Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

My only purpose here is to argue that there are no such things as objective moral truths; hence objective morality is an impossibility. So if objective morality is out of the conversation, I have no reason to take part in the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, you persistence in avoiding the moral objectivity argument demonstrates that you haven't really got one.

I'm not avoiding. I know perfectly well, and have always said, that a person who disbelieves in God has no hope of establishing reasons to believe in objective morality. And since you reject God, that's you...and I'm honouring your supposition and treating it as serious.

But the resulting impossibility of your being convinced of objective moral values is not a failure of God to exist, or of objective morality to be real. It's a natural consequence your own assumption. You've already ruled out the only condition under which objective morality can exist. I agree with that: that's what you've done. So I'm not surprised that you conclude objective morality cannot exist.

I'm accepting your assumption, and showing you where that actually leaves you -- not with a different "morality," but with absolutely no basis for any morality at all. And fear is driving you away from the inescapable conclusion: you don't want to be a Nihilist, so you pull back to an unwarranted confidence in fake, purely subjective "moralizing," instead of going into that pit.

I get it. It's what every Subjectivist does.

I'd love to believe that if humans are kind to each other and solve problems through cooperation instead of warfare, that would be reward enough for engaging in kindness and cooperation. I take it you don't believe that is so?

If humans were universally kind, we would have no need of laws or morality at all. And there would be no wars, because nobody would ever want to start one, or to continue one, once it started.

We don't have to rob, rape, murder or wage war on each other. There's no necessity of any of it. And yet, we do it all the time. In fact, it seems we cannot STOP doing it, even when we want to. Why is the US involved in a war with Russia in a country as distant as Ukraine? It makes no sense at all, really. But here we all are again.

How do we account for that, Gary? If an optimistic view of human nature would put an end to war, rape, murder and theft, would we not all simply adopt that optimistic view and be done with it all?

[Harbal]

What we're doing, at the moment is allowing for the sake of argument that what you say is true. So objective morality is out of the conversation: we'll assume there's no such thing.

My only purpose here is to argue that there are no such things as objective moral truths; hence objective morality is an impossibility. So if objective morality is out of the conversation, I have no reason to take part in the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, you persistence in avoiding the moral objectivity argument demonstrates that you haven't really got one.

I'm not avoiding. I know perfectly well, and have always said, that a person who disbelieves in God has no hope of establishing reasons to believe in objective morality. And since you reject God, that's you...and I'm honouring your supposition and treating it as serious.

And I know perfectly well that you will never accept anything I say about the subjective nature of morality, but I have enough confidence in my position on it to engage in argument about it. And I have done that at very great length, as you know. You, on the other hand, have done, and continue to do, everything in your power to steer any conversation away from any examination of what objective moral truth could be, and how it could possibly exist. We are now long past the stage where your persistent avoidance tactics took on the appearance of sheer farce.

[Immanuel Can]

My only purpose here is to argue that there are no such things as objective moral truths; hence objective morality is an impossibility. So if objective morality is out of the conversation, I have no reason to take part in the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, you persistence in avoiding the moral objectivity argument demonstrates that you haven't really got one.

I'm not avoiding. I know perfectly well, and have always said, that a person who disbelieves in God has no hope of establishing reasons to believe in objective morality. And since you reject God, that's you...and I'm honouring your supposition and treating it as serious.

And I know perfectly well that you will never accept anything I say about the subjective nature of morality,

With good reason: as I've shown, it can't even make sense for the Subjectivist, and even when we grant him all his suppositions from the get-go.

but I have enough confidence in my position on it to engage in argument about it.

Great. Then give me one moral value that the Subjectivist can affirm on the basis of his Subjectivism.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not avoiding. I know perfectly well, and have always said, that a person who disbelieves in God has no hope of establishing reasons to believe in objective morality. And since you reject God, that's you...and I'm honouring your supposition and treating it as serious.

But the resulting impossibility of your being convinced of objective moral values is not a failure of God to exist, or of objective morality to be real. It's a natural consequence your own assumption. You've already ruled out the only condition under which objective morality can exist. I agree with that: that's what you've done. So I'm not surprised that you conclude objective morality cannot exist.

I'm accepting your assumption, and showing you where that actually leaves you -- not with a different "morality," but with absolutely no basis for any morality at all. And fear is driving you away from the inescapable conclusion: you don't want to be a Nihilist, so you pull back to an unwarranted confidence in fake, purely subjective "moralizing," instead of going into that pit.

I get it. It's what every Subjectivist does.

I'd love to believe that if humans are kind to each other and solve problems through cooperation instead of warfare, that would be reward enough for engaging in kindness and cooperation. I take it you don't believe that is so?

If humans were universally kind, we would have no need of laws or morality at all. And there would be no wars, because nobody would ever want to start one, or to continue one, once it started.

We don't have to rob, rape, murder or wage war on each other. There's no necessity of any of it. And yet, we do it all the time. In fact, it seems we cannot STOP doing it, even when we want to. Why is the US involved in a war with Russia in a country as distant as Ukraine? It makes no sense at all, really. But here we all are again.

How do we account for that, Gary? If an optimistic view of human nature would put an end to war, rape, murder and theft, would we not all simply adopt that optimistic view and be done with it all?

I don't know what human "nature" is. I'm simply saying that kindness usually begets reciprocation and cooperation usually benefits everyone.

[Skepdick]

cooperation usually benefits everyone.

If anyone stands to benefit less through cooperation than through robbing you then it's never true that cooperation benefits everyone.

[Gary Childress]

cooperation usually benefits everyone.

If anyone stands to benefit less through cooperation than through robbing you then it's never true that cooperation benefits everyone.

Robbery also involves the risk of retribution or retaliation. It's not free.

[Skepdick]

cooperation usually benefits everyone.

If anyone stands to benefit less through cooperation than through robbing you then it's never true that cooperation benefits everyone.

Robbery also involves the risk of retribution or retaliation. It's not free.

The risk is priced into the assertion of "benefit".

[Harbal]

I'm not avoiding. I know perfectly well, and have always said, that a person who disbelieves in God has no hope of establishing reasons to believe in objective morality. And since you reject God, that's you...and I'm honouring your supposition and treating it as serious.

And I know perfectly well that you will never accept anything I say about the subjective nature of morality,

With good reason: as I've shown, it can't even make sense for the Subjectivist, and even when we grant him all his suppositions from the get-go.

but I have enough confidence in my position on it to engage in argument about it.

Great. Then give me one moral value that the Subjectivist can affirm on the basis of his Subjectivism.

And you're not avoiding?




Just a reminder of my previous post:

And I know perfectly well that you will never accept anything I say about the subjective nature of morality, but I have enough confidence in my position on it to engage in argument about it. And I have done that at very great length, as you know. You, on the other hand, have done, and continue to do, everything in your power to steer any conversation away from any examination of what objective moral truth could be, and how it could possibly exist. We are now long past the stage where your persistent avoidance tactics took on the appearance of sheer farce.

[Atla]

I think the dude legit doesn't even understand what subjectivism means. His brain simply can't process the concept.

[Gary Childress]

If anyone stands to benefit less through cooperation than through robbing you then it's never true that cooperation benefits everyone.

Robbery also involves the risk of retribution or retaliation. It's not free.

The risk is priced into the assertion of "benefit".

I'm sure it is. If anyone tries to rob me, they won't get very much in return for the risk they're taking, however, if they try to rob Bill Gates (for example), then it might be very much worth it, though Bill Gates probably lives in a protected, gated community (pun acknowledged) with guards and such.

[Immanuel Can]

I'd love to believe that if humans are kind to each other and solve problems through cooperation instead of warfare, that would be reward enough for engaging in kindness and cooperation. I take it you don't believe that is so?

If humans were universally kind, we would have no need of laws or morality at all. And there would be no wars, because nobody would ever want to start one, or to continue one, once it started.

We don't have to rob, rape, murder or wage war on each other. There's no necessity of any of it. And yet, we do it all the time. In fact, it seems we cannot STOP doing it, even when we want to. Why is the US involved in a war with Russia in a country as distant as Ukraine? It makes no sense at all, really. But here we all are again.

How do we account for that, Gary? If an optimistic view of human nature would put an end to war, rape, murder and theft, would we not all simply adopt that optimistic view and be done with it all?

I don't know what human "nature" is. I'm simply saying that kindness usually begets reciprocation and cooperation usually benefits everyone.

Human nature is a very simple concept. All it means is that people have, in common, certain tendencies and liabilities. I'm surprised you haven't run into it before.

[Immanuel Can]

And I know perfectly well that you will never accept anything I say about the subjective nature of morality,

With good reason: as I've shown, it can't even make sense for the Subjectivist, and even when we grant him all his suppositions from the get-go.

but I have enough confidence in my position on it to engage in argument about it.

Great. Then give me one moral value that the Subjectivist can affirm on the basis of his Subjectivism.

And you're not avoiding?

No. I'm asking a perfectly fair question, which I've asked you several times, and which you've never once been able to answer.

So who's "avoiding" now?

Just a reminder of my previous post:

I saw it. But it contained a variety of untruths and misrepresentations of what you'd achieved, so I ignored it in kindness, so I wouldn't have to point out that you were being disingenuous. The truth is that you haven't really yet engaged the essential point: even if we admit Objectivism is out, you can't find a way to make Subjectivism a viable and informative moral strategy. It just doesn't work on its own terms, let alone on Objectivism's. And we don't need to prove, or even to believe in Objectivism, to see the truth of that.

[Peter Holmes]

Claim: If morality is not objective - if there are no moral facts - then there can be no reason for human societies to have moral values and codes about moral rightness and wrongness.

This is false. There are sound reasons for why evolving human societies have developed moral values and codes - and sound reasons for why those values and codes have changed and are still changing.

Those reasons come from facts about the survival and progress of a social species, which is why other higher primates display 'proto-moral' behaviour, such as valuing fairness.

Human morality has a natural explanation. As does the delusion that there are moral facts.

The people who invented the Abrahamic god and religions had moral values and codes about the subjugation of women, the acceptability of slavery, and the persecution and murder of homosexuals and witches. And no doubt they thought there are moral facts justifying those values. Most of us now demur.

And I predict (and hope) future generations will find our current attitude towards eating animals and their products, and our acceptance of economic inequality, morally repugnant.

Moral objectivism is a kind of blinkered egotism. 'There are moral facts, and I know what they are.'

[Gary Childress]

If humans were universally kind, we would have no need of laws or morality at all. And there would be no wars, because nobody would ever want to start one, or to continue one, once it started.

We don't have to rob, rape, murder or wage war on each other. There's no necessity of any of it. And yet, we do it all the time. In fact, it seems we cannot STOP doing it, even when we want to. Why is the US involved in a war with Russia in a country as distant as Ukraine? It makes no sense at all, really. But here we all are again.

How do we account for that, Gary? If an optimistic view of human nature would put an end to war, rape, murder and theft, would we not all simply adopt that optimistic view and be done with it all?

I don't know what human "nature" is. I'm simply saying that kindness usually begets reciprocation and cooperation usually benefits everyone.

Human nature is a very simple concept. All it means is that people have, in common, certain tendencies and liabilities. I'm surprised you haven't run into it before.

My bad, what I was trying to convey to you is that I don't know what our "nature" is. I know what "human nature" means.

[Harbal]

With good reason: as I've shown, it can't even make sense for the Subjectivist, and even when we grant him all his suppositions from the get-go.


Great. Then give me one moral value that the Subjectivist can affirm on the basis of his Subjectivism.

And you're not avoiding?

No. I'm asking a perfectly fair question, which I've asked you several times, and which you've never once been able to answer.

So who's "avoiding" now?

Just a reminder of my previous post:

I saw it. But it contained a variety of untruths and misrepresentations of what you'd achieved, so I ignored it in kindness, so I wouldn't have to point out that you were being disingenuous. The truth is that you haven't really yet engaged the essential point: even if we admit Objectivism is out, you can't find a way to make Subjectivism a viable and informative moral strategy. It just doesn't work on its own terms, let alone on Objectivism's. And we don't need to prove, or even to believe in Objectivism, to see the truth of that.

You absolutely dare not set about trying to justify your belief in objective morality, dare you? I have said all I can possibly say about my view of why morality is purely subjective, and there is no point in endlessly going over the same ground. I have given you all my thoughts on it, and you have rubbished them all. Try to tell us how you can make your objective morality a viable and informative moral strategy, because I emphatically assert that you cannot.



PS. Please do point out where I was being disingenuous.