Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

I know that morality involves a group of people.

So I don't see how everyone can have his own personal subjective morality. Which is what your statements seem to suggest. That's the part that I find baffling.

One person may have moral values and opinions that do not coincide with another person's, or even coincide with the majority of people's. It's not all that complicated.

Sure.

But what happens in a society when the people have different moral values. It becomes impossible to predict what any person will do or how they will respond to you. There is no standard ways of interacting. Essentially it's chaos.

And it's what might happen if some people stopped at red lights and others thought that it was optional. You would never know if it was safe to proceed on green because somebody might be choosing to run the red light. Instead of moving with confidence, people would be crawling through fearfully. The usefulness of the traffic lights would be gone.

Why do you keep using the traffic lights analogy, rather than refer to the issues you are thinking of directly?

[phyllo]

If a claim is subjective, you cannot check it against anything, and that subsequently brings into question whther it can have a truth value at all.

That would make subjective morality pretty well useless.

The fact that everyone agrees that Paris is smelly cannot make it and objective fact, it just makes it a commonly held subjective belief.

Smelliness is defined by people smelling it.

If people find that something smells fishy then it objectively smells fishy. It has that property but a human nose is required to detect it.

[phyllo]

Why do you keep using the traffic lights analogy, rather than refer to the issues you are thinking of directly?

I use it because traffic lights are less threatening than morality.

Talk about morality tends to make people defensive. They think that their values, their identity, their beliefs are being questioned. They dig in to protect themselves. That makes progress difficult.

[Will Bouwman]

The point of objectivity is entirely contingent upon people deciding what the point of objectivity is.

That's just your point of view.

[Harbal]

If a claim is subjective, you cannot check it against anything, and that subsequently brings into question whther it can have a truth value at all.

That would make subjective morality pretty well useless.

The fact that everyone agrees that Paris is smelly cannot make it and objective fact, it just makes it a commonly held subjective belief.

Smelliness is defined by people smelling it.

If people find that something smells fishy then it objectively smells fishy. It has that property but a human nose is required to detect it.

What if you don't have a sense of smell? What if one person finds that something smells fishy, but another thinks it smells peppery, with a slight hint of cinnamon? What is the objective truth of the matter then?

[Harbal]

Why do you keep using the traffic lights analogy, rather than refer to the issues you are thinking of directly?

I use it because traffic lights are less threatening than morality.

Talk about morality tends to make people defensive. They think that their values, their identity, their beliefs are being questioned. They dig in to protect themselves. That makes progress difficult.

I don't mind my beliefs and identity being questioned, and I don't find the traffic light analogy useful, so if you would at least stop presenting it to me, I would be vey grateful.

[iambiguous]

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

If you grew up in a household that didn't have particularly religious beliefs and grew up watching Carl Sagan on Cosmos, you might think differently.

That's exactly my point, though. At birth, we are "thrown" adventitiously out into a particular world historically and culturally. We are indoctrinated as children to believe this or that about God. We accumulate our own set of uniquely personal experiences which will either bring us to God or to No God: dasein.

Okay, Mr. Philosopher, I ask, given that, is there a way to pin down whether or not God does exist? Is there a way to pin down deontologically how one ought to behave in particular situations?

Again, maybe. But just arguing for existence of God or quoting Kant in a world of words here doesn't cut it for those like me. And you don't have to be from Missouri to ask those who do believe in a God, the God, my God to "show me" that He exists.

[Immanuel Can]

That's just the way I am.

Since you weren't asking me for any reason, it seems rather gratuitous...and out of context...

Asking you what?

I don't know. Why were you suddenly talking about your private sexual proclivities? I can't recall having asked, and it's certainly none of my business..."

[phyllo]

I don't mind my beliefs and identity being questioned, and I don't find the traffic light analogy useful, so if you would at least stop presenting it to me, I would be vey grateful.

You got it bud.

[phyllo]

What if you don't have a sense of smell? What if one person finds that something smells fishy, but another thinks it smells peppery, with a slight hint of cinnamon? What is the objective truth of the matter then?

If you don't have the sense of smell then you don't have the organ for detecting smells.

Can people be wrong about smells?

People can disagree and people can be wrong about objective processes and objective facts.

[iambiguous]

Why were you suddenly talking about your private sexual proclivities? I can't recall having asked, and it's certainly none of my business..."

Well, as a Christian, aren't your sexual propensities the business of God? After all, what if they include child molestation or rape or orgies or posting videos on Pornhub?

Shouldn't you always be asking yourself, "what would Jesus do?"

In or out of bed.

How about a new thread in the applied ethics forum...God, religion and sex. What's okay and what's not.

[Harbal]

Since you weren't asking me for any reason, it seems rather gratuitous...and out of context...

Asking you what?

I don't know. Why were you suddenly talking about your private sexual proclivities?

I don't have any private sexual proclivities, my habit of shagging as many married women as I can lay my hands on is a matter of public record in my community, and even farther afield, as the messages of support from all around the world that clog up my email inbox will testify to.

I can't recall having asked, and it's certainly none of my business..."

Nevertheless, you are obviously fascinated by it.


PS. If you could see you way to sending me an old pair of you wife's knickers (unwashed), I would make it financially worth your while. Think about it.

[Harbal]

I don't mind my beliefs and identity being questioned, and I don't find the traffic light analogy useful, so if you would at least stop presenting it to me, I would be vey grateful.

You got it bud.

Thank you.

[phyllo]

Why were you suddenly talking about your private sexual proclivities? I can't recall having asked, and it's certainly none of my business..."

Well, as a Christian, aren't your sexual propensities the business of God? After all, what if they include child molestation or rape or orgies or posting videos on Pornhub?

Shouldn't you always be asking yourself, "what would Jesus do?"

In or out of bed.

How about a new thread in the applied ethics forum...God, religion and sex. What's okay and what's not.

Certain sexual proclivities would seem to be the concern of a moral society.

Child molestation, rape, and sexual harassment.Right?

[Skepdick]

The point of objectivity is entirely contingent upon people deciding what the point of objectivity is.

That's just your point of view.

Which is precisely the fucking point...

There is no point of objectivity that is point-of-view independent.