Is morality objective or subjective?

[phyllo]

You miss my point, which is that we don't tend to condemn things we do like.

Sure we do.

I want to get stuff for nothing. Stealing is great for that.

So what are you condemning that you like?

So would I, so I don't see how you could disapprove of my subjective morality on that score.

Then you don't use subjective morality.

But my reasons would just be a matter of my subjective opinion, so how is that objective?

I would do the same, but why should he take more notice of you than of me? I would tell him that his actions are hurting other people, but if he didn't see that as a bad thing, it isn't going to have much impression on him. What negative aspects would you point out to him that would be more likely to succeed in changing his behaviour?

Then you're not using subjective morality because you're giving reasons which transcend your personal likes and dislikes.

"Hurting people" is an objective fact.

But it isn't an objective fact that hurting people is wrong; that is just a subjective human opinion. If you disagree, tell me where such a fact is to be found.

And if your morality is based on that fact, then you're in the objective morality area.

My morality is based on my personal opinion that hurting people is wrong, and my personal opinion is subjective.

What reasons can you, as an "objectivist", give him that I can't?

The only reason that a subjectivist has is "I don't like it".
If you're saying something else then it's not subjective. Anything without "I" in it, is not subjective.

How can missing out "I" turn a subjective opinion into an objective fact?

Why do you think your "objective" morality would be any more effective? If he doesn't agree with, or accept, what you say to him, that would surely make your "objective" morality just as impoverished, wouldn't it?

A pedophile may not accept it.

But an objective morality is more than personal likes and dislikes. There is a benefit to others coming from moral behavior. In this case, the kids who are not abused benefit. Which is the reason why one would establish that moral rule. It's there is a benefit, therefore we have rule P. Not ... I don't like it, therefore rule P.

If it shows the poverty of subjective morality when my moral opinion fails to dissuade someone from paedophilia, then it must show the poverty of "objective" morality when that also fails.

There's a lot to like about stealing. Surely, you can see that it's not black and white. So condemning stealing means condemning some things that one likes about it.

Of course you don't think that hurting people is wrong. There is no right and wrong for subjectivists, there is only like and dislike.

Everything subjective is based on "I" ... what I like, what I dislike, what I feel, what I want. You're entirely in charge.

It's not a question of ... is subjective morality more or less persuasive than objective morality?

Subjective morality doesn't have any arguments which are valid for another person. It's like arguing that chocolate is your preferred ice cream flavor. Okay, you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream. What does that have to do with the other guys' opinions on ice cream?

[Harbal]

Sure we do.

I want to get stuff for nothing. Stealing is great for that.

So what are you condemning that you like?

Then you don't use subjective morality.

But my reasons would just be a matter of my subjective opinion, so how is that objective?

Then you're not using subjective morality because you're giving reasons which transcend your personal likes and dislikes.

"Hurting people" is an objective fact.

But it isn't an objective fact that hurting people is wrong; that is just a subjective human opinion. If you disagree, tell me where such a fact is to be found.

And if your morality is based on that fact, then you're in the objective morality area.

My morality is based on my personal opinion that hurting people is wrong, and my personal opinion is subjective.

The only reason that a subjectivist has is "I don't like it".
If you're saying something else then it's not subjective. Anything without "I" in it, is not subjective.

How can missing out "I" turn a subjective opinion into an objective fact?

A pedophile may not accept it.

But an objective morality is more than personal likes and dislikes. There is a benefit to others coming from moral behavior. In this case, the kids who are not abused benefit. Which is the reason why one would establish that moral rule. It's there is a benefit, therefore we have rule P. Not ... I don't like it, therefore rule P.

If it shows the poverty of subjective morality when my moral opinion fails to dissuade someone from paedophilia, then it must show the poverty of "objective" morality when that also fails.

There's a lot to like about stealing. Surely, you can see that it's not black and white. So condemning stealing means condemning some things that one likes about it.

Of course you don't think that hurting people is wrong. There is no right and wrong for subjectivists, there is only like and dislike.

Everything subjective is based on "I" ... what I like, what I dislike, what I feel, what I want. You're entirely in charge.

It's not a question of ... is subjective morality more or less persuasive than objective morality?

Subjective morality doesn't have any arguments which are valid for another person. It's like arguing that chocolate is your preferred ice cream flavor. Okay, you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream. What does that have to do with the other guys' opinions on ice cream?

But you can't show/prove/demonstrate that there is such a thing as objective morality. Objective morality is an impossibility; it simply does not exist.

[phyllo]

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.

How can they value fairness unless they do it objectively?

Are you saying that social animals/creatures have a subjective like for fairness?

And where does that start? Are termites, for example, acting subjectively?

[phyllo]

But you can't show/prove/demonstrate that there is such a thing as objective morality. Objective morality is an impossibility; it simply does not exist.

Why is it impossible?

[Gary Childress]

So what are you condemning that you like?

But my reasons would just be a matter of my subjective opinion, so how is that objective?


But it isn't an objective fact that hurting people is wrong; that is just a subjective human opinion. If you disagree, tell me where such a fact is to be found.

My morality is based on my personal opinion that hurting people is wrong, and my personal opinion is subjective.

How can missing out "I" turn a subjective opinion into an objective fact?

If it shows the poverty of subjective morality when my moral opinion fails to dissuade someone from paedophilia, then it must show the poverty of "objective" morality when that also fails.

There's a lot to like about stealing. Surely, you can see that it's not black and white. So condemning stealing means condemning some things that one likes about it.

Of course you don't think that hurting people is wrong. There is no right and wrong for subjectivists, there is only like and dislike.

Everything subjective is based on "I" ... what I like, what I dislike, what I feel, what I want. You're entirely in charge.

It's not a question of ... is subjective morality more or less persuasive than objective morality?

Subjective morality doesn't have any arguments which are valid for another person. It's like arguing that chocolate is your preferred ice cream flavor. Okay, you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream. What does that have to do with the other guys' opinions on ice cream?

But you can't show/prove/demonstrate that there is such a thing as objective morality. Objective morality is an impossibility; it simply does not exist.

When you say "subjective" morality, do you mean to say that morality is "subjective" in the sense that it is something that applies to conscious subjects and not to "objects" like rocks or non-conscious matter? I take it you're not saying that morality is non-existent or not worth adhering to? Do I have you correct in that sense?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Aren't you a human being? Then what you share in common with all of us is "human nature."

[Gary Childress]

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.

Aren't you a human being? Then what you share in common with all of us is "human nature."

I don't know everyone else, so I'm not sure what I have in common with all others. There are also other views on 'human nature" such that "nature" is the "natural way" a human would behave were it not for violent or malicious circumstances inflicted on us. I'm not a social scientist but as far as I'm aware social scientists haven't found out what "human nature" is either. Or don't have an airtight case on it.

[Harbal]

When you say "subjective" morality, do you mean to say that morality is "subjective" in the sense that it is something that applies to conscious subjects and not to "objects" like rocks or conscious matter? I take it you're not saying that morality is non-existent or not worth adhering to? Do I have you correct in that sense?

I mean to say that our moral values are subjective opinions, and that's what morality is; our personal sense of right and wrong. I mean to say that there are no objective moral truths, only human feelings about issues that come under the category of morality. For me, and no doubt for you, slavery is wrong, but it is only wrong within the context of human sensibility. Nature/the universe has no interest in morality, it is purely a human concept.

I know it is compelling to see things like the wrongness of murder or rape as matters of objective fact, but if we think of moral issues such as homosexuality, or sex outside of marriage, it becomes more obvious that our moral positions are just a matter of personal taste. But no, I am not saying that morality is non-existent or not worth adhering to, very much the opposite, I think morality is very important. Even so, I am also saying that morality only exists within and among human minds. And, furthermore, I'm saying that I am very glad that it does.

I respect your opinion, Gary, so I am interested in how much of that, if any of it, you agree with.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Done already. Were you asleep?

I have said all I can possibly say about my view of why morality is purely subjective,...

And therefore, it is nothing. That's my point. It's just Nihilism-for-those-afraid-of-Nihilism.

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

Really? Well, okay. You asked.

You have not engaged the point that Subjectivism can't stand on its own assumptions at all. And even when I granted your entire premise, you just ignored the problem. I don't call that "at great length," unless it means "at great length to avoid reality." And I haven't done anything to "steer any conversation from an examination of what objective moral truth could be," because what I've done is pointed out that your problem is presumptive, and that it precedes any particular moral truth -- and that THAT is the sole reason you can't and will never admit the existence of any moral truth. I've even been willing to concede you your primary premise, as a result, just so we could get on the same page rationally...and you still refuse.

So what's the farce, here? The farce is really the pretension that Subjectivism can work, or can be a "morality" at all. The OP should really read, "Is morality objective or a complete delusion?" Because those are the only two possible rational alternatives. And if you were as keen to inspect your own Subjectivism as you are enthused about being cynical about Objectivism, you'd realize you're living in a straw house that's on fire.

[Gary Childress]

When you say "subjective" morality, do you mean to say that morality is "subjective" in the sense that it is something that applies to conscious subjects and not to "objects" like rocks or conscious matter? I take it you're not saying that morality is non-existent or not worth adhering to? Do I have you correct in that sense?

I mean to say that our moral values are subjective opinions, and that's what morality is; our personal sense of right and wrong. I mean to say that there are no objective moral truths, only human feelings about issues that come under the category of morality. For me, and no doubt for you, slavery is wrong, but it is only wrong within the context of human sensibility. Nature/the universe has no interest in morality, it is purely a human concept.

I know it is compelling to see things like the wrongness of murder or rape as matters of objective fact, but if we think of moral issues such as homosexuality, or sex outside of marriage, it becomes more obvious that our moral positions are just a matter of personal taste. But no, I am not saying that morality is non-existent or not worth adhering to, very much the opposite, I think morality is very important. Even so, I am also saying that morality only exists within and among human minds. And, furthermore, I'm saying that I am very glad that it does.

I respect your opinion, Gary, so I am interested in how much of that, if any of it, you agree with.

I mean, I think morality is important. I couldn't say with any kind of certainty where it comes from or why.

I'm not an atheist, however, if you think morality is important, then you're OK in my book. I'm not of the opinion that if there is no God then I can do anything and everything I want. Actions have consequences whether there is a God or not. And whether there is a God or not kindness usually begets kindness.

[phyllo]

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

[Harbal]

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?

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?

Done already. Were you asleep?

I have said all I can possibly say about my view of why morality is purely subjective,...

And therefore, it is nothing. That's my point. It's just Nihilism-for-those-afraid-of-Nihilism.

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

Really? Well, okay. You asked.

You have not engaged the point that Subjectivism can't stand on its own assumptions at all. And even when I granted your entire premise, you just ignored the problem. I don't call that "at great length," unless it means "at great length to avoid reality." And I haven't done anything to "steer any conversation from an examination of what objective moral truth could be," because what I've done is pointed out that your problem is presumptive, and that it precedes any particular moral truth -- and that THAT is the sole reason you can't and will never admit the existence of any moral truth. I've even been willing to concede you your primary premise, as a result, just so we could get on the same page rationally...and you still refuse.

So what's the farce, here? The farce is really the pretension that Subjectivism can work, or can be a "morality" at all. The OP should really read, "Is morality objective or a complete delusion?" Because those are the only two possible rational alternatives. And if you were as keen to inspect your own Subjectivism as you are enthused about being cynical about Objectivism, you'd realize you're living in a straw house that's on fire.

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.

[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.

[Immanuel Can]

You absolutely dare not set about trying to justify your belief in objective morality, dare you?

Done already. Were you asleep?

I have said all I can possibly say about my view of why morality is purely subjective,...

And therefore, it is nothing. That's my point. It's just Nihilism-for-those-afraid-of-Nihilism.

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

Really? Well, okay. You asked.

You have not engaged the point that Subjectivism can't stand on its own assumptions at all. And even when I granted your entire premise, you just ignored the problem. I don't call that "at great length," unless it means "at great length to avoid reality." And I haven't done anything to "steer any conversation from an examination of what objective moral truth could be," because what I've done is pointed out that your problem is presumptive, and that it precedes any particular moral truth -- and that THAT is the sole reason you can't and will never admit the existence of any moral truth. I've even been willing to concede you your primary premise, as a result, just so we could get on the same page rationally...and you still refuse.

So what's the farce, here? The farce is really the pretension that Subjectivism can work, or can be a "morality" at all. The OP should really read, "Is morality objective or a complete delusion?" Because those are the only two possible rational alternatives. And if you were as keen to inspect your own Subjectivism as you are enthused about being cynical about Objectivism, you'd realize you're living in a straw house that's on fire.

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...

[phyllo]

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.