Objective morality vs. subjective morality

[mican333]

So the question of this thread is:

Which is superior - objective morality or subjective morality

My answer is "Whichever one of them is correct". And since I can't support that either are correct and as far I know, no one else can either, the answer to that question is "I don't know" and likewise the position of this OP is that we don't know which is superior.

So to defeat the OP, one has to show that either
1. One of them is correct and the other is incorrect
or
2. One of them is superior even if it is incorrect and the other is correct (which isn't impossible as sometimes a lie is better than the truth such as telling your child an untruth to dissuade him from doing something dangerous).

I'll quickly define terms (although one is free to offer better definitions although I don't want to get bogged down in debating this).

OBJECTIVE MORALITY:
There is an external moral source that forwards objectively correct morals that people are always correct if they follow. For example, God says Murder is wrong and therefore to disagree with this moral position is to be objectively wrong in the same vein as saying that the earth is flat.

SUBJECTIVE MORALITY:
Morality is a human invention and whatever is wrong is whatever a person happens to think is wrong and it is determined person to person (but then certainly moral issues, such as murder and rape, seem to be forwarded as consistently wrong by a vast majority of people).


And again, I argue that whichever is correct is the one that is superior. If objective morality is correct, its superiority to subjective morality is obvious so I won't spell it out. In the case of subjective morality, if it is indeed true that morality is a human construct, I see no reason why failing to acknowledge this reality and acting on the truth would not be superior to falsely believing that there is an objective source of morality. Again, while a lie can sometimes be preferable to the truth, I don't see this situation as an exception.

So again, since we don't know which is true and which is false, we also don't know which is superior to the other.

[MindTrap028]

Argument A
1) There are Objective Moral Truths.
2) That moral truth is iether that there are objective moral laws, or that there are no objective moral laws.
3) If there are no Objective moral laws, Then it is an objective moral truth that there is no moral right and wrong, no moral duty and all actions humans can take are objectively morally neutral.


Argument B
The idea of "subjective morality" is not "morality" at all. Because it does not negate or over-ride the objective moral truth of all neutral. It is really an appeal to personal taste, likes and dislikes, and conflates ideas, mucking up the language.
The supposing it were a fact fact that most people, or even all people personally disliking action X, that fact does not negate the objective truth that there is an objective neutral value on all actions.

----
Example of both and the nature of the problem.

Two men and a woman are the only possibly moral beings(IE all that exist) The two men agree that it is the most moral thing for them to enslave the woman and force sex onto her whenever they wish regardless of her feelings, as well as toil in the sun to feed them. The woman disagrees, and actually feels the opposite, that The most moral thing is for the men to serve her every whim as slaves to be abused as she sees fit. Unfortunately she she is both outvoted, and over powered, and lives her life as a slave in all senses.

Our options are.
1) There is an objective moral law, and one or both of the parties is either right or wrong according to that law. (be it known or not)
2) There is only the objective truth that their actions whatever are morally neutral, and no moral wrong is possible, thus they are both inherently wrong in their views.
3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable.

[Dionysus]

I think it comes down to how you think about the terms. When it comes to morality, people tend to conclude that moral standards must come from some external, perfect source in order for them to be objective. I don’t know that this is necessarily the case.

For example, even though it’s possible that logical laws - such as the law of non-contradiction - were promulgated from a transcendent law-giver, it doesn’t seem to me that any such law-giver is necessary for A ≠ B to be objectively true; it is simply a brute fact of logic that A ≠ B, if A is to be identifiably distinct from B in any meaningful sense at all. Certain moral rules and duties could be just as objective.

Like “A” and “B” above, if words like “good” or “evil” are to have any objective meaning whatsoever, their respective definitions must have some relationship to the “help” or “harm” imposed on conscious creatures by other conscious creatures. Consider that if the only things in existence were a conscious person on a giant, inanimate rock, no such relationship could be established, and therefore the person could not possibly commit an act that could be rightly called “immoral”.

Consider that if I knowingly inflict unnecessary suffering - such as simple torture - on another conscious being, I’ve done something objectively evil. Why is it evil? Because 1) I am capable of understanding what harm is, 2) I know that torture harms the person being tortured, 3) I would be irrational to ignore this brute fact regarding torture, and 4) therefore imposing such harm on a person is objectively wrong.

“Help” can be regarded the same way as “harm” is above, simply in a reverse context.

If a toddler destroys someone’s property (such as knocking over a priceless vase), the toddler hasn’t done something evil. Why? Because the toddler is incapable of contemplating moral values and duties. They cannot understand what it means to respect property, etc. Until they’re able to do so, they aren’t moral agents in any meaningful sense.

Finally, if a cliff crumbles and crushes me, the cliff hasn’t done an act of evil; the cliff is not conscious and is thus not a moral agent. Furthermore, the cliff is inanimate, and is incapable of performing acts. Therefore, the event of the cliff falling on me, while unfortunate, is neither good nor evil from a moralistic perspective; it is amoral.

Having said that, if there is some perfect law-giver with perfect reasoning and who has sufficient power and authority to determine objective moral rules and duties, then obviously that objective moral system is superior to any other. But when I think about the meaning of the word “objective”, I don’t think of it in those terms, and I think it’s likely a mistake to do so.

[MindTrap028]

Like “A” and “B” above, if words like “good” or “evil” are to have any objective meaning whatsoever, their respective definitions must have some relationship to the “help” or “harm” imposed on conscious creatures by other conscious creatures.

There is no reason to believe that the universe exists in this state. See my island example.
There is no "harm" law of the universe, and it is as subjective and undefined as well as completely breakable and deniable(see below).
In my island example there was no "harm principle" and you certainly have no right or power to show that there was. At best you would personally be an outvoted 4th who did not agree with any of them.
Especially if when faced with your argument they responded "sure, it is harm.. but we do not value harm to her as it benefits us". (see below)

Consider that if I knowingly inflict unnecessary suffering - such as simple torture - on another conscious being, I’ve done something objectively evil. Why is it evil? Because 1) I am capable of understanding what harm is, 2) I know that torture harms the person being tortured, 3) I would be irrational to ignore this brute fact regarding torture, and 4) therefore imposing such harm on a person is objectively wrong.

4 does not follow from the others.
You are speaking of what "is" and trying to get an "ought".

1) It is the case that you understand harm (your version of it anyway) ...Thought the "unnecessary" is a suspect word, as it is loaded with personal value assumptions.
2) It is the case that torture harms (because you define torture to be harm.. and it's circular assumption.. but granted here)
3) It is irrational to ignore the brute fact of torture.. actually, no it is not. It is irrational to deny that it exists, it is not irrational to ignore. I don't deny that Pluto exists.. but for the most part I ignore it.
4) Therefore I ought not. No, one could just as rationally accept that harm exists, but place less value on it, or zero value on it, maybe on a selfish principle. (unless we just assume that is immoral as well).
IE, I wish to kill you and take your stuff, because I want it and it may benefit me. Now all "harm" is justified and I have done no "wrong" in my own eyes. In fact, I may be morally obligated to do so.

----
The problem or rather the challenge you have, is transition from bare facts, to moral value facts.
A painting exists, it's colors exist.. that does not establish objective beauty. (as an example of abstract values vs bare facts).
Per my first argument the objective moral value is neutral. A man hitting a rock, or a man hitting an infant, are both the same kind of facts, bare physical descriptive facts.
Here you would have to show why the infant has some inherent objective value that is different from a rock so as to justify any moral obligation claim.

Personally, I understand how a mind can impart values/laws/facts such as moral facts etc.
I do not understand how a big bang from nothing would impart any kind of value other than neutral. .. please explain.

[mican333]

Argument A
1) There are Objective Moral Truths.
2) That moral truth is iether that there are objective moral laws, or that there are no objective moral laws.
3) If there are no Objective moral laws, Then it is an objective moral truth that there is no moral right and wrong, no moral duty and all actions humans can take are objectively morally neutral.

I agree up until the very last thing you said. "Morally neutral" indicates that something falls in the middle of a scale as opposed to the scale not existing. So I disagree that without objective morality all human actions are objectively morally neutral. If there is no objective morality, then nothing is objective morally anything (good, bad, or neutral).

Argument B
The idea of "subjective morality" is not "morality" at all. Because it does not negate or over-ride the objective moral truth of all neutral.

Again, I disagree that anything is objectively morally neutral so I reject this argument.

It is really an appeal to personal taste, likes and dislikes, and conflates ideas, mucking up the language.

If you were to consult a dictionary, I'm sure you would find that the definition of "morality" applies to subjective morality so I would say that you are the one who is mucking up the language by forwarding your own alternative definition of "morality" that somehow makes subjective morality "not morality".

Two men and a woman are the only possibly moral beings(IE all that exist) The two men agree that it is the most moral thing for them to enslave the woman and force sex onto her whenever they wish regardless of her feelings, as well as toil in the sun to feed them. The woman disagrees, and actually feels the opposite, that The most moral thing is for the men to serve her every whim as slaves to be abused as she sees fit. Unfortunately she she is both outvoted, and over powered, and lives her life as a slave in all senses.

Our options are.
1) There is an objective moral law, and one or both of the parties is either right or wrong according to that law. (be it known or not)
2) There is only the objective truth that their actions whatever are morally neutral, and no moral wrong is possible, thus they are both inherently wrong in their views.
3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable.

First off, subjective morality requires no language change that I'm aware of and therefore reject any inference that there is a language change and ask that you support your assertion that there is a language change if you are going to continue saying that.

And I have another options

4) If morality is subjective, both you and I agree that the men are wrong and therefore subjectively hold that the men are morally wrong in this situation. And there is absolutely nothing in subjective morality that says that the majority is right so the fact that the two men are the majority on the island does not make them right. If morality is subjective, then I subjectively say that the men are wrong and there is nothing in subjective morality that requires me to say otherwise. So no, WE (as in you and I) don't have the say that the men are right.

[MindTrap028]

I agree up until the very last thing you said. "Morally neutral" indicates that something falls in the middle of a scale as opposed to the scale not existing. So I disagree that without objective morality all human actions are objectively morally neutral. If there is no objective morality, then nothing is objective morally anything (good, bad, or neutral).

Neutral just means that it has no value good or bad.
Any object or actor that is not a moral actor is considered morally neutral.
Such things by definition have no bearing on morality.

That is still an objective moral truth. (per my original argument.. unaddressed)

If you were to consult a dictionary, I'm sure you would find that the definition of "morality" applies to subjective morality so I would say that you are the one who is mucking up the language by forwarding your own alternative definition of "morality" that somehow makes subjective morality "not morality".

Philosophically, it is an inherently flawed definition. That is my argument. Your reading a dictionary that says there is X which is defined as a married bachelor.

First off, subjective morality requires no language change that I'm aware of and therefore reject any inference that there is a language change and ask that you support your assertion that there is a language change if you are going to continue saying that.

I made my point, and you seem to have missed it.
The argument is that you can not speak of both in the same argument with the same language.
To say that objective morality exists or is possible, means that "subjective morality" is not "morality" at all, it is "personal taste" and has no distinguishing factor from any other personal taste.

Further, I have argued, and shown through it how there is an inherent absolute moral truth, and all of it's possible options make "subjective morality" False at worst, and not morality at all at best, sprinkled with incoherent.

4) If morality is subjective, both you and I agree that the men are wrong and therefore subjectively hold that the men are morally wrong in this situation.

Well, you or I are not on the island. There are only 3 people. For you to say they are wrong, is to introduce an objective standard for them to face, which in the example doesn't exist.

You have to play by the rules. If you think a 4th person would clear things up.. then maybe you can explain why the example is flawed with only 3?

So no, WE (as in you and I) don't have the say that the men are right.

Well, that is YOUR subjective morality. That is not applying the logic of GENERAL subjective morality.

Your response seems to require an outside source of morality (you the observer not in the example) to establish that there is any "wrong" going on.

Maybe this would help.
What are the rules of subjective morality? If there aren't any, then you are free to make up anything you like and you have a position which is basically meaningless.
Why doesn't the majority rule in subjective morality? What is wrong with the example that violates the idea of subjective morality?

Can everyone alive really be wrong under the idea of subjective morality? At the same time everyone is right in their own eyes for everything?

[mican333]

Neutral just means that it has no value good or bad.
Any object or actor that is not a moral actor is considered morally neutral.
Such things by definition have no bearing on morality.

I agree. But to say that it is OBJECTIVELY morally neutral refers to an external source that has determined that an action is morally neutral. If there is no external objective source indicating that something is objectively morally neutral, then NOTHING is objectively morally neutral.

Morally neutral, yes. Objectively morally neutral, no.

Another way to put it - if there is no objective morality then it is an objective fact that nothing is objectively morally neutral.

Philosophically, it is an inherently flawed definition. That is my argument. Your reading a dictionary that says there is X which is defined as a married bachelor.

If you are going to argue that subjective morality is inconsistent with the definition of morality then I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion and please use a dictionary link if you do choose to try to support it.

I made my point, and you seem to have missed it.
The argument is that you can not speak of both in the same argument with the same language.
To say that objective morality exists or is possible, means that "subjective morality" is not "morality" at all, it is "personal taste" and has no distinguishing factor from any other personal taste.

Right. I misunderstood. And I conceded in the OP that if morality is objective, it is inherently superior to subjective morality so there is absolutely no point in arguing that objective morality is superior if morality is indeed objective.

Just be clear (maybe you didn't read the OP well enough) my point is that whichever one is correct is the superior one. If we don't know which is correct (and I hold that we do not), then we likewise don't know which is superior.

Further, I have argued, and shown through it how there is an inherent absolute moral truth, and all of it's possible options make "subjective morality" False at worst, and not morality at all at best, sprinkled with incoherent.

You've supported that objective morality exists? If so, I didn't recognize it. So assuming you are arguing that objective morality indeed exists, please state your argument and make it clear that you are arguing that.

Well, you or I are not on the island. There are only 3 people. For you to say they are wrong, is to introduce an objective standard for them to face, which in the example doesn't exist.

No, I am subjectively saying that they are wrong. I'm not a God telling these men that they are objectively wrong. I'm an observer giving my moral view on the issue and these men are as free to disagree with me as they are free to disagree with the woman.

And since being in the majority does not make anyone right in regards to subjective morality, the number of people on the island is irrelevant. If there was one man enslaving two women or two men enslaving one woman, the men are just as wrong in each scenario by the subjective standard that I have.

You have to play by the rules. If you think a 4th person would clear things up.. then maybe you can explain why the example is flawed with only 3?

The flaw has nothing to do with the number of people on the island. The flaw in your argument is limiting the moral options to:

"1) There is an objective moral law, and one or both of the parties is either right or wrong according to that law. (be it known or not)
2) There is only the objective truth that their actions whatever are morally neutral, and no moral wrong is possible, thus they are both inherently wrong in their views.
3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable."

As I said, there's a fourth option (restated) - 4) I subjectively hold that the men are morally wrong in this situation.

Maybe this would help.
What are the rules of subjective morality? If there aren't any, then you are free to make up anything you like and you have a position which is basically meaningless.
Why doesn't the majority rule in subjective morality? What is wrong with the example that violates the idea of subjective morality?

Can everyone alive really be wrong under the idea of subjective morality? At the same time everyone is right in their own eyes for everything?

As I've said in previous debates - questions are not arguments.

If you want to form these issues into an argument against subjective morality, go ahead.

And I've probably said this before, but one reason I sometimes don't answer questions is because it shifts the burden. If I were to answer some of the questions you can follow up with more questions - basically putting the burden on me to defend subjective morality. But I have no burden to defend subjective morality before you attack it. So I ask that if you are going to attack subjective morality, then you need to make an argument against it.

[MindTrap028]

I agree. But to say that it is OBJECTIVELY morally neutral refers to an external source that has determined that an action is morally neutral. If there is no external objective source indicating that something is objectively morally neutral, then NOTHING is objectively morally neutral.

Morally neutral, yes. Objectively morally neutral, no.

Another way to put it - if there is no objective morality then it is an objective fact that nothing is objectively morally neutral.

If it isn't objectively morally neutral, then by the definition of neutral it must have some inherent positive or negative value.

If you think that morals are subjective, you believe that they are projected onto things. Now I realize you think they become real.
So imagine it as a canvas. If moral laws exist, then that means the canvas already has colors on it. The picture is already set.
So if there are no moral laws, then there stands a blank canvas. If morals are subjective then your saying your the artist, or society or .. whatever, have the brush.
You seem to be tempted to deny the existance of the canvas. Does that make sense?, is that accurate of your position? (I know damn questions)

If you are going to argue that subjective morality is inconsistent with the definition of morality then I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion and please use a dictionary link if you do choose to try to support it.

I offered argumentation regarding the very idea of morality.

Right. I misunderstood. And I conceded in the OP that if morality is objective, it is inherently superior to subjective morality so there is absolutely no point in arguing that objective morality is superior if morality is indeed objective.

Just be clear (maybe you didn't read the OP well enough) my point is that whichever one is correct is the superior one. If we don't know which is correct (and I hold that we do not), then we likewise don't know which is superior.

I'm arguing that we do know which one is correct. There is an objective moral truth, and all possible versions of it negate and make nonsensical subjective morality.
It is also not possible to have another version, IE the list is exhaustive.

You've supported that objective morality exists? If so, I didn't recognize it. So assuming you are arguing that objective morality indeed exists, please state your argument and make it clear that you are arguing that.

There are two possible choices.
1 Objective moral laws exist
2 Objective moral laws do not exist
(exhaustive list)

given 1 or 2, there still remains objective moral truths. (Namely the truth of 1 or 2).

"Subjective moral values" claims the truth of #2. However this truth, means that their subjective claims (whatever they are) are actually false.
Think murder is morally wrong? Sorry, the objective moral truth is that the act is objectivly neutral.

No, I am subjectively saying that they are wrong. I'm not a God telling these men that they are objectively wrong. I'm an observer giving my moral view on the issue and these men are as free to disagree with me as they are free to disagree with the woman.

And since being in the majority does not make anyone right in regards to subjective morality, the number of people on the island is irrelevant. If there was one man enslaving two women or two men enslaving one woman, the men are just as wrong in each scenario by the subjective standard that I have.

... Yea, on an island you don't exist on.. you kinda don't get an opinion.
You need to limit your response to what is actually going on, on the given island.
That you do or do not like the island... is irrelevant.
If you wish to inject yourself onto the island, then you become effectivly a 4th person on the island. Which means youneed to explain why that is a suprior example, and what we learn from it.

The flaw has nothing to do with the number of people on the island. The flaw in your argument is limiting the moral options to:

"1) There is an objective moral law, and one or both of the parties is either right or wrong according to that law. (be it known or not)
2) There is only the objective truth that their actions whatever are morally neutral, and no moral wrong is possible, thus they are both inherently wrong in their views.
3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable."

As I said, there's a fourth option (restated) - 4) I subjectively hold that the men are morally wrong in this situation.

That is not a possible option. I think I addressed it above.

My #1 2 and 3 are not my opinion about the goings on. They are a list of possible truths about the nature of the total universe (here shrunk for simplicity).
Your #4 is not making an observation about the universe, it is making an observation about your personal state of mind. As you are not on the island, your state of mind is specifically excluded.
Further, your state of mind or a kind like it is already part of the world.

As I've said in previous debates - questions are not arguments.

They are not arguments, they are questions to help me understand.

And I've probably said this before, but one reason I sometimes don't answer questions is because it shifts the burden. If I were to answer some of the questions you can follow up with more questions - basically putting the burden on me to defend subjective morality. But I have no burden to defend subjective morality before you attack it. So I ask that if you are going to attack subjective morality, then you need to make an argument against it.

Fine, I'll move forward assuming you accept my understanding of subjective morality as accurate.

I think you are a bit over scared to answer questions that are intended to illuminate the issueif only to properly understand exactly what it is you mean.
I have already made my actual argument.. so I will leave it at that. I hope you properly understand the argument.

[mican333]

If it isn't objectively morally neutral, then by the definition of neutral it must have some inherent positive or negative value.

NO! If there is no objective morality, then nothing has any internet positive or negative value as well as no inherent neutral value. You are clear that in this point we are discussing the ramifications of objective morality not existing, right?

If not, let me re-state my position here - IF objective morality does not exist, then nothing is objectively morally neutral. Obviously any argument regarding the lack of objective morality has to start from the premise that objective morality does not exist (or else it fails to examine the ramifications of such a lack).

If you think that morals are subjective, you believe that they are projected onto things. Now I realize you think they become real.
So imagine it as a canvas. If moral laws exist, then that means the canvas already has colors on it. The picture is already set.
So if there are no moral laws, then there stands a blank canvas. If morals are subjective then your saying your the artist, or society or .. whatever, have the brush.
You seem to be tempted to deny the existance of the canvas.

From the perspective of subjective morality, THE canvas does not exist (as in there's just one canvas) so I do deny it (from the subjective perspective). From the subjective perspective, everyone has their own canvas so THE canvas does not exist.

So there is no singular canvas where morally neutral actions contribute no color as there is no singular canvas at all (from the subjective perspective).

I offered argumentation regarding the very idea of morality.

I asked that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT the notion that subjective morality is inconsistent with the definition of morality which means that you must present an argument that supports that assertion. Vaguely referring to some argument you apparently already made does not suffice.

So I will ignore this point due to lack of support until you do provide a supported argument for it.

I'm arguing that we do know which one is correct. There is an objective moral truth, and all possible versions of it negate and make nonsensical subjective morality.

OK. Now SUPPORT OR RETRACT this argument that there is indeed objective moral truth.

There are two possible choices.
1 Objective moral laws exist
2 Objective moral laws do not exist
(exhaustive list)

given 1 or 2, there still remains objective moral truths. (Namely the truth of 1 or 2).

"Subjective moral values" claims the truth of #2. However this truth, means that their subjective claims (whatever they are) are actually false.
Think murder is morally wrong? Sorry, the objective moral truth is that the act is objectivly neutral.

You can't base an argument on a premise that I am currently challenging in another part of the post.

Again, if there is no objective morality, then NOTHING is objectively morally neutral.

So I reject this argument.

... Yea, on an island you don't exist on.. you kinda don't get an opinion.
You need to limit your response to what is actually going on, on the given island.

I am. I am responding to events on the island and saying that what the men are doing are immoral.

That is not a possible option. I think I addressed it above.

My #1 2 and 3 are not my opinion about the goings on. They are a list of possible truths about the nature of the total universe (here shrunk for simplicity).
Your #4 is not making an observation about the universe, it is making an observation about your personal state of mind.

No. Point 3 is not a list of the possible truth. Quite simply, points 1 and 2 are based on objective morality and point 3 is based on subjective morality and therefore introduces an observer who reacts to the situation (and of course subjective morality always has an observer). So if allow point 3 then we all point 4. If we omit points 3 & 4, then your island scenario only refers to objective morality and says nothing about subjective morality. Here's point 3 for reference.

"3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable."

Fine, I'll move forward assuming you accept my understanding of subjective morality as accurate.

I think you are a bit over scared to answer questions that are intended to illuminate the issueif only to properly understand exactly what it is you mean.
I have already made my actual argument.. so I will leave it at that. I hope you properly understand the argument.

You can ask me questions about MY arguments for clarification.

But did I bring up an argument where asking "Can everyone alive really be wrong under the idea of subjective morality?" would clarify what I meant? I don't think so. It appears to me that you are attempting to forward the issue of whether anyone can be wrong under the idea of subjective morality and that's fine if you want to forward that issue but if you introduce it then you have the burden to support whatever point you may want to make regarding that which means you need to introduce that concept in an argument, not a question.

[futureboy]

I usually find the whole "objective vs subjective morality" debate quite tiresome and pointless.
What we do every day is called "situational morality/ethics". Our laws are based on the value assessments of situational ethics. Heck, even the examples provided in debates on morality usually have some aspect of a very specific situation (two men and a woman on an island).

All that is required is for us to agree to care about human well-being. Once we agree to care about well-being, the objective/subjective debate is moot.

[mican333]

I usually find the whole "objective vs subjective morality" debate quite tiresome and pointless.
What we do every day is called "situational morality/ethics". Our laws are based on the value assessments of situational ethics. Heck, even the examples provided in debates on morality usually have some aspect of a very specific situation (two men and a woman on an island).

All that is required is for us to agree to care about human well-being. Once we agree to care about well-being, the objective/subjective debate is moot.

In day-to-day application, yes. But I don't think debating the actual source of morality is inherently uninteresting even if no applicable results occur.

[DevilPup John]

I wanted to get a few definitions of morality before I really answered this question. I found two with important distinctions.

Cambridge Dictionary:

a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest

Source:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...glish/morality

Websters:

a doctrine or system of moral conduct
the basic law which an adequate morality ought to state — Marjorie Grene
b moralities plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
we were all brought up on one of these moralities — Psychiatry

Source:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

The key difference here is, at least in my opinion on where this morality comes from, as Cambridge states it's a set of social or personal standards.

Next I wanted to make sure I was clear on what objective meant:

Cambridge:

not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fair or real

Source:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/d...ve?q=Objective

Websters (had a few but I chose this one):

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

If I accept the first definition of morality, and the two definitions of objective then I must come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "objective" morality.

Since I do not believe an objective morality can exist I come to the conclusion that morality is strictly subjective, or relative/contextual.

Unless someone is able to prove the superiority of say a god being, or a particular person/organization, our understanding of morality, and even our practice of morals, is subjective and therefore based more on who has the ability to enforce their morals.

I did have a question on Mican's point:
I

f not, let me re-state my position here - IF objective morality does not exist, then nothing is objectively morally neutral. Obviously any argument regarding the lack of objective morality has to start from the premise that objective morality does not exist (or else it fails to examine the ramifications of such a lack).

I want to make sure I understand this point as I think I agree with it. If I believe objective morality does not exist then there is no moral neutrality. Which would then imply we are not "right" or "wrong" in our action since there is no higher authority.

[mican333]

If I accept the first definition of morality, and the two definitions of objective then I must come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "objective" morality.

While I agree with your logic, a common notion of objective morality is that there is an external being, often considered God, who likewise has a "personal" morality and that this being's morality is greater than our own. For example, if God has determined that murder is immoral, then since God is the creator of the universe, it is as pointless to argue with God on this as it would be for a fictional character to argue with the author of the novel that he inhabits about the aspects of the world that the author created. So given that, if God says that murder is immoral it's basically a fact that it is immoral.

So without getting into some specific semantic debate, I would say that if God exists and has deemed that murder is immoral then one can say that murder is objectively immoral.

To be clear, I am arguing neither that God does exist and has rendered murder objectively immoral but only that such a thing is possible (I take the agnostic view on God's existence.

Unless someone is able to prove the superiority of say a god being, or a particular person/organization, our understanding of morality, and even our practice of morals, is subjective and therefore based more on who has the ability to enforce their morals.

But if we don't know if God exists then we don't know if objective morality exists so it might exist.

I want to make sure I understand this point as I think I agree with it. If I believe objective morality does not exist then there is no moral neutrality. Which would then imply we are not "right" or "wrong" in our action since there is no higher authority.

That's what I hold. Morally neutral is a value so if there are not objective moral values then there is no objective neutral morality.

[MindTrap028]

Mican you may want to review the idea of zero.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero

Here it is used in accordance with #14 "14.
having no measurable quantity or magnitude; not any: "

Neutral is also "not any". Because if it had any it wouldn't be neutral it would be good or bad. It is not a value in itself.

NO! If there is no objective morality, then nothing has any internet positive or negative value as well as no inherent neutral value. You are clear that in this point we are discussing the ramifications of objective morality not existing, right?

"Morality" is moral laws defining what is good and bad.
To say that there is no morality is to say that there is no moral law, duty's or obligations.

That statement by it's definition renders everything objectivly morally neutral.
You can not define away objective reality because reality is objective. If things do not have inherent objecive value, there are ramifications to that, and the first is that they are neutral or zero valued.

If not, let me re-state my position here - IF objective morality does not exist, then nothing is objectively morally neutral. Obviously any argument regarding the lack of objective morality has to start from the premise that objective morality does not exist (or else it fails to examine the ramifications of such a lack).

Your statement doesn't follow, see above.

From the perspective of subjective morality, THE canvas does not exist (as in there's just one canvas) so I do deny it (from the subjective perspective). From the subjective perspective, everyone has their own canvas so THE canvas does not exist.

So there is no singular canvas where morally neutral actions contribute no color as there is no singular canvas at all (from the subjective perspective).

That doesn't make any sense. The canvas is actions, people, the universe.
What do you think the canvas is?

I asked that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT the notion that subjective morality is inconsistent with the definition of morality which means that you must present an argument that supports that assertion. Vaguely referring to some argument you apparently already made does not suffice.

So I will ignore this point due to lack of support until you do provide a supported argument for it.

1)There are objective moral truths.
2)Those truths are - there is an objective moral law or there is not an objective moral law. (exhuasitive)
3)If there is no objective moral law (as subjective morality holds), then all subjective projections are objectivly wrong.
One may think murder is wrong and that people have an obligation to not murder, but in fact murder is objectivly neutral, with an inherent value of zero. (or to say lacking any moral value).

K. Now SUPPORT OR RETRACT this argument that there is indeed objective moral truth.

.. dude, like twice now. Are you even reading my posts? Maybe if you would ask some questions you can help me understand how you don't understand the above argument.
because this approach is a clear waste of my time.

You can't base an argument on a premise that I am currently challenging in another part of the post.

Again, if there is no objective morality, then NOTHING is objectively morally neutral.

So I reject this argument.

I do not understand you here.
You asked me to state the argument. I did.
What are you challenging in it?

I am. I am responding to events on the island and saying that what the men are doing are immoral.

I don't see the relevance. What does your opinion have to do with a world where you don't exist?
Or maybe..
Could you please explain why and how it is the case?

No. Point 3 is not a list of the possible truth. Quite simply, points 1 and 2 are based on objective morality and point 3 is based on subjective morality and therefore introduces an observer who reacts to the situation (and of course subjective morality always has an observer). So if allow point 3 then we all point 4. If we omit points 3 & 4, then your island scenario only refers to objective morality and says nothing about subjective morality. Here's point 3 for reference.

"3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable."

No mican. I have specified that you don't exist several times. So if you are going to appeal to personal taste, then you must do so regarding a person on the island, and expalain why that personal taste "wins".

Further, point 2 is the denial of objetive morality. (that is an objective moral law).

----------

If I accept the first definition of morality, and the two definitions of objective then I must come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "objective" morality.

Is that objectively true? (That is, there is no objective moral law? Is that a true statement?)
If it is true, then isn't that an objective moral FACT/truth?
If the objective moral truth/fact is that murder has no inherent moral value. Then isn't the value you place on it thus inherently wrong (unless you also place zero value on it), as it doesn't line up with objective facts on the matter?


I mean, suppose I said I think the dark force in our universe has a value of 10. And you pointed out (for sake of argument correctly)that there is no such thing as dark force in reality.
Thus what I think is not in line with the actual value of zero, and thus false.

So I say, but I'm going to define dark force as what a person thinks the dark force value of the universe is. As such it is a value we project onto the universe.

Wouldn't you point out correctly that I can think whatever I like, but there is an objective truth about dark force, and that truth is that it doesn't exist in actuality.

[Dionysus]

So I guess we're sticking to the definitions outlined in the opening post.

I really don't see what there is to debate, here. Basically we're being challenged to determine if a hypothetical perfect, transcendent set of information (objective moral standards) is superior or inferior to an imperfect, biased set of information (subjective moral standards).

If words like "perfect" and "superior" have any meaning whatsoever, then obviously the hypothetical perfect, transcendent set of information is superior to the imperfect, biased set of information.

Doesn't that pretty much settle the issue?

[mican333]

Mican you may want to review the idea of zero.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zero

Here it is used in accordance with #14 "14.
having no measurable quantity or magnitude; not any: "

Neutral is also "not any".

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that "neutral" means "not any". And please use a dictionary link if you attempt to support this assertion.

And I will support that without objective morality, nothing can be considered objectively morally neutral.

First off, here is a definition of "moral"

"of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moral

So quite simply, if it does not pertain to the principles of right and wrong, it's not a moral issue.

So if an action has absolutely no being to consider whether what happened is right or wrong, then morality never entered into the equation. "Morally neutral" means that someone considered the morality of something and then determined that the action does not qualify as good or bad. But if no one considered the morality, then it's not morally good, morally bad, or morally neutral.

So if there is no objective source of morality, then NOTHING is objectively morally good, objectively morally bad, or objectively morally neutral.

I consider what's above to be support that without an objective moral source, nothing can be considered objectively morally neutral and therefore reject all arguments that use that as a premise.

"Morality" is moral laws defining what is good and bad.
To say that there is no morality is to say that there is no moral law, duty's or obligations.

That statement by it's definition renders everything objectivly morally neutral.

No, it means that there is no morality at all and therefore nothing is morally neutral (or morally good or morally bad).

You can't have "morally neutral" where there is no morality.

You can not define away objective reality because reality is objective. If things do not have inherent objecive value, there are ramifications to that, and the first is that they are neutral or zero valued.

If things have no value they don't exist at all. Just like objectively moral actions don't exist without objective morality.

That doesn't make any sense. The canvas is actions, people, the universe.
What do you think the canvas is?

I interpreted the canvas to be an analogy for Morality. And I went back and re-read the statement that I responded to and from my best interpretation, it's still an analogy to morality.

If I'm wrong in my interpretation, I fault the analogy.

1)There are objective moral truths.
2)Those truths are - there is an objective moral law or there is not an objective moral law. (exhuasitive)
3)If there is no objective moral law (as subjective morality holds), then all subjective projections are objectivly wrong.
One may think murder is wrong and that people have an obligation to not murder, but in fact murder is objectivly neutral, with an inherent value of zero. (or to say lacking any moral value).

As I reject (and believe that I successfully shot down) the premise that objectively neutral actions exist if there is no objective morality, I reject any and all arguments that use that as a premise.

.. dude, like twice now. Are you even reading my posts? Maybe if you would ask some questions you can help me understand how you don't understand the above argument.
because this approach is a clear waste of my time.

I've read your posts and I sincerely don't see any of them making the case that objective morality exists (as in there is an external source of morality that objectively determines that, for example, murder is objectively immoral). I'm not doubting that you sincerely think you've made such an argument and I just fail to recognize it for what it is so this is just a miscommunication. So how about either:

1. Making the argument anew in response to my request that you support or retract this position or
2. Cutting and pasting the argument that you've already made as a response to my request that you support or retract.

I mean when someone challenges you to support or retract something, you are suppose to present an argument offering support (and re-posting a previous one is just fine).

And if you need me to ask a question, I ask which argument of yours supports the assertion that objective morality actually exists? And please just put that argument (or a new one) as your response to my question. Claims of support is not support.

I do not understand you here.
You asked me to state the argument. I did.
What are you challenging in it?

The premise that something can be objectively morally neutral if objective morality does not exist.

I don't see the relevance. What does your opinion have to do with a world where you don't exist?
Or maybe..
Could you please explain why and how it is the case?

Are you changing your argument mid-debate? Let me quote your argument directly. You said (and I will underline and bold the pertinent part for emphasis):

Our options are.
1) There is an objective moral law, and one or both of the parties is either right or wrong according to that law. (be it known or not)
2) There is only the objective truth that their actions whatever are morally neutral, and no moral wrong is possible, thus they are both inherently wrong in their views.
3) We change the language of morality to personal taste and majority rule, and the women is thus wrong and the men the highest moral beings conceivable.


Repeat - OUR options are. So you are telling me what OUR (as in your and mine) options are. WE, you and I, are not on the island but looking at the event on the island and considering the moral options regarding the people on the island. And I'm saying that WE, YOU AND I, are not limited to 1,2,&3 but have other options when contemplating and discussing the goings on and one of them I presented as option 4.

If you now want to say that I can't discuss what's going on on that island, then I reject your premise that I have any options at all and therefore reject 1, 2, and 3 as options.

[Dionysus]

Just to help this thing along, "amoral" is the word you guys are searching for.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amoral

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

EDIT:

I wanted to answer this, because this is a perfectly sound objection.

4 does not follow from the others.
You are speaking of what "is" and trying to get an "ought".

You're absolutely right; you can't get an "ought" from an "is". I therefore retract my usage of the word "objective" in the example I provided in the statement you quoted, but I otherwise maintain the claims therein as-is. The reasons I say that inflicting unnecessary (or otherwise unjust) harm on an innocent is wrong is because there ARE reasons not to do it, and as a moral agent I am capable of appreciating those reasons. If we're talking about the basic ingredients of what makes a thing right or wrong, then what I've provided are at least necessary for a thing to be regarded in that way (even subjectively), even if they are not sufficient to qualify them as strictly objective in the sense used in this thread.

Just to save some needless squabbling over definitions, let's suppose that there are such things in the universe as "harm" and "help", that we can point to genuine cases of such things in our universe, and that - if there is such a thing as "good" and "evil" in the universe - that there is some relationship between good/evil and help/harm.

We can talk about moral rules and duties, and our ability to talk rationally about these things necessarily depends on our capacity to evaluate the reasons why something is harmful or helpful/good or bad.

But if - from your point of view - there's no such thing as "harm" or "help", and/or if there is no relationship between harm/help and good/evil, then frankly I have no idea what it means to you for something to be "good" or "evil", and we therefore have irreconcilable differences on the matter.

If we can't agree on at least that much, then I'm afraid we simply can't go any further.

[futureboy]

There seems to be even more confusion regarding the terms than you think, Dio, specifically with MT's argument containing "Objective Moral Truths".
More than once now the concepts "objective moral laws/values" and "objective moral truths" have been mixed up when challenges for support have been issued and responded to.

So MT, please explain what you mean with #1 of your original argument:

1) There are Objective Moral Truths.
2) That moral truth is either that there are objective moral laws, or that there are no objective moral laws.
3) If there are no Objective moral laws, Then it is an objective moral truth that there is no moral right and wrong, no moral duty and all actions humans can take are objectively morally neutral.

I know Mican already said he agreed with you up to #3, but the mix-ups between you two so far indicate that this needs to be clarified a little bit.

[Dionysus]

Just to throw out some more commentary that might be useful:

Let's suppose that objective morality exists as described in this OP - There exists an all-powerful, perfect reasoner, who has perfect access to all relevant information bearing on the evaluation of moral values and duties, and who possesses ultimate power and authority to issue commands, and whose commands define all moral values and duties.

Let's also suppose that someone has committed an act that is indeed wrong (it doesn't matter what the act is; it only matter that it is commanded by God - according to the parameters above - to be a "wrong" thing). We'll call it "X".

It is either the case that God has good reasons for commanding "X" to be evil, or he does not.

1. If he does have reasons, then those reasons are the ultimate grounding for the moral value of "X", not God's commanding of it. God's command is rather irrelevant in the face of the compelling, overriding reasons to command "X" to be wrong.
   
2. If he does NOT have good reasons for commanding "X" to be wrong, then the command is arbitrary, because it is essentially saying that God commanded "X" to be wrong because God commanded "X" to be wrong (or perhaps "because he is God/Good"). It's tautological. Also, because the command is arbitrary, there's no reason to believe that things like rape and murder can't randomly be perfectly evil or perfectly good depending on God's current position on the matter, since God is not bound for any good reason to any particular position.

[DevilPup John]

While I agree with your logic, a common notion of objective morality is that there is an external being, often considered God, who likewise has a "personal" morality and that this being's morality is greater than our own. For example, if God has determined that murder is immoral, then since God is the creator of the universe, it is as pointless to argue with God on this as it would be for a fictional character to argue with the author of the novel that he inhabits about the aspects of the world that the author created. So given that, if God says that murder is immoral it's basically a fact that it is immoral.

So without getting into some specific semantic debate, I would say that if God exists and has deemed that murder is immoral then one can say that murder is objectively immoral.

To be clear, I am arguing neither that God does exist and has rendered murder objectively immoral but only that such a thing is possible (I take the agnostic view on God's existence.




But if we don't know if God exists then we don't know if objective morality exists so it might exist.




That's what I hold. Morally neutral is a value so if there are not objective moral values then there is no objective neutral morality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be, but wouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who claim God, and his objective morality exist?

Since it can't be proven I suppose I can accept that it's possible; and while I tend to agree with your stance on the existence of God, I can't support it. Therefore I can't argue for any objective morality; since the only morality I can prove a true "base" for his subjective and mortal.

Perhaps it's me coming from a more "I can only be confident in what I can prove" mindset. While I believe in God, I can't prove it. Therefore while I may accept a Christian morality I can't say with any confidence it's truly objective; as I can't prove the existence of an Omnipotent being.

We can prove there are text that claim X Y Z from or by God; but if those turn out to be false can they be truly objective?