Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 323
  1. #301
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Then please explain some more!

    Peter
    Undeniable means you are not able to not understand. You are completely aware (of whatever). There is no room for misinterpretation or stubbornness nor just refusing to believe. It would be like you trying to prove you don't exist. You could offer evidence you did not exist, but everything "you" offered would PROVE you existed since YOU were offering it.
    Or telling me you didn't have a finger as you were pointing your finger at something.

  2. #302
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    The first thing to understand is that there is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is necessarily subjective. Hereís why:

    All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and thatís not possible.

    So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.

    For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I canít think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.

    For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.

    Now, itís possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but thatís not the same as morality being objective. Hereís what I mean:

    Letís suppose that you claim to live by the standard that itís immoral to disobey civil laws, ordnances and regulations. To be moral, you must obey all such laws, etc. Thatís your rule for you.

    You invite me to accompany you to dinner with your significant other, and you pick me up at my place in your car. Along the way to the restaurant you exceed the speed limit on several roads and make several lane changes without signalling. You also rolled through two stop signs and tailgated one driver who was going too slow for your taste.

    I can say, objectively, that you acted immorally behind the wheel because you violated several rules of the road as you drove along. I can say this objectively because I used your personal moral standard to judge your actions; I didnít have to apply a value judgment of my own to see that you acted immorally. However, the moral code that guides you and should have made you adhere to the rules of the road is subjective. It arises out of the high value you place on following the law. You subjectively determined this and made it your guide to action. However, itís not my guide to action and does not apply to me, even if my moral code generally agrees with yours.

    So you can see that we can apply some objectivity in discussing morals, but you canít escape the fact that all morality is, ultimately, subjective.

  3. #303
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by WHATSMOD
    Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.
    Objective morality does exist, and here is why.

    Objective morality exist if objective moral truths exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by WHATSMOD
    Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it
    Is an objective moral truth, and involves an objective moral value apart from personal opinion.

    This makes personal opinions, while subjective truths, objectively false. Because it necessarily projects values onto things which do not actually posses those values.
    So while you can truthfully say "I think X is imoral"
    It is an objectively true statement to say "you are incorrect that X is immoral". You are correct that you think it, and that is as far as subjective morality can possibly reach.
    To serve man.

  4. #304
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This makes personal opinions, while subjective truths, objectively false. Because it necessarily projects values onto things which do not actually posses those values.
    So while you can truthfully say "I think X is imoral"
    It is an objectively true statement to say "you are incorrect that X is immoral". You are correct that you think it, and that is as far as subjective morality can possibly reach.
    I see this kind of formulation a lot. The problem is that you are smuggling in an objective definition of morality, then pointing out that subjective morality fails the objective test.

    You say there are no values without objectivity to provide them. AKA any truth that is not an objective truth is, in fact without any value at all because it is not universally held. But no moral value is universally held by moral agents. And were there no moral agents there would be no moral value. Moral values begin and end with individual moral agents and that is the very definition of subjectivity, with respect to an individual viewpoint or the viewpoint of a group of individuals.

    Indeed, the only reason the word subjective exists in our vocabulary is to make such distinctions. To divide the things that people decide are a truth, for the things that are true whether or not people decide on them. Morality, as it functions in human society, is always decided upon by humans, that makes it a subjective system so far as we can observe it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #305
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I see this kind of formulation a lot. The problem is that you are smuggling in an objective definition of morality, then pointing out that subjective morality fails the objective test.
    First, the definition is not smuggled in. It is clearly stated and understood before hand. It is just being applied to the situation at hand and the argument being made.
    If there is one "smuggled" it is in the argument from Whatsmod, not me and I'm just pointing it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    then pointing out that subjective morality fails the objective test.
    I'm not certain I have done this, other than point to the statement made by Whatsmod. Which was an objective statement.. was it not?

    I mean, if I say "there are no objective truths" and you respond "Is that an objective truth?" I can't turn round and accuse you of smuggling in objective truth definitions as a valid defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You say there are no values without objectivity to provide them.
    No, I said that no objective value, is itself and objective value.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    AKA any truth that is not an objective truth is, in fact without any value at all because it is not universally held. But no moral value is universally held by moral agents. And were there no moral agents there would be no moral value. Moral values begin and end with individual moral agents and that is the very definition of subjectivity, with respect to an individual viewpoint or the viewpoint of a group of individuals.
    It sounds like your simply re asserting the definition of subjective values. I don't think you are addressing the statement I was responding to, or invalidating my response.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Indeed, the only reason the word subjective exists in our vocabulary is to make such distinctions. To divide the things that people decide are a truth, for the things that are true whether or not people decide on them. Morality, as it functions in human society, is always decided upon by humans, that makes it a subjective system so far as we can observe it.
    All subjective statements would fall to the argument I have made.
    You don't invalidate my argument by pointing that out.

    also note, that at no time did I falsify that "YOU THINK X. " The only problem is when you want to assert what you think as a truth that should be accepted by anyone else.
    Because to do so takes it out of the realm of your thought and puts it in the realm of objectivity where we can evaluate it's actual truth value.

    Also note, that every other "subjective" truth is equally dismiss-able.


    --
    Honestly, the problem is really the object of the statement. subjective moral statements the object is always the self. In objective moral statements the object is the act/event.
    To serve man.

  6. #306
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Objective morality does exist, and here is why.

    Objective morality exist if objective moral truths exist.
    Agreed, IF an objective moral truth exists.

    Now if we just had an example of an "objective moral truth" we could put this question to bed!

    Do you have such an example???

    I have never seen one that passes muster, but would love to hear it if you do

    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So while you can truthfully say "I think X is imoral"
    It is an objectively true statement to say "you are incorrect that X is immoral". You are correct that you think it, and that is as far as subjective morality can possibly reach.
    Agreed, but I don't see the point? If objective morality does not exist, this is all we are left with.

  7. #307
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Agreed, IF an objective moral truth exists.

    Now if we just had an example of an "objective moral truth" we could put this question to bed!
    see post 303. The objective moral truth is quoted there. Be nice if you addressed it, instead of just skipping it.
    You are of course free to debate it, but I'm not particularly interested in if you think it has passed your mustard. You can consider your opinion noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Agreed, but I don't see the point? If objective morality does not exist, this is all we are left with.
    Actually, this is all your left with given the objective morality I have presented so far.
    To serve man.

  8. #308
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    see post 303. The objective moral truth is quoted there.
    Sorry if I missed it.
    You sound like you need a snickers
    ("Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!!")

    I certainly do not want to waste your time

    ---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Objective morality exist if objective moral truths exist.

    Is an objective moral truth, and involves an objective moral value apart from personal opinion.
    Ok, this is a singular example of objective truth (although you used the plural "truths" which seems more apropos at the moment).

    Now how can we use this objective truth to wrangle out human morality of a given situation?

    IOW, how does this help get us to the correct moral conclusion of a given situation?

    Or how would we use this particular truth to tease out any other objective truths that pertain to human morality?

    After all, if there were only ONE objective truth, and this was it, what good what it do us?
    Last edited by Belthazor; May 19th, 2018 at 06:44 PM.

  9. #309
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by belthazor
    Ok, this is a singular example of objective truth (although you used the plural "truths" which seems more apropos at the moment).
    Yes, and it is the one that the subjective moralist starts with.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Now how can we use this objective truth to wrangle out human morality of a given situation?
    What is there to wrangle?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    IOW, how does this help get us to the correct moral conclusion of a given situation?
    I think that one pretty much sums them all up doesn't it? And here when you say "correct" I have no idea how that has any meaning out side of an objective use of the word.
    Is that how you mean it? If not explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Or how would we use this particular truth to tease out any other objective truths that pertain to human morality?
    Well, I don't think that is very relevant. I mean, not all facts are inter connected so as to lead one to all of them given a single one.
    You may know that the sky is blue, but that won't lead you to where a squirrel hides his nuts.

    So I'm not sure how this point relates. Is it supposed to be an objection? Or just a question you don't know the answer to, because it doesn't seem to be relevant to the conversation.
    To serve man.

  10. #310
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Honestly, the problem is really the object of the statement. subjective moral statements the object is always the self. In objective moral statements the object is the act/event.
    Let's break it down... this is a decent start.
    A subjective moral claim looks like this.

    I deem that the act of X is an immoral act.
    I is the actor, and the act is judgment, the object being judged is the person doing the action, or you in an abstract, the act itself.

    So it is not the self that is the object, the self is the actor, the judge. The object is an objective thing, an act, or a person. They are what is being judged.

    Now, the objective claim.
    X is an immoral act.

    In this, there is no actor, no judge. There is only the object which is the act, and an adjective describing it as immoral.

    ---- I'm going to try and show you the problem I saw in your argument ----

    This makes personal opinions, while subjective truths, objectively false. Because it necessarily projects values onto things which do not actually possess those values.
    A subjective truth does not project values onto things. The subjective values belong to the observer. Objective values belong to the object. A moral truth is a moral value. It would make no sense for a subjective moralist to ascribe an objective thing with a moral value. The whole world view says they don't posses such a thing. To presume that subjective moralism is claiming an objective thing has a moral value, is to smuggle in the objective sense of morality, that it is intrinsic to the thing judged, rather than to the person judging.

    So while you can truthfully say "I think X is immoral"
    This is what a subjective view does.

    It is an objectively true statement to say "you are incorrect that X is immoral".
    That is not objectively possible in subjective moral view. If all morality is a subjective claim, then you cannot objectively judge who has a correct or incorrect morality unless you are saying that I am lying when I tell you what I think is immoral and you can prove that I am lying. You can make a subjective claim that you think I am wrong that X is immoral, which is more simply put that "I think X is not immoral." You have then demonstrated you and I have different moral principles or evaluations.

    ---- note ---
    While a subjectice moralist may say "X is wrong" there is an implicit "I judge that" which is included in the statement.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #311
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A subjective moral claim looks like this.

    I deem that the act of X is an immoral act.
    I'm sorry, no one says that. I mean your probably putting the claim through the translator, and I appreciate that for clarity.
    but people generally say "X is wrong", "You shouldn't have done X".
    I think what you end up doing though, is really just complicate the issue with jargon.

    "I deem that the act of X is an immoral act."
    So what do you mean "deem"? "I deem".
    What you mean is "I think". Because the deeming here is really just you setting what you think. (which at the end of your post you seem to admit)
    "X is an immoral act".
    What do you mean "Is", is is an objective term. It points to an outside reality. IE an apple is red. I am angry. It is statements of fact.
    But what is the fact? the fact is way back at the start which is "I deem" or "i think".

    So, while you added words, and the subjects and nouns of the sentence may be moved around. The IDEA's are still just as I said.
    I, and Is are a reference to the same thing... which is yourself. Changing a verb "is" to a noun "I".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A subjective truth does not project values onto things.
    you most certainly did. As soon as you claimed something IS one way or another. Namely that X IS an immoral act.
    you are "deeming" which is the act of projecting your internal value onto a thing so as to say that it "is" that way.

    Because, while your statements are all about the inter workings of your own thoughts, your speaking it to project it to others.
    In other words, you can't help but act as though it actually is the case.

    Like any other hallucination, your bound to act as though it is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The subjective values belong to the observer. Objective values belong to the object. A moral truth is a moral value. It would make no sense for a subjective moralist to ascribe an objective thing with a moral value. The whole world view says they don't posses such a thing. To presume that subjective moralism is claiming an objective thing has a moral value, is to smuggle in the objective sense of morality, that it is intrinsic to the thing judged, rather than to the person judging.
    Well, the problem is you can't live that out at all. See above. While you claim to not project, you can't help it.

    Again, to say that a thing doesn't posses X value... is an objective claim, and it is a claim that is incompatible with any subjective value that you follow it up with.

    You are saying
    1) X act has lack an inherent moral value.
    2) I think it has Z moral value.

    So I point out.
    Z is a moral value, that URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAdt5bH2tE"] X lacks[/URL]..

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This is what a subjective view does.
    Yes, that is what it does. It expresses the thoughts of the person.
    I'm sure you have noticed that what people think doesn't automatically create an external reality.
    I can't say "I think ponies are pink".. do ponies become pink?
    This is a simple and obvious limitation to subjective things... and I'm just applying it is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That is not objectively possible in subjective moral view. If all morality is a subjective claim, then you cannot objectively judge who has a correct or incorrect morality unless you are saying that I am lying when I tell you what I think is immoral and you can prove that I am lying. You can make a subjective claim that you think I am wrong that X is immoral, which is more simply put that "I think X is not immoral." You have then demonstrated you and I have different moral principles or evaluations.
    Right, but POV doesn't dictate possibility. just because you don't like my statement, doesn't mean you have falsified it. And you have also mis-characterized it, because I have not given MY opinion.
    I have given the STARTING POSITION of the subjective pov, and a statement that even you agree with. Namely X lacks an objective value.

    It is not my opinion about the starting point, it is the expressed starting point.

    Bottom line, you can't simply claim that subjective POV is right, and then deny the existence of the outside world. That is intellectually dishonest.

    I am not saying "I think you are wrong".
    I am making the absolute claim, "X does not have a value". Which you agree with, then you turn around and project a value on it, and say that If I disagree with you it is just a matter of opinion.

    Like, you say
    I think black weighs 50lbs.
    and I say
    Black does not have a weight value.
    and you say
    Well, we will just have to disagree on that.

    So.. lets try again.
    ---

    Does X act have an objective moral value? (does black have weight)



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    While a subjectice moralist may say "X is wrong" there is an implicit "I judge that" which is included in the statement.
    I appreciate the attempt at clarity. the subjective isn't ends up telling the objectivity that he is just expressing their own opinion.
    That is a sort of built in impasse that takes place in the language.
    Here, I'm arguing from a much simpler objective POV. That is one of nihilism. I think this nihilism brings out the inherent contradiction, and absolutely logically inescapable proof of false hood to any subjective claim.

    I think the language of "x is wrong" that is used betrays the inconsistency of the subjective POV. Because no one can act consistently with the benign statement of what you think.
    You would not kill me over your thoughts regarding ice-cream (I hope). But you may over your thoughts of rape, or theft etc. Yet none rise above the others, except in how strongly you feel.
    The only thing that changes is the word being used, distinguishing "taste" and "moral" and making them synonyms
    To serve man.

  12. #312
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm sorry, no one says that. I mean your probably putting the claim through the translator, and I appreciate that for clarity.
    but people generally say "X is wrong", "You shouldn't have done X".
    I think what you end up doing though, is really just complicate the issue with jargon.
    Let me separate some wheat from some chaff. Lots of people experience morality and make moral judgments without really parsing it out to the nth degree. They grew up in a society, are taught its norms, they accept them for the most part, find it hard to always keep to them, but don't really get to a philisophical level with it. Those who do pay it some mind, I'd say most see it as objective, either dictated by God or some kind of natural order. Some say it is purely social, aka relativistic. If you are an X, then Y is your morality. And a fairly small number hold my view that it is subjective, aka, an individual opinion. So what other people say or how they interact with it, that's not what I'm after here. Whatever they say, or whatever they think, I'm describing what I think they are actually, often unwittingly doing.

    "I deem that the act of X is an immoral act."
    So what do you mean "deem"? "I deem".
    I mean they are making a judgment. Every person is a moral authority, capable of making judgments about what they determine is right and wrong. Faced with a moral question, a person can do one or more of these things.
    -Reserve judgment
    -Judge an action for themselves
    -Express their judgment to others
    -Attempt to impose their judgment on others

    What you mean is "I think". Because the deeming here is really just you getting what you think. "X is an immoral act".
    Yes. Humans use their knowledge and reasoning (aka thinking) to come to a determination. Exactly what kind of thought process they use, varies from person to person. Some use moral codes they have been taught, some use empathy, some use a complex system of rationalizations, many use some combination of all of the above. (I don't think this is important but I wanted you to understand the point.)

    What do you mean "Is", it is an objective term. It points to an outside reality. IE an apple is red. I am angry. It is statements of fact.
    But what is the fact? the fact is way back at the start which is "I deem" or "I think".
    It IS hardly objective. It IS pretty. He IS strong. These are evaluations, opinions, subjective judgments of human beings. This IS great music. We understand this is subjective because, for others, it may not be great music. It is the only objective in the sense that the person who says it believes it and feels it to be so. That is, objectively, their opinions of the music.

    Think about the subjects we most commonly consider as subjective art, emotion, aesthetics. What do they have in common? Wide-ranging opinions among different people. Sure, there are commonalities, some art is revered, some is mostly despised, but we know there are wide variants in opinion. Then the things that are clearly objective, math, gravity, weights and measures, logic. All can be demonstrated in some fashion difinitively and agreement manufactured fairly easily.

    Is morality something with a wide range of opinion? Is it easy or hard to manufacture agreement when views differ? What tests, measures, or objective standards can we measure morality with that were not a person's judgement at some point?

    So, while you added words, and the subjects and nouns of the sentence may be moved around. The IDEA's are still just as I said.
    I and Is are a reference to the same thing... which is yourself. Changing a verb "is" to a noun "I".
    No, what I do when I say "I judge that X is wrong" is to explicitly state the source of the judgment. An objectivist has an objective source of some kind. A subjectivist has themselves as the source of that judgement. An objectivist is trying to objectively observe, a subjectivist is using their own authority to judge. (Though I can further argue as to why the objectivist is just fooling themselves and they are still making a personal judgement.)

    You most certainly did. As soon as you claimed something IS one way or another. Namely that X IS an immoral act.
    you are "deeming" which is the act of projecting your internal value onto a thing so as to say that it "is" that way.
    No. If I say an album is fantastic, I am not modifying the album. I am making an artistic judgment of it. If I judge that a killing is wrong (murder) then I do not change anything about the killing, I only ascribe a social value to it in my judgment.

    Because, while your statements are all about the inter-workings of your own thoughts, you're speaking it to project it to others.
    In other words, you can't help but act as though it actually is the case.
    Right, that brings us to what morality is for. Morality is a social tool. It describes what are good and bad behaviors in a social group. Social groups are composed of individuals. To cooperate they need to create moral codes to regulate behavior. Withing and between socieities there is always some measure of moral conflict as people seek to alligne their moral views, or at least come to a compromise possition that can be accepted as the ethical standards for the society. By speaking our own moral views, and explaining how we come to them, we engage in a form of moral persuasion to attempt to influence other people's moral opinions. We do this because we feel our views are superior in some way and we watn them to hold sway when it comes time to take actions in society based on moral judgement.

    Again, to say that a thing doesn't possess X value... is an objective claim, and it is a claim that is incompatible with any subjective value that you follow it up with.
    I am saying that objectively, morality is subjective. Just like I'll say that objectively, art is subjective. I am not arguing everything is subjective. I think there areas of objective knowledge and areas of subjective knowledge. Morality fits much better in the latter category.

    Yes, that is what it does. It expresses the thoughts of the person. I'm sure you have noticed that what people think doesn't automatically create an external reality. I can't say "I think ponies are pink".. do ponies become pink?
    This is a simple and obvious limitation to subjective things... and I'm just applying it is all.
    Indeed, all that is accurate. This is how we know objective reality from subjective opinion. Its a test. Now, when anyone is judged as imoral, how does that happen? People deem it so, people make judgements, people cary out actions. People make moral reality. They start with a judgement, and then if motivated follow up with an action. That is how morality opperates in the world. No non-human agent makes judgemetn. Non non-human agent is found taking actions in the moral sphere. And every single one of those humans has their own individual moral opinion they are using to make these judgemetns and take these actions.

    Bottom line, you can't simply claim that subjective POV is right, and then deny the existence of the outside world. That is intellectually dishonest.
    I don't follow you here. I offer arguments as to why we can observe morality to be inherently subjective. And I am trying to dismantle any arguments as to why that does not make sense. I am not denying the existence of anything in the "outside world". I am observing how morality opperates and describing its nature.

    I am not saying "I think you are wrong".
    I am making the absolute claim, "X does not have a value". Which you agree with, then you turn around and project a value on it, and say that If I disagree with you it is just a matter of opinion.
    All morality is opinion. If I tell you you are wrong, then I am engaging you in persuasion. I am seeking to change your opinion, change your moral view so that it better alligns with mine. Or perhaps mine will change. That is one type of moral conflict. The other is to fight over the enforcment of a moral viewpoint.

    You say
    I think black weighs 50lbs.
    and I say
    Black does not have a weight value.
    and you say
    Well, we will just have to disagree on that.
    I don't see that as anything like this conversation.

    So.. let's try again.
    Does X act have an objective moral value? (does black have weight)
    Actions have whatever moral values we ascribe to them. We may dissagree about the moral value of any given act. We can then try to hash out that differnce if we care to.

    I appreciate the attempt at clarity. the subjective isn't ends up telling the objectivity that he is just expressing their own opinion.
    That is a sort of built-in impasse that takes place in the language.
    Here, I'm arguing from a much simpler objective POV. That is one of nihilism. I think this nihilism brings out the inherent contradiction, and absolutely logically inescapable proof of falsehood to any subjective claim.
    I think nihlism amounts to little more than a lack of interest. If you don't care, it has no value to you. If you do care, then it does. Simple as that.

    I think the language of "x is wrong" that is used betrays the inconsistency of the subjective POV. Because no one can act consistently with the benign statement of what you think.
    You would not kill me over your thoughts regarding ice-cream (I hope). But you may over your thoughts of rape, or theft etc. Yet none rise above the others, except in how strongly you feel.
    The only thing that changes is the word being used, distinguishing "taste" and "moral" and making them synonyms
    Yes, how strongly I feel is the crux of it. The more passionate I am about a moral precept, the greater force I'll likely take to see it realized and enforced. That is how it's done in the world. The stronger people feel, the further they go to act on their moral views. Do you observe it to be otherwise?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #313
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Let me separate some wheat from some chaff. Lots of people experience morality and make moral judgments without really parsing it out to the nth degree. They grew up in a society, are taught its norms, they accept them for the most part, find it hard to always keep to them, but don't really get to a philisophical level with it. Those who do pay it some mind, I'd say most see it as objective, either dictated by God or some kind of natural order. Some say it is purely social, aka relativistic. If you are an X, then Y is your morality. And a fairly small number hold my view that it is subjective, aka, an individual opinion. So what other people say or how they interact with it, that's not what I'm after here. Whatever they say, or whatever they think, I'm describing what I think they are actually, often unwittingly doing.
    I think we are after the same thing here.
    I just want to point out, that we are both after what is happening Objectivly. Which is what your last sentence implies.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I mean they are making a judgment. Every person is a moral authority, capable of making judgments about what they determine is right and wrong. Faced with a moral question, a person can do one or more of these things.
    -Reserve judgment
    -Judge an action for themselves
    -Express their judgment to others
    -Attempt to impose their judgment on others
    Right, and given that we are discussing the object of all that.
    Who/what is the object of all you just listed? Isn't it the self?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes. Humans use their knowledge and reasoning (aka thinking) to come to a determination. Exactly what kind of thought process they use, varies from person to person. Some use moral codes they have been taught, some use empathy, some use a complex system of rationalizations, many use some combination of all of the above. (I don't think this is important but I wanted you to understand the point.)
    I understand you are talking about the mechanics of what is going on here. I would just note, that you are being a lot less technical here than I would. Because if we were going to examine the mechanics we should be talking about evolution and chemical reactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It IS hardly objective. It IS pretty. He IS strong. These are evaluations, opinions, subjective judgments of human beings. This IS great music. We understand this is subjective because, for others, it may not be great music. It is the only objective in the sense that the person who says it believes it and feels it to be so. That is, objectively, their opinions of the music.
    Those are projected values onto external objects. It IS still an objective term.
    Is, is a statement of FACT not opinion. That is the problem. The only fact in the statement X is wrong. Is the thought. Which is not the actual object communicated by the claim "X is wrong." This is smuggling in a premise in the very statement, and not even talking about what is really going on.

    Look this is a point where language is used too loosy goosy. Yes people commonly use is in the way that your talking about. But for a philisophical discussion, you simply can't use it to refer to subjective POV. It only serves to confuse the language.
    That is the point of my argument about the actual object. Philisophically, using is changes the object without being super apprent.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Think about the subjects we most commonly consider as subjective art, emotion, aesthetics. What do they have in common? Wide-ranging opinions among different people. Sure, there are commonalities, some art is revered, some is mostly despised, but we know there are wide variants in opinion. Then the things that are clearly objective, math, gravity, weights and measures, logic. All can be demonstrated in some fashion difinitively and agreement manufactured fairly easily.

    Is morality something with a wide range of opinion? Is it easy or hard to manufacture agreement when views differ? What tests, measures, or objective standards can we measure morality with that were not a person's judgement at some point?
    I don't want to distract too much from my point above. Nothing you have said here really falsifies my point, and it seems to me that all that you listed would fall to my objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, what I do when I say "I judge that X is wrong" is to explicitly state the source of the judgment. An objectivist has an objective source of some kind. A subjectivist has themselves as the source of that judgement. An objectivist is trying to objectively observe, a subjectivist is using their own authority to judge. (Though I can further argue as to why the objectivist is just fooling themselves and they are still making a personal judgement.)
    Sure your saying yourself is the judge, and then you state what the judge thinks. But what you haven't done is actually get out of yourself as the subject.
    Your just making statements about yourself, and at best PROJECTING a value that isn't there.

    I have no problem what so ever about the factual nature of the former. It is the PROJECTION that I am focused on. Once you project a value, it is possible to compare that to reality.
    Like.. I think 1+1 is 3. That is a fact. I am the judge, I am decreeing the value.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No. If I say an album is fantastic, I am not modifying the album. I am making an artistic judgment of it. If I judge that a killing is wrong (murder) then I do not change anything about the killing, I only ascribe a social value to it in my judgment.
    Right, you have equated moraltiy to a matter of taste. However, that is not what morality is generally forwarded as.
    I mean, what do you think of people who kill others because they don't hold Mozart as the greatest composer ever? And do you actually accept that your judgment on murder, is no different?
    Is that really your position?

    Because, ultimatly, your only talking about yourself. Just like your taste in music says more about you then it does about the actual music.
    ... that is my point. You think your talking about the external, or at least your statements pass off as such.. But they never do manage to get there.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Right, that brings us to what morality is for. Morality is a social tool. It describes what are good and bad behaviors in a social group. Social groups are composed of individuals. To cooperate they need to create moral codes to regulate behavior. Withing and between socieities there is always some measure of moral conflict as people seek to alligne their moral views, or at least come to a compromise possition that can be accepted as the ethical standards for the society. By speaking our own moral views, and explaining how we come to them, we engage in a form of moral persuasion to attempt to influence other people's moral opinions. We do this because we feel our views are superior in some way and we watn them to hold sway when it comes time to take actions in society based on moral judgement.
    As long as it is a disussion about values that don't exist in actuality, it is objectivly a self delusioin. With a bunch of people, it is just mass delusion.
    Again, the mechanics are not relevant here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I am saying that objectively, morality is subjective. Just like I'll say that objectively, art is subjective. I am not arguing everything is subjective. I think there areas of objective knowledge and areas of subjective knowledge. Morality fits much better in the latter category.
    Right, and that brings us back to the objectie statement
    X has no objective value.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Indeed, all that is accurate. This is how we know objective reality from subjective opinion. Its a test. Now, when anyone is judged as imoral, how does that happen? People deem it so, people make judgements, people cary out actions. People make moral reality. They start with a judgement, and then if motivated follow up with an action. That is how morality opperates in the world. No non-human agent makes judgemetn. Non non-human agent is found taking actions in the moral sphere. And every single one of those humans has their own individual moral opinion they are using to make these judgemetns and take these actions.
    Right, now my objection is above that.
    First of all, what you said would be true no matter what the actual content. IE if they eat babies, or if they raise them.
    Second, it doesn't really address my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't follow you here. I offer arguments as to why we can observe morality to be inherently subjective. And I am trying to dismantle any arguments as to why that does not make sense. I am not denying the existence of anything in the "outside world". I am observing how morality opperates and describing its nature.
    So, I don't disagree with any of the mechanics you are forwarding. I don't think they are relevant to the discussion.
    The "makes sense" part is what I am challenging.

    You can't claim that acting as though a value exists, when it objectily doesn't "makes sense".
    You have never addressed the objective fact that black doesn't have weight, or the inconsistency that each individual starts with.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    All morality is opinion.
    look, and I don't think this is what you are doing, if you are going to say that my argument is "just my opinion".. then you have waisted my time, and taken an intellectually lazy approach to what I have said.

    I think that you are making a different point though, and I don't think it really addresses my argument.
    If we define morality as the name for the social interactions that govern behavior, I can accept that. I am however examining the truthful and actualness of some of those interactions.
    I mean if everyone went round, holding that 1+1=3. you could accuratly describe the behavior of the people acting in accordance with that.

    My point is that all those interactions would be based on a demonstrably false premise. It is o.k. for it to be mass delusion, but it would infact be a delusion.. and that is what morality that claims there is a value to something that lacks that value, is a delusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't see that as anything like this conversation.
    Really?
    you have said that you don't effect the album when you say it is wonderful. you would agree that the album doesn't have the objective qualtiy of "wonderful".

    Maybe you aren't hearing what I have been saying and the point I have been making.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Actions have whatever moral values we ascribe to them.
    Again, what do you mean "have"? Your still talking about a projected value.
    Are you trying to avoid saying that they are blank slates?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think nihlism amounts to little more than a lack of interest. If you don't care, it has no value to you. If you do care, then it does. Simple as that.
    How many objects are in a set of zero?
    is that just a lack of interst question?
    A nihlist answer zero. While the subjectivist is set on saying "I think it has the value I give it" "I think there are 3 things in the set, love joy and good music".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes, how strongly I feel is the crux of it. The more passionate I am about a moral precept, the greater force I'll likely take to see it realized and enforced. That is how it's done in the world. The stronger people feel, the further they go to act on their moral views. Do you observe it to be otherwise?
    What I observe, is people running around claiming to see a value where none exists in reality. Then they go round acting on that delusion.

    I have demonstraited that it is a delusion. A projection of an internal construct onto an external object, event that lacks the qualtiy said about it.
    I think you may have slipped into a different discussion, because that is the point I have offered, and while you said originally that you see it formulated like that alote, I don't think you have heard it.


    Conclusion
    1) I agree that you have accuratly described how people act.
    2) I agree that you have accuratly defined morality as a subjective construct.
    3) I don't think you have answered my point regarding the ultimate object of moral statements philisophically being self.
    4) I don't think you have falsified my original point.
    5) I'm afraid that you haven't heard my point at all.

    .. I'll be looking to simplify my next response.
    To serve man.

  14. #314
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Conclusion
    1) I agree that you have accuratly described how people act.
    2) I agree that you have accuratly defined morality as a subjective construct.
    3) I don't think you have answered my point regarding the ultimate object of moral statements philisophically being self.
    4) I don't think you have falsified my original point.
    5) I'm afraid that you haven't heard my point at all.

    .. I'll be looking to simplify my next response.
    Very helpful. I'll shut up on 1&2 since we are in agreement on those (though Indeed, I was mistaken and thought you were making some critique of them.)

    Philosophically, there are two categories of properties here: Objective - Subjective

    The distinction between them is...
    Objective properties presumably exist without an observer, and if observed in an objective way, they have a consistent quality to them.
    Subjective properties exist only with an observer, they are prone to being inconsistent from observer to observer.

    And yes, subjective properties are a property that is recorded or held in the mind of the observer rather than being intrinsic to the object itself. But they are directly related to the object because they have been assigned to it by the subjective observer.

    There are similar objective properties, we will call them relative properties. For instance, the distance between two objects. This is a measurable and objective property, but it describes a relationship between two objects. If you move one, the property value changes. It is a dependent property and not an intrinsic property.

    Subjective properties are very similar, but they lack the clear measurability you might find in a relatively objective property. None the less, while not intrinsic, they are tied to both the observed object and the observer. A change to either could impact the value of the property. If 8 individuals observe the object and render some judgement of it, then there are 8 subjective properties assigned to it.

    Delusions
    I do think that moral objectivists suffer rom something of a delusion, taking subjective viewpoints and pretending they have some intrinsic and fundamental truth to them despite the lack of evidence for that assertion and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

    Nihilism, as you put it forward here, seems to be saying that if it ain't objective, it ain't relevant, aka its meaningless. But I would say no, there is a subjective relevance and a subjective meaning and those things do matter for people. Indeed, we often place subjective values over objective ones in our decision making. Labels, categories, and other subjective or even arbitrary distinctions are impactful and useful to us and our purposes.

    5) I'm afraid that you haven't heard my point at all.
    Ya, it seems quite possible. Perhaps you can try to re-phrase it for me soup to nuts.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #315
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Nihilism, as you put it forward here, seems to be saying that if it ain't objective, it ain't relevant, aka its meaningless.
    Here I forward it (and maybe not a precise use of the term.. until I can get a better one) is that if it ain't objective, it isn't real but imagined, and further is an imagination that is falsified by objective reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Delusions
    I do think that moral objectivity suffer rom something of a delusion, taking subjective viewpoints and pretending they have some intrinsic and fundamental truth to them despite the lack of evidence for that assertion and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
    I don't think that criticism holds as valid to what I have put forward.

    I mean, I get the critique in regards to subjective/objective debate, when they are referring to a common held positive or negative held value. Like eating babies is wrong. They both think the other is simply practicing their version of the expression.

    This position is significantly different, and starts with an accepted statement of objective truth.
    namely "X has no objective moral value".

    So my argument is to point out, that is a significant statement and has meaning that the subjectivity immediately tosses out in order to form their own meaning, and consequently and necessarily being factually incorrect.
    As a note, no theist position would accept that statement as true.
    To serve man.

  17. #316
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This position is significantly different, and starts with an accepted statement of objective truth.
    namely "X has no objective moral value".

    So my argument is to point out, that is a significant statement and has meaning that the subjectivity immediately tosses out in order to form their own meaning, and consequently and necessarily being factually incorrect.
    I don't understand the basis for arguing that the position "X has no objective moral value" is factually incorrect.

    If objective morality does not exist, then it's TRUE that X has no objective moral value because NOTHING has no objective moral value (since objective moral values don't exist) and therefore the statement "X has no objective moral value" is factually correct.

    So are you arguing from the premise that there ARE objective morals? If so, can you support that objective morals actually exist?

  18. #317
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    I am arguing from the truth of the statement you listed. I am not objecting to it.
    To serve man.

  19. #318
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,249
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Here I forward it (and maybe not a precise use of the term.. until I can get a better one) is that if it ain't objective, it isn't real but imagined, and further is an imagination that is falsified by objective reality.
    I think we have a definitional problem. "real" and "objective" are not the same thing. Nor are "unreal" and "subjective." Let's look at a computer as a model for a moment.

    A computer has a lot of electricity in it, that represents information for us. So, if I have a photo of ancar in a computer, it's a bunch of electricity basically. It's not a car, it's not even really a photo in the classic sense, it's information in the form of electricity. It's real, electricity exists, so does the information that makes up the file. It's not unreal etc...

    A human feeling or thought is much like this in that it exists physically as activity in our brain. It's chemistry and electricity and so forth. It is real. It exists. Even if it is only imagination, its real in this fundamental sense. So subjective values are real because they are human thoughts and emotions which are likewise real.

    I explained what objective and subjective refer to. They are types of knowledge in truth, not real or unreal things.

    Imagination is also real, though when we say a thing is imaginary, we mean that exists only in the mind. But exist it does. In truth, all our thoughts are probably purely representational, basically imagination, but how close it is to what we initially experienced varies from the, pretty close, to, activly trying not to be like what we expereinced.

    I don't think that criticism holds as valid to what I have put forward.
    I'm pretty unsure of what you put forward to be honest.

    I mean, I get the critique in regards to subjective/objective debate, when they are referring to a common held positive or negative held value. Like eating babies is wrong. They both think the other is simply practicing their version of the expression.
    I agree that is common in those discussions.

    This position is significantly different, and starts with an accepted statement of objective truth.
    namely "X has no objective moral value".
    The subjective position says that as well. So does relative morality.

    So my argument is to point out, that is a significant statement and has meant that the subjectivity immediately tosses out in order to form their own meaning, and consequently and necessarily being factually incorrect.
    As a note, no theist position would accept that statement as true.
    No, subjectivity includes that statment in its cannon as it were. If morality is subjective, then it is not objective, therefore nothing has objective moral value. Instead, the claim is that actions are assigned subjective moral value by people.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #319
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am arguing from the truth of the statement you listed. I am not objecting to it.
    Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying but it appears that you said ""X has no objective moral value" is factually incorrect. Assuming that is what you are saying, I am challenging that position

  21. #320
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    No that is the first premise of my argument... Will post a link when I get home.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Objective Morality and atheism
    By CliveStaples in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: September 16th, 2012, 03:36 PM
  2. Is God Necessary for Objective Morality?
    By estill in forum Religion
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 10:26 PM
  3. Objective morality is effectively useless
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 07:59 AM
  4. Subjective Morality Is Pointless
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: September 7th, 2011, 08:00 PM
  5. Subjective Morality
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 08:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •