the auto.

Are you absolutely sure that you would like to say and write things like this here, and make is publicly known as well?

- Because you’re the caretaker of your body, the immoral things that you do to this first possession in your care are listed as the seven deadly sins. The sins are objectively immoral because they affect all humans that commit them, even if society condones the immoral actions as SOP.

- For example, if the society condones gluttony, every human practicing that objectively deadly sin will be affected because the integrity of the body’s designed function has objectively been corrupted.

- The amount of gluttony is subjective, but the intent that causes gluttony and the effects is the same for everyone, no matter the culture.

Okay, if this is what you believe is true. But, where and how does 'objective' come into the 'picture' here?

What makes things like 'morality', or 'immorality' 'objective', exactly?

Is it solely because they are words written in one of the countless differently interpreted and transcribed books called 'the bible'? Or, is there some other reason?

[Age]

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.

Au contraire: what I'm proposing is surely nothing but the basic minimum.

All I'm asking is that the view of "morality" one espouses can provide at least one case of a moral requirement to one person. That's awfully minimal...and lacking it, how can anything be called a "moral" view at all, since it imparts no moral information to anybody?

But Subjectivism can't deliver even one bit of moral information to one person. So it's pretty clearly a failure at the most basic level.

But, by definition, 'subjectivism' can and does deliver bits of moral information to all people. It is 'objectively' you human beings here have not yet worked out how to find and obtain, which if you had then that one could just list what is 'objectively' morally Right and Wrong in Life, which obviously everyone could agree with and accept.

The Fact that you cannot list what is 'objectively' morally Right and Wong in Life "Immanuel can" proves that 'you' are not what you say, claim, and believe 'you' are, that is; an 'objectivist'.

you are nothing more than every other human being here just delivering and expressing your own personal subjective views and beliefs, only.

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.

If that's the case, then there's absolutely no use for the word "moral." It means "whim." No more.

If you personally choose to change the 'moral' word to the 'whim' word, well that is perfectly fine with me anyway.

So, what do you claim is 'whimly' Right and 'whimly' Wrong in Life "immanuel can"?

If you do not inform 'us', then why?

Are you completely and utterly incapable to, do not yet know how to, do not know what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, just do not want to, or is there some other reason?

Are you aware that you keep claiming that some 'thing' exists, but never ever just write down and say what 'that thing' is, exactly?

Do you know that each and ever time that you do not, then you are further proving that 'the thing' that you say and claim exists does not actually exist at all?

If an individual tells another "your behavior is immoral", that can have several actual meanings.

Well, all that says is that a lot of people don't know what's moral and what's not. It doesn't mean that what's actually moral changes.

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.

In southern Israel, murdering people is embraced as a high act of "liberation." You can murder civilians, rape with impunity, kidnap, put babies in ovens, and parade corpses of young women...and people will dance in the streets in celebration of your actions.

So now, what information is Subjectivism going to give us about that situation?

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).

If what you're saying is true, then nothing "immoral" happened in southern Israel, and nothing "immoral" is happening there today. Nobody has any moral justification in protesting it here, either. Those people were just doing what they subjectively wanted to do.

Do you see how completely impotent Subjectivism is to address even the most egregious evils? What a Subjectivist ends up aguing for is simply that there is no evil we should not permit, because there's no such thing as evil.

you "immanuel can" cannot even inform absolutely any one what is 'morally' Right and Wrong in Life, cannot inform absolutely any one what is 'evil', and cannot inform absolutely any one what is 'sin', exactly, and do so without being inconsistent nor contradicting "your" own 'self'.

So, the only one you are fooling and deceiving here is "yourself" "immanuel can".

After all you believe that the murder of children happening in "gaza" in the days when this is being written is not just fine and okay but is perfectly acceptable while believing that the murder of others, in lands nearby and with different theological beliefs, is completely and utterly wrong and unacceptable. So, talk about one who has and is presenting the most selective, and 'subjective', views and beliefs possible.

you could not be more of a hypocrite here "immanuel can" even if you were trying to be.

[Age]

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.

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 yet you play the 'moral objectivist' but have failed absolutely every time to inform absolutely any one, including "your" own 'self', about what is actually 'objectively morally Right and Wrong' in Life.

Why is this "Immanuel can"?

Just think about why you cannot even provide what you claim exists.

It is this basic, all of you adult human beings have 'subjective' views about what is 'morally right and wrong', in Life. There is, however, an 'objective' view of what is 'morally Right and Wrong', in Life, which no one can deny.

But, while all of you are fighting and bickering over the if 'it' is 'one', or, 'the other', all of you will continue to miss the irrefutable Fact that 'morality' can be both 'subjective', and, 'objective'.

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.

And you have never been able to defend your own personal subjective position here, neither.

So, why is this "immanuel can"?

What are you, really, missing here?