Objective Morality?

[enviousintheeverafter]

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

[Bust Nak]

This seems reasonable, but what about logic and reasoning? I value my car. I have MANY logical and reasonable er.. reasons to value, or "like" my car. Sure, I "like" the feeling I get .. but the value that I attribute to the car isn't ONLY based on feelings, surely.

Sure it is. There might be reason why you want to buy a car, but liking a car is down to feelings. The rationale for liking something are there to justify your feelings. Feelings come first, the justification is only relevant if one was to called to explain themselves, and most of the time it doesn't even enter the picture - You feel X is moral/immoral and that's all there is to it.

So.. yeah. Bit of a problem if you ONLY include feelings in your evaluator. Take a judge in a court. Would we say he is a good evaluator if he were to base his judgements on only FEELINGS?.. I would say no.

In fact, I would say that using feelings at ALL would disqualify him from being a good evaluator. Unless, of course, he was merely evaluating his OWN feelings. He can surely evaluate THOSE. But that would only BE in the purely subjective realm, and NOT the objective one.

A judge in a court decides what is or isn't legal, not what is or isn't moral. Legality is defined objectively, which is why he would be disqualified if he used his feelings.

Fails by 2, I'm afraid. You would have a very BAD kind of morality if it were based on feelings, or feelings alone. We can do better than that.

Can we? I put it to you that any reasoning you can give to support an action as moral/immoral, can be boiled down to raw feeling, as in it just feels right. For each reason you bring up, I can ask you why that means it is moral/immoral, sooner or later you will be stuck with "because it just is" or "because I feel that way."

In a similar way, someone would say a cake is tasty because it is moist. I could ask why being moist means it's tasty? He could answer because dry would make the cake hard. I would then follow up with why hard cake isn't tasty and so on. Eventually he would be stuck with because it's tasty because I just like it that way.

It would be good if you would have had a more rigorous definition of "objective" so we can compare it to subjective. You did a good job of describing the subjective, I'd really like to know what you mean by objective, too.

I define the two terms as mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, a true dichotomy. Subjective would be defined along the lines of "dependent on personal feelings;" the definition of objective would simply follows as "not dependent on personal feelings."

Do you mean that you think the ENDING of the argument, or the conclusion is trivial, or that your entire ARGUMENT is trivial, and you want to abandon it?

By ending of the argument, I meant the final couple steps. I was merely saying that it's trivial that subjective implies not objective, so I can skip stating "what is subjective cannot be objective, therefore morality cannot be objective" explicitly.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Sure it is. There might be reason why you want to buy a car, but liking a car is down to feelings. The rationale for liking something are there to justify your feelings. Feelings come first, the justification is only relevant if one was to called to explain themselves, and most of the time it doesn't even enter the picture - You feel X is moral/immoral and that's all there is to it.

Not to nitpick, I think this is true so far as it goes (as a matter of psychological fact), but in this context the timing is less relevant than the logical relationship. Even if some assessment of the relevant objective/factual conditions relating to ones valuing of their car- or of certain actions (i.e. as moral)- did indeed "come first", the crucial point is that the transition from these objective/factual conditions to value involves a leap that is not warranted by logic. That is, in going from facts X, Y and Z to some claim of value ("I like this car", or "doing X is morally wrong/right"), one has gone beyond the facts- the facts do not entail the value claim. One could, with equal logical justification, come to the opposite conclusion regarding value. This is the fact/value problem (one cannot logically derive any ought/should- i.e. a value-judgment/normative claim- from an is- i.e. a factual/descriptive claim), and an apparently fatal one for an account of objective morality. No set of facts ever entails any value judgment- and since moral judgments are, necessarily, value judgments, no set of facts entail any moral judgment (unlike non-moral judgments, which can indeed by entailed by sets of facts, i.e. the fact that snow is white logically implicates the truth of the judgment "snow is white"). But if moral judgments can never stand in any logical relation to facts, then it seems there can be nothing in virtue of which moral judgments can be (objectively) true or false, and always/necessarily involve a (subjective, preferential) leap from the facts to the value-judgment.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 31 by Bust Nak]

This seems reasonable, but what about logic and reasoning? I value my car. I have MANY logical and reasonable er.. reasons to value, or "like" my car. Sure, I "like" the feeling I get .. but the value that I attribute to the car isn't ONLY based on feelings, surely.

Sure it is. There might be reason why you want to buy a car, but liking a car is down to feelings. The rationale for liking something are there to justify your feelings. Feelings come first, the justification is only relevant if one was to called to explain themselves, and most of the time it doesn't even enter the picture - You feel X is moral/immoral and that's all there is to it.

Sorry, no.

Not quite yes, I mean. You are only partly right.

Back to the car.

I would LIKE to go places ... There are many roads all over the place. One very efficient USE of these roads is a personal car.

I would like one of those because I have a goal to drive to.. say... Southern Ontario ... I have business there.. I can also go the many wineries, and take a dip in the Great Lakes while I'm at it. I can also visit with my many friends and so on.

I have a lot of goals what would be best accomplished by way of a car. Maybe this all boils down to "feelings" . I "feel" I should thrive as a human being. That's the bottom line for morality. IF we don't start with the presumption that humans SHOULD thrive, then .. why bother with morality at all.. let us perish, then.

Once I have THAT presup.. that I SHOULD thrive, then everything FOLLOWS very logically from there. So, yes, I have a "feeling" that I should thrive. But it shouldn't just stop there. We can THINK things through.. what if, by having a car, I endanger the environment and so forth... my "feelings" about the environment might trump any feelings I might have about driving my own personal car, and so forth.

Bottom line way way way down there IS a feeling. But it's a feeling ALL humans share.

And having a car is one of the logical consequences of that "needing to thrive" feeling.
So with morality. I DO have a presupposition, and it IS based on a "feeling".. I think that's true. BUT.. once that premise is accepted, the rest, as they say, is history.. or in this case PURE REASON.

So, I don't "feel" that murder is wrong. I "feel" that humans should thrive. Murdering them isn't going to do much in that regard. That's pure reason. The FEELING I get deep inside is that MY LIFE is precious. Then the THOUGHT is.. whatever. Secondary to that. We can now talk about forming an objective kind of morality based on the FEELING that we should thrive. And I right now agree with Harris that I can't figure out what a morality SHOULD be based on, if not that humans should thrive.

A judge in a court decides what is or isn't legal, not what is or isn't moral. Legality is defined objectively, which is why he would be disqualified if he used his feelings.

Ok.. a judge in a court room is deciding something. He isn't deciding based on feelings. That's what I was saying. Yes, a judge is deciding about how to apply the law. It was an analogy.. Morality can also be defined objectively, which is why an evaluator should be disqualified if he were to use his feelings on the matter.

He might not "feel" that murder is wrong. Well, too bad for HIM, he is a bad evaluator. We DO have objective standards about murder, that he is ignoring.

Fails by 2, I'm afraid. You would have a very BAD kind of morality if it were based on feelings, or feelings alone. We can do better than that.

Can we? I put it to you that any reasoning you can give to support an action as moral/immoral, can be boiled down to raw feeling, as in it just feels right. For each reason you bring up, I can ask you why that means it is moral/immoral, sooner or later you will be stuck with "because it just is" or "because I feel that way."

Murder. It just feels wrong. Let's go with that. I just somehow.. "feel" that it's wrong.
BUT that's not all. I just don't "FEEL" , I also have reasoned this out, to see if my FEELINGS match up with reality. I have also looked at the reasoning.. is it valid, is it based on the best facts that we know, and so forth.

Can't you?

But you want to think that my judgement about murder is based on a pure feeling I get deep inside me, and then, I should pretend that reasoning never enters my decision? Do you imagine that JUST because I feel something, that I can't acknowledge a MISTAKE, and CHANGE my "feelings" on the matter? I can assure you , I have very often had to change my "feelings" after I had looked at all the data, and thought about the issue at hand.

But if that's not enough for you, we can go with murder, if you want.. or chose something else that you feel more comfortable with. Murder is only a suggestion.

In a similar way, someone would say a cake is tasty because it is moist.

Yeah, but that's because we need to accept the premise that cakes are good only when moist, or something like that. If the criteria is too subjective, then we are talking about something subjective. If, for example, I offer you a cake made out of dirt, you may say that your criteria for a good cake would be that it's edible, that it's generally sweet, and that it would be something that MOST people would find pleasing as a desert. Moistness MAY be some kind of objective criteria for cakes.. Who wants a dry cake?.. but maybe SOME dry cakes are wonderful.. But moistness then would be only a GENERAL rule.. Objective rule, but not absolute.

I could ask why being moist means it's tasty?

Yes, and you can get reasons for that. Once we DEFINE what a cake is... then we can see if the actual cake matches up to the criteria in a purely objective fashion. We can measure the moistness with an instrument, for example.

If you go to the Culinary Institute of America, or the CIA.. yes it's called that.. they would say BECAUSE WE SAY SO. CAKES are to be moist, that is one of the OBJECTIVE criteria by which we adjudicate cakes on here. Your cake is dry, you fail.

He could answer because dry would make the cake hard. I would then follow up with why hard cake isn't tasty and so on. Eventually he would be stuck with because it's tasty because I just like it that way.

I think that most people's taste buds are at least similar. We are, after all of the same species. So, GENERALLY, humans tend to like the same kinds of taste sensations.. Sweet, moist, dry, wet, and so on.

It would be good if you would have had a more rigorous definition of "objective" so we can compare it to subjective. You did a good job of describing the subjective, I'd really like to know what you mean by objective, too.

I define the two terms as mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, a true dichotomy. Subjective would be defined along the lines of "dependent on personal feelings;" the definition of objective would simply follows as "not dependent on personal feelings."

I meant define the term objective IN the actual argument. I would like to see it WRITTEN IN the argument, if that makes sense.

Ok.. you define subjective along the lines of "dependent on personal feelings".. I can accept that, and have done so.

Now.. defining a term by what it is NOT is... not as clear as you might think. What would you say if I defined a tree as something that is not a lake? It's OK if you say it's the "opposite" of subjective.. but if you actually define objective ON IT'S own.. then it would be WAY more clear to all of us what you actually MEAN by it.

What we HAVE is a definition of 'subjective'... anything that isn't subjective is objective. Well... how about a lake?

What Is something that is independent of personal feelings?.. I would ACTUALLY like to see what you mean by that. Honest.. Examples, at least. I may not AGREE with your definition. But I can't hazard a guess unless you spell it out. Arguments are about spelling things out... and if we don't clearly define our terms?... get's vague.. open to misinterpretation.. wasted efforts... spinning of the wheels..

Not getting to the BOTTOM of things.

Do you mean that you think the ENDING of the argument, or the conclusion is trivial, or that your entire ARGUMENT is trivial, and you want to abandon it?

By ending of the argument, I meant the final couple steps. I was merely saying that it's trivial that subjective implies not objective, so I can skip stating "what is subjective cannot be objective, therefore morality cannot be objective" explicitly.

I can say that a tree isn't a lake. How does that define a lake?
What on earth IS the "opposite" of a tree?

Just do the work.
Define your terms please, you seem to be beating around the bush. Or tree or lake.

[Bust Nak]

Back to the car.

I would LIKE to go places ... There are many roads all over the place. One very efficient USE of these roads is a personal car.

I would like one of those because I have a goal to drive to.. say... Southern Ontario ... I have business there.. I can also go the many wineries, and take a dip in the Great Lakes while I'm at it. I can also visit with my many friends and so on.

I have a lot of goals what would be best accomplished by way of a car. Maybe this all boils down to "feelings" . I "feel" I should thrive as a human being. That's the bottom line for morality. IF we don't start with the presumption that humans SHOULD thrive, then .. why bother with morality at all.. let us perish, then.

Once I have THAT presup.. that I SHOULD thrive, then everything FOLLOWS very logically from there. So, yes, I have a "feeling" that I should thrive. But it shouldn't just stop there. We can THINK things through.. what if, by having a car, I endanger the environment and so forth... my "feelings" about the environment might trump any feelings I might have about driving my own personal car, and so forth.

Bottom line way way way down there IS a feeling. But it's a feeling ALL humans share.

You've just affirmed everything I said - every logical reason follows from your feelings. Besides you are talking about why you value cars in general, as opposed to why you like your car, surely that would be things like, it's color and shape and how effective it is.

And having a car is one of the logical consequences of that "needing to thrive" feeling.
So with morality. I DO have a presupposition, and it IS based on a "feeling".. I think that's true. BUT.. once that premise is accepted, the rest, as they say, is history.. or in this case PURE REASON.

So, I don't "feel" that murder is wrong. I "feel" that humans should thrive. Murdering them isn't going to do much in that regard. That's pure reason. The FEELING I get deep inside is that MY LIFE is precious. Then the THOUGHT is.. whatever. Secondary to that.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Your feeling is primary, the thoughts are secondary. Even if I can formulate a sound argument why murdering someone under very specific scenario will lead to an increase in humanity thrive level, it still wouldn't feel right.

We can now talk about forming an objective kind of morality based on the FEELING that we should thrive. And I right now agree with Harris that I can't figure out what a morality SHOULD be based on, if not that humans should thrive.

But why would you call such a thing "objective" when you've already acknowledge that the premise is personal, thought granted common, feelings? That flies in the face of the definition of objective.

Ok.. a judge in a court room is deciding something. He isn't deciding based on feelings. That's what I was saying. Yes, a judge is deciding about how to apply the law. It was an analogy.. Morality can also be defined objectively, which is why an evaluator should be disqualified if he were to use his feelings on the matter.

He might not "feel" that murder is wrong. Well, too bad for HIM, he is a bad evaluator. We DO have objective standards about murder, that he is ignoring.

But why should anyone agree with any one particular standard of what is right and wrong?

Here is a trivial example, I am defining a moral standard thus: always obey Bust Nak. One can test whether someone is obeying me objectively. I say to person A turn left but he turned right, a judge would be a bad evaluator if he didn't acknowledge that person A refused my command objectively. He is ignoring the objective standards about always obeying Bust Nak otherwise. Where does that leave you?

Murder. It just feels wrong. Let's go with that. I just somehow.. "feel" that it's wrong.
BUT that's not all. I just don't "FEEL" , I also have reasoned this out, to see if my FEELINGS match up with reality. I have also looked at the reasoning.. is it valid, is it based on the best facts that we know, and so forth.

Can't you?

I don't need to. Merely asking if your feelings match up with reality, presumes there is some sort of way you ought to feel objectively. I know intrusively how I am supposed to feel.

But you want to think that my judgement about murder is based on a pure feeling I get deep inside me, and then, I should pretend that reasoning never enters my decision? Do you imagine that JUST because I feel something, that I can't acknowledge a MISTAKE, and CHANGE my "feelings" on the matter? I can assure you , I have very often had to change my "feelings" after I had looked at all the data, and thought about the issue at hand.

Sure, the mere fact that you are talking about changing your feelings tells me that feelings is the primary drive to morality, and reasoning is merely there to justify your feelings. When you can't justify your feelings, you change your feelings.

But if that's not enough for you, we can go with murder, if you want.. or chose something else that you feel more comfortable with. Murder is only a suggestion.

Murder is fine, as long as you acknowledge that murder is not defined as the immoral kind of slaying, but the illegal kind of slaying.

Yeah, but that's because we need to accept the premise that cakes are good only when moist, or something like that.

That's the thing, we don't have to accept that premise. Some people don't like cakes at all. One person I know demands that ice-cream be heated in a microwave before he eats it, which kinda defeats the point of ice-cream but that's how he likes it. He is not incorrect.

If the criteria is too subjective, then we are talking about something subjective. If, for example, I offer you a cake made out of dirt, you may say that your criteria for a good cake would be that it's edible, that it's generally sweet, and that it would be something that MOST people would find pleasing as a desert. Moistness MAY be some kind of objective criteria for cakes.. Who wants a dry cake?.. but maybe SOME dry cakes are wonderful.. But moistness then would be only a GENERAL rule.. Objective rule, but not absolute.

I am saying it's not objective at all. Some one who likes cakes which most people would find disgusting, is not factually incorrect for liking it.

Yes, and you can get reasons for that. Once we DEFINE what a cake is... then we can see if the actual cake matches up to the criteria in a purely objective fashion. We can measure the moistness with an instrument, for example.

If you go to the Culinary Institute of America, or the CIA.. yes it's called that.. they would say BECAUSE WE SAY SO. CAKES are to be moist, that is one of the OBJECTIVE criteria by which we adjudicate cakes on here. Your cake is dry, you fail.

Ok, I define cake as something made out of dirt and inedible and loaded with salt that most people would not put in their mouths, let alone swallow it.

The typical cake would then fail that OBJECTIVE criteria. Now what?

I think that most people's taste buds are at least similar. We are, after all of the same species. So, GENERALLY, humans tend to like the same kinds of taste sensations.. Sweet, moist, dry, wet, and so on.

Sure. Note that here you are talking about personal feelings.

I meant define the term objective IN the actual argument. I would like to see it WRITTEN IN the argument, if that makes sense.

That's easy enough, just swap 5 out.
5) Something that does not depend on the characteristic of an evaluator is objective.

Ok.. you define subjective along the lines of "dependent on personal feelings".. I can accept that, and have done so.

Now.. defining a term by what it is NOT is... not as clear as you might think. What would you say if I defined a tree as something that is not a lake?

Then everything that is not a lake would qualify as a tree by that definition. Not how it is typically defined.

It's OK if you say it's the "opposite" of subjective.. but if you actually define objective ON IT'S own.. then it would be WAY more clear to all of us what you actually MEAN by it.

What we HAVE is a definition of 'subjective'... anything that isn't subjective is objective. Well... how about a lake?

Does it make linguistically sense to say a lake is subjective? No, which is why a lake is neither subjective or objective. The existence of a lake, the size of a lake, the beauty of a lake on the other hand, make sense in the context of subjective vs objective.

What Is something that is independent of personal feelings?.. I would ACTUALLY like to see what you mean by that. Honest.. Examples, at least.

The length of a rope. The sugar content of a cake. The number of people killed. The speed of a car.

I can say that a tree isn't a lake. How does that define a lake?

It doesn't. Note the difference between pointing out that a tree isn't a lake, and defining a tree as something that is not a lake (or lake as something that is not a tree.)

What on earth IS the "opposite" of a tree?

You tell me. Opposite only applies to adjectives surely.

Just do the work.
Define your terms please, you seem to be beating around the bush. Or tree or lake.

If I define difficult as being a demanding task, and easy as not a demanding task, would you complain that the definition of weak doesn't make it clear if a lake is easy or not?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by enviousintheeverafter]

Sam Harris defines ‘moral’ as that which concerns well-being (and not just human well-being), but that of all conscious creatures."

He further posits that: “maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures… [is] the only thing we can reasonably value.�

Seems pretty objective to me.

Yet, that goal is so highly subjective.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 34 by Bust Nak]

You've just affirmed everything I said - every logical reason follows from your feelings. Besides you are talking about why you value cars in general, as opposed to why you like your car, surely that would be things like, it's color and shape and how effective it is.

Everything we value comes down to some feeling. "Valuing" something is liking it a whole lot. of course it's a feeling. But the feelings can be based on objective realities or subjective ones. I 'like' to live. That's a feeling.. but it's a pretty basic one.. it's about an objective fact as we can GET that having ..life is preferable than not having it.

And about the particular car? The color and the shape and so on? Yes, those are subjective considerations like ice cream flavors. But that I should thrive as a human being? Basic to ALL human beings. When something is true of ALL humans, I call that an objective FACT about humans.

And having a car is one of the logical consequences of that "needing to thrive" feeling.

So with morality. I DO have a presupposition, and it IS based on a "feeling".. I think that's true. BUT.. once that premise is accepted, the rest, as they say, is history.. or in this case PURE REASON.

So, I don't "feel" that murder is wrong. I "feel" that humans should thrive. Murdering them isn't going to do much in that regard. That's pure reason. The FEELING I get deep inside is that MY LIFE is precious. Then the THOUGHT is.. whatever. Secondary to that.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Your feeling is primary, the thoughts are secondary.

Then we agree. The FEELING that we should live and thrive .. yes, that's a feeling. And it's a SHARED feeling that all humans have. That is what I call an objective FACT about humans.

Even if I can formulate a sound argument why murdering someone under very specific scenario will lead to an increase in humanity thrive level, it still wouldn't feel right.

Because it would go against a very basic truth about all humans. And that is that we all want to live. A basic "feeling" if you will. You might be able to formulate a subjective morality, that is based on less basic personal feelings, but not all or most all people would agree with these personal moral criteria.

We can now talk about forming an objective kind of morality based on the FEELING that we should thrive. And I right now agree with Harris that I can't figure out what a morality SHOULD be based on, if not that humans should thrive.

But why would you call such a thing "objective" when you've already acknowledge that the premise is personal, thought granted common, feelings? That flies in the face of the definition of objective.

When we are talking about HUMAN morality, we should base it on what is true of ALL humans.
It's not "personal"... it's true for everybody. It's not just ONE person's feelings we are talking about, but a feeling that is shared by ALL humans. This transcends the purely personal. It becomes by that fact OBJECTIVE for all humans.
That's what’s objective here, it's the fact that ALL humans want to live, and thrive while they are at it. We don't all share the same "feelings" about a whole lot of other issues.. like ice cream flavors.. lots of disagreement there. That's the individual kind of feeling that I call subjective.

Ok.. a judge in a court room is deciding something. He isn't deciding based on feelings. That's what I was saying. Yes, a judge is deciding about how to apply the law. It was an analogy.. Morality can also be defined objectively, which is why an evaluator should be disqualified if he were to use his feelings on the matter.
He might not "feel" that murder is wrong. Well, too bad for HIM, he is a bad evaluator. We DO have objective standards about murder, that he is ignoring.

But why should anyone agree with any one particular standard of what is right and wrong?

WHY SHOULD they ?... depends on their bottom line. The fact is that we do agree on those bottom line kinds of issues. Humans do actually value human life and human thriving. We all of us “feel�

Here is a trivial example, I am defining a moral standard thus: always obey Bust Nak.

Alas! Since not ALL humans would "feel" that this is a good rule, then it's not an objective human rule. This would be a subjective kind of a rule.

That human life is intrinsically good and that human flourishing is intrinsically good IS agreed upon by most if not all humans, and so, is an OBJECTIVE VALUE, by my definition.

One can test whether someone is obeying me objectively. I say to person A turn left but he turned right, a judge would be a bad evaluator if he didn't acknowledge that person A refused my command objectively. He is ignoring the objective standards about always obeying Bust Nak otherwise. Where does that leave you?

Yes, you can build a moral code on anything you like. But if not all humans agree, then it's not really an objective code. So, it leaves you with a subjective morality. Nazis had that kind of a morality. They thought it was very moral to kill Jews. But since not all could agree with that rule, ( think of the Jew's opinion ) then, that was a subjective morality. It was called, perhaps, an "objective' morality , but ONLY by the Nazis.
This isn't objective for all people.. just to some of the people... what I call objective would be true of ALL or most ALL people ( what we call normal people.. and of course, that’s what we’re talking about. )

Murder. It just feels wrong. Let's go with that. I just somehow.. "feel" that it's wrong.
BUT that's not all. I just don't just "FEEL" , I also have reasoned this out, to see if my FEELINGS match up with reality. I have also looked at the reasoning.. is it valid, is it based on the best facts that we know, and so forth.
Can't you?

I don't need to. Merely asking if your feelings match up with reality, presumes there is some sort of way you ought to feel objectively. I know intrusively how I am supposed to feel.

You don't think that you have to reason out your moral codes?...how bizzare!
If your feelings don't match up with reality, then you can "feel" anything at all.. and your morality will be just as imaginative and creative as you like.. and it will have no real use but to yourself. You can have an apple core kind of morality .. and that might be good for SOME people, but probably not all.
Yes, GIVEN that most if not all humans KINDA value human life for some reason.. that's our bottom line. THEN we can build a very robust and objective morality based on those notions that humans should LIVE GOOD LIVES.
I can't imagine a morality that would be based on anything else.. what.. a religion, perhaps.. communism? What do you propose? Orange peels?
But to say that not all humans think that human life is worth having.. to me sounds a bit disingenuous.

But you want to think that my judgement about murder is based on a pure feeling I get deep inside me, and then, I should pretend that reasoning never enters my decision? Do you imagine that JUST because I feel something, that I can't acknowledge a MISTAKE, and CHANGE my "feelings" on the matter? I can assure you , I have very often had to change my "feelings" after I had looked at all the data, and thought about the issue at hand.

Sure, the mere fact that you are talking about changing your feelings tells me that feelings is the primary drive to morality, and reasoning is merely there to justify your feelings. When you can't justify your feelings, you change your feelings.

You forgot that in the above example, I had changed my THOUGHTS prior to my feelings. Emotions can be automatic, or guided by thinking. I chose to guide my emotions by my best possible thinking. Emotions don’t only go in one direction. We can, as you say, have emotions and then rationalise them, that’s true. But we can also change our thoughts and feel differently because of those more reality based thoughts. Imagine a young bigoted person. He learns that other cultures have a lot to contribute to his life.. and so changes his “feelings� about other races... Yes, thoughts can change our feelings about things.

But if that's not enough for you, we can go with murder, if you want.. or chose something else that you feel more comfortable with. Murder is only a suggestion.

Murder is fine, as long as you acknowledge that murder is not defined as the immoral kind of slaying, but the illegal kind of slaying.

By definition, murder is unjustified killing. Murder is never "right". Killing might be.

Yeah, but that's because we need to accept the premise that cakes are good only when moist, or something like that.

That's the thing, we don't have to accept that premise. Some people don't like cakes at all. One person I know demands that ice-cream be heated in a microwave before he eats it, which kinda defeats the point of ice-cream but that's how he likes it. He is not incorrect.

Then, in your world, we can't make an objective decision about cakes. The CIA would disagree. I go with them on this.

I am saying it's not objective at all. Some one who likes cakes which most people would find disgusting, is not factually incorrect for liking it.

Their TASTE is personal, but the objective criteria for "cake" isn't.
I'm not talking about liking it or not. I am talking about objective criteria for what constitutes a good cake. I might not LIKE chocolate cake, but I can still tell the difference between a good one and a bad one. We don't have to LIKE objective criteria to be able to use one. We might think that our human life is better than others....but objectively speaking, that's not true. It's only subjectively true.

Yes, and you can get reasons for that. Once we DEFINE what a cake is... then we can see if the actual cake matches up to the criteria in a purely objective fashion. We can measure the moistness with an instrument, for example.
If you go to the Culinary Institute of America, or the CIA.. yes it's called that.. they would say BECAUSE WE SAY SO. CAKES are to be moist, that is one of the OBJECTIVE criteria by which we adjudicate cakes on here. Your cake is dry, you fail.

Ok, I define cake as something made out of dirt and inedible and loaded with salt that most people would not put in their mouths, let alone swallow it.

Yes, that's your subjective criteria. YOU PERSONALLY define cake that way. Most chefs and people might not all agree with it. Your dirt criteria is subjective. What all other people agree on.. or most people agree on would be the objective criteria.

The typical cake would then fail that OBJECTIVE criteria. Now what?

Find out what the objective criteria actually IS.

I think that most people's taste buds are at least similar. We are, after all of the same species. So, GENERALLY, humans tend to like the same kinds of taste sensations.. Sweet, moist, dry, wet, and so on.

Sure. Note that here you are talking about personal feelings.

It's personal to ALL HUMANS...hence, objective by my definition. It's our shared human experience. To HUMANS, most humans if not all, sweet, moist, flavorful and so on happens to BE true. That's why the CIA can give you marks on your cake...fail or pass.

I meant define the term objective IN the actual argument. I would like to see it WRITTEN IN the argument, if that makes sense.

That's easy enough, just swap 5 out.
5) Something that does not depend on the characteristic of an evaluator is objective.

I asked if you write out the whole argument when you propose an amendment. This is YOUR argument, after all. Can you do what I request, so that I can see your amendment in CONTEXT??
Right now, I have to go back and forth ....argggg.
The characteristics of an evaluator have nothing to do with the evaluation. He is tall....so what? He is short ....again, so what?

Ok.. you define subjective along the lines of "dependent on personal feelings".. I can accept that, and have done so.
Now.. defining a term by what it is NOT is... not as clear as you might think. What would you say if I defined a tree as something that is not a lake?

Then everything that is not a lake would qualify as a tree by that definition. Not how it is typically defined.

My point, defining a tree by what it is NOT is useless. A tree is not a train. How USEFUL is that definition for train? It’s not useful at all. Defining objective by what it is not is just as useless. Do the work.

It's OK if you say it's the "opposite" of subjective.. but if you actually define objective ON IT'S own.. then it would be WAY more clear to all of us what you actually MEAN by it.
What we HAVE is a definition of 'subjective'... anything that isn't subjective is objective. Well... how about a lake?

Does it make linguistically sense to say a lake is subjective? No, which is why a lake is neither subjective or objective. The existence of a lake, the size of a lake, the beauty of a lake on the other hand, make sense in the context of subjective vs objective.

NOTE: you didn't offer a definition of objective, as per my request. I'm not going to guess what you might mean by the term.

What Is something that is independent of personal feelings?.. I would ACTUALLY like to see what you mean by that. Honest.. Examples, at least.

The length of a rope. The sugar content of a cake. The number of people killed. The speed of a car.

Good. Super. Now, spell that out in your argument.
And the please, write the whole argument out to reflect the change..the added definition. Don't have us guess or assume anything in it.

What on earth IS the "opposite" of a tree?

You tell me. Opposite only applies to adjectives surely.

We are talking about SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE. YES THEY ARE ADJECTIVES.
You have a dichotomy... subjective which you do define, and this other adjective, objective .... which you don’t define. Please, if you want to use a term in your argument, take the trouble of defining it. Especially when the definitions are potentially controversial.

Just do the work. It's your argument.

[Bust Nak]

Everything we value comes down to some feeling. "Valuing" something is liking it a whole lot. of course it's a feeling. But the feelings can be based on objective realities or subjective ones. I 'like' to live. That's a feeling.. but it's a pretty basic one.. it's about an objective fact as we can GET that having ..life is preferable than not having it.

I accept that wanting to live is basic and pretty much universal. But how does that makes such a feeling "objective?"

And about the particular car? The color and the shape and so on? Yes, those are subjective considerations like ice cream flavors. But that I should thrive as a human being? Basic to ALL human beings. When something is true of ALL humans, I call that an objective FACT about humans.

Right, it is an objective FACT about me that I like vanilla ice-cream over chocolate ice-cream. That does not imply taste is objective. There is a clear divide between objective fact about a person and subjective feeling.

Then we agree. The FEELING that we should live and thrive .. yes, that's a feeling. And it's a SHARED feeling that all humans have. That is what I call an objective FACT about humans.

Sure but do you acknowledge that the feeling is subjective? I am not sure you do.

Because it would go against a very basic truth about all humans. And that is that we all want to live. A basic "feeling" if you will. You might be able to formulate a subjective morality, that is based on less basic personal feelings, but not all or most all people would agree with these personal moral criteria.

I don't see why how basic a personal feeling is, factor into whether it is subjective or not. The deciding factor is whether it is a feeling or not. The level of agreement, how wide spread a feeling is, does not enter into the equation.

When we are talking about HUMAN morality, we should base it on what is true of ALL humans.
It's not "personal"... it's true for everybody. It's not just ONE person's feelings we are talking about, but a feeling that is shared by ALL humans. This transcends the purely personal. It becomes by that fact OBJECTIVE for all humans.
That's what’s objective here, it's the fact that ALL humans want to live, and thrive while they are at it. We don't all share the same "feelings" about a whole lot of other issues.. like ice cream flavors.. lots of disagreement there. That's the individual kind of feeling that I call subjective...

[futher comments surrounding how popular certain feelings are cropped]

So the level of agreement amongst evaluators, determines if something is objective or subjective?

Here is a mental exercise. There are two human left alive. One likes chocolate over vanilla, the other disagree. You have 100% disagreement, that's what you would call subjective, right? Then person one dies and now trivially, there is 0% disagreement on ice-cream favor. Has the nature of ice-cream taste changed from subjective to objective?

What if the Nazis killed everyone who disagreed with killing Jews so that all people agree? Is that then objective?

That human life is intrinsically good and that human flourishing is intrinsically good IS agreed upon by most if not all humans, and so, is an OBJECTIVE VALUE, by my definition.

Well, it's not how objective is typically defined. Why not stick to how it is used in philosophy? You are talking about something else other than subjectivism vs objectivism.

This isn't objective for all people.. just to some of the people... what I call objective would be true of ALL or most ALL people ( what we call normal people.. and of course, that’s what we’re talking about. )

Who gets to decide what normal people means? How typical he is? Again, what happens when the hatred for Jews is the typical feeling, say over 70%. Are you abnormal for one to grant Jews the right to life? What about 90%? Or 99%

You don't think that you have to reason out your moral codes?...how bizzare!
If your feelings don't match up with reality, then you can "feel" anything at all.. and your morality will be just as imaginative and creative as you like.. and it will have no real use but to yourself. You can have an apple core kind of morality .. and that might be good for SOME people, but probably not all.

Far from something that I would sly away from, that's a defining feature of subjectivism.

Yes, GIVEN that most if not all humans KINDA value human life for some reason.. that's our bottom line. THEN we can build a very robust and objective morality based on those notions that humans should LIVE GOOD LIVES.
I can't imagine a morality that would be based on anything else.. what.. a religion, perhaps.. communism? What do you propose? Orange peels?

I'll go with letting individuals decide what is moral and what isn't immoral.

But to say that not all humans think that human life is worth having.. to me sounds a bit disingenuous.

That's moot since how popular an opinion is, does not enter into my argument at all.

You forgot that in the above example, I had changed my THOUGHTS prior to my feelings.

I did not forget that, that was part of my point - you changed your THOUGHTS prior to your feelings - that means your feelings is the primary drive to morality, and reasoning is merely there to justify your feelings. When you can't justify your feelings, you change your feelings.

Emotions can be automatic, or guided by thinking. I chose to guide my emotions by my best possible thinking. Emotions don’t only go in one direction. We can, as you say, have emotions and then rationalise them, that’s true. But we can also change our thoughts and feel differently because of those more reality based thoughts. Imagine a young bigoted person. He learns that other cultures have a lot to contribute to his life.. and so changes his “feelings� about other races... Yes, thoughts can change our feelings about things.

I don't dispute that feelings can change based on experience or reason. I am saying feeling is fundamental, the basis of all value judgement. Reasoning need premises/presuppositions to work. Premises such as life is valuable from which you build your moral code from, is an expression of your personal feelings, no matter how common it is.

By definition, murder is unjustified killing. Murder is never "right". Killing might be.

Then we have a problem, we are using different definitions. I use the following definition: Murder noun - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. If we use your definition then there is simply nothing to debate as to its morality. Why do you need to reason if murder helps or hinder humanity to thrive, to come to the conclusion that it is wrong, when it's simply defined as the immoral kind of killing to begin with?

Then, in your world, we can't make an objective decision about cakes. The CIA would disagree. I go with them on this.

They would disagree that one can't make an objective decision about cakes? I very much doubt they have an official stance over philosophical issues.

Their TASTE is personal, but the objective criteria for "cake" isn't.
I'm not talking about liking it or not. I am talking about objective criteria for what constitutes a good cake.

That presumes that the criteria for what constitutes a good cake, isn't about liking a cake.

Find out what the objective criteria actually IS.

There isn't one, only subjective criteria exist. I can however find what the most popular criteria is.

The characteristics of an evaluator have nothing to do with the evaluation. He is tall....so what? He is short ....again, so what?

He likes rock hard dry cakes, that has lots to do with evaluation of cakes; he likes to live, that has lots to do with evaluation of moral actions.

My point, defining a tree by what it is NOT is useless. A tree is not a train. How USEFUL is that definition for train? It’s not useful at all. Defining objective by what it is not is just as useless. Do the work.

I dispute that. It's far from useless and it is how "objective" is typically defined. They all go along the lines of being independent from the mind of an evaluator.

NOTE: you didn't offer a definition of objective, as per my request. I'm not going to guess what you might mean by the term.

The record will show that I defined objective as "not dependent on personal feelings" in post #31.

Good. Super. Now, spell that out in your argument.
And the please, write the whole argument out to reflect the change..the added definition. Don't have us guess or assume anything in it.

But that just adds excess complexity that doesn't affect the argument. What are you gaining with the addition of *?

1) Morality is a matter of value judgement.
2) Value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings.
3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's feelings.
4) A person's feelings is a characteristic of said person.
*) subjective is definied as something that depends on the characteristic of an evaluator.
5) Something that depends on the characteristic of an evaluator is subjective.
*) objective is defined as something that does not depend on on the characteristic of an evaluator.
6) Therefore morality is subjective and not objective.

We are talking about SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE. YES THEY ARE ADJECTIVES.
You have a dichotomy... subjective which you do define, and this other adjective, objective .... which you don’t define. Please, if you want to use a term in your argument, take the trouble of defining it. Especially when the definitions are potentially controversial.

a) If you accept that there is a subjective and objective is a dichotomy, then I don't need to define both. Independent is simply not dependent; unnatural is simply not natural; unreasonable is simply not reasonable and so on.
b) I did give you are definition, it's widely accepted.

[FinalEnigma]

This is a lovely debate. I may get into more substantial points eventually, but for now there's a couple things I wanted to point out

Especially about cake. debating cake is awesome.

I would argue that a good cake can be objectively evaluated in several ways. The subjectivity comes in choosing the definition.

1)A cake which was produced accurately according to the recipe and instructions is a good cake.

2)A cake which a majority of people would find tasty is a good cake.

3)A cake which the intended eater of the cake finds tasty is a good cake

Tastiness is subjective, but we can have objective criteria that are based on an evaluation of subjective things.

Whether an individual wants to live and thrive is determined subjectively. However, whether an individual wants to live and thrive or not is an objective fact. The vast majority of humans want to live and thrive. This is objectively true.

The problem with determining an objective morality based on this is that the question of which set of objective criterion to use is itself subjective.

An objective moral system could be based on any of the following, and while it itself would be objective, whether it is the correct basis for a moral system is subjective:

1)The greatest thriving of the greatest number of humans

2)The greatest thriving of the greatest number of humans without violating the thriving of other humans (No killing an innocent guy to harvest organs to save the lives of 6 people)

3)The greatest thriving of the greatest number of sentient(or even just living) organisms

4)The continued survival of the species in the greatest number

5)The greatest pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the universe

and so on.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I'm going to post a PM I had sent to someone elaborating on the fact/value relationship here, since its generally pertinent to the discussion-

... Even if some assessment of the relevant objective/factual conditions relating to ones valuing of their car- or of certain actions (i.e. as moral)- did indeed "come first", the crucial point is that the transition from these objective/factual conditions to value involves a leap that is not warranted by logic. That is, in going from facts X, Y and Z to some claim of value ("I like this car", or "doing X is morally wrong/right"), one has gone beyond the facts- the facts do not entail the value claim. One could, with equal logical justification, come to the opposite conclusion regarding value. This is the fact/value problem (one cannot logically derive any ought/should- i.e. a value-judgment/normative claim- from an is- i.e. a factual/descriptive claim), and an apparently fatal one for an account of objective morality. No set of facts ever entails any value judgment- and since moral judgments are, necessarily, value judgments, no set of facts entail any moral judgment (unlike non-moral judgments, which can indeed by entailed by sets of facts, i.e. the fact that snow is white logically implicates the truth of the judgment "snow is white"). But if moral judgments can never stand in any logical relation to facts, then it seems there can be nothing in virtue of which moral judgments can be (objectively) true or false, and always/necessarily involve a (subjective, preferential) leap from the facts to the value-judgment.

So the idea here is this- for non-moral/non-normative judgments, like, say, "snow is white", certain facts entail the truth of the judgment. This is a really trivial example, but obviously the fact that snow is white is an objective fact, and is the reason why the judgment "snow is white" is true. And obviously, if snow is in fact white, then this entails, logically, that "snow is white" is true; the fact necessitates the truth of the judgment.

But now consider a case of a moral judgment- say, that punching someone is wrong. Now, there definitely are objective reasons/facts that form part of our reasoning in such a judgment- for instance, that punching someone in the face hurts, it is painful and quite harmful. But notice that the fact punching someone is painful and harmful doesn't entail that punching someone is wrong, unlike the snow is white case, the fact doesn't entail the judgment; there would be no contradiction in saying, "well, punching someone is painful and wrong, and is therefore morally right". This would be sort of unusual and surprising, but not contradictory or illogical in any way. So the facts do not logically imply the moral judgment, and indeed the situation would be the same regardless of whatever set of facts we happen to chose- someone could always just look at it and draw the exact opposite conclusion, and their conclusion is no less (and no more) logically necessitated by the facts. Now, obviously it'd be sort of peculiar for someone to go from X is painful/harmful to X is therefore right/good- this is the opposite of what most everyone would actually conclude. But this is because most of also hold- as a matter of moral judgment- that causing pain/harm is bad and wrong (outside of certain circumstances like self-defense). But this is not a fact, this is yet another value/moral judgment. In order to show that this judgment is objectively true, we'd need to find some facts in virtue of which it is true- but then, we end up in the exact same scenario as we were a moment ago; whatever the facts happen to be, they do not logically necessitate the moral conclusion that what causes pain/harm is wrong, but requires yet another moral judgment. And so on, ad infinitum.

This is, as I remarked, the is/ought problem; an "ought" (since to say that X is wrong is to say one ought not do X) never follows (logically) from an "is", but only from another "ought"- no matter how many "is" (objective/factual) statements I accumulate- X causes pain, X causes suffering, X cases financial loss, etc.- I can never logically deduce an "ought" (i.e. "one ought not do X"). The value/moral judgment always goes beyond those facts, needing an existing "ought" or moral/value judgment to reach its conclusion.

[Paprika]

...but requires yet another moral judgment. And so on, ad infinitum.

This is, as I remarked, the is/ought problem; an "ought" (since to say that X is wrong is to say one ought not do X) never follows (logically) from an "is"

Indeed.

But why can't one merely take some value/moral judgments as basic premises? Then no infinite regression is necessary.