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?

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 40 by Paprika]

Obviously there are plenty of contexts where one could (and many often do) take certain values or moral judgments as basic premises- but it wouldn't help here. If we want to know whether there are any (objectively) true moral judgments, simply taking certain moral judgments to be true (taking them as premises) would be question-begging.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 40 by Paprika]

Obviously there are plenty of contexts where one could (and many often do) take certain values or moral judgments as basic premises- but it wouldn't help here. If we want to know whether there are any (objectively) true moral judgments, simply taking certain moral judgments to be true (taking them as premises) would be question-begging.

Perhaps, but as regards the justification of moral systems and the is-ought ditch, and not 'can we know that moral objectivity exists' we are agreed:

No, you can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is' but there is no reason why a robust moral system can't be derived using 'is' and some basic 'oughts' or value judgments. So the is-ought problem doesn't really present any difficulty practically, unless of course for some quaint reason one wants to derive a system purely from 'is'.

[enviousintheeverafter]

there is no reason why a robust moral system can't be derived using 'is' and some basic 'oughts' or value judgments.

Generally? No, there isn't. But in the present context it doesn't help anything; we're looking for candidates for truthmakers for moral/value judgments- facts in virtue of which they're true. Simply taking certain moral judgments as true doesn't move the needle on this.

[Paprika]

there is no reason why a robust moral system can't be derived using 'is' and some basic 'oughts' or value judgments.

Generally? No, there isn't. But in the present context it doesn't help anything; we're looking for candidates for truthmakers for moral/value judgments

Nope, we're mostly if not all engaging in discussions tangential to the one you want to have.

Especially cake. debating cake is awesome.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 37 by 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?"

By my definition of objective. You may have a much better definition for objective. I have no idea what that may be.

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.

Correct. Taste is subjective. Cake baking isn't. Chemistry is involved. CIA rules apply. You fail at the CIA rules, you don't get to be a CIA chef. Simple. No feelings come into the evaluation.

The CIA does not evaluate cakes on feelings. The CIA has strict criteria.

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 of my definition, no. If all humans feel the same way about something, and that doesn't change over time or culture, I call that an objective FACT about humans.

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.

It's not a PERSONAL feeling. It's a shared basic FACT about our SHARED human experience and feelings. It's also a basic human fact of logic that what we call morally good is about human well being. It sure isn't about human SUFFERING.

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...

I don't call popular feelings objective. I am saying that ALL humans should share these feelings, and by the fact that ALL humans share the feelings, it's objective.

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

In a way, but not quite. It's the level of agreement among ALL HUMANS that determines if something is objective or not, and not just the evaluators. Take things that burn. It's the shared human experience that hot stove tops are NOT to be touched .. that makes a hot stove top a bad thing for humans. EVERYONE feels the same way about hot stove tops.

Here is a mental exercise. There are two human left alive. One likes chocolate over vanilla, the other disagree.

We have already established that SOME THINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE.. ice cream preferences are personal. Not everyone shares ice cream flavor favorites, so it's subjective.

ALL people.. objective.. NOT all people.. subjective. Not all people even if there are only two left, like the same ice cream flavor, all people think they should not be murdered.

You have 100% disagreement, that's what you would call subjective, right?

This IS tricky, but basically, I'd have to say no.
Preferences on flavors is NOT a moral issue in the first place, and second, the two people don't agree, so their opinions can't be true to all humans at all times in all places. So, it's subjective. But not because we have 100% disagreement. It's because their disagreement is based on personal tastes.

They would have to AGREE for it to be objective... They disagree.

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?

If your humanity is one person, then, yes, To that one person,.. anything can be objective. And who cares.

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

It would be.. yes. There would be no more Jews to dissent. I suppose all dissenters would be shot and killed, too. By my criteria, yes, this would be objective. Horrible, but objective. But that's a terrible example,, because the Jews were there when the Nazis started to kill them I don't THINK at the time that the Jews would have agreed with the Nazis. So it was subjective then.. but now that there are no more Jews, no Jews would disagree.

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.

I don't really care how it's typically defined. You haven't defined it for your own argument, and I'm just supplying you with a possibility. Remember, that this isn't MY argument we are talking about.. it's YOUR argument. So, my definition isn't really pertinent. I was just giving you an example of what a definition might look like.

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?

It's math, basically. You count all the people.. get their stats.. then you do some statistics.. it's a normal distribution. Oddly, most people don't like to be murdered. Go figure.. no accounting for "subjective taste".

Oh, and normal people get to decide what normal people are like.. the abnormal ones don't seem to count as much, oddly.

How typical he is?

Some people are clever with statistics.

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%

Some people are very skilled at statistical analysis. I can't help you there.

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.

Have no idea what the above means. I was trying to help your argument. Have you lost interest in it? All I wanted was to GET YOU to define objective. You still haven't.

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.

So, to you, it's fine that a killer decides to kill you.. that's moral?

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 think that the idea that human life is worth having is just a bit popular? What? Anyone who doesn't think so is deranged or evil.. but ok.. I'm saying that all humans think that their human life is worth preserving.

So, you dont' think that an objective morality is what everyone thinks it is.. you don't seem to care what all humans think about life and human flourishing?

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,

Thoughts first, feelings second. YOU THINK that means feelings are primary? .. what?

and reasoning is merely there to justify your feelings. When you can't justify your feelings, you change your feelings.

Reason first, feeling about those thoughts, second.
You justify feelings using THOUGHTS.. thoughts first, feelings second.

Thoughts can be first. Right now, I am leading with my thoughts. My feelings on the matter are... way back there.. and not pertinent. But I can and do have emotions.. I am a feeling kind of a guy.

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.

Good. Then we agree. Thoughts about morality can change our feelings and feelings can change our thoughts about morality. It's certainly not a one way street.

I am saying feeling is fundamental, the basis of all value judgement.

Yes, that's the conclusion to your argument. But it might not be so, if we think about it carefully.

Reality is what it is. I call reality OBJECTIVE.
Heat burns. This is a reality. We know that we should not burn ourselves or others because of an objective fact about reality. Then, we feel one way or the other about that objective fact. So, we could say that REALITY is what we react to emotionally first. What may come first is reality, then we may have a feeling or a thought, then a value judgement is always a thought.

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.

Agreed. A premise/presupposition is a thought, not a feeling. A feeling may INFORM the thought.. or the thought may derive from other thoughts, but ultimately, humans face reality. There's no escaping reality. Morality deals with the reality of our shared experience, and how to deal with one another.

Remember that I was talking about a SHARED human experience. To be human is to think this way and NOT any other way. These are basic facts about the human experience.

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.

I have the exact same definition as do you. Unlawful killing. Unjustified ( by law ) killing. So, we agree on the definition.

If we use your definition then there is simply nothing to debate as to its morality.

I don't understand the distinction you see between our two definitions, they seem identical to me.

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?

If we all kill or murder each other, I hardly see how that would help us to survive or flourish. It was so defined by thinking about it. The reasoning has been done for ever since people thought. We can still think and come to the same conclusions. We don't really have to think much about it. BUT IF WE DO.. as when we explain morality to a child, then we most certainly can, and do so using the exact same reasons.. no matter where or when. Humans share and have shared these thoughts for ever.

You might say it's genetically programmed in us, or evolution or so on.. Basic facts about humans, in any case.

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.

The CIA is a cooking school. The evaluate cakes there, not syllogisms.

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.

It doesn't have to presume that at all, it can be both. It presumes that a good criteria for a cake will pretty much mean that most humans would enjoy the cake, and that the chef has created a cake according to the the CIA standard, which is an objective standard. So much moistness, no more no less. so much sweetness, no more, no less... that kind of thing. They DO offer judgements on cakes. These aren't at all subjective.

That's why, when someone graduates from the CIA, they are called "chef". They can cook according to a very high and objective standard.

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.

Cakes and cars.

When you just used the word "most" up there, as in "most popular".. you are going towards agreeing with my definition. Yes, most people would PREFER a moist cake to a rock hard one. Weird, huh? Just a coincidence of subjective tastes? Or is this a basic, objective FACT about humans?....

We are talking about cakes? Then ask the CIA.. we are talking about murder? then talk to a policeman, a judge, a jury and so on. Criteria for many things are objective. You can enjoy many flavors of ice cream, and you taste preferences are what we call subjective to the person. Objective rules are relative to the entire human race at all times, in all cultures. This is a subtle difference you may want to think about.

How about we talk about speed limits? .. yes, there are objective criteria in the real world. Humans can't expect to all drive like race car drivers in ordinary cars, and with ordinary driving skills. We really need to slow that down.. and hence, speed limits. We all might "feel" like driving a little bit faster....

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.

But most people or almost all people don't LIKE rock hard dry cakes. Most people would VALUE moist cakes.. and pay more for moist cakes.. and throw away dry cakes... and so on. This is what I call objective.

Most people don't like to burn their flesh. This is a FEELING that we all share. We can build a morality based on that objective fact. Burning my flesh is bad. Anyone burning someone is bad. We can't really pretend that the REALITY of human flesh burning is bad isn't true. It's true for most people .. in all cases.. in all cultures, at all times.

This is what I call objective.
Your rock hard dry cake officionato will not work long at the CIA. He will fail that the CIA's objective criteria. He can start his own weird, subjective school of baking. The rest of the world agrees with the CIA.

Do you understand my distinction? .. ONE PERSON or just SOME persons.. liking something is subjective. ALL PEOPLE or MOSTLY ALL PEOPLE liking something is not just subjective, it becomes objective by that fact. And my humble definition.

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.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what definition for objective you are talking about. You still haven't offered one after repeated demands. This is about YOUR argument. Not mine.

Present YOUR definitions, do the work. Right now, it just seems that you want to argue with me and NOT actually attend to your argument. Remember your argument? You argument fails as it stands.

I suggest you work on it a bit more. It might have some merit. Right now, I can't EVEN know that it's wrong because some of your terms are vague, and perhaps not fully formed.

Remember that I am trying to save your argument. I am on your side. I'd like to agree with you that morality is subjective. I don't have an opinion, so I'd really like to see a really good argument. I think yours has good bones.. but lacks clarity.

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.

And I have problems with the definition that makes it impossible for me to get to your conclusion. The record shows my objections. You may feel free to ignore them, but then, I can't help you with the argument. I think it just fails miserably in many ways as it stands. Sorry.

1. You said that objective is an adjective.
2. You say that objective is anything that isn't dependent on personal feelings."
3. Red is an adjective.
4. Therefore, since anything that isn't dependent on personal feelings, and that redness isn't dependent on personal feelings, what is objective is red.

I'm making fun of your definition in order to demonstrate that it's so vague as to be useless. In any case, I don't know what you MEAN by the definition, and I can't even begin to form an example.

Maybe you can supply one.
Give me an example of something that isn't dependent on personal feelings, and show how that can be called objective.

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 *?

It's your argument. I would like to at LEAST understand what your terms actually mean. Otherwise, I can't EVALUATE your argument. You have not taken the necessary baggage that will get you to your conclusion.

Vague terms will just kill it.

In any case, this is what I have gleamed so far:

1) Morality is a matter of value judgement.

Agreed.

2) Value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings.

Not true in all cases. Maybe in some.

3) Therefore morality depends on an evalutor's feelings.

Only in some cases. Not in all cases.

4) A person's feelings is a characteristic of said person.

Agreed.

*) subjective is definied as something that depends on the characteristic of an evaluator.

That does not work at all.. tallness is also a characteristic of an evalutator. Your definition of subjective is way too broad to be useful.

5) Something that depends on the characteristic of an evaluator is subjective.

The ability to think is also a characteristic of an evaluator. Your definition is way too vague. You want to distinguish feelings from thoughts, yes? Using your definition, we can't do that. It's useless.

*) objective is defined as something that does not depend on on the characteristic of an evaluator.

Good. thank you. Now I can clearly see that in some cases, an evaluator's feelings has nothing to do with the evaluation. 2+2=4 does not depend on feelings...Once we have established objective rules.. then we don't have to depend on anyone's feelings.

And not only FEELINGS are characteristics of the evaluator. The ability of using objective criteria and sticking only to those are also potential characteristics of an evalutator. I'm thinking of any judge, and peer about to review a scientific paper and any CIA teacher evaluating a student's cake.

But we do have to establish objective rules. This is the project of morality. We have to know and to define what is right and what is wrong, and have darn good reasons for these rules, or throw them out.

6) Therefore morality is subjective and not objective.

Your 6 doesn't follow, the argument simply fails.

b) I did give you are definition, it's widely accepted.

It's popular? .. No, I have explained to you that your definition was so vague as to be meaningless. I have attempted so far to give you a possible definition for objective that you don't seem to accept. That's fine. I'm not really defending my definition, although, I like it. What I am doing here is giving you an EXAMPLE of what a definition for the word objective might look like.

Right now, one of the glaring problems with your argument is the lack of an adequate definition of "objective".

Your argument dies by vagueness.

Cheers.

P.S.
This is really fun.. but long to read.
I'd like to see more specific posts.. and not such long ones.
I'm just as much at fault as you are.
I tend to throw out every objection and question that I think about in order to help an interesting argument.. hope you can be patient with me.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Nope, we're mostly if not all engaging in discussions tangential to the one you want to have.

That's obviously not accurate (it looks like you're the only one), but if it was intended to be off-topic its curious you had quoted my post #39 before your comment (implying that it was intended to be a response, in some sense, to what I had said).

[Paprika]

Nope, we're mostly if not all engaging in discussions tangential to the one you want to have.

That's obviously not accurate (it looks like you're the only one), but if it was intended to be off-topic its curious you had quoted my post #39 before your comment (implying that it was intended to be a response, in some sense, to what I had said).

I did say "mostly".

So there was an on-topic bit, and the off-topic bit ('cake').

[Bust Nak]

By my definition of objective. You may have a much better definition for objective. I have no idea what that may be.

But further down you said it's my argument therefore your definition isn't really pertinent. Yet much of the your post is you disputing what I call subjective with your definition of objective along the lines of "this is what I call objective."

Correct. Taste is subjective. Cake baking isn't. Chemistry is involved. CIA rules apply. You fail at the CIA rules, you don't get to be a CIA chef. Simple. No feelings come into the evaluation.

The CIA does not evaluate cakes on feelings. The CIA has strict criteria.

I don't dispute any of that. What I am saying is the strict criteria is based on subjective taste.

Because of my definition, no. If all humans feel the same way about something, and that doesn't change over time or culture, I call that an objective FACT about humans.

I can come up with many objective FACT about human, despite human disagreement. Objective facts such as "human often disagree on ice-cream favors." Being able to come up with objective fact about something doesn't help decide if that something is objective or not.

It's not a PERSONAL feeling. It's a shared basic FACT about our SHARED human experience and feelings. It's also a basic human fact of logic that what we call morally good is about human well being. It sure isn't about human SUFFERING.

Feelings cannot be anything other than personal, you can never experience my feelings, you can only ever experience your own feelings, which may well match mine.

I don't call popular feelings objective. I am saying that ALL humans should share these feelings, and by the fact that ALL humans share the feelings, it's objective.

What is the distinction between popular feelings, and feelings shared by all or most human?

In a way, but not quite. It's the level of agreement among ALL HUMANS that determines if something is objective or not, and not just the evaluators. Take things that burn. It's the shared human experience that hot stove tops are NOT to be touched .. that makes a hot stove top a bad thing for humans. EVERYONE feels the same way about hot stove tops.

All human as opposed all evaluators? Everyone who feels a certain way about hot stove tops, is automatically an evaluator of hot stove tops. There is no distinction.

We have already established that SOME THINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE.. ice cream preferences are personal. Not everyone shares ice cream flavor favorites, so it's subjective.

ALL people.. objective.. NOT all people.. subjective. Not all people even if there are only two left, like the same ice cream flavor, all people think they should not be murdered.

This IS tricky, but basically, I'd have to say no.
Preferences on flavors is NOT a moral issue in the first place, and second, the two people don't agree, so their opinions can't be true to all humans at all times in all places. So, it's subjective. But not because we have 100% disagreement. It's because their disagreement is based on personal tastes.

They would have to AGREE for it to be objective... They disagree.

You seems to be opening new cans of worms here. Now you have:
1) Lots of disagreeing based on personal tastes.
2) All or mostly agreement based on personal tastes.
3) Lots of disagreeing based on facts.
4) All or mostly agreement based on facts.

The first one is subjective, but what are the other three?

If your humanity is one person, then, yes, To that one person,.. anything can be objective. And who cares.

"To that one person" seems redundant. There is only one person.

It would be.. yes. There would be no more Jews to dissent. I suppose all dissenters would be shot and killed, too. By my criteria, yes, this would be objective. Horrible, but objective. But that's a terrible example,, because the Jews were there when the Nazis started to kill them I don't THINK at the time that the Jews would have agreed with the Nazis. So it was subjective then.. but now that there are no more Jews, no Jews would disagree.

Right, that was part of my objection: Killing Jews was subjective once, and objective later - it switched from subjective to objective. The moral nature of an act changed, yet it appears nothing has changed about the act itself.

I don't really care how it's typically defined. You haven't defined it for your own argument, and I'm just supplying you with a possibility. Remember, that this isn't MY argument we are talking about.. it's YOUR argument. So, my definition isn't really pertinent. I was just giving you an example of what a definition might look like.

I haven't define most of my other terms, you automatically assumed I used them according to the typical definition. Why make an exception out of the terms "subjective" and "objective?" Did my usage appeared to not to line up with the typical definition?

Have no idea what the above means. I was trying to help your argument. Have you lost interest in it? All I wanted was to GET YOU to define objective. You still haven't.

You were calling it bizarre and being no real use anyone but myself. How is that trying to help my argument? Also there is a difference between not defining objective, and failing to answer all your objection against my definition. There is no way you can accuse me of the former when I've already pointed out exactly where I have defined objective, plus how means the same thing as the typical definition found in dictionary.

So, to you, it's fine that a killer decides to kill you.. that's moral?

No, I said it's up to the individuals to decide what is moral and what isn't immoral - I, an individual, decided that it is immoral for a killer to kill me.

You think that the idea that human life is worth having is just a bit popular? What? Anyone who doesn't think so is deranged or evil.. but ok.. I'm saying that all humans think that their human life is worth preserving.

So, you dont' think that an objective morality is what everyone thinks it is.. you don't seem to care what all humans think about life and human flourishing?

I didn't say anything about the level of popularity for the idea that human life is worth having is. I said it is irrelevant how popular it is. It can be 100% universal and it would still be subjective.

Thoughts first, feelings second. YOU THINK that means feelings are primary? .. what?

Reason first, feeling about those thoughts, second.
You justify feelings using THOUGHTS.. thoughts first, feelings second.

...

Good. Then we agree. Thoughts about morality can change our feelings and feelings can change our thoughts about morality. It's certainly not a one way street.

No, we don't agree. I am saying thoughts about morality can only changed by changing your feelings. One way. Other thoughts not about morality, such as about stove burns, can however change your feelings.

Reality is what it is. I call reality OBJECTIVE.
Heat burns. This is a reality. We know that we should not burn ourselves or others because of an objective fact about reality. Then, we feel one way or the other about that objective fact. So, we could say that REALITY is what we react to emotionally first. What may come first is reality, then we may have a feeling or a thought, then a value judgement is always a thought.

We know that we should not burn ourselves or others because of an objective fact about reality, THEN we feel? Why does feeling have anything to do with morality if you already know what one should do?

Heat burns. This is a reality. We feel that we should not burn ourselves or others because of our feelings about an objective fact about reality. That's all there is to it.

Agreed. A premise/presupposition is a thought, not a feeling.

I feel it is wrong to steal - a statement about my feelings. That's the kind of premise I am talking about.

Remember that I was talking about a SHARED human experience. To be human is to think this way and NOT any other way. These are basic facts about the human experience.

Right, and I am saying it's irrelevant since how much it is shared, is not a factor in deciding if something is subjective or objective.

I have the exact same definition as do you. Unlawful killing. Unjustified ( by law ) killing. So, we agree on the definition.

I don't understand the distinction you see between our two definitions, they seem identical to me.

There is a huge difference between the wrong kind of killing and the illegal kind of killing. I was defining murder as the latter kind, and you objected and said murder is never right. Yet there are examples of unlawful killing, unjustified by law that is morally right. It doesn't look like we are using the same definition at all.

If we all kill or murder each other, I hardly see how that would help us to survive or flourish. It was so defined by thinking about it. The reasoning has been done for ever since people thought. We can still think and come to the same conclusions. We don't really have to think much about it. BUT IF WE DO.. as when we explain morality to a child, then we most certainly can, and do so using the exact same reasons.. no matter where or when. Humans share and have shared these thoughts for ever.

You might say it's genetically programmed in us, or evolution or so on.. Basic facts about humans, in any case.

That's what I previously called post hoc justification. We intuitively feel that murder is wrong, and only need to come up with survival when we need to justify that feeling.

The CIA is a cooking school. The evaluate cakes there, not syllogisms.

Therefore one should not expect them to have an official stance on philosophical issues. Hence the CIA would not disagree with me about their standard for cakes being subjective.

It doesn't have to presume that at all, it can be both. It presumes that a good criteria for a cake will pretty much mean that most humans would enjoy the cake, and that the chef has created a cake according to the the CIA standard, which is an objective standard. So much moistness, no more no less. so much sweetness, no more, no less... that kind of thing. They DO offer judgements on cakes. These aren't at all subjective.

That's why, when someone graduates from the CIA, they are called "chef". They can cook according to a very high and objective standard.

Only if we use your definition of objective.

When you just used the word "most" up there, as in "most popular".. you are going towards agreeing with my definition.

No I am disagreeing with your definition. I am saying it's not objective but merely popular.

Yes, most people would PREFER a moist cake to a rock hard one. Weird, huh? Just a coincidence of subjective tastes? Or is this a basic, objective FACT about humans?....

It's an objective fact the subjective nature of human taste.

We are talking about cakes? Then ask the CIA.. we are talking about murder? then talk to a policeman, a judge, a jury and so on. Criteria for many things are objective. You can enjoy many flavors of ice cream, and you taste preferences are what we call subjective to the person. Objective rules are relative to the entire human race at all times, in all cultures. This is a subtle difference you may want to think about.

CIA cannot decide what is or isn't a good cake for the entire human race at all times, nor can the police decide if a case of killing is wrong for the entire human race at all times. What the CIA could do is decide how close a particular cake fit the criteria they set. What the police could do is decide how lawful a killing, or driving speed is.

But most people or almost all people don't LIKE rock hard dry cakes. Most people would VALUE moist cakes.. and pay more for moist cakes.. and throw away dry cakes... and so on. This is what I call objective.

Do you understand my distinction? .. ONE PERSON or just SOME persons.. liking something is subjective. ALL PEOPLE or MOSTLY ALL PEOPLE liking something is not just subjective, it becomes objective by that fact. And my humble definition.

I don't like your definition. Objections:

1) The moral nature of an act changing from objective to subjective or vice versa depending of the level of popularity.
2) The nature of preference can be both objective and subjective. Person A likes a dry cake but dislike moist cake his opinion is subjective. Person B likes moist cake but dislike a dry cake and his opinion is objective.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what definition for objective you are talking about. You still haven't offered one after repeated demands. This is about YOUR argument. Not mine.

I repeat: The record will show that I defined objective as "not dependent on personal feelings" in post #31. Which is in line with how it is typically defined, along the lines of "independent from the mind of an evaluator." This particular objection of yours is a trivial falsehood.

And I have problems with the definition that makes it impossible for me to get to your conclusion.

What exactly is this definition you are referring to, if you don't

The record shows my objections. You may feel free to ignore them

I've answer them point by point.

1. You said that objective is an adjective.
2. You say that objective is anything that isn't dependent on personal feelings."
3. Red is an adjective.
4. Therefore, since anything that isn't dependent on personal feelings, and that redness isn't dependent on personal feelings, what is objective is red.

I'm making fun of your definition in order to demonstrate that it's so vague as to be useless.

You are making fun of either English or the rules of logic. Objective is an adjective is a how it is used in the English language; and A is a B does not imply all B's are A. What is red is objective as per my definition. The stated conclusion of "what is objective is red" does not follow.

In any case, I don't know what you MEAN by the definition, and I can't even begin to form an example.

Maybe you can supply one.

Give me an example of something that isn't dependent on personal feelings, and show how that can be called objective.

I already gave you examples: The length of a rope. The sugar content of a cake. The number of people killed. The speed of a car.

It's your argument. I would like to at LEAST understand what your terms actually mean. Otherwise, I can't EVALUATE your argument. You have not taken the necessary baggage that will get you to your conclusion.

Vague terms will just kill it.

Use a dictionary if you don't like how I phrased it. It makes no difference.

2) Value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings.

Not true in all cases. Maybe in some.

Give a counter example.

That does not work at all.. tallness is also a characteristic of an evalutator. ... The ability to think is also a characteristic of an evaluator. Your definition is way too vague. You want to distinguish feelings from thoughts, yes? Using your definition, we can't do that. It's useless.

I was attempting to break down the steps, being explicit with why feelings is subjective. I could put "feelings" straight in, the argument is further trivialized.

Good. thank you. Now I can clearly see that in some cases, an evaluator's feelings has nothing to do with the evaluation. 2+2=4 does not depend on feelings...Once we have established objective rules.. then we don't have to depend on anyone's feelings.

And not only FEELINGS are characteristics of the evaluator. The ability of using objective criteria and sticking only to those are also potential characteristics of an evalutator. I'm thinking of any judge, and peer about to review a scientific paper and any CIA teacher evaluating a student's cake.

But we do have to establish objective rules. This is the project of morality. We have to know and to define what is right and what is wrong, and have darn good reasons for these rules, or throw them out.

I've already commented on that. Remember the objective rules of "always obey Bust Nak?" Being objective doesn't get you anywhere.

Your 6 doesn't follow, the argument simply fails.

Presumably you meant it doesn't follow due to the premises being false? I don't see how it is invalid because the steps are quite simple.

It's popular? .. No, I have explained to you that your definition was so vague as to be meaningless.

What you call vague, I call inclusive. Lots of things are objective and lots of things are subjective. It needs to cover them all.

I have attempted so far to give you a possible definition for objective that you don't seem to accept. That's fine. I'm not really defending my definition, although, I like it. What I am doing here is giving you an EXAMPLE of what a definition for the word objective might look like.

Right now, one of the glaring problems with your argument is the lack of an adequate definition of "objective".

Then use a dictionary. They all convey the same idea, here is one: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

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) Something that depends on the feelings of an evaluator does not have the quality of being true outside of an evaluator's feelings.
5) Therefore morality not objective but subjective.

Alternatively change the wording of 4 to match any number of other definitions that follow along the line of being independent from an evalutor's mind.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 48 by Bust Nak]

By my definition of objective. You may have a much better definition for objective. I have no idea what that may be.

But further down you said it's my argument therefore your definition isn't really pertinent. Yet much of the your post is you disputing what I call subjective with your definition of objective along the lines of "this is what I call objective."

Yes, absolutely. I agree. My definition isn't at all pertinent to your argument.

I was merely trying to give you an example of what I consider to be a good definition. But it's mine, and not yours. I heartily encourage you to make one of your own.

Correct. Taste is subjective. Cake baking isn't. Chemistry is involved. CIA rules apply. You fail at the CIA rules, you don't get to be a CIA chef. Simple. No feelings come into the evaluation.

The CIA does not evaluate cakes on feelings. The CIA has strict criteria.

I don't dispute any of that. What I am saying is the strict criteria is based on subjective taste.

ALL humans have the same kinds of taste buds. Dry things aren't as palatable to humans as moist ones. Salt is nice, but so is sugar. Salt is NOT sugar. One of the weirdly personal, subjective criteria that the CIA might have for a "cake" is that it should be moist and sweet.

Chemistry isn't subjective. Baking depends on chemistry, for example. Very precise, objective chemistry.

I can come up with many objective FACT about human, despite human disagreement. Objective facts such as "human often disagree on ice-cream favors." Being able to come up with objective fact about something doesn't help decide if that something is objective or not.

What? You say that an objective fact isn't objective?.. I don't CAPISCE.
You lost me.

Feelings cannot be anything other than personal, you can never experience my feelings, you can only ever experience your own feelings, which may well match mine.

Try empathy.

If I watch you burn, I can imagine how you might feel. I am not FEELING your feelings, but if I ever was burned at all.. I have a clue as to what you might be feeling. ALL normal humans can share that... it's a fact about humans that we all share some pretty basic feelings. That would be an objective fact, by the way, most people know how it feels to be in pain. And most people don't like pain. This is an objective fact about being human. We just can't escape it. It's as objective as a mountain is hard and high. But again, I have NO idea what YOU mean when you use the term "objective"... I'm still going by MY definition , which as you rightly say isn't at all pertinent to YOUR argument.

So, your argument awaits your definition.

What is the distinction between popular feelings, and feelings shared by all or most human?

Most is not all.

While something popular might be liked by many or most people, it does not imply ALL people. I am talking about something is an objective fact about all people because it is TRUE of all people. Some or most people might like Harry Potter books, they are very popular. But not all people do. All people LIKE to live, all of them. Most is not all. Many is not all. Popular isn't what is shared by all. Something that is popular might NOT be liked by all.

All human as opposed all evaluators? Everyone who feels a certain way about hot stove tops, is automatically an evaluator of hot stove tops. There is no distinction.

You can put your hand on a hot stove top and think it's a good thing for you?... Do you know ANYONE who might also feel this way?

How peculiar.

I am talking about anyone who makes an evaluation about hot stoves. ALL humans can evaluate if putting your hand on a hot stove is a good idea or not for humans. All humans can be evaluators.

You seems to be opening new cans of worms here. Now you have:
1) Lots of disagreeing based on personal tastes.
2) All or mostly agreement based on personal tastes.
3) Lots of disagreeing based on facts.
4) All or mostly agreement based on facts.

The first one is subjective, but what are the other three?

1) The can of worms is due to your vagueness.
2) I am trying to get you to be clear.
3) You don't seem to want to do that.

Ok, fine.
Then, the argument is unclear to me. And your conclusion is also just as unclear. Sorry. I did try to help your argument. It looks as if I have failed you.

1) People have personal preferences. This is what I call subjective.
2) People disagree about their tastes all the time.. subjective. Vanilla vs. Strawberry..
3) People disagree about facts.. so? Let's get our facts straight.
4) When most all people agree about facts, like the burning sensation of a hand on a stove, that's what I call an objective fact about most humans.

But again, you seem very interested in MY definition of objective. We agree that MY definition isn't pertinent to your argument. I was merely trying to show you what a good definition would look like. I wasn't trying to MAKE an argument, but to HELP yours. I don't really care about objective vs. subjective. That's YOUR argument.. right? You want to prove that morality is subjective? ...

I need to tell the DIFFERENCE between what you mean by "subjective" and what you MEAN by "objective" so that I can tell the difference in the context of morality, and see if you prove it or not. So far, because I can't know what you mean.. I can't decide. And so your conclusion isn't convincing at all. Not one way or the other.

That's why I said you needed a good definition. Get one. Do the work. Your argument needs it. In any case, I can't follow it the way that it stands.

Right, that was part of my objection: Killing Jews was subjective once, and objective later - it switched from subjective to objective. The moral nature of an act changed, yet it appears nothing has changed about the act itself.

Yes, a mountain is a mountain no matter what we call it. Objective and subjective are labels. The actions we are to evaluate don't change. It's our labeling you want to establish.

You want to label all moral decisions on actions that don't change subjective.

I haven't define most of my other terms, you automatically assumed I used them according to the typical definition. Why make an exception out of the terms "subjective" and "objective?" Did my usage appeared to not to line up with the typical definition?

I don't see any definition for "objective".. I see a definition for something that it isn't.

You were calling it bizarre and being no real use anyone but myself. How is that trying to help my argument? Also there is a difference between not defining objective, and failing to answer all your objection against my definition. There is no way you can accuse me of the former when I've already pointed out exactly where I have defined objective, plus how means the same thing as the typical definition found in dictionary.

I'm sorry if you don't find my criticism useful. You can ignore it .. just tell me to stop.
I won't continue because we are bickering now. I didn't intend to do that. Sorry. I was trying to see how your argument worked or not. Now I see that it depends on very sloppy use of language. I can't endorse it, because I don't even know WHAT I would be endorsing.

I didn't say anything about the level of popularity for the idea that human life is worth having is. I said it is irrelevant how popular it is. It can be 100% universal and it would still be subjective.

Well then, everything you evaluate is subjective by your definition.

Here is your new argument as far as I can tell:

1) Every decision is subjective.
2) Morality is a decision.
3) Therefore, morality is subjective.

I'm not impressed by that.

No, we don't agree. I am saying thoughts about morality can only changed by changing your feelings. One way. Other thoughts not about morality, such as about stove burns, can however change your feelings.

You don't believe that getting new information, better data about some fact won't influence your feelings. How odd.

Let's say you have a person accused of child murder. You may have strong feelings of antipathy towards this person. You now learn that he was unjustly accused and is completely innocent in every way. Your feelings towards him wont change a little?

I am surprised.

We know that we should not burn ourselves or others because of an objective fact about reality, THEN we feel? Why does feeling have anything to do with morality if you already know what one should do?

First off, again, I have to STRONGLY remind you that MY definition of "objective" isn't PERTINENT at all to YOURS.

PLEASE, for the sake of your argument, provide yours.

Second, it's a FACT that fire will severely damage human tissue. Our feelings are irrelevant. But if someone has the IDEA that they should not damage their human flesh severely for some reason.... then it's a good IDEA to not put someone's hand on a hot stove. This is an IDEA , and NOT a feeling.

But we can surely feel things in life, can't we?

Heat burns. This is a reality. We feel that we should not burn ourselves or others because of our feelings about an objective fact about reality. That's all there is to it.

Oh, now I see ANOTHER sloppy use of language. You have just used the word "feel" for the word "think". Sorry. Now, I will have to ask you to define "feelings" as well. Your argument isn't useful if we can't make out what you are talking about.

Right, and I am saying it's irrelevant since how much it is shared, is not a factor in deciding if something is subjective or objective.

You keep saying what objective ISN'T.
I asked you to say that it IS, I think more than a dozen times. I'm almost done asking.

There is a huge difference between the wrong kind of killing and the illegal kind of killing.

SOME people call murder a WRONGFUL death.. I know the difference between legal and moral.

I don't like constant bickering about the meaning of words. DEFINE your terms clearly and have done with it. Do the work, or not. If you don't do the work, then I can't help you or decide if your conclusion is right or wrong.

As it stands, your argument is meaningless to me.

Now, we can't even talk about murder as a useful example. Or cakes, or.. what.. nothing? Well, if we can't even agree about simple words like murder or cakes, it seems to me that we just aren't talking the same language. In any case, your argument is based on vague terms. I can't even tell you that it's a good argument anymore. It just makes NO SENSE. Your terms, if not defined or ill defined, kill any MEANING you wanted to attach to your argument.

So, my general impression of your argument now is that it makes no sense.
Was that your goal?

That's what I previously called post hoc justification. We intuitively feel that murder is wrong, and only need to come up with survival when we need to justify that feeling.

Again, I can't make sense out of this because you don't have a good clear definition for what is objective, what is feeling, what is thought, what is justification and so on.

Your use of language is too vague for me to make any decision. I certainly can't pin YOU down, now can I?

If if was your goal to be misunderstood, I think you have achieved it. If you wanted to convince me of your CONCLUSION.. no. Your terms are way too vague for me to make a decision on that.

The CIA is a cooking school. The evaluate cakes there, not syllogisms.

Therefore one should not expect them to have an official stance on philosophical issues. Hence the CIA would not disagree with me about their standard for cakes being subjective.

You mistake cakes for logical arguments.

I suggest you GO to the CIA, and discuss what a cake should be. I think they can help you out. You follow their idea of what a cake is or fail. I think that's pretty objective. If you want to fail in life, tell the CIA that their opinions about cakes are only subjective and that you have your own subjective ideas about cakes that are just as good as theirs.

See how far that gets you in the cake baking world.

Only if we use your definition of objective.

I am giving you an example of a definition because you don't supply your own. Yeah, we can trash MY definition. I don't really need it, and neither do you. I am not making an argument about objectivity/subjectivity, but YOU ARE.

Your argument needs clear terms.

No I am disagreeing with your definition. I am saying it's not objective but merely popular.

I don't CARE if you agree or disagree with MY definition. MY definition is irrelevant. I need to see YOURS.

It's an objective fact the subjective nature of human taste.

This sentence isn't making sense. Please provide some verb.. Good luck with your argument. Remember your initial argument? I'm forgetting it too...

CIA cannot decide what is or isn't a good cake for the entire human race at all times, nor can the police decide if a case of killing is wrong for the entire human race at all times. What the CIA could do is decide how close a particular cake fit the criteria they set. What the police could do is decide how lawful a killing, or driving speed is.

Human taste buds are generally all the same. That's where the CIA comes in. ALL humans have the same kind of human taste buds and food needs and so on.

That's what I CALL an objective fact.

But remember, we agree that MY definition isn't relevant to your argument.

I don't like your definition.

I don't CARE if you like it or not.

It's not my goal at all to have you like MY definition or use MY definition or agree with MY definition. I'm not MAKING an argument. I'm trying to get you to clarify YOUR TERMS in YOUR argument. It seems that you have forgotten YOUR argument. I'm beginning to forget it too.

I repeat: The record will show that I defined objective as "not dependent on personal feelings" in post #31. Which is in line with how it is typically defined, along the lines of "independent from the mind of an evaluator." This particular objection of yours is a trivial falsehood.

Then I can't help you with your argument. It's meaningless to me due to vagueness. Thank you for your considerable efforts and time.

And I have problems with the definition that makes it impossible for me to get to your conclusion.

What exactly is this definition you are referring to, if you don't

I am referring to your vague and useless definitions that you have supplied. I cant get any meaning from them. That's why I've been objecting.

I just don't know what you mean.

You are making fun of either English or the rules of logic. Objective is an adjective is a how it is used in the English language; and A is a B does not imply all B's are A. What is red is objective as per my definition. The stated conclusion of "what is objective is red" does not follow.

Again, you are avoiding to supply a definition for "objective". I have to abandon talking about your argument with you. I have no idea what you really mean by the terms that you use.

Use a dictionary if you don't like how I phrased it. It makes no difference.

Yes, you don't seem to care or want to define the term, as it makes no difference to you. I get it. So, I think we have come to the end of the discussion about your argument.

Thanks for your considerable time and effort.

What you call vague, I call inclusive. Lots of things are objective and lots of things are subjective. It needs to cover them all.

Then you are inclusive. Thank you for your considerable efforts.

Then use a dictionary. They all convey the same idea, here is one: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

If I were looking at an argument in a dictionary, I would expect their terms to be well defined. Sorry. You don't want to define your terms in a way that is meaningful to me? That's fine.

I have no meaning from your argument, and your conclusion doesn't matter.
I can't go further with you.

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) Something that depends on the feelings of an evaluator does not have the quality of being true outside of an evaluator's feelings.
5) Therefore morality not objective but subjective.

Alternatively change the wording of 4 to match any number of other definitions that follow along the line of being independent from an evalutor's mind.

I won't be doing your work. This was your argument. You don't want my help in making it meaningful. So, it means something to you, but not to me.

Thanks again.
It was a lot of fun.

[enviousintheeverafter]

If I watch you burn, I can imagine how you might feel. I am not FEELING your feelings, but if I ever was burned at all.. I have a clue as to what you might be feeling. ALL normal humans can share that... it's a fact about humans that we all share some pretty basic feelings. That would be an objective fact, by the way, most people know how it feels to be in pain. And most people don't like pain. This is an objective fact about being human. We just can't escape it. It's as objective as a mountain is hard and high.

Sure, that pain results from thus-and-such actions or activities, and that most or all people don't like pain are objective facts- but neither one gets us any closer to an objective value-judgment, there's no contradiction in saying "X causes pain, people don't like X, therefore X is morally good". That causing pain, or causing something that people don't like, is either morally good or bad is itself a value judgment, not a fact, and would need to be shown how/why it is objectively true- or what it would even mean to say that it is objectively true.