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 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 301
  1. #81
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Alright, then let's take a look at a moral issue. Which is the correct view of abortion? Is it a woman's right to choose or is it murder? Is the current view "right" or the opposing view held fifty years ago in your country (changed in part by Roe versus Wade)? Is the view held in Saudi Arabia on abortion a better view than in your country? If the next president of your country pushes the previously held view, and the Supreme Court (five conservatives and four liberals) overturns the current law, now what is the correct view and is it right now or was it right then? Who says?

    The view could flip-flop between right and wrong forever. So which is it? It can't be both good and evil if the Law of Identity is valid.

    The Law of Identity states A = A.

    Does "A" actually equal "A" or is "A" something other than "A"? Is a dog a dog or is a dog a cat? Is "good" good or is it bad? Is something right or is something right actually wrong? Is abortion right or is it wrong? When the concreteness of value is turned on its head or lacks a definite home address (a nomad) or reference point, it opens the door to make it anything. It loses its identity. It loses its meaning. The very structure of language identifying concepts is thrown into disarray.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    No, it's not. The only reason that there is an apparent contradiction in the definition of morality is because you are not abiding by a correct definition of morality. Here is the definition of moral.

    "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
    "the degree to which something is right and good"
    "the quality or fact of being in agreement with ideals of right behavior"

    Link: Ibid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    So in the situation of abortion, a pro-choicer and a pro-lifer will have different moral positions about it. So they will be abiding by their own views of right and wrong. And both of their positions, by definition, are moral positions. There does not need to be an external arbitrator to officially say that one of them is right and the other is wrong in order for them to have moral positions.

    You are apparently going by the premise that morality is not morality unless there is an objective source of morality. That is not an accepted concept and therefor you will need to show that that is so before any argument based on that premise is valid.
    You are going by the apparent premise that morality has no ideal "good" or factual fixed basis. If it is not fixed, then you can't say that so-and-so is good. All you can do is say, "I like so-and-so!"

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I think the rebuttal is how you get to good from changing and opposing preferences? Which is the correct view? And can something that is good ever be bad?

    How do you get from "I like" to "You should?" How do you get from a scientific description to a moral prescription? Who decides what SHOULD be when everything is subjective/relative? Even your idea of happiness is problematic and probably quite different from mine, even if there are some commonalities, but what if it is opposite?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    But those are not rebuttals. Those are questions. A rebuttal is a STATEMENT that shows that the stated position is wrong somehow.

    And if you are going to continue to present questions as arguments, you will be getting "questions are not arguments" from me with some regularity.
    I have seen this reasoning somewhere else on this website. I think this is unreasonable for any number of reasons.

    If you want to hold me to this type of standard, I will try and reciprocate it, but please hear me out.

    Questions are less assertive, less aggressive, a softer form of dialog employed in argumentation. They invite the dialog and explanation of an opposing position in a discussion. By avoiding an answer to a question, they can also show the inability or inconsistency of a worldview to give a reply.

    Questions are used by lawyers to inquire into motive or critique an argument and expose its flaws. They are used by law enforcement officers to reveal inconsistencies. Great thinkers have used question in their argumentation to present a dilemma of thinking from a particular perspective. First class philosophers have used them for any number of reasons. Have you heard of the Socratic method? Here are a few of the uses:
    1) Find out the reasoning of another person by asking for clarity in an argument. A question asks for an explanation.
    2) Identify contradictions in thinking (It pins down confusion of thought).
    2) Expose limitations of knowledge.
    3) Show someone they are wrong by faulty thinking (false assumptions).
    4) Disprove another person's argument through a series of questions or, in the same regard, get to expose their ignorance of a reasonable or true to life example in understanding the issue.
    5) It critiques an argument through questions.
    6) Asks for evidence - "Do you have proof for such a belief?" Can you list the evidence?"
    7) It asks for the reason for a truth claim.
    8) It challenges another person's assumptions.
    9) It avoids forcing a point by letting the other person gracefully come to see the weakness of their argument by the question.
    10) It focuses someone on a particular response.
    11) Questions are a form of reasoning through arguing "WHY?"
    12) Questions are necessary for all of these and other reasons. I think the one that influences me the most is the Savior, Jesus Christ, used questions to make people think deeply about a position.

    http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-Using-the-Socratic-Method

    I can submit my argument in the form of statements, and make it imperative language, changing the tone to more confrontational.

    Here goes:

    You can't get right from two conflicting statements if there is not first a measure for right. If that rule or standard is constantly changing no idea of right is any better than any other. (Prove it is) Thus you can't call it good. The idea of rightness loses its meaning (it can mean anything). It makes it all arbitrary. What you continue to do is offer a preference as opposed to a moral right. Preference is (I like cookies!), a moral right SHOULD be (You must do this!). Preference is taste; morality is an ought. Your reasoning is that you like it, or a group of people like it, so that makes it right. Like is not what makes something right. Might makes right makes Hitler's Germany right. "Might makes right" can justify anything as a right, but in doing so, it lacks any firm foundational basis for rightness other than fleeting subjective opinion.

    Science is descriptive. It describes what is, what physically exists by observation. Morality is prescriptive. It describes what ought to be.

    You can't say what should be if you don't have a fixed value for what is right. You arbitrarily make it up on preference. I don't accept your choice. That doesn't make it right; it makes it preferred. If you want to make something 'right' based on your preference, then I object on the grounds of my opposing personal opinion and likes. If you have no ultimate standard, then you can't argue yours is better than mine. All you can say is, "I like this!" When you try to push your likes on my subjective person, well, those are fighting words.

    Peter

    (I will continue with your post tomorrow once I get some sleep)

    ---------- Post added at 02:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    (1)If morality is subjective then it's a FACT that it has no measurable qualities and there is no objective best for comparison. And while you can argue that it would be better IF there were an objective best for comparison, the fact is such a thing doesn't exist if morality is subjective.

    But despite no rebuttal, I can respond to your questions a bit. (2) Yes, if there is no "best" or external source of morality, then it is up to whoever to decide what is moral and what is not. (3) And objectively, no one's opinion is better than another's. My opinion is only better than the next guy to those who think that my opinion is better.

    (4) But let me point out that I am a nice guy (take my word for it). (5) I'm quite honest and respectful to others and I'm often helpful and really try to not hurt or upset anyone. And all of these fine qualifies are based on my moral viewpoint. (6) So if my moral viewpoint is subjective, then subjective morality is why I'm a good, helpful person. (7) Who agrees or needs to agree with my moral position is not that relevant to the positive effects of my morality. (8) So really, where my morality comes from (from a higher source or just instilled by upbringing and my own nature) doesn't really matter.
    (1) If morality is subjective you can call it morality and call it a fact but it is not moral - it is preference. A preference is subject to taste.

    You are arguing an IF, a possibility, regarding objectivity, I'm arguing a necessity. You can't argue for rightness unless you know what is right. If there is no defined standard then there is not right. You are pushing preference.

    (2) It is precisely the "whoever" that I object to.

    (3) If not objectively, ones opinion is no better than any other because there is no better. Just because you like something doesn't make it better. This is confused thinking. You arbitrarily make your likes better because you like them. That does not make something better, it makes it liked. I think you should strike all qualitative references from your vocabulary until you can show they are actually better. You are in the place of God, determining what is and what should be. I believe you have your roles reversed with such thinking.

    (4) Nice is a qualitative word in relation to degree of best or there is no such thing as nice. (I can see you are nice because I have an objective source to determine degrees of value from) Without an objective standard you are using an arbitrary opinion that you like, you prefer, you desire others to like as the standard. That doesn't necessarily make it right or nice. It makes it what you like of yourself. It lacks truth unless there is an objectivity to compare degrees of right or nicety too. Truth is objective. Truth can't be untrue. Your preference can. That is the problem with it. It lacks certainty. Now, if you want to go through life not knowing (agnostic) then that is yet again your preference.

    (5) From my worldview perspective these are good qualities. I do not see the same thing from a worldview that lacks certainty, that lacks objectivity. Without such objectivity, it is just words that can mean different conflicting things to different people (what wars are fought over).

    (6) As I said before, without an objective, final reference point, your view is just preference. Hitler's preference is no better than your own because there is nothing concrete to compare goodness too. It can mean anything a person wants it to mean, thus signifying nothing meaningful. (Again, from my Christian worldview perspective that identifies an objective source for morality, I can agree with you that these are good qualities you are displaying). I argue you are borrowing from my Christian objective standard - God.

    (7) Again, you are using qualitative language that I object to since you have no objective standard for such language. You just decide that you will call what you do as "nice" or "good" because you like it. Unless there is an objective standard it means nothing for the very reason that it can mean anything because of who is thinking it. It loses its meaning.Two opposing, conflicting ideas can both be said to be good at the same time. This defies logic and it defies common sense unless you can show otherwise. You can call anything "positive" without it necessarily being so because you have no fixed basis for "positive." It is just mere opinion, a mere meaningless word. In such cases, your opinion is no better than mine because there is nothing concrete to compare better to. It is a mirage. You go to where you think it is and it is gone because it was not there in the first place.

    (8) It most certainly does matter in determining morality. Otherwise your position is no better than Charles Manson or Mother Teresa's. They too are just preferences that ultimately mean nothing if there is nothing concrete, nothing foundational, nothing final, nothing objective, nothing absolute, nothing unchanging, to fix morality to.

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; July 2nd, 2017 at 10:47 PM. Reason: A few mistakes

  2. #82
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    "the degree to which something is right and good"
    "the quality or fact of being in agreement with ideals of right behavior"

    Link: Ibid.
    That is not present in the dictionary definition I provided nor any dictionary that I'm aware of.

    You will need to provide the link from where you got that.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You are going by the apparent premise that morality has no ideal "good" or factual fixed basis. If it is not fixed, then you can't say that so-and-so is good. All you can do is say, "I like so-and-so!"
    And my premise is supposed by the dictionary definition of "moral".

    "1. a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments
    b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem
    c : conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
    d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation
    e : capable of right and wrong action a moral agent
    2
    : probable though not proved : virtual a moral certainty
    3
    : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect a moral victory moral support"


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

    There is nothing in the definition of morality requires a fixed point or ultima





    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I have seen this reasoning somewhere else on this website. I think this is unreasonable for any number of reasons.

    If you want to hold me to this type of standard, I will try and reciprocate it, but please hear me out.

    Questions are less assertive, less aggressive, a softer form of dialog employed in argumentation. They invite the dialog and explanation of an opposing position in a discussion. By avoiding an answer to a question, they can also show the inability or inconsistency of a worldview to give a reply.

    Questions are used by lawyers to inquire into motive or critique an argument and expose its flaws. They are used by law enforcement officers to reveal inconsistencies. Great thinkers have used question in their argumentation to present a dilemma of thinking from a particular perspective. First class philosophers have used them for any number of reasons.
    I don't challenge any of this. Yes, there is a place in debate for questions. But that doesn't rebut what I said, so let me repeat it.

    "But those are not rebuttals. Those are questions. A rebuttal is a STATEMENT that shows that the stated position is wrong somehow."

    To put it another way, if you seek to argue that "X is true" then you have the burden of providing an argument showing that X is true. If you ask questions, you are not doing that. You can ask "Why do you doubt that X is true?" and this is not necessarily an irrelevant question but it's not an argument that shows that X is true.

    So I'm not saying questions are worthless. But I am saying that questions are not arguments nor rebuttals.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You can't get right from two conflicting statements if there is not first a measure for right. If that rule or standard is constantly changing no idea of right is any better than any other. (Prove it is) Thus you can't call it good. The idea of rightness loses its meaning (it can mean anything). It makes it all arbitrary. What you continue to do is offer a preference as opposed to a moral right. Preference is (I like cookies!), a moral right SHOULD be (You must do this!). Preference is taste; morality is an ought. Your reasoning is that you like it, or a group of people like it, so that makes it right. Like is not what makes something right. Might makes right makes Hitler's Germany right. "Might makes right" can justify anything as a right, but in doing so, it lacks any firm foundational basis for rightness other than fleeting subjective opinion.
    But again, I'm only saying that subjective morality is superior if objective morality does not exist. So If morality is indeed subjective, the morality IS preference. But the notion that one's preference is arbitrary has not been shown to be true at all. I can't choose what I find moral and immoral so for me personally, the standard does not change (or changes very little). I forward that people's moral positions primarily come from things that they can't control, which is human nature and one's upbringing. So morality does not rise from arbitrariness and therefore subjective morality is not arbitrary. In fact, people have little control over what is generally considered moral and immoral by the population in general or even what they consider moral and immoral.

    And that's not to say that one can't find some flaw in subjective morality but given the flaw in not existing at all, subjective morality is superior to objective morality if it doesn't exist.

    Let me forward this in a logic chain.

    PREMISE - Morality is a good thing overall (for example, the general moral prohibition against murder decreases the odds of you being killed by your fellow man)
    1. Therefore it's good that morality exists
    2. Therefore existing morality is better than non-existing morality (for a morality that does not exist will not prevent people from trying to kill you).
    3. Therefore if subjective reality exists but objective morality does not, then subjective morality is superior to objective morality (in the same fashion that a hammer that exist will help you pound a nail while a hammer that doesn't exist will not).



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You can't say what should be if you don't have a fixed value for what is right. You arbitrarily make it up on preference.
    No I don't. I didn't decide to be morally against murder. I can choose to say "murder is fine" but I can't choose to actually believe it. I have an innate moral repugnance against murder and it does not come from any known choice that I've made in the past and I can make no choice in the future to change it. Why is this so? The theist will likely forward that it's God's morality reflected in my own moral viewpoint. A secularist will likely say that it comes from a combination of nature and nurture. But if anyone says that I have a choice and can arbitrarily toss my current moral views, regardless of what they are based on, they are incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I don't accept your choice. That doesn't make it right; it makes it preferred. If you want to make something 'right' based on your preference, then I object on the grounds of my opposing personal opinion and likes. If you have no ultimate standard, then you can't argue yours is better than mine. All you can say is, "I like this!" When you try to push your likes on my subjective person, well, those are fighting words.
    Well, let's try this with something controversial - gay marriage. I don't know your actual position but let's, for the sake of argument, say that you are against allowing gay marriage on moral grounds. So I say "yes" and you say "no". And also whatever the law is, one of us will be unhappy with the law.

    So the subjective perspective will likely be "well, that's the way it goes. The sides will have to agree to disagree and one of them will have to live with the fact that the law corresponds to the other side". And I don't see a problem with that. Nor do i see how objective morality will make things better. For starters, even if we accept that one side is objectively right, how do we determine which side is the correct one? If we both agree that the answer is objective and we still disagree on which side is right then we are saying that our side is objectively right and the other side is objectively wrong and we STILL have a disagreement that can't be resolved just like it was with subjective morality. The only way for objective morality to have an effective difference when compared to subjective morality is for the two sides to AGREE that the one side is objectively right and then afterwards one of them changes his position since he has learned that his view is objectively wrong (similarly to how a factual debate would be resolved once the opponents learned what the true fact is).

    But unless one can prove that their viewpoint is objectively correct, there being objective standards does not resolve a controversy any more than subjective standards. People are disagreeing either way.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If morality is subjective you can call it morality and call it a fact but it is not moral - it is preference. A preference is subject to taste.
    I can call it moral because it fits with the dictionary definition of immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If not objectively, ones opinion is no better than any other because there is no better. Just because you like something doesn't make it better. This is confused thinking. You arbitrarily make your likes better because you like them. That does not make something better, it makes it liked. I think you should strike all qualitative references from your vocabulary until you can show they are actually better. You are in the place of God, determining what is and what should be. I believe you have your roles reversed with such thinking.
    No, I think you are refusing to consider my argument as it is presented and instead acting like I'm addressing your argument. I am describing subjective morality. Yes, you object to it. But if you refuse to discuss subjective morality as it is defined (which you are doing when you approach it from the perspective that it doesn't exist), then your responses don't really address what I'm saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    (4) Nice is a qualitative word in relation to degree of best or there is no such thing as nice. (I can see you are nice because I have an objective source to determine degrees of value from) Without an objective standard you are using an arbitrary opinion that you like, you prefer, you desire others to like as the standard. That doesn't necessarily make it right or nice. It makes it what you like of yourself. It lacks truth unless there is an objectivity to compare degrees of right or nicety too. Truth is objective. Truth can't be untrue. Your preference can.
    I have to say that you are:
    1. Repeating the exact same argument that you have made numerous times throughout this debate.
    2. So focused on your argument that you are no addressing my argument on its own terms and therefore not addressing it at all.

    So let me start again from a different angle.

    I am referring to the practical benefit of morality. One of the primary benefits of morality to us as human beings living on Earth is that it guides people's actions in a way that benefits us all as human beings. Morality is the reason that people sometimes do nice things and generally don't engage in the most awful acts, like murder. MOST people never commit a murder and that's a good thing (again, from a practical perspective - to argue that it's not technically good unless we can agree that there is an ultimate moral standard for good is to ignore the practical aspect of this argument which is what it's about). You agree that it's good that people don't try to kill you on a regular basis, right? Well, that's the effect of morality. And if morality is subjective and people don't try to kill you just because they think it's wrong to kill you, the effect is still the same - you are safer than if people don't have that moral position.

    So you can argue that from an objective perspective, someone can't say that it's actually "wrong" to murder because there is no ultimate standard of wrongness and therefore they are really just saying that they prefer to not kill you. But the fact is whatever term you use, that person is not trying to kill you because of morality/preference. So as far as you not being killed, it doesn't matter if they don't kill you because they feel that some higher being has said it was wrong or if they don't kill you because they prefer to not kill people. And again, which one of these actually exists is the one that is keeping you from being killed. If we usually don't kill each other because that's what we prefer to do, then it's a good thing that we prefer to not kill each other and therefore this preference is a better thing than something that doesn't actually exist and therefore doesn't actually prevent us from killing each other.
    Last edited by mican333; July 4th, 2017 at 06:57 AM.

  3. Likes futureboy liked this post
  4. #83
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    260
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    I do not understand how a big bang from nothing would impart any kind of value other than neutral. .. please explain.[/QUOTE]


    And I don't see the promoters of the big bang theory saying any such thing. What I read goes more like
    "very hot, incredibly dense, current physical laws would not apply", and such. About the only time I hear "big bang from nothing" is from people who have already decided the theory is wrong (personally, I have a few problems with the big bang theory as well, but would not rule it out).


    Also, how does the truth of either objective or selective morality make it superior? If subjective morality is our reality, that would not necessarily make it superior to a all powerful/loving/caring creator. Then again, how can we say, just because a being is powerful enough to make the universe, his/her values are superior? The devil could have been our creator, and made the universe, and is just taunting us with the bible being real. Would such a beings "morals" be superior just because they are objective?
    If god had let Abram kill his son on the alter that fateful day, would it have been a moral act because god told him to do it?

    ---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=mican333;554400]
    You don't know that. For one, if the religious people are right that objective morality exists, they may be right about other aspects of their faith, such as what God ACTUALLY says is morally correct. And they don't even have to be perfectly correct in their assessment (maybe they are right on some things about what God thinks and mistaken on other issues) but it's not impossible that there is some real truth there and one not understanding it may be similar to a someone who is ignorant on science not really understand a valid scientific concept.


    Well, if they only "may be right about other aspects" then Dio's comment stands. A lot of non-religious people agree that rape, murder etc aren't moral, so what? Theists (in this example) still don't know any more than non-theists. Again, assuming objective morality exists, what is available to the theist that is not available to the non-theist.

    Comparing god/religious understanding to science understanding is a tough sell for me. God is supposed to be understandable to pretty much everyone. Science gets incredibly technical to the point the average person is unable to keep up/understand.
    Last edited by Belthazor; July 3rd, 2017 at 04:02 PM.

  5. #84
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    [QUOTE=mican333;554940]That is not present in the dictionary definition I provided nor any dictionary that I'm aware of.

    You will need to provide the link from where you got that.

    Why, from the same dictionary you used - Merriam-Webster.

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

    (Scroll down once you open the link and scan each of the definitions)

    Peter

  6. #85
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Still, neither of these point to an external source of morality. A person can be the determiner and the definitions are still coherent.

    "the degree to which something is right and good"

    This does not contradict a subjective definition of "morality". A person is capable of determining the degree of which something is right or good for himself. As an example, let's pick a morally controversial action - blocking access to an abortion clinic. To a pro-lifer, that's a morally positive action. To a pro-choicer, it's an immoral action. So the degree in which blocking access is "right and good" depends on who is judging the action. And of course one can say that there is an objective standard to judge such actions and that might be true. But regardless, a subjective judgment of that action does conform to the definition you provided.


    "the quality or fact of being in agreement with ideals of right behavior"

    But that doesn't prevent the "ideals of right behavior" from being subjective. Going back to the abortion example, if a pro-lifer says, subjectively, that blocking access is good then that is the ideal of right behavior in question. So ideals of right behavior can be subjective and one can agree with those ideals.

    And of course is objective morality does not exist the ONLY ideals of right behavior in existence would be human-created ones so we would have no choice but to consider human-created ideals of right behavior (since those are the only ideals of right behavior that exist) if objective morality does not exist.


    And I said this in my last post but it might be relevant here so I will repeat it. People, for the most part, do not get to choose their moral viewpoints. I am morally against murder and cannot just decide to change that. So my anti-murder moral viewpoint is not arbitrary ("arbitrary" more or less means "without reason"). There is a reason why I have the moral viewpoint and a coherent reason for this can be forwarded without appealing to an external source of morality.
    Last edited by mican333; July 5th, 2017 at 07:23 AM.

  7. #86
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    @Pga2 - Terms of the debate.

    Mican made a note (skimming a bit) that you were not addressing his argument within the terms of his argument. This is one of the major challenges, in this kind of debate.
    Under the objective definition of morality, indeed subjective morality is not morality at all. It is personal taste.
    Under Subjective morality, objective morality doesn't exist, and so it isn't a real thing, and thus is not morality at all.

    This leaves us with a very narrow window to compare and determine which true.

    Under Objective morality, morals are as real as gravity and something that we come to discover. It is most honestly "real".
    Under Subjective morality, morals are made up by people, and for better or worse that is the only state of affairs. Though the label may be disliked, it is most certainly "imaginary".

    To this point your objection that Morality comes down to Might, is very true, and I really don't see any objection to that statement of fact.

    ---
    To me, when it comes to which one we should hold to, the greatest test is which one is internally consistent.
    The fact that we generally recognize that Might does not make right, makes any version (that agrees with this) to be internally inconsistent.
    Another, is that subjective morality is not even trying to describe the outside world. Once it says that there is no objective moral truths, it goes on from there to do little more than describing a current brain state.

    Statements like "You ought not do such and such" are thus in no way a statement about the outside reality. It is in this way that the object of the statement is deceptive. While it may appear, and be commonly presented as being directed at "you" or some outside person, it's subject is really the brain state of the person making the statement. With the secondary hidden meaning that there will be force used against you.


    The final contradiction, is the contradiction to objective reality. To the extent that the statement "you ought not do such and such" is intended to be a description of the outside world, it is objectively a false statement. For under that view there are no objective "ought". Given the absence of Objective moral truths, the statement "all things are permissible" is an objectively true statement. After all, the universe will allow you to both feed your starving neighbor, or eat him out of gluttony. Put another way, if subjective morality values is all there is, then then an objective moral truth is that anything you can get away will be moral in all circumstances.

    -Here I use "moral truths" to specify objective facts regarding any moral statement. Even under a subjective moral view, there must be language to discuss how subjectivity relates to reality.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  8. Likes PGA2 liked this post
  9. #87
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    And how can you compare qualitative morals to something that does not exist? There must be a measure otherwise there is no comparison (I'm thinking of Plato's Republic and the Cave with my last statement, if you are familiar).
    Quote Originally Posted by mica333
    Again, questions. If you have a point, please state it directly. If you are asking a question because you don't know the answer, then you have no basis for an argument based on that question.
    In the Cave are chained prisoners who see shadows of the outside world cast by the light of a fire in the cave onto the walls of the cave. That is all they know. They believe these shadows represent what is real. They don't quite know what the shadows represent (In the same way, I see your changing view in the light of the fire and these shadows. You know there is a value system, but you speculate what it is. You make it your preference). That is all they see their entire lives.

    Supposing one prisoner escapes and sees the outside world for what it is, then goes back into the Cave and tries to tell the other inmates that what they see is not the real world. Refusing to believe him they kill him (You kill the idea of objective morals as necessary).

    Plato, in the allegory of the Cave, sees two worlds, two levels of reality, the temporal, ever changing world of the senses versus the perfect, nonmaterial world of the Form, the difference between opinion and knowledge.

    I liken you to one of those prisoners. You see the shadows but not the real. You see the physical, but morality is not physical. You do not see (understand) the nonmaterial world of morality, the ideal world. You have no fixed standard. You just manufacture make-believe ones. You can't nail one down (even though you have a real hammer you have no real nails/morals, unless you borrow a real nail from someone who does have one). Your paradigm will not allow constants. Everything is fleeting, dependent on who is willing to believe what you are pushing. This is also the witness of history when God is denied regarding changing morality. You can't escape to a higher reality than the Shadows (the images of the real, rather than the real itself) on the Cave walls because you are ignorant of any greater "truth" than your subjective preference. Thus, you are your highest authority and court of appeal. It is what it is because you make it what it is.

    I see your belief this way. It is incapable of justifying itself because it is a mirage. It does not represent the real. You just make it up (sometimes you get it right because of borrowing from the ultimate standard, but mostly you miss the mark).

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It appears to be your worldview that is ASSUMING either God does not exist, or there is no evidence for His existence. I am 100% sure He does, to make sense of anything. I know Superman is a fictitious character. As much as I am aware of anything, I know God is not fiction.

    I can make sense of life's ultimate questions only if God exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    [1] First off, I'm not arguing that God does or does not exist. But if we are going to examine the ramifications of subjective morality, then we must assume, just hypothetically, that there is no external source of morality. [2] If you can't engage in the hypothetical of there being no external source of morality, then you cannot discuss the ramifications of such a thing being true and therefore cannot discuss subjective morality.

    Whether God does or does not exist is not question for this particular debate and therefore is off-topic.
    We are discussing what is necessary for morality. I believe God is necessary.

    [1] Subjective morality is an illusion. You mistaken preference for morality.

    I have engaged in subjective morality and find it lacking. It has weak explanatory power because it mistakes what is for what ought to be. "I like it = GOOD!" History exposes differing belief systems clashing against each other, each claiming its own right. It is what wars are fought over.

    You continually deny the Law of Contradiction.

    A and non-A are not the same nor can they be. You can't function logically by rejecting these laws. A (goodness) is not non-A (evil), yet in your worldview, different people can hold different views and at the same time both claim "Right." A is a particular box. Non-A is everything else outside that box. Non-A does not fit in the A box. If it did then A would be everything. There would be no distinction to A.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You first have to establish how you can know better if morality is relative to subjective opinion. The problem is one of authority and motive. Whose authority and what motive? Is the motive a feeling, desire, what you like, a mere preference?

    Let me take an overused example:

    I like ice cream, and I believe that it should be a law that everyone likes ice cream because I think it is right to like ice cream.

    I have established a preference. I believe that it is good because I like it and I think everyone should feel the same.

    Now all I have to do is enforce my subjective preference, and I have established the same kind of relative, subjective morality you seem to be pushing. It doesn't matter that it is not right or wrong, just that I call it right because I like it. It doesn't have an objective best, but by force, I achieve the same goals that your relative individual preference does! Here again, there is no objectivity. I just like it and have the power to enforce it! Nothing wrong with that because I made the rule and am capable of applying the new law!
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I disagree. [1] I think there is something wrong with that and my subjective moral position allows me to disagree with that. And also people generally think people having individual freedom is a moral positive so [2] if you were to try to become dictator to force your moral views on everyone, you would likely meet so much resistance from those who disagree with you, that you wouldn't be able to do it. [3] You would be stopped my morality.
    [1] You have not demonstrated you have a moral position. All you have shown is that you have a particular choice or preference.

    You disagreement means nothing but you prefer something else. Demonstrate that your choice is right. You have no anchored for what is right.

    [2] Like in the news right now - Kim Jong-un! He doesn't care what your preferences are unless they align with his. Putin doesn't care what you like. He cares what he likes. That is what he is going to push. Even though your opinion of good is different than his, he believes he has the correct opinion because it is what he likes. For him, like you, "Right" is what he prefers, not what actually has to be for there to be "Right."

    [3] Let me take on a subjective role here:

    Your opinion does not agree with mine, so therefore I declare what you consider to be wrong. You are dead wrong - end of story. That is my opinion in your subjective world where there is no ultimate measure [As I reach for my gun - (^8].

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Morality plays a part, I would argue, because humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and deep down they know it is wrong to murder.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    [1] Completely irrelevant. Whether morality is or is not objective because God really exists is not a relevant topic of discussion to this debate. [2] If you want to debate whether God does or does not exist, start a different thread for this issue.
    [1] No, only if God did not exist would it be irrelevant. It is not something you have established. Therefore, you can't say it is irrelevant. God's existence means morality derives from Him.
    [2] I would like to do that shortly.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What is moral about my preference if someone else has a different idea about seeing you on the street for what he can get out of you - your money. He has no qualms about exercising that preference by murder, and in this particular part of town, this type of reaction is a common occurrence because of support by the gangs that control the neighborhood.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Okay, but that's not a rebuttal to my argument. The reason you are relatively safe in most areas in the US is because people are generally against attacking strangers. So there is a clear value for morality - it protects you. [1] Whether their moral position is objective or subjective does not make a difference in whether it make you safer.
    I'm not in the USA. I've live for extended periods of time in four countries - Canada, England, Zambia and South Africa. I am a Canadian born in Africa. I've seen the difference between have and have not. I've lived and witnessed Apartheid and its evil. I've live colonialism and its servitude. I've seen the wickedness of Mugabe's Zimbabwe where my uncle, who was a farmer, had his wife murdered and his farm confiscated. I lived on a boarder town during the Congolese uprising in the 60's. I've been in Asia. I've seen the Pacific, India, and Atlantic Oceans. I'm not na´ve to different systems of belief and their evils when people act on preference.

    [1] It does. It makes a difference on what is right and wrong because morality should deal with what is true, not whatever works. You can make lots of things work. Kim Jong-un makes North Korea work the way he wants it to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The term I object to is morality. If you want to call it subjective preference I'm okay with that. Once you call it subjective morality I want to know what its subjective measure is that makes it right? Subjective morality begs the question of why one opinion is better than another without a fixed reference point - best?
    [QUOTEmican333] [1] First off, subjective morality is, by definition, morality so you can't really object to me using a word [2] correctly (I guess you can but I will ignore such an objection). [3] And to answer your question, subjective morality does not say that one opinion is better than another. So the question is irrelevant since it's based on a false premise.

    And also I've seen no rebuttal to my scenario (as in you saying that's incorrect or not applicable) so let me repeat it (in a shorter form). Superman being superior to your brother is entirely dependent on whether superman exists. If he exists, he's a lot of help. If he doesn't, he's no help. And the same goes for objective morality. If it exists, it's clearly superior to subjective morality. If it doesn't exist, then it's no help. If it doesn't exist, the reason you aren't regularly attacked in the streets is because of subjective morality, not objective morality (since it doesn't exist). So again, if objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality, being much more useful, is superior.[/QUOTE]

    [1] Again, you call it subjective morality. Morality, for you, boils down to "that which I like!" Your preference does not determine "right." It determines like.

    [2] "Correctly" implies it is true. Your "moral" view opposes my moral view and logic (the Law of Contradiction, the Law of Identity and the Law of Middle Exclusion). Logic says one of us is WRONG/false.

    [3] This is a ridiculous statement, IMO. If one opinion is no better than another, then you can't get to "right." You can't say that your view is correct if there is no better. All you can do is mercilessly beat someone over the head who disagrees with you until they give in to your tyranny.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    And how can you compare qualitative morals to something that does not exist? There must be a measure otherwise there is no comparison (I'm thinking of Plato's Republic and the Cave with my last statement, if you are familiar).
    Quote Originally Posted by mica333
    Again, questions. If you have a point, please state it directly. If you are asking a question because you don't know the answer, then you have no basis for an argument based on that question.
    In the Cave are chained prisoners who see shadows of the outside world cast by the light of a fire in the cave onto the walls of the cave. That is all they know. They believe these shadows represent what is real. They don't quite know what the shadows represent (In the same way, I see your changing view in the light of the fire and these shadows. You know there is a value system, but you speculate what it is. You make it your preference). That is all they see their entire lives.

    Supposing one prisoner escapes and sees the outside world for what it is, then goes back into the Cave and tries to tell the other inmates that what they see is not the real world. Refusing to believe him they kill him (You kill the idea of objective morals as necessary).

    Plato, in the allegory of the Cave, sees two worlds, two levels of reality, the temporal, ever changing world of the senses versus the perfect, nonmaterial world of the Form, the difference between opinion and knowledge.

    I liken you to one of those prisoners. You see the shadows but not the real. You see the physical, but morality is not physical. You do not see (understand) the nonmaterial world of morality, the ideal world. You have no fixed standard. You just manufacture make-believe ones. You can't nail one down (even though you have a real hammer you have no real nails/morals, unless you borrow a real nail from someone who does have one). Your paradigm will not allow constants. Everything is fleeting, dependent on who is willing to believe what you are pushing. This is also the witness of history when God is denied regarding changing morality. You can't escape to a higher reality than the Shadows (the images of the real, rather than the real itself) on the Cave walls because you are ignorant of any greater "truth" than your subjective preference. Thus, you are your highest authority and court of appeal. It is what it is because you make it what it is.

    I see your belief this way. It is incapable of justifying itself because it is a mirage. It does not represent the real. You just make it up (sometimes you get it right because of borrowing from the ultimate standard, but mostly you miss the mark).

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It appears to be your worldview that is ASSUMING either God does not exist, or there is no evidence for His existence. I am 100% sure He does, to make sense of anything. I know Superman is a fictitious character. As much as I am aware of anything, I know God is not fiction.

    I can make sense of life's ultimate questions only if God exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    [1] First off, I'm not arguing that God does or does not exist. But if we are going to examine the ramifications of subjective morality, then we must assume, just hypothetically, that there is no external source of morality. [2] If you can't engage in the hypothetical of there being no external source of morality, then you cannot discuss the ramifications of such a thing being true and therefore cannot discuss subjective morality.

    Whether God does or does not exist is not question for this particular debate and therefore is off-topic.
    We are discussing what is necessary for morality. I believe God is necessary.

    [1] Subjective morality is an illusion. You mistaken preference for morality.

    I have engaged in subjective morality and find it lacking. It has weak explanatory power because it mistakes what is for what ought to be. "I like it = GOOD!" History exposes differing belief systems clashing against each other, each claiming its own right. It is what wars are fought over.

    You continually deny the Law of Contradiction.

    A and non-A are not the same nor can they be. You can't function logically by rejecting these laws. A (goodness) is not non-A (evil), yet in your worldview, different people can hold different views and at the same time both claim "Right." A is a particular box. Non-A is everything else outside that box. Non-A does not fit in the A box. If it did then A would be everything. There would be no distinction to A.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You first have to establish how you can know better if morality is relative to subjective opinion. The problem is one of authority and motive. Whose authority and what motive? Is the motive a feeling, desire, what you like, a mere preference?

    Let me take an overused example:

    I like ice cream, and I believe that it should be a law that everyone likes ice cream because I think it is right to like ice cream.

    I have established a preference. I believe that it is good because I like it and I think everyone should feel the same.

    Now all I have to do is enforce my subjective preference, and I have established the same kind of relative, subjective morality you seem to be pushing. It doesn't matter that it is not right or wrong, just that I call it right because I like it. It doesn't have an objective best, but by force, I achieve the same goals that your relative individual preference does! Here again, there is no objectivity. I just like it and have the power to enforce it! Nothing wrong with that because I made the rule and am capable of applying the new law!
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I disagree. [1] I think there is something wrong with that and my subjective moral position allows me to disagree with that. And also people generally think people having individual freedom is a moral positive so [2] if you were to try to become dictator to force your moral views on everyone, you would likely meet so much resistance from those who disagree with you, that you wouldn't be able to do it. [3] You would be stopped my morality.
    [1] You have not demonstrated you have a moral position. All you have shown is that you have a particular choice or preference.

    You disagreement means nothing but you prefer something else. Demonstrate that your choice is right. You have no anchored for what is right.

    [2] Like in the news right now - Kim Jong-un! He doesn't care what your preferences are unless they align with his. Putin doesn't care what you like. He cares what he likes. That is what he is going to push. Even though your opinion of good is different than his, he believes he has the correct opinion because it is what he likes. For him, like you, "Right" is what he prefers, not what actually has to be for there to be "Right."

    [3] Let me take on a subjective role here:

    Your opinion does not agree with mine, so therefore I declare what you consider to be wrong. You are dead wrong - end of story. That is my opinion in your subjective world where there is no ultimate measure [As I reach for my gun - (^8].

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Morality plays a part, I would argue, because humans are made in the image and likeness of God, and deep down they know it is wrong to murder.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    [1] Completely irrelevant. Whether morality is or is not objective because God really exists is not a relevant topic of discussion to this debate. [2] If you want to debate whether God does or does not exist, start a different thread for this issue.
    [1] No, only if God did not exist would it be irrelevant. It is not something you have established. Therefore, you can't say it is irrelevant. God's existence means morality derives from Him.
    [2] I would like to do that shortly.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What is moral about my preference if someone else has a different idea about seeing you on the street for what he can get out of you - your money. He has no qualms about exercising that preference by murder, and in this particular part of town, this type of reaction is a common occurrence because of support by the gangs that control the neighborhood.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Okay, but that's not a rebuttal to my argument. The reason you are relatively safe in most areas in the US is because people are generally against attacking strangers. So there is a clear value for morality - it protects you. [1] Whether their moral position is objective or subjective does not make a difference in whether it make you safer.
    I'm not in the USA. I've live for extended periods of time in four countries - Canada, England, Zambia and South Africa. I am a Canadian born in Africa. I've seen the difference between have and have not. I've lived and witnessed Apartheid and its evil. I've live colonialism and its servitude. I've seen the wickedness of Mugabe's Zimbabwe where my uncle, who was a farmer, had his wife murdered and his farm confiscated. I lived on a boarder town during the Congolese uprising in the 60's. I've been in Asia. I've seen the Pacific, India, and Atlantic Oceans. I'm not na´ve to different systems of belief and their evils when people act on preference.

    [1] It does. It makes a difference on what is right and wrong because morality should deal with what is true, not whatever works. You can make lots of things work. Kim Jong-un makes North Korea work the way he wants it to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The term I object to is morality. If you want to call it subjective preference I'm okay with that. Once you call it subjective morality I want to know what its subjective measure is that makes it right? Subjective morality begs the question of why one opinion is better than another without a fixed reference point - best?
    [QUOTEmican333] [1] First off, subjective morality is, by definition, morality so you can't really object to me using a word [2] correctly (I guess you can but I will ignore such an objection). [3] And to answer your question, subjective morality does not say that one opinion is better than another. So the question is irrelevant since it's based on a false premise.

    And also I've seen no rebuttal to my scenario (as in you saying that's incorrect or not applicable) so let me repeat it (in a shorter form). Superman being superior to your brother is entirely dependent on whether superman exists. If he exists, he's a lot of help. If he doesn't, he's no help. And the same goes for objective morality. If it exists, it's clearly superior to subjective morality. If it doesn't exist, then it's no help. If it doesn't exist, the reason you aren't regularly attacked in the streets is because of subjective morality, not objective morality (since it doesn't exist). So again, if objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality, being much more useful, is superior.[/QUOTE]

    [1] Again, you call it subjective morality. Morality, for you, boils down to "that which I like!" Your preference does not determine "right." It determines like.

    [2] "Correctly" implies it is true. Your "moral" view opposes my moral view and logic (the Law of Contradiction, the Law of Identity and the Law of Middle Exclusion). Logic says one of us is WRONG/false.

    [3] This is a ridiculous statement, IMO. If one opinion is no better than another, then you can't get to "right." You can't say that your view is correct if there is no better. All you can do is mercilessly beat someone over the head who disagrees with you until they give in to your tyranny.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

    Sorry. I duplicated the post somehow (probably when I went to correct a grammatical error).

  10. #88
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    MT, if you are re-joining the debate, it would be good if you responded to previously unaddressed refutations/rebuttals of your previous posts, or indicated in some way whether you intended to respond.

    Thanks

  11. #89
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @Pga2 - Terms of the debate.

    Mican made a note (skimming a bit) that you were not addressing his argument within the terms of his argument. This is one of the major challenges, in this kind of debate.
    Under the objective definition of morality, indeed subjective morality is not morality at all. It is personal taste.
    Under Subjective morality, objective morality doesn't exist, and so it isn't a real thing, and thus is not morality at all.

    This leaves us with a very narrow window to compare and determine which true.

    Under Objective morality, morals are as real as gravity and something that we come to discover. It is most honestly "real".
    Under Subjective morality, morals are made up by people, and for better or worse that is the only state of affairs. Though the label may be disliked, it is most certainly "imaginary".

    To this point your objection that Morality comes down to Might, is very true, and I really don't see any objection to that statement of fact.
    I'm not sure what you mean "comes down to might". If you mean that a subjectivism includes the premise that might makes right, that is not true at all. One can subjectively disagree that might makes right. One can agree that something is immoral but not so immoral that it's alright to use force to prevent that immorality. For example, I think verbal abuse is immoral but I don't think any force/might should be applied to prevent it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    To me, when it comes to which one we should hold to, the greatest test is which one is internally consistent.
    Since neither are internally inconsistent, they will come out equal with that test.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The fact that we generally recognize that Might does not make right, makes any version (that agrees with this) to be internally inconsistent.
    And neither type of morality are based on the premise that might makes right so this isn't a flaw in either of them.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Another, is that subjective morality is not even trying to describe the outside world. Once it says that there is no objective moral truths, it goes on from there to do little more than describing a current brain state.
    If morality results from brain states, then these brains states are incredibly significant to human life. All of the laws that we have and all of the ways that people treat each other is based on these brain states. You can try to trivialize it, but to the extent that morality is significant, these "brain states" are significant and they are much, much more significant than a fiction (which is what objective morality is if morality is subjective).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Statements like "You ought not do such and such" are thus in no way a statement about the outside reality. It is in this way that the object of the statement is deceptive. While it may appear, and be commonly presented as being directed at "you" or some outside person, it's subject is really the brain state of the person making the statement. With the secondary hidden meaning that there will be force used against you.
    It is more than a brain state. It's a person. If I say you ought to do this, what you get is Mican thinks you should do this. And that's a fact - it's a fact that I think you should do this. But if morality is subjective, then what you are getting is a view of objective reality - that a person, IN FACT, thinks you should do a particular something. And if morality is subjective, then anyone who says that you ought to do that from an objective standpoint is telling you a falsehood, that some external source that does not exist says that you should do something.

    This seems to be the consistent flaw in both yours and PAGs argument, you aren't considering subjective morality from the position that morality actually is subjective. Again, if morality is objective then I completely concede that objective morality is superior. So all that's left to debate is whether objective morality is still superior to subjective morality even if morality is subjective.

    So when you criticize subjective morality for being a brain state, your criticism needs to show that objective morality, even if it does not exist, is superior to subjective morality. A brain state is of more value than a fiction.

    So really, you should concede, for the sake of argument only of course, that morality is subjective when you make your arguments. Otherwise you are not comparing subjective morality to objective morality when morality is subjective.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The final contradiction, is the contradiction to objective reality. To the extent that the statement "you ought not do such and such" is intended to be a description of the outside world, it is objectively a false statement.
    No, it's not intended to be description of the outside world. It's a description of what I think you ought not to do. When I say "you ought to not do that" I'm saying "I think you ought to not do that" since the moral source of the claim is ME.

    So it's not a description of the outside world and therefore there is no contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    For under that view there are no objective "ought".
    And an objective ought was not forwarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Given the absence of Objective moral truths, the statement "all things are permissible" is an objectively true statement.
    No it's not. "All things are permissible" is a moral statement and in the absence of objective morality, such a statement cannot be objectively true since there is no such thing as an objectively true moral statement.

    You seem to be conflating objective facts with objective morality.
    Last edited by mican333; July 5th, 2017 at 03:07 PM.

  12. #90
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    First off, let me restate my primary argument as I think some responses are not relevant to my argument and therefore I want to make my argument clear when/if I point this out.

    My argument is that the superiority of objective morality over subjective morality or vice versa is based on which one is correct. I've supported this argument in past posts so I won't do it right here. So there are two ways to defeat this.

    1. Argue that even if morality is subjective, objective morality is nonetheless superior.
    2. Argue that morality is indeed objective (which, if true means that objective morality is superior) but of course such an argument will require support that it's objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I see your belief this way. It is incapable of justifying itself because it is a mirage. It does not represent the real. You just make it up (sometimes you get it right because of borrowing from the ultimate standard, but mostly you miss the mark).
    And for this to be a defeater of my argument, you will need to show that this is true. Just saying that you think this is true does not equate support that it is true and therefore does not defeat my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    We are discussing what is necessary for morality. I believe God is necessary.

    [1] Subjective morality is an illusion. You mistaken preference for morality.
    I say SUPPORT OR RETRACT that subjective morality is an illusion.

    Since you are new here, let me explain "Support or Retract". If challenged in such a way a person is, by ODN rules, obliged to back up his claim with evidence. If they can't or won't back up their statement, then they must retract it although not repeating it generally suffices as a retraction.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I have engaged in subjective morality and find it lacking. It has weak explanatory power because it mistakes what is for what ought to be. "I like it = GOOD!" History exposes differing belief systems clashing against each other, each claiming its own right. It is what wars are fought over.
    And objective morality, if it exists, hasn't made any difference regarding this. So either objective morality doesn't exist or it's very hard for people to agree on what it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You continually deny the Law of Contradiction.

    A and non-A are not the same nor can they be. You can't function logically by rejecting these laws. A (goodness) is not non-A (evil), yet in your worldview, different people can hold different views and at the same time both claim "Right." A is a particular box. Non-A is everything else outside that box. Non-A does not fit in the A box. If it did then A would be everything. There would be no distinction to A.
    You are clearly using objective standards (A is indeed a particular something and not subject to one's opinion) to point out a contradiction in subjective morality. So no, you aren't showing a contradiction in subjective morality. You are showing that subjective morality contradicts objective morality.

    And this is a flaw that you consistently engage in. You cannot explore subjective morality without, for the sake of argument, assuming that morality is subjective. All you are doing is telling me that how it's different than objective morality.



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] You have not demonstrated you have a moral position. All you have shown is that you have a particular choice or preference.

    You disagreement means nothing but you prefer something else. Demonstrate that your choice is right. You have no anchored for what is right.
    I don't need one. The definition of morality does not require an anchor. If one is making a judgment of right and wrong, then they, BY DEFINITION, are engaging in morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [2] Like in the news right now - Kim Jong-un! He doesn't care what your preferences are unless they align with his. Putin doesn't care what you like. He cares what he likes. That is what he is going to push. Even though your opinion of good is different than his, he believes he has the correct opinion because it is what he likes. For him, like you, "Right" is what he prefers, not what actually has to be for there to be "Right."
    And he doesn't care any more if someone subjectively disagrees with him than he does if someone objectively disagrees with him. Seriously, how does objective morality stop him better than subjective morality? As far as I can tell, it makes no difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [3] Let me take on a subjective role here:

    Your opinion does not agree with mine, so therefore I declare what you consider to be wrong. You are dead wrong - end of story. That is my opinion in your subjective world where there is no ultimate measure [As I reach for my gun - (^8].
    Okay. But before you shoot me, please keep in mind that everyone around here seems to agree that murder is so immoral and a killer deserves a lot of jail time or even capital punishment and due to this subjective moral position (remember we are now going by subjective morality), if you kill me there's a very good chance that you will be severely punished. So while maybe you have no problem killing me, for your own self-interest you may to spare my life so you don't suffer the wrath of our society and the general subjective moral consensus that murder is a punishable offense. So for your own sake, you should put away the gun. (So assuming you care about your own life, you will probably not kill me).


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I'm not in the USA. I've live for extended periods of time in four countries - Canada, England, Zambia and South Africa. I am a Canadian born in Africa. I've seen the difference between have and have not. I've lived and witnessed Apartheid and its evil. I've live colonialism and its servitude. I've seen the wickedness of Mugabe's Zimbabwe where my uncle, who was a farmer, had his wife murdered and his farm confiscated. I lived on a boarder town during the Congolese uprising in the 60's. I've been in Asia. I've seen the Pacific, India, and Atlantic Oceans. I'm not na´ve to different systems of belief and their evils when people act on preference.
    That does not rebut my statement so I will repeat it. If morality is subjective, the reason that you are not murdered as you walk down the street is because people "prefer" to not murder you. If you remove subjective morality or "moral preferences", then a major reason you've not been killed yet is removed and that's a bad thing. So again, if morality is subjective, it's still much, much better than not having morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] It does. It makes a difference on what is right and wrong because morality should deal with what is true, not whatever works. You can make lots of things work. Kim Jong-un makes North Korea work the way he wants it to work.
    That does not rebut my statement either. I said that morality makes you safer and whether it's objective or subjective does not make any real difference.




    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [1] Again, you call it subjective morality. Morality, for you, boils down to "that which I like!" Your preference does not determine "right." It determines like.
    Nope. While people like their moral positions, the reason they have those positions is not based on like or preference. One does not control their moral beliefs. If morality is subjective, the beliefs likely come from a combination of nature and nature, both of which one has no control over. So a subjective moral position is pretty much ingrained and not changeable on a whim.

    One cannot decide that they prefer murder and then decide that murdering is no longer "wrong" even though they believed it was wrong all of their lives.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [2] "Correctly" implies it is true. Your "moral" view opposes my moral view and logic (the Law of Contradiction, the Law of Identity and the Law of Middle Exclusion). Logic says one of us is WRONG/false.
    Well, I was referring to the use of the word "moral" and I am using the word correctly as my use corresponds to the dictionary definition. So if you are going to argue that I'm not using the word correctly, then logic says that you are wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    [3] This is a ridiculous statement, IMO. If one opinion is no better than another, then you can't get to "right." You can't say that your view is correct if there is no better. All you can do is mercilessly beat someone over the head who disagrees with you until they give in to your tyranny.
    Actually, I have no burden to do anything to someone who disagrees with me. If I say "right" and they say "wrong", I can just walk away. And of course I can say my view is better. I don't see the basis to say that I can't. I mean I can form the words "My viewpoint is better". I have the right to say such a thing due to the right to free speech.

    I'm guessing you mean that I can't say it in the way that forwards it an an objective fact. I can't logically say that it's a fact that it's right.

    But again, this is what I'm talking about. You keep approaching subjective morality from an objectivist view point. Yes, from an objectivist viewpoint, one cannot subjectively claim that something is right or wrong in a moral sense. But then if one is not making the claim in an objective manner, then that's not a problem.

    And I'm afraid that this is just going to happen again and again. You cannot point out any inconsistencies in the subjective viewpoint unless you look at a subjective viewpoint from a subjective perspective.

  13. #91
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not sure what you mean "comes down to might". If you mean that a subjectivism includes the premise that might makes right, that is not true at all. One can subjectively disagree that might makes right. One can agree that something is immoral but not so immoral that it's alright to use force to prevent that immorality.
    No, the might makes right refers to actuality.
    Or maybe better put, a principle of reaction.

    -Principle of Reaction-
    If there is no negative consequence, then there is objectively no distinction of a thing being considered good or bad.

    So, if what you think doesn't draw you to action, then it is not relevant to others, and certainly can't establish any "obligation" in others.

    So take murder, if you think murder is "wrong" and "ought" not be done. That is not relevant unless it causes some action so as to actually bring about negative consequence to murder.
    -So If I murder someone, and get away with it. The effect is the same as if you agreed with it.

    It's kinda like the moral equivalent to if a tree false in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    If an act is committed, and no one is around to think it immoral.. in what way is immoral? (This is the weakness of subjective morality).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Since neither are internally inconsistent, they will come out equal with that test.
    I put forward an argument, explaining how subjective is.. so this is kinda like a na-huh.
    But I'll take it as a statement of your position for clarification of those not familiar.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And neither type of morality are based on the premise that might makes right so this isn't a flaw in either of them.
    See above, it is a hidden premise of subjective morality. Presumably statements about strongly held subjective moral opinions, has an inherent threat of violence.
    .. Like, I ought not kill a family, and if I try or succeed I will face the wrath of society, because they say I "ought not".
    That is basically what "ought not" means in subjective moral view. That something bad will happen, mostly initiated by the claimer, or the society that holds it. (otherwise the statement looses relevance).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If morality results from brain states, then these brains states are incredibly significant to human life. All of the laws that we have and all of the ways that people treat each other is based on these brain states. You can try to trivialize it, but to the extent that morality is significant, these "brain states" are significant and they are much, much more significant than a fiction (which is what objective morality is if morality is subjective).
    Significant is undefined, making the statement meaningless.
    You have not however challenged my statement so I'll move forward.
    I would also point out that "significant" =/= "true".

    Such that if everyone thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that would be "significant" to that society.. it would however still be untrue.
    And saying "it's true that they think sun.... the earth" is not adding to the discussion about what is the "correct" view.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It is more than a brain state. It's a person. If I say you ought to do this, what you get is Mican thinks you should do this. And that's a fact - it's a fact that I think you should do this. But if morality is subjective, then what you are getting is a view of objective reality - that a person, IN FACT, thinks you should do a particular something. And if morality is subjective, then anyone who says that you ought to do that from an objective standpoint is telling you a falsehood, that some external source that does not exist says that you should do something.
    That is a truism, and doesn't mean anything. The point is that the statement is about the self, not the outside world.
    Also, there is no apparent distinction between "brain state" and "person".

    Also, you are miss using "objective morality". Because by definition Objective, means that it isn't based on what a person thinks. I would agree that it is a "Moral fact" that you think X is wrong. The problem is it's disconnected from the truth value of the statement.

    This is the weakness of subjective morality, it constantly switches the discussion from objective actuality, to brain states, while using language that communicates actuality.
    Yes it is objectively true that you think I ought not do X. But is what you think true, and what does it have to do with me in actuality?
    The truth is, it is not intended to be true about me, so it is not relevant, outside of the force that it represents.
    Aside from that all statements are equally true, as they are all held in the same way. You think X and I think not X are both true.
    That is a contradiction, and thus an inherent weakness.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    This seems to be the consistent flaw in both yours and PAGs argument, you aren't considering subjective morality from the position that morality actually is subjective. Again, if morality is objective then I completely concede that objective morality is superior. So all that's left to debate is whether objective morality is still superior to subjective morality even if morality is subjective.
    Actually, I am coming from the position that it is all we got, and explaining it's flaws. You may be mistaking my comparing subjective thought to actual reality. That is not the same as forwarding objective moral laws.

    I was discussing the subject of the statement. Addressing how it is not what it appears to be.
    bottom line, talking about what I think, I think, I think, I think. Is not the same as "you ought".
    In subjective morality, the subject is the self. its a statement about what you think, not about the outside world,and there is no reason to think it effects the outside world as well.

    IE, that you think I ought do such and such, is not relevant to if I "ought" to do such and such. Subjective morality may be all we have, but that doesn't mean it ever transitions to relevance about "oughts" for others.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So when you criticize subjective morality for being a brain state, your criticism needs to show that objective morality, even if it does exist, is superior to subjective morality. A brain state is of more value than a fiction.
    Your objection is missed placed, it is not the brain state that is the criticism, it is the inability for the subjective POV to get out of it's own head.
    With just a little bit of probing, one can easily see how statements of "you ought" are never about the other person at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So really, you should concede, for the sake of argument only of course, that morality is subjective when you make your arguments. Otherwise you are not comparing subjective morality to objective morality when morality is subjective.
    Indeed, I am when I talk of subjective morality. That is why I argue that it is internally inconsistent. .. and what you responded to what part of that argument, though I think you misunderstood it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, it's not intended to be description of the outside world. It's a description of what I think you ought not to do. When I say "you ought to not do that" I'm saying "I think you ought to not do that" since the moral source of the claim is ME.

    So it's not a description of the outside world and therefore there is no contradiction.
    This does not address my argument.
    The intent of the statement is irrelevant to the point I made.

    The problem is, it is an inconsistent transition from "I think" to "you ought". Because "you ought" is an external object, and "I think" is inherently internal.
    Which means, that while a person says "I think you ought" they really mean "I think I don't like X and wish you would not" The only "ought" that can be formed is "I don't like what X and if you do it then I will exert force".
    IE threat of violence.

    As a point of note, I am part of the outside world to you. So as long as your statement is not about the outside world, then it is not about me... (this is the inherent contradiction at work).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No it's not. "All things are permissible" is a moral statement and in the absence of objective morality, such a statement cannot be objectively true since there is no such thing as an objectively true moral statement.

    You seem to be conflating objective facts with objective morality.
    Incorrect. Here it is an objective statement about the universe.
    The universe allows for feeding your neighbor or eating your neighbor, so both are permissible.

    While a gov may not "permit" you to eat your neighbor, that is the same as them not "permitting" fire in a given area.
    Objectively things still burn regardless of what the gov thinks.
    A sign saying "no burning allowed" doesn't magically stop things from being able to be burned, and so the statement is objectively true.
    "all things are permissible". People who disagree are simply disagreeing with reality.. which is a hard sale to justify.


    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    MT, if you are re-joining the debate, it would be good if you responded to previously unaddressed refutations/rebuttals of your previous posts, or indicated in some way whether you intended to respond.

    Thanks
    Sure thing, will get right on it.
    Feel free to point me to a post you are thinking of.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  14. #92
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I don't see how it isn't. How am I supposed to simply accept your claim that it is an example of what an objective moral law would be if they existed? How did you determine it to be so? What if someone argues your claim that it would be an objective moral law and says, "No, that wouldn't be an objective moral law"? So far all you've done is make a personal moral pronouncement of the kind most people would make, except you left out the "I think -" (which you still haven't justified, btw), and claimed that this is what an objective moral law would be if they actually existed. That doesn't get us anywhere, because until you can support how you determined that it would be an objective moral law, you're just saying what you think and claiming without support that it is objective morality.
    You are confusing what a moral law would look like, and our ability to know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    MT, you already confirmed in numerous posts that what you're calling facts about morality is the fact of whether objective moral laws exist. They maybe exist, or they maybe don't exist, and this is a fact about morality.
    Now you're saying that the facts about morality are the inherent properties of things and actions, which seems to be alluding to them being objective moral laws, which you already confirmed are not facts about morality. So which is it?
    The position I was forwarding, can be restated like this,
    If there is no objective moral law, then there exist objective moral anarchy, which is a kind of rule of itself.
    As the saying goes "Anarchy is better than no government at all".

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    If all things are neutral according to what you're defining as objective morality, that doesn't stop anyone from assigning values to those things according to another system (the only one which is demonstrated to exist, btw), and it is not a contradiction. This is exactly what we observe happening in the world.
    Actually, there is. Because there is no 'real' assignment. The things and acts don't magically aquire the property you arbitarily ascribe to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, if the objective truth is that objective moral laws don't exist, then the subjective position doesn't contradict anything. You can't contradict something which doesn't exist. Further, arguing that there's a contradiction with something which has not been demonstrated to exist has no value until is has been. Also, even if you could demonstrate that there did exist some nebulous source of objective morality, a subjective moral system would be in contradiction with it only within the objective moral system - within the subjective moral system, there would be no contradiction according to that system, since it would still be serving its purpose.
    Just as when you decide to say "(I think) that weights two pounds" when the thing has no weight at all.
    so too is subjective morality inherently in conflict with objective truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, in a system which doesn't depend on an objective source for its morality, one can still make moral evaluations according to the goals and values of that system which are based on facts and reality. You again seem to be trying to define the terms in such a way that only your position is correct. I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case. We can still say "such and such is bad" and "one ought not do such and such" and be entirely justified and correct according to our moral system (again, the only one which has been demonstrated to exist).
    Well you can say whatever you like, but reality does exist outside your own mind.
    See the weight example again.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    So you retract all your statements regarding what you call "the is/ought fallacy"?
    Not sure about the context of this line of response. If I dont' bring it up again.. I say take it as retracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, you seem to be trying to define the terms in your favour. Now you're calling them "real concepts of morality". Any moral system can have its own concepts of morality, and the fact that you think yours are the only real ones is irrelevant until you can support them. One could just as easily say "we MUST seek our own system of morals and determine how it would work best for us, or else abandon any possibility of having any successful morality beyond common delusion". The "common delusion" here being that there is a deity which has made some moral pronouncements which we ought to follow even though there is no "ought".
    My use of the terms is consistent with an objectively real world. At some point the ideas in your head have to be compared to it.
    Subjective morality as fowarded does boil down to (at best) a common delusion.
    As though you could give an item or action weight by "thinking" it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again you are straw-manning the moral systems in use today by calling them "common delusion". This only demonstrates that you truly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to how morality works in the world right now.
    your opinion is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Fact: Co-existence is the situation in which we find ourselves. Fact: Successfully co-existing will ensure our survival. This is the basis for the goals of any moral system.
    The second is not a fact, but a speculation. It could be the case that we would survive better if we didn't coexist, especially at the vast and increasing numbers.
    It is also no stretch to see that with continued growth we will be compelled to coexist with fewer people (Ie have them die)

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You've already contradicted yourself on how you're defining "objective truths about morality", so it's entirely unclear. Please define what you mean by "objective truths about morality". Are they the same as what you wrote above were "objective facts about morality"?
    I don't think i intended to use them in different ways. 'truths" and "facts" being the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Lol, I like your comparison, but for completely different reasons that what you may think. In any case, the only reason the speed of light is called a law is that it is (currently) considered impossible to travel faster under the laws of physics. We already have experiments which show that it may be possible to travel faster. Also, when used in the context of science, "laws" doesn't mean anything close to how we use laws with respect to traffic safety or morality. Your analogy is almost as bad as the whole "it's just a theory" mess. All it shows in the end is that we just don't know for sure, and therefore are left to deal with the whole morality question on our own, which is exactly what we see occurring.
    Actually, as I understand it, science got it's idea of 'laws' from how the gov uses the term.
    If you don't care for the speed limit example, please see the "weight" example.
    you can no more give an object weight through your personal preferance and wishful thinking, then you can give it a moral value that exists beyond your brain state.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    As supported by Dio and ignored by you, the is/ought problem bites everyone in the ass. Until you provide a response instead of merely claiming that it's out of scope for your argument, continuing to use is/ought to criticize only one side is wholly dishonest.
    You will have to requote that for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You have every right to believe that, but without support, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously
    The support is that everone is groping for a way to understand morality, and how it applies to themselves.
    The subjective approach is a dead end that should be abandoned. (per the arguments offered).


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    According to secular moral systems (you know, those ones which actually exist and work), there is a completely different criteria determining who is a moral agent. Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on evaluations of right and wrong. You again seem to be defining the terms to suit your argument.
    You may need to rethink that as a response, because there is very little if any substanitive difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Regarding the whole "morally neutral" question: "neutral" means something which doesn't have a value within the context of a system of values. Take a look at any example where neutral is used - there is always the outside context of a system where values are assigned. The word literally comes from the latin for "not either (of two)". Since we don't have the "either of two" with regard to objective moral laws, "neutral" is incoherent.
    See 'weight' example. My point is that even in the absense of "right and wrong' there is still an inherent value.
    Even if it is that of 'non existant" however you like to say it.

    The fantasy of subjective morality, is that it can give weight to something that does not have that metric within itself.
    It is objectively false assertion.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. #93
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, the might makes right refers to actuality.
    Or maybe better put, a principle of reaction.

    -Principle of Reaction-
    If there is no negative consequence, then there is objectively no distinction of a thing being considered good or bad.

    So, if what you think doesn't draw you to action, then it is not relevant to others, and certainly can't establish any "obligation" in others.

    So take murder, if you think murder is "wrong" and "ought" not be done. That is not relevant unless it causes some action so as to actually bring about negative consequence to murder.
    -So If I murder someone, and get away with it. The effect is the same as if you agreed with it.

    It's kinda like the moral equivalent to if a tree false in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    If an act is committed, and no one is around to think it immoral.. in what way is immoral? (This is the weakness of subjective morality).
    If I think murder is wrong then it will decrease the chances that I will commit murder and therefore have a negative effect on the likelihood that a murder will occur. So being subjectively against murder does decrease the likelihood that a murder will occur.

    If you mean that I must somehow communicate my moral position to someone else and effect them in order for my position to be considered a moral position, I ask that you support or retract this assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I put forward an argument, explaining how subjective is.. so this is kinda like a na-huh.
    But I'll take it as a statement of your position for clarification of those not familiar.
    Since my statement does not actually disagree with your statement (I didn't challenge the notion that internal consistency is important which was the claim I was responding to), this is not an "na-huh". It's more a "yes, but".



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See above, it is a hidden premise of subjective morality. Presumably statements about strongly held subjective moral opinions, has an inherent threat of violence.
    I disagree that there is an inherent threat of violence. More on that below.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Significant is undefined, making the statement meaningless.
    You have not however challenged my statement so I'll move forward.
    I would also point out that "significant" =/= "true".

    Such that if everyone thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that would be "significant" to that society.. it would however still be untrue.
    And saying "it's true that they think sun.... the earth" is not adding to the discussion about what is the "correct" view.
    First off, I did not offer "significant" to mean "true". I meant that your statement that it's just brain states does not show that subjective morality is not significant (which was the implication of you saying it's "just" brain states - it implies that it's not significant . So I'm not disagreeing with your statement but saying that it doesn't actually add up to a point against subjective morality.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is the weakness of subjective morality, it constantly switches the discussion from objective actuality, to brain states, while using language that communicates actuality.
    That's not a weakness. If me saying it's an objective fact that I subjectively think that murder is wrong confuses you, that's not a flaw with my wording or subjective morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes it is objectively true that you think I ought not do X. But is what you think true, and what does it have to do with me in actuality?
    The truth is, it is not intended to be true about me, so it is not relevant, outside of the force that it represents.
    It represents no force at all. It's just what I think and it has nothing to do with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Aside from that all statements are equally true, as they are all held in the same way. You think X and I think not X are both true.
    That is a contradiction, and thus an inherent weakness.
    To say that X is true is to forward that it's an objective fact that X is true. And of course the same goes for holding that X is not true. But then if X is a moral position, then we are arguing over whether X is OBJECTIVELY TRUE and therefore not looking at X from a morally subjective viewpoint.

    So the contradiction here is you making a case regarding subjective morality from the viewpoint of objective morality. That's not a contradiction in subjective morality itself but a contradiction in your argument.

    If you want to point out a contradiction in subjective morality, you need to look at it from the subjective moralist viewpoint. All you are showing here is that subjective morality contradicts objective morality. That's not a flaw in either.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was discussing the subject of the statement. Addressing how it is not what it appears to be.
    bottom line, talking about what I think, I think, I think, I think. Is not the same as "you ought".
    In subjective morality, the subject is the self. its a statement about what you think, not about the outside world,and there is no reason to think it effects the outside world as well.
    It doesn't inherently effect the outside world but it can effect the outside world. I'm telling you what I think right now and you will respond to what I'm thinking so I'm effecting the outside world right now (since what I write will effect what you type in response).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    IE, that you think I ought do such and such, is not relevant to if I "ought" to do such and such. Subjective morality may be all we have, but that doesn't mean it ever transitions to relevance about "oughts" for others.
    I never said otherwise. Nor is how it effects other the primary benefit of morality. The primary benefit of one's moral position is how it effects the one who has it. My moral prohibition against murder probably doesn't have much effect on how others behave but it has A LOT of effect on how I behave.

    So I don't challenge what you are saying here but it doesn't really add up to a real problem for subjective morality and for that matter what you said applies to objective morality as well since one is just as likely to ignore someone else' moral viewpoint even if they claim that their moral position is objective instead subjective (and really such a differentiation is almost never made when one is telling someone else what they "ought" not do).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your objection is missed placed, it is not the brain state that is the criticism, it is the inability for the subjective POV to get out of it's own head.
    With just a little bit of probing, one can easily see how statements of "you ought" are never about the other person at all.
    I didn't say it was. I think you might be committing a straw-man fallacy here. I've never argued, not is it inherent in subjective morality, that a subjective moral position is suppose to influence someone else (it can influence but it doesn't have to).

    And again, I don't see how this issue gives objective morality an advantage anyway. Whatever argument you are making seems to apply to morality in general - not just subjective morality.

    To someone who does not really care what I have to say, my moral edicts, whether they come from me personally or a claimed objective source of morality, will be equally ineffective in influencing his action.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Indeed, I am when I talk of subjective morality. That is why I argue that it is internally inconsistent. .. and what you responded to what part of that argument, though I think you misunderstood it.
    From what I can tell, your internal inconsistency arguments shift to a morally objective viewpoint. Maybe I'm incorrect about this but that's the way it appears to me. So I would say that you should present your "internal inconsistency" argument in a logic chain and make sure that all of your points accept that morality is subjective. I think that will resolve the issue.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is, it is an inconsistent transition from "I think" to "you ought". Because "you ought" is an external object, and "I think" is inherently internal.
    Which means, that while a person says "I think you ought" they really mean "I think I don't like X and wish you would not" The only "ought" that can be formed is "I don't like what X and if you do it then I will exert force".
    IE threat of violence.
    "Threat of violence" is a red herring. There is nothing in subjective morality that indicates a threat of violence. SOMETIMES forced is used to force people to comply with a moral position (such as punishing someone for murder) but there are all kinds of oughts that people seldom, if ever, try enforce in any physical manner. For example, "you ought to tip your waitress" is as much of an ought as "you ought to not kill anyone".

    So when I say you ought to tip your waitress from a subjective viewpoint, I am saying I think you ought to tip your waitress and I have no intention of using force to get you to tip.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As a point of note, I am part of the outside world to you. So as long as your statement is not about the outside world, then it is not about me... (this is the inherent contradiction at work).
    But then moral statements are not necessarily "you ought" anyway. The person that my morals effect the most is ME. While I might say to you that you should tip when I see that you are about to stiff a waitress, really the person who that "ought" effects is me. So I consistently tip because of that moral position. I may never ever tell anyone else to tip (likely because it's almost never necessary).

    So even "you ought" is not really the point. A moral position is primary what one makes himself do for the sake of doing what one thinks is the right thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Incorrect. Here it is an objective statement about the universe.
    The universe allows for feeding your neighbor or eating your neighbor, so both are permissible.

    While a gov may not "permit" you to eat your neighbor, that is the same as them not "permitting" fire in a given area.
    Objectively things still burn regardless of what the gov thinks.
    A sign saying "no burning allowed" doesn't magically stop things from being able to be burned, and so the statement is objectively true.
    "all things are permissible". People who disagree are simply disagreeing with reality.. which is a hard sale to justify.
    But you said "Given the absence of Objective moral truths, the statement "all things are permissible" is an objectively true statement" which indicates that it's the absence of objective moral truths that make all things permissible. If something burns, it burns and whether objective moral truths are absent or not should not have any effect on whether the item catches fire or not.
    Last edited by mican333; July 7th, 2017 at 08:52 AM.

  16. #94
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are confusing what a moral law would look like, and our ability to know it.
    No, I'm asking you to support your assertion that the example you provided (not raping and torturing children for fun) is what an objective moral law would look like. How did you determine that this is what one would look like?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The position I was forwarding, can be restated like this: If there is no objective moral law, then there exist objective moral anarchy
    Of course, the lack of laws in any system could be described as anarchy. In any case, this is not a valid objection to the claim that if objective moral laws don't exist then secular moral systems are superior, since the secular moral system's goal is to deal with the objectively anarchistic reality which, I have argued, is precisely the state in which we find ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually, there is. Because there is no 'real' assignment. The things and acts don't magically aquire the property you arbitarily ascribe to them.
    My statement again: "that doesn't stop anyone from assigning values to those things according to another system". The things and actions have real properties in reality (such as causing harm), and we assign values to them according to our moral system and based on the real properties they possess. Nobody is trying to magically imbue real things and actions with other actual physical properties, and this is not required for a moral system to function.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just as when you decide to say "(I think) that weights two pounds" when the thing has no weight at all. so too is subjective morality inherently in conflict with objective truth.
    First, this is a straw-man misrepresentation of what secular moral systems do. They do not attempt to ascribe physical properties. They work with assigning values based on reality.
    Second, We've already established your "objective truth" as being either "objective moral laws exist" or "objective moral laws don't exist".
    If objective moral laws don't exist, then a secular system doesn't contradict anything (can't contradict something which doesn't exist).
    If objective moral laws exist, which you would have to demontrate, then there still is no contradiction within the secular system, only the objective one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well you can say whatever you like, but reality does exist outside your own mind. See the weight example again.
    Yes, and the reality is that we have no demonstration of the existence of any objective moral laws as you have defined them. Therefore we are left do our own devices.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not sure about the context of this line of response. If I dont' bring it up again.. I say take it as retracted.
    You claimed that if objective moral laws don't exist, we can't get to an "ought". But as Dio pointed out in post 39, we can't get an "ought" even if they do exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Subjective morality as fowarded does boil down to (at best) a common delusion. As though you could give an item or action weight by "thinking" it.
    This is yet another straw-man misrepresentation of secular morality. Yes, they are common in that their use and implementation is shared by many people, but it is not delusion. As has been repeatedly explained to you, they are systems of values and goals based on facts. Moreover, secular morality is the only system which has been demonstrated to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    your opinion is noted.
    I have supported that secular moral systems are not delusion. Until you support your opinion why you consider them to be delusion, this is nothing more than a straw-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second is not a fact, but a speculation. It could be the case that we would survive better if we didn't coexist, especially at the vast and increasing numbers. It is also no stretch to see that with continued growth we will be compelled to coexist with fewer people (Ie have them die).
    Read it again:
    Fact1: Co-existence is the situation in which we find ourselves. Fact2: Successfully co-existing will ensure our survival.
    We are compelled to co-exist, as this is the situation in which we find ourselves. It may be better for us to attempt to change Fact1 so that we aren't compelled to co-exist, but that is speculation. As long as Fact1 is a fact, then successfully co-existing will ensure our survival. This is demonstrated by the fact that societies which have not successfully co-existed have not survived.
    So the question remains for you to answer: "How do we go about finding the best way to co-exist on this planet?"

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think i intended to use them in different ways. 'truths" and "facts" being the same thing.
    You've already confirmed that in your argument "objective moral truths/facts" = "facts about morality" = "objective morals laws exist or they don't".
    So how does the fact of whether objective moral laws exist conflict with a secular moral system?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you can no more give an object weight through your personal preferance and wishful thinking, then you can give it a moral value that exists beyond your brain state.
    Again, this is misrepresenting what secular moral systems do.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will have to requote that for me.
    You've already retracted that the is/ought question is an issue for secular moral systems, so it's irrelevant now. But if you want to re-cap, re-read your exchange with Dio from post #39. My response was in post #36, explaining how we derive duties from upholding the goals we set.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The support is that everone is groping for a way to understand morality, and how it applies to themselves.
    This is in no way support for your claim that "there are moral laws that govern how we ought to act. We have access to these laws, just as we have access to reason and light (senses). We have been designed by our creator to perceive and conceive of these laws, and we are ,like him, moral creatures and agents."

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The subjective approach is a dead end that should be abandoned. (per the arguments offered).
    Other than misrepresenting secular moral systems, you have not supported this. Please provide support or indicate where you have supported this.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You may need to rethink that as a response, because there is very little if any substanitive difference.
    No. You attempted to define moral agency as requiring obligations to exist outside of the mind. Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on evaluations of right and wrong. Therefore moral agency is possible even in secular moral systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    See 'weight' example. My point is that even in the absense of "right and wrong' there is still an inherent value. Even if it is that of 'non existant" however you like to say it.
    See response to weight example. You are confusing values applied to things/facts (the moral evaluations within secular moral systems) with their physical properties in reality (the observations in reality upon which the moral observations are based).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The fantasy of subjective morality, is that it can give weight to something that does not have that metric within itself.
    It is objectively false assertion.
    This has already been explained to you. The metric is defined within goals of the moral system.

    Bottom line: as long as the objective moral system remains unknown and inaccessible, it is inferior.

  17. #95
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    260
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Though I am enjoying the conversation thus far, if I may try to some up a bit for clarity.

    MT's position seems to be subjective morality isn't even possible.
    Mican and Future believe it is possible.

    But the Op is "which is superior" and Mican forwards "whichever one of them is correct" is superior (I assume you mean "whichever is true" or something similar, as I would think "whichever is correct" answers it's own question to superiority?). Most of the conversation so far is not addressing this point.

    Again I forward, just because an entity is powerful enough to cause the universe into existence, doesn't make said entity "all loving, all good, etc.."
    So if a very powerful, sadistic entity created a universe for it's own perverted enjoyment, I don't see how that could rightly be called "objective morality" what this entity thinks? So I am having an issue if "objective morality" would necessarily be better.

    If we stick with both are possible, I think we see either system "could be" superior.
    If we go with one or the other are not possible, then I guess whichever is possible is superior.

  18. #96
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Again I forward, just because an entity is powerful enough to cause the universe into existence, doesn't make said entity "all loving, all good, etc.."
    So if a very powerful, sadistic entity created a universe for it's own perverted enjoyment, I don't see how that could rightly be called "objective morality" what this entity thinks? So I am having an issue if "objective morality" would necessarily be better.
    First off, if there is an intelligent creator that doesn't determine morality (although God is typically defined this way a "creator" does not need to fit that definition), then it is not a source of objective morality.

    But if the entity is the arbiter of morality, then it is objective morality regardless of the nature of that being. If this being has made it so that what we typically think is good is actually evil, then that is the objective morality and we are just wrong about what is good and bad, but what is good and bad is objectively determined in the same fashion that observable facts are objectively true.

    So even if an evil God created objective morality, it is still objective morality and therefore objective morality exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    If we stick with both are possible, I think we see either system "could be" superior.
    If we go with one or the other are not possible, then I guess whichever is possible is superior.

    And if one can show that either of them are not possible, then this debate will be settled. But I've never seen anyone do that nor do I think it can be done on this site. It's possible that one may learn "the truth" but they could never provide evidence here to prove that it's true.

  19. #97
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    260
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, if there is an intelligent creator that doesn't determine morality (although God is typically defined this way a "creator" does not need to fit that definition), then it is not a source of objective morality.

    But if the entity is the arbiter of morality, then it is objective morality regardless of the nature of that being. If this being has made it so that what we typically think is good is actually evil, then that is the objective morality and we are just wrong about what is good and bad, but what is good and bad is objectively determined in the same fashion that observable facts are objectively true.

    So even if an evil God created objective morality, it is still objective morality and therefore objective morality exists.




    And if one can show that either of them are not possible, then this debate will be settled. But I've never seen anyone do that nor do I think it can be done on this site. It's possible that one may learn "the truth" but they could never provide evidence here to prove that it's true.
    I'm sure you are right about that.
    Though, your last post sounds to me like a "might makes right" situation. If you can create a universe, you can define good/bad (because no one can oppose you???).
    That may be true, but I find it a sad possibility.

  20. #98
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm sure you are right about that.
    Though, your last post sounds to me like a "might makes right" situation. If you can create a universe, you can define good/bad (because no one can oppose you???).
    That may be true, but I find it a sad possibility.
    I would see it similarly to a novelist writing a book - God is the novelist and we are the characters in the book. You can think it's sad that the novelist has complete control over the story but then it's better than him not writing the book at all (especially from the viewpoint of the characters in the book).

  21. #99
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] First off, let me restate my primary argument as I think some responses are not relevant to my argument and therefore I want to make my argument clear when/if I point this out.

    [2] My argument is that the superiority of objective morality over subjective morality or vice versa is based on which one is correct. I've supported this argument in past posts so I won't do it right here. So there are two ways to defeat this.

    1. Argue that even if morality is subjective, objective morality is nonetheless superior.
    2. Argue that morality is indeed objective (which, if true means that objective morality is superior) but of course such an argument will require support that it's objective.
    [1] What about my argument? (^8

    [2] True, one view has to be correct - either/or.

    ***

    1. I do not support nor can I argue for subjective morality because I do not believe there is such a thing. I gave some reasons why.

    If there is nothing objective and fixed to base right and wrong on there is nothing that makes your relative (subject to change) view better (superior) than my relative view, except forcing your view by brutality.

    What you are calling morality you (as well as I) have identified as a PREFERENCE. There is no reason that one subjective preference is any BETTER than any other unless there is an objective standard to determine better. Subjectivity can't provide one.
    If there is no objective basis for right and wrong, you can't say something is right. All you can do is say, "I like it" or, "I don't like it."

    Relativism is NOT the answer. The truth is not relative. It is objective. That diminishes your basis for determining the truth.

    Morality deals with right and wrong, not a subjective preference. We are dealing with truth, not changing relative likes.

    The heart of the issue of subjective right and wrong depends on which group, which culture, which society you live in (descriptive morality). There is no way to determine a better code of conduct - the idea of better changes depending on where (which culture) you go. "Better" can mean two opposing things (irrationality). As I have argued, Hitler's Germany and his "morality" (killing Jews and undesirables because of cited inferiority of race) can be thought of as good, depending on which subjective side of the fence you sit on. You have no way of determining it is better or worse in subjectivity.

    Objective morality is superior because it gives what is necessary for right and wrong - an objective basis. Subjective morality is inconsistent because two opposing beliefs can both be deemed "Right." Logically, two opposing opinions can't both be right. You have to pin down a standard that is consistent to demonstrate subjective "morality" is superior. Subjective morality is all over the board. Inconsistency is a sign of false beliefs and irrationality.

    ***

    2. If there is no objective value for right and wrong, morality can mean anything. The Law of Identity comes into play. I expand on it next.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And for this to be a defeater of my argument, you will need to show that this is true. Just saying that you think this is true does not equate support that it is true and therefore does not defeat my argument.
    Neither does your argument defeat my argument that "objective morality is necessarily true" for the very inconsistency of subjective morality in determining the truth of right and wrong without a final, concrete reference point. From a logical standpoint, the argument is that "right" fits into a particular box. What is not "right" then fits outside that particular box (the case of "A" versus "non-A"). RIGHT can't fit into the box of non-right. It is logically impossible. It loses its identity. Once it loses its identity, it becomes anything (and thus nothing) because it loses its meaning. "Right" has to have a particular value. It can't have any value depending on who thinks it. That doesn't make anything right. It makes everything "right" and thus illogical.

    That is one of my arguments. Defeat it, or I invite you to retract your statement. Show me that two statements both claiming to be right that are opposites can both be logically correct/true. If you can't then I do not believe you have a basis to make sense of right and wrong.

    Argue that everything is right or show me that what you subjectively believe is right as opposed to an opposing subjective belief. Prove also that I do not have an objective source for morality. Take abortion as an example. I believe abortion is definitely wrong. It is not a woman's right to choose because abortion is murdering an innocent human being (unless you FEEL abortion is neither. Prove a) abortion is a woman's right and/or, b) that abortion is not murdering a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I say SUPPORT OR RETRACT that subjective morality is an illusion.

    Since you are new here, let me explain "Support or Retract". If challenged in such a way a person is, by ODN rules, obliged to back up his claim with evidence. If they can't or won't back up their statement, then they must retract it although not repeating it generally suffices as a retraction.
    I think I have done that with the Law of Identity argument.

    Grab onto what is "right" if subjective views oppose each other.

    Take abortion or same-sex marriage since these are hotbeds of opposing opinion in different societies, and with various people. In some Middle Eastern nations, the view of right is opposite from the view in our countries, and for that matter, the view in our countries used to be the view presently held in some Arab nations.

    Pick the view that is correct. Is the view that abortion is wrong "right" or that abortion is right "right."

    [1] Thank you! Hopefully I have done that.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And objective morality, if it exists, hasn't made any difference regarding this. So either objective morality doesn't exist or it's very hard for people to agree on what it is.
    That, I would argue since Adam sinned, is because people suppress the truth of God. Adam brought in subjective views when he opposed God's moral command in the Garden. He choose to bring his subjectivity into the equation. Hence, the evil of human history.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are clearly using objective standards (A is indeed a particular something and not subject to one's opinion) to point out a contradiction in subjective morality. So no, you aren't showing a contradiction in subjective morality. You are showing that subjective morality contradicts objective morality.
    Yes, I am using a necessary moral standard - one that needs objectivity to determine right as truth. I know of no subjective standard that is logical unless it employs objective morality without knowing it. The reason I say this is because a subjective standard is a relativistic standard. It can mean anything depending upon who thinks what.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [1] And this is a flaw that you consistently engage in. [2] You cannot explore subjective morality without, for the sake of argument, assuming that morality is subjective. All you are doing is telling me that how it's different than objective morality.
    [1] Only if you can prove that there is no objective morality is it flawed. You have not done that. What you have done so far is say - "I don't know?"
    You are pleading ignorance of whether one exists or not.

    [2] You continue to insist I have not explored subjective morality. I have and found it wanting.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't need one. The definition of morality does not require an anchor. If one is making a judgment of right and wrong, then they, BY DEFINITION, are engaging in morality.
    I have argued it does (logically). Morality deals with right and wrong. If you are going to call something right then, you had better be able to show that it is. For something to be right, it must be true; it must have an identity that does not change. The truth is an objective reality. It deals with what is, not what might be, or what is not. You can't say something is right without first having the standard for right nailed down. "Right" can't mean anything, depending on one person's subjective preference as opposed to another's, just because of your like of something. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out (and I paraphrase), "Some people love their enemies and others eat them. Which do you prefer?"

    Moral "right" requires an objective standard- an anchor. If you are going to CALL something "right" then, you had better be sure it is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And he (Kim Jong-In) doesn't care any more if someone subjectively disagrees with him than he does if someone objectively disagrees with him. Seriously, how does objective morality stop him better than subjective morality? As far as I can tell, it makes no difference.
    That is because he doesn't recognize the difference between what is right. He is under the same misapprehension that you are that he is the determiner and arbitrator of what is right by his subjective preference. Hence, anything goes, depending on who holds what view.

    Objective morality is the difference between what is true, what is right, versus perceived right. Objectivity is God, the source of which we can know the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. [1] But before you shoot me, please keep in mind that [2] everyone around here seems to agree that murder is so immoral and a killer deserves a lot of jail time or even capital punishment and due to this subjective moral position (remember we are now going by subjective morality), if you kill me there's a very good chance that you will be severely punished. So while maybe you have no problem killing me, for your own self-interest you may to spare my life so you don't suffer the wrath of our society and the general subjective moral consensus that murder is a punishable offense. So for your own sake, you should put away the gun. (So assuming you care about your own life, you will probably not kill me).
    [1] I'm just making a point dramatically. That is how a world of subjectivity operates in many places, by force. Watch the World News tonight.

    [2] Sure, any rational person would. I would argue that we have this moral compass for the reasons I stated earlier (God created us in His image and likeness). I would say that not murdering is an objective moral standard - Thou shall not kill! (Murder)

    C.S. Lewis argued that it (thou shall not murder) is one of those standards found in every culture throughout history. You may be able to point out one in which it does not apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That does not rebut my statement so I will repeat it. If morality is subjective, the reason that you are not murdered as you walk down the street is because people "prefer" to not murder you. If you remove subjective morality or "moral preferences", then a major reason you've not been killed yet is removed and that's a bad thing. So again, if morality is subjective, it's still much, much better than not having morality.
    That is just one side of the equation, one possibility. Here is another:

    OR they know (deep down) that to murder is objectively WRONG and to murder SHOULD NEVER be a preference. Murder (the definition I am using) is the taking of an innocent life. Whether you agree with this definition is yet again another matter. I argue that murder is an objective moral standard. (But not necessarily in a subjective, relative possible world governed by chance happenstance. In such a world anything can be justified because nothing can be nailed down)

    Again, please identify better when there is no objective truth as to better, just mere opinion. You keep borrowing from my Christian standard that says some things are better because there is a best/objective standard - a necessarily true standard.

    What is necessary for something to be right? It must be true to what is right. Your subjective opinion is not necessarily true to what is right if there is nothing concrete/fixed/unchanging/final to anchor right to. That, I argue, is the case with subjectivism. Your subjective opinion is no better than my subjective opinion unless there is an ultimate best to distinguish between the two. Then one does become better to a degree that it complies with the objective best.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That does not rebut my statement either. I said that morality makes you safer and whether it's objective or subjective does not make any real difference.
    Morality can make you safer. It depends on what morality is attached too on making you safer. If it is personal preference (subjective morality or your view, it is just a preference), it just depends on what someone likes. Someone may like sparing your life in that street or like taking your life (a sense of empowerment). YOU are the one arguing for subjective preference. When you say morality is a bad thing, it depends about what the thing is that you are saying is bad. I will agree in saying murder is a bad thing, only if there is an objective, unchanging basis for values. If not, then it doesn't ultimately matter. Your preference doesn't have to be the choice someone else holds unless there is an ultimate just standard we are answerable too. If there is no ultimate justice, then whatever you can get away with that you like doing is a bonus. If you are walking down a street and it depends on my subjective preference of whether you live or die that doesn't make it right that I kill you. It makes it what I may prefer. You equate preference to rightness. I equate what is true to rightness. If "Right" has no ultimate measure/value, then calling it right does not make it right. "Right" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Nope. [1] While people like their moral positions, the reason they have those positions is not based on like or preference. One does not control their moral beliefs. If morality is subjective, the beliefs likely come from a combination of nature and nature, both of which one has no control over. So a subjective moral position is pretty much ingrained and not changeable on a whim.

    One cannot decide that they prefer murder is wrong and then decide that murdering is no longer "wrong" even though they believed it was wrong all of their lives.
    [1] Please, think of what you are saying. "When people LIKE" it IS based on what they like (preference). If you choose your moral belief (some say right, others wrong) SUBJECTIVELY then it can't be anything but subjective unless it happens to coincide with what is objectively true. If you have no standard for objectivity, then you are left with moral relativism. Anything goes depending on personal taste - like or dislike.

    You also admitted in previous posts that your view of morality is a preference. Which is it? Which statement of yours is true? When I see an inconsistency, I know the person I am arguing with does not have a logical argument; their belief system is unstable.

    "While people like their moral positions, the reason they have those positions is not based on like or preference." - You

    "If morality is subjective, the reason that you are not murdered as you walk down the street is because people "prefer" to not murder you. If you remove subjective morality or "moral preferences", then a major reason you've not been killed yet is removed and that's a bad thing." - You

    POST # 82: "So If morality is indeed subjective, then morality IS preference." -You


    I don't understand what is meant "from a combination of nature and nature???"

    But as you say, if something has no control of what is right then right becomes arbitrary. It can be anything, thus nothing meaningful. You are trying to put meaning into subjective morality. I picture this as another cart before the horse. There is nothing pulling the cart. Morality requires intentionality and it requires a mind. Backup and show how blind, indifferent chance happenstances gives the means for either, please.

    Subjective morality is a "Fail Army." It is a dumb thing. It can't pin down a definite truth, except when it jettisons its belief system for an objective one, or happens to randomly pick an objective truth that it does not believe is real.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I was referring to the use of the word "moral" and I am using the word correctly as my use corresponds to the dictionary definition. So if you are going to argue that I'm not using the word correctly, then logic says that you are wrong.
    Correctly??? You have no absolute standard of truth. It is relative unless God exists. Your view is subject to preference. There is no reason your preference is any better than any other preference and you have stated such in another post. If your view is no better than any other view, then you can't establish it is right or correct. There is nothing to establish right by but brute force. Brute force doesn't work because Hitler's actions can be no better than Mother Teresa's. All you can do is say that you prefer one or the other. If that is how you want to look upon life, then there can be no objection to brutality on the grounds of stating that it is wrong if the person brutalizing has the means to carry it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, [1] I have no burden to do anything to someone who disagrees with me. If I say "right" and they say "wrong", I can just walk away. [2] And of course I can say my view is better. I don't see the basis to say that I can't. I mean I can form the words "My viewpoint is better". I have the right to say such a thing due to the right to free speech.
    [1] Whether it is actually right or wrong you have no basis for determining because RIGHT has a meaning to it that is true to what right IS. Any value must have a basis of truth to it or it becomes arbitrary - meaning anything.

    It is when a person is placed in line for the gas chamber that the meaning of "wrong" becomes a definite wrong, not just a preference. Until then it is of no significance as to the true nature of wrongness. It is when some grave injustice happens to you that the thought of objective morality becomes real.

    [2] Saying your view is better (and it being better) depends on whether there is an objective standard. Without an objective standard, your view means nothing. It is nihilistic. For a value to be true, it must have an objective measure. Any old measure will not do.

    You are under the relativistic view that just because you can call something right or wrong, it makes it what it is. I can believe that if I jump from the Empire State Building that I can fly (all the way to the ground). I'm not flying I'm falling, even though I'm in the air until impact. That view doesn't comport with reality, neither does your view of better/morality. Yes, you do have the right to say such things as you are saying, but they ultimately are senseless.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm guessing you mean that I can't say it in the way that forwards it an an objective fact. I can't logically say that it's a fact that it's right.
    I only argue for objective morality and objective truth. The other does not make sense. You are bent and determined that I must justify your position - subjective morality (your first point of this post). I DON'T hold your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But again, this is what I'm talking about. [1] You keep approaching subjective morality from an objectivist view point. Yes, from an objectivist viewpoint, one cannot subjectively claim that something is right or wrong in a moral sense. But then if one is not making the claim in an objective manner, then that's not a problem.
    [1] Yes, I do approach it from an objective position. I don't see any justification for morality unless there are objective right and wrong.

    You keep approaching morality from a subjective position. From a subjective position, you need to establish why what you believe is real, why it is right, without pleading preference. Preference does not make something right unless it conforms to the standard of rightness (the box that excludes everything that is non-right). What you CONTINUALLY do is place right in the non-right box, which is logical insanity. If there is no absolute standard for rightness then "right" becomes arbitrary. It means EVERYTHING and thus nothing. There is no meaning to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I'm afraid that this is just going to happen again and again. You cannot point out any inconsistencies in the subjective viewpoint unless you look at a subjective viewpoint from a subjective perspective.
    I most definitely can.

    You don't hear the inconsistencies because your worldview won't let you. I have pointed out a number, like the logical implications of your subjective viewpoint, the ontological implications of how such origins devoid of mind can bring about both mind, then morality - unintentionally. I have pointed out the nature of truth (objective and absolute), and the perils of subjectivism. It is relativism. There is nothing to attach best to because no position is any better than any other. You have not demonstrated your subjectivity is better than mine because you prefer it. You can't. You don't have what is necessary. What you have done it identify that you don't like murder, which ties into my Christian worldview that says murder is WRONG. I know it is wrong because God, a necessary being (of which you are not), has revealed it to be wrong, providing humanity with a moral compass to know (It starts with God and not some relative, subjective human opinion). He is necessary. He can give us the grounding to make sense of morality (right and wrong).

    Peter
    Last edited by PGA2; July 8th, 2017 at 08:12 AM.

  22. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  23. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Objective morality vs. subjective morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If I think murder is wrong then it will decrease the chances that I will commit murder and therefore have a negative effect on the likelihood that a murder will occur. So being subjectively against murder does decrease the likelihood that a murder will occur.
    So what? You may think murder is wrong but the person right beside you may think murder is justifiable and would likely commit murder if the effects were positive and beneficial. And this seems to be the way of the dictator and those secular socialist systems of thought that do not hold to an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging standard. A subjective system of governance is at the mercy of those in control. If you examine the tally it does not support subjectivism as regarding it wrong to murder when it suits their purpose (Your ideals stated above do not prove to be those that everyone shares. They think their views better).

    ***
    (Numbers expressed are in millions)

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [USSR]
    Atheist
    61.911
    1917-1987

    Chinese Communists [PRC]
    Atheist
    35.236
    1949-1987

    German (National) Socialists [Nazis]
    Pagan
    20.946
    1933-1945

    China (Mao Soviets)
    Atheist
    3.466
    1923-1949

    Cambodian Communists
    Atheist
    2.035
    1975-1979

    Vietnamese Communists
    Atheist
    1.670
    1945-1987

    Polish Communists
    Atheist
    1.585
    1945-1948

    Yugoslavian Socialists
    Atheist
    1.072
    1944-1987

    North Korean Communists
    Atheist
    1.663
    1948-1987

    Grand Total 129.6 (70 Years)

    http://www.savageleft.com/poli/mbc.html

    ***

    Here is another table:

    http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

    ***

    Now, when you include abortion in the equation, the numbers of murders are literally astoundingly horrible, the worst holocaust in the history of the world to date.

    Worldwide since 1980
    1,460,836,088

    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    ***

    Life is cheap without God.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's not a weakness. If me saying it's an objective fact that I subjectively think that murder is wrong confuses you, that's not a flaw with my wording or subjective morality.
    It may be an objective fact that you believe it wrong; it is a weakness that you think you determine wrong. That is a flaw of subjectivism. It begs the question of why your belief is morally superior to another relative belief just because you can think it. It just pulls right and wrong out of mid-air as its foundation. "I like it, therefore, it is right!" "I don't like it, therefore it is wrong!" The problem comes when two subjective OPINIONS disagree. It is the thing wars are fought over.

    Peter

  24. Thanks Squatch347, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
 

 
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Objective Morality and atheism
    By CliveStaples in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: September 16th, 2012, 02:36 PM
  2. Is God Necessary for Objective Morality?
    By estill in forum Religion
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 09:26 PM
  3. Objective morality is effectively useless
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 06:59 AM
  4. Subjective Morality Is Pointless
    By MyXenocide in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: September 7th, 2011, 07:00 PM
  5. Subjective Morality
    By mican333 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 07:44 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
  •