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?

[Blastcat]

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.

I have no idea what an objective morality would be about if it isn't about human suffering and flourishing.

X causes all people pain. It's logical to ME that we should avoid X, and avoid causing X on others.

If it is objectively true that X is no good, then it is objectively true that not doing X to one another is a good thing, and that causing X to happen to others is not a good thing.

What am I missing here?

[enviousintheeverafter]

I have no idea what an objective morality would be about if it isn't about human suffering and flourishing.

X causes all people pain. It's logical to ME that we should avoid X, and avoid causing X on others.

But it cannot be logical if "we should not do X" doesn't (logically) follow from "X causes pain"; there is no logical relationship between the two. Nor does there appear to be a possible logical relationship between any value-judgment and fact or set of facts, in virtue of the is/ought chasm.

If it is objectively true that X is no good, then it is objectively true that not doing X to one another is a good thing, and that causing X to happen to others is not a good thing.

Sure, but what does it mean to say that "it is objectively true that X is no good" (since "X is no good" is itself a value judgment); when we say something is "objectively true", we mean that there is some fact (or facts), some objective state of affairs, which necessitate the truth of the judgment ("snow is white" is true in virtue of the objective fact that the color of snow is white, "Obama is President" is true in virtue of the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Obama in the last election, etc.). But what fact or set of facts could we be talking about here, given the above, that "X is no good" or "we shouldn't do X" is not necessitated by the fact that X causes pain, or most people don't like X, or whatever? If there are no objective facts which stand in any logical relation to the value judgment, in what sense is the value-judgment objectively true?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 52 by enviousintheeverafter]

I have no idea what an objective morality would be about if it isn't about human suffering and flourishing.

X causes all people pain. It's logical to ME that we should avoid X, and avoid causing X on others.

But it cannot be logical if "we should not do X" doesn't (logically) follow from "X causes pain"; there is no logical relationship between the two.

You might imagine that we should have as much pain as possible, but I think most people would disagree with you. To most people, pain and suffering is what we avoid.
That's your connection.

Try this :

1. Most people want to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible.
2. X causes pain
3. Most people should avoid X or cause X to happen in others * pretty much by the golden rule....*

IF you don't agree with premise 1, please explain why.
I can't imagine why premise 1 would not be true.

Nor does there appear to be a possible logical relationship between any value-judgment and fact or set of facts, in virtue of the is/ought chasm.

Please explain. I have no idea what that means. It sounds impressive.

If it is objectively true that X is no good, then it is objectively true that not doing X to one another is a good thing, and that causing X to happen to others is not a good thing.

Sure, but what does it mean to say that "it is objectively true that X is no good" (since "X is no good" is itself a value judgment); when we say something is "objectively true", we mean that there is some fact (or facts), some objective state of affairs, which necessitate the truth of the judgment ("snow is white" is true in virtue of the objective fact that the color of snow is white, "Obama is President" is true in virtue of the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Obama in the last election, etc.). But what fact or set of facts could we be talking about here, given the above, that "X is no good" or "we shouldn't do X" is not necessitated by the fact that X causes pain, or most people don't like X, or whatever? If there are no objective facts which stand in any logical relation to the value judgment, in what sense is the value-judgment objectively true?

If X causes human suffering and you want more human suffering, then by all means have more of X.

I will avoid X.

[enviousintheeverafter]

You might imagine that we should have as much pain as possible, but I think most people would disagree with you. To most people, pain and suffering is what we avoid.

Of course; but "most people think we should do X" does not (logically) imply "we should do X".

Try this :

1. Most people want to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible.
2. X causes pain
3. Most people should avoid X or cause X to happen in others * pretty much by the golden rule....*

IF you don't agree with premise 1, please explain why.

As above, I don't dispute that most people want to avoid pain/suffering. But 3 still doesn't follow from 1 and 2- there is a missing premise here, namely, that people should avoid what they want to avoid. But this is also a value-judgment, not a fact.

Please explain. I have no idea what that means. It sounds impressive.

Put it this way- no argument of the form

-X is Y
-Therefore we should or ought to do (or not do) X

is valid. Whatever facts we cite, it still does not logically imply any ought/should or value-judgment, a value-judgment is needed among the premises for this type of conclusion to follow. But then, we haven't given a factual basis for the original value-judgment, since we need an additional value judgment to get the first one. And so on, ad infinitum.

If X causes human suffering and you want more human suffering, then by all means have more of X.

I will avoid X.

Sure, but this is essentially to concede that morality is not an objective matter of fact, but a subjective matter of preference or value.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by enviousintheeverafter]

You might imagine that we should have as much pain as possible, but I think most people would disagree with you. To most people, pain and suffering is what we avoid.

Of course; but "most people think we should do X" does not (logically) imply "we should do X".

Who do you think human morality is for?
What do you think morality IS?

Maybe you think that we should do what is bad for humans instead,. In any case.. I would tend to ignore people who can't seem to understand basic facts about humanity.

Try this :

1. Most people want to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible.
2. X causes pain
3. Most people should avoid X or cause X to happen in others * pretty much by the golden rule....*

IF you don't agree with premise 1, please explain why.

As above, I don't dispute that most people want to avoid pain/suffering.

So, you agree with premise number 1?
Good.. great. Because that's a fact about humans. It's an objective fact about us all.

But 3 still doesn't follow from 1 and 2- there is a missing premise here, namely, that people should avoid what they want to avoid.

We don't just want to avoid pain, we NEED to avoid pain and suffering in order to survive. We NEED to not be murdered to survive...

If I'm making an error here.. I'd sure like for you to spell that out. You say that JUST because people don't like something, we can't say that they shouldn't avoid it?

Maybe that's right for ice cream flavors.. but when it comes to MORAL decisions.. we know what hurts humans.. I am not following you ... do you think morality is about hurting as many people? ... that we can't tell if we should hurt them or not?.. Because it sure seems to me that morality is about how to not hurt people ...

.... I'd have to spend some time making an argument ... so we could examine that. I am not interested enough in the subject. I was merely demonstrating to Bust Nak how he could make a good definition. But if you want to make an argument, I would sure like to look at it. I don't actually have a firm opinion on the matter.. or a real care to have one. To me, this is semantics in a tea cup.

We are human. There are things that we should avoid if we are to live and live well. What is morality for, and who is it for, if not that?

Morality is designed to have humans SUFFER as much as possible?.. TO DIE... as much as possible? I don't get it.

I think that morality is about what people SHOULD and SHOULD NOT DO.. so IF we accept premise 1, and agree that we WANT to avoid pain then if we want to achieve that goal, we should avoid pain. OUR GOAL IS ESTABLISHED in 1. 2 is about what to avoid. 3 is the decision that we should avoid what we want to avoid.

It's not as if humans CAN embrace as much suffering as possible and think that's how to be moral. Causing human suffering and human death just can't be a good think for HUMANS.

It's so basic that it's tautological.. pain. It's not good. You dispute that?..

But this is also a value-judgment, not a fact.

Pain is good do you figure?.....That all humans don't like pain isn't a fact, do you think?

Of course it's a value judgement. It's based on the fact that we want to live and prosper. Do you think that morality can be based on anything else? Pain is not good. ....Or .. maybe you think that feeling pain is good. I can't tell at this point.

We value life and human flourishing. We don't value pain. How odd. Do really mean to say that this isn't an objective fact to you?

Morality is a value judgement based on objective facts about the human condition.

Please explain. I have no idea what that means. It sounds impressive.

Put it this way- no argument of the form

-X is Y
-Therefore we should or ought to do (or not do) X is valid.

Again, that sounds great and it's all full of X's and Y's .. but I have no idea how it applies to anything I said. Please, dumb it down for me. Explain how that is pertinent. Apparently, you are way ahead of me, there, so teach me. I am here to learn.

Whatever facts we cite, it still does not logically imply any ought/should or value-judgment, a value-judgment is needed among the premises for this type of conclusion to follow.

But then, we haven't given a factual basis for the original value-judgment, since we need an additional value judgment to get the first one. And so on, ad infinitum.

Pain pretty much hurts humans in a pretty much objective way. And death is pretty much an objective fact about humans. Humans don't do well when dead.

So where does infinity come into this basic fact about humans?

Some people might not think that humans should live and prosper, but I don't care about an evil morality like that at all. Not welcomed on the voyage..

Maybe you can help me with an example. Right now, I have no idea what you mean.

If X causes human suffering and you want more human suffering, then by all means have more of X.

I will avoid X.

Sure, but this is essentially to concede that morality is not an objective matter of fact, but a subjective matter of preference or value.

Not in the least. If you want to make an argument to prove that statement, be my guest. but pretending to win an argument isn't the same as actually making one and winning it.

How have I conceded anything?
Can you help me out here? I don't get your point here, either.
Hope you can explain what I am obviously missing.
And please, be as clear as you can ... I am REALLY not getting what you are telling me.

I agree with Harris that we can make a very objective morality based on reason and science. But some people want to insist on word games. I don't care about word games.

Science is about facts. We can study humans, find out what's best for them and make a morality based on that. That's what I call objective.

Is/ought....storm in a teacup.
Subjective/objective debate about morality is just as inane to me, frankly. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Well, I don't care, quite frankly.

Is this whole thing a prelude to the moral argument for the existence of God or something?

[Bust Nak]

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.

I did make one up, one that convey the same idea as how it is defined in dictionaries.

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.

Great. Now is that or is that not what I've been saying all along?

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

But what makes a good cake is subjective.

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

No, I am saying you can make objective statement about subjective feelings, and the fact that you can do this, is irrelevant to the subjective nature of said feelings, it doesn't make feelings objective.

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.

Exactly my point, it's entirely personal and hence subjective.

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.

Again, it is merely an objective fact about subjective feelings. It's no more significant that the objective fact that almost all people like sweet sugary taste.

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.

Why would you STILL use yours when you accept isn't pertinent to my argument?

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.

You keep switching from "most" and "most if not all" and "all." Which is it? This is yet another reason for you to stop using your definition.

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.

As opposed to all humans are evaluators? Which human is it who haven't evaluated whether they like putting hands on hot stove or not? Presumably you are thinking of infants. Does that means not ALL human think it's a bad thing, which in turn undermines what your claim that one ought not burning people is objective?

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.

You keep saying that. I gave you my personal take on what objective mean, and I gave you what a dictionary says. The four options would not appear with my definition, they were based on yours, how is this due to my vagueness?

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.

If I am not reading you wrong, you are saying 1 and 2 are both subjective, and 3 and 4 are objective, according to your definitions?

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.

But the point was, yours is not how objective is typically defined, yours is about how universal something is. It's not a flaw in my argument if it can't prove that morality is not "objective" according some odd definition of objective.

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.

But you know exactly what the difference between what is "subjective" and "objective" - the former depends on an evalutor's feelings, the latter do not.

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 want to label all moral decisions on actions subjective full stop, but the point was, we do not want to label some moral decision subjective and others objective, because the actions we are to evaluate don't change.

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

At worse I gave you a definition that doesn't match your vision of what objective means. The definition of objective is clearly labelled in my post.

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.

No, I still want to change your mind. We are bickering because you keep repeating the charge that I refused to give you a definition when there is no question that I did. That is enough for me to doubt your sincerity. Plus you also need to stop guessing what I mean and start reading what I wrote.

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.

That's exactly the kind of thing that lead me to say stop guessing at what I meant. That's not representative of my argument at all, swap "decision" with "value judgement" and you would have the framework to my argument.

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

I didn't say anything like that, nor implied such a thing. Again, same complain as above - read what I said carefully. I said what you think is moral is an extension of what you feel, one way only, and not the other way round.

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

I know that. I am trying to stop YOU from using it, and stop judging my argument according to YOUR definition because it isn't PERTINENT at all to MINE.

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.

Said idea is just an expression of a feeling.

Oh, now I see ANOTHER sloppy use of language. You have just used the word "feel" for the word "think".

No I didn't. I used the word "feel" for the concept of "feel." You have to let go of your preconceptions/baggage. You may well be thinking of "think," but that doesn't mean I was thinking of "think" when I wrote "feel."

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.

Use a dictionary: feeling. noun. An emotional state or reaction.

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.

The record will show that I give you a direct answer every time you asked. Repeated here just to illustrate the point: Objective IS something that does not depend on an evaluator's feelings. Such as what is or isn't red.

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

We are not talking about what some people say, we are dealing with what you said. If you knew the difference between legal and moral, why did you say murder is never right? Are you denying that some murders can be 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.

But I did do the work, you need to do your part to understand what I wrote. We don't have to bicker about the meaning of words, if you'd just use my definitions. I have a feeling when you say the definition of objective is meaningless, you actually meant it doesn't match your vision of "objective."

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.

The obvious solution is for you to adopt my language, since I use it the typical way.

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

No.

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.

Look at a dictionary.

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.

How far I get in the cake baking world is irrelevant to whether a standard is objective or subjective. No, you mistake logical arguments for cakes.

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.

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

You saw my definition, you ever referred to it in your post. Your denial is baffling.

This sentence isn't making sense. Please provide some verb..

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

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.

Then why are you keeping bring it up? Stop using 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.

You say that but yet here you are disputing my claim about what makes a good cake is subjective, just because it is "objective" according to your definition.

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.

But you do know. It describe statements that are independent from an evaluator's feelings.

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.

Have it crossed your mind that you have no idea what I really mean, might not be a problem on my end? This latest business with "what is objective is red" is clearly no fault of mine.

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.

I don't care as long as you use typical definitions - because they all mean the same thing, they convey the same idea. I do care if you don't used the typical definitions, especially where you are disputing what is or isn't objective.

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.

What isn't fine, is that my argument needs help because it is not meaningful to you. It's hardly my problem if definitions from dictionary isn't meaningful to you.

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.

Then just take it as it stands. Don't do the work by change the wording of 4 to match other definitions. Use this definition for objective: 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 is not objective but subjective.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 56 by Bust Nak]

Then just take it as it stands. Don't do the work by change the wording of 4 to match other definitions. Use this definition for objective: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Thank you for the clarification.

objective: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Now, let's get back to your argument:

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 is not objective but subjective.


1) Morality is a matter of value judgement.

Agreed.

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

Your 2 is a false premise.

Some is not all.

So, that's a huge problem right here. I think I explained why it was false. SOME judgements might not exist independent from an evaluator's feelings but not ALL. SOME is not ALL... I think that's called the fallacy of composition.

In order for me to evaluate 2+2=5 I never use feelings. In fact, if I DID use feelings, I would HARM my ability to evaluate, not help. So, your premise 2, if it was meant to describe a reality in ALL cases, fails. Your 2 is not true in all cases, but only in SOME cases.

By your definition, objective: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Math evaluations alone is enough to falsify premise (2), I believe. Maybe you can clarify that for me. Am I missing something?

I would agree, however, if your conclusion said that some value judgements are subjective.

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

Fails due to 2.

4) Something that depends on the feelings of an evaluator does not have the quality of being true outside of an evaluator's feelings.

Agree.

5) Therefore morality is not objective but subjective.

Of course, the conclusion can't be true because it depends on a false premise ( 2) .. and you will NOTE that you introduce the term "objective" for the first time, without even attempting to define what it is.

IF (2) were true, and you could prove that value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings, you still haven't explained why this affects the objective nature of value judgements. I don't even KNOW what you mean by objective in the argument. In fact, you don't even define SUBJECTIVE in your argument... now that I read it again. These two terms are ... completely undefined, and YET, you want to introduce the concept in your conclusion.

Nothing in your argument talks about "objective" or "subjective". So, of course, your conclusion has nothing to DO with the argument. As it stands, your argument is a non sequitur, relies on a false premise (2), and uses undefined terms (the merely implied term "subjective" and the term "objective" )

I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand my objection as to youre not having a definition of "subjective" or "objective" IN your argument. You still haven't included any definitions IN the argument for either.

If I were to read your argument ON IT'S OWN, I would have NO idea what you meant by either term. I really need to see the definitions IN the argument, and NOT out of it.

Does that help clarify one of my objections about your definitions?
Previous to your last post, I had no idea what you meant by "objective".

Now that I do, I can clearly see that your argument does not lead me to your conclusion and why.

1) False premise in (2) by way of the fallacy of composition.
2) NO definition for objective and subjective to be found in the argument.
3) Your conclusion is a non sequitur as it introduces terms not to be found in the argument.

These are huge problems for the argument.
I don't think it is beyond repair, but as it stands, the argument fails to prove the conclusion.

Hope that helps.

[Bust Nak]

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

Your 2 is a false premise.

Some is not all.

So, that's a huge problem right here. I think I explained why it was false. SOME judgements might not exist independent from an evaluator's feelings but not ALL. SOME is not ALL... I think that's called the fallacy of composition.

You did say that before, I asked you to give me a counter example, and here we are.

In order for me to evaluate 2+2=5 I never use feelings...

Math evaluations alone is enough to falsify premise (2), I believe. Maybe you can clarify that for me. Am I missing something?

Yes, that is not a value judgement.

.. and you will NOTE that you introduce the term "objective" for the first time, without even attempting to define what it is.

But you quoted my definition. What's seems to be the problem with "objective: the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings?"

IF (2) were true, and you could prove that value judgement cannot exist independent from an evaluator's feelings, you still haven't explained why this affects the objective nature of value judgements.

That's what the proof is for, it proves there is no objective nature to value judgements, and since morality is a subset of value judgements, it means morality is not objective.

I don't even KNOW what you mean by objective in the argument. In fact, you don't even define SUBJECTIVE in your argument... now that I read it again. These two terms are ... completely undefined, and YET, you want to introduce the concept in your conclusion.

It's already introduced by the English language, and explicitly reinforced by the definition provided.

Nothing in your argument talks about "objective" or "subjective". So, of course, your conclusion has nothing to DO with the argument.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand my objection as to youre not having a definition of "subjective" or "objective" IN your argument. You still haven't included any definitions IN the argument for either.

No, I don't understand. It's baffling why you talk as if adding "something that does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings, is not objective but subjective" as a numbered point makes any difference. It doesn't.

Does that help clarify one of my objections about your definitions?

It clarify what you mean, but don't understand why it's a sticking point. I didn't define "morality," "evalutor," "feelings," "value," "judgement" or indeed any other terms. You have no problem accepting those. But I suspect that might change when you ask me to define value judgement?

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 does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings.
6) Something that does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings, is not objective but subjective.
7) Therefore morality is not objective but subjective.

What exactly did you gain here?

[Blastcat]

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 does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings.
6) Something that does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings, is not objective but subjective.
7) Therefore morality is not objective but subjective.

What exactly did you gain here?

Well, its YOUR argument, not mine. I am only trying to help it. If I get my goal, we will have a sound argument. What I would like to GAIN is an argument that works.
Thank you for your considerable effort in making it so.

So, let's look at what we have now:

1) Morality is a matter of value judgement.

Still agree.

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

Still disagree. Your argument fails right here.

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

Doesn't follow at all from 1 and 2. Fail.

4) Something that depends on the feelings of an evaluator does not have the quality of being true outside of an evaluator's feelings.

What is this.. tautology? .. I asked for a definition of subjective, feeling and objective. I dont see the words "feelings" or "subjective" or "objective" at all here. So, what IS this?

5) Therefore morality does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings.

You didn't establish that morality has anything to do with feelings, you just state that it's true.

6) Something that does not have the state or quality of being true outside of a subject's feelings, is not objective but subjective.

I agree with your definition of subjective. Note that this isn't a definition for objective in any way.

7) Therefore morality is not objective but subjective.

There is no way that the conclusion follows from your premises.

1) One premise is logically fallacious. ( 2 )
2) Another premise is assumed, and not demonstrated as true. ( 5 )
3) You STILL have not given me any way to judge what is objective, because you still have not supplied a definition for objective. You have, however, done a good job with subjective.

What is this weird resistance to defining objective?
Would it HURT you?
I don't get it.

In any case, by my 1, 2, and 3, your argument STILL fails.

[wiploc]

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does

True, but there is no basis for this claim. The claim is made, but it is never effectively defended.

- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective,

What would gods have to do with it? This question is never answered.

If I claimed that you can't have red sweaters without sea turtles, you would require an explanation, a justification of the claim. You would not take the claim seriously in the absence of such justification.

No such justification is ever forthcoming for the claim that gods are required for objective morality.

... Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

No, you've run off the rails. You are "denying the consequent," or committing some other logical fallacy.

Suppose I said, "If had enough money to buy a thousand elephants, I would be rich." That could be true even if I had no money, and even if there was no such thing as an elephant.

Likewise, it might be possible for objective morality to require gods--even in a world that had neither--if there were some logical linkage between gods and morality.

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

"Objective" is a weasel word. Different people mean different things by it.

Worse, the moral argument depends entirely on one person meaning different things by it. And she has to switch from one meaning to the other without you noticing, or the argument fails.

So, unless you specify what you mean by "objective moral facts or duties," nobody can tell you whether they exist.