Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Subjective Morality

Post #1

Post by The Tanager »

I started this post out of another discussion with Divine Insight. DI has made some arguments for morality being subjective. I'm still trying to get the terminology straight.
Divine Insight wrote:If morality is not absolute, then it can only be subjective. A matter of opinion.
We need to get our terms straight when talking about our human morality. I agree with you concerning 'subjective' being a matter of opinion. Objective, then, would mean not being a matter of opinion. Just like the shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion. X is good or bad for everyone.

Absolute vs. situational is a sub-issue concerning objectivism. The absolutist would say X is good or bad for everyone (and thus objectivism) no matter the situation. The situationalist would say X is good or bad for everyone but qualified by the situation.

In this phrasing, morality can be objectivist without being absolute. Now, I don't care if these are the terms we agree upon or not, but there must be some term for each concept I've presented. If you want to use "absolute" for "objective" above, that's fine. But you've got to tell me what two terms you want to use for what I termed the "absolute vs. situational" sub-issue.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #141

Post by The Tanager »

wiploc wrote:
The Tanager wrote: I argued that my Divine Command Theory was grounded in God, which if true, would be an objective source of human morality. Rather than arguing against theism, you questioned the "authority" of this connection and I tried to explain my view there. If my explanation goes through...I know you don't think it does...but if it does, then the source is an objective source. If your explanation goes through, then (admittedly by you, as far as I could tell) you have no source, which leaves us with just the utilitarian vs. divine command vs. ethical egoism desires OR some deeper source that is completely unknown and mysterious, taken on blind faith alone.
You claim seems to be that if you're right (about god-based morality being, in some sense, "objective") then you're right. And you claim that if I'm wrong (about non-god-based morality the same degree of objectivity as god-based morality) then I'm wrong.

But I've never understood your reason for thinking you're right and I'm wrong.
What I am saying is that if God exists, human morality has an ultimate objective source. If you are correct and there is no God, then I think human morality is subjective unless good/evil exists in a Platonic realm or is reducible to something physical in our bodies. I do not think there is good evidence for either of those and I have not heard of a third alternative put forth by atheists.

Utilitarianism is not an answer to that question. The source may be utilitarian-minded, but that doesn't provide what the source itself is. Divine command theory is not my answer to the same question. The source is God. What equivalent ultimate objective source do you have taking the place of God/World of Forms/Physical Element in your view?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #142

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote: I'm fine ending our conversation here and letting everyone decide for themselves where the evidence has led.
That's fine with me. Now are you prepared to move on to making a case for objective morality? Or have you recognized the futility of that cause?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #143

Post by The Tanager »

A case for objective morality? Which way do you mean?

In post 58 I made the claim that if theism is true, then morality is objective. That would mean making a case for theism. Not wanting to switch to that conversation, in this thread, I also said in that post and others that objective morality was more plausible than subjectivism due to the universal initial human intuitions. I've defended that position and am continuing that discussion with others here.

Or do you mean arguing for all of the specific applied ethical positions?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #144

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote: In post 58 I made the claim that if theism is true, then morality is objective. That would mean making a case for theism.
It's not even that easy. Although proving that any theism is true would be a totally lost cause. Surely you're aware of that. If any theism could be shown to be true then science, history, and philosophy would all be in agreement on that conclusion. As it currently stands, exactly none of them agree with that conclusion. So there is no compelling case for any theism.

However, even theism wouldn't be an argument for objective morality. All it would be an argument for is a supposedly omnipotent entity shoving his moral subjective opinions down the throats of others.

In order to claim that some objective morality exist it would need to exist above and beyond any Gods that might be said to exist. And they too would need to be under that objective moral law. But that's not how any theism works.

So theism would not be an answer for objective morality in any case. All it would be an argument for is a egotistical dictator that one one could stop. The morality of that itself would be highly questionable.

The Tanager wrote: Not wanting to switch to that conversation, in this thread,
Of course not. Arguing for theism is a lost cause.
The Tanager wrote: I also said in that post and others that objective morality was more plausible than subjectivism due to the universal initial human intuitions. I've defended that position and am continuing that discussion with others here.
That also is a lost cause. How can you not see that? Just observe reality and you can clearly see that there is no universal human moral intuition. Pretending that their could be flies in the face of the overwhelming reality of the real world.
The Tanager wrote: Or do you mean arguing for all of the specific applied ethical positions?
I've already shown that any human argument for specific ethical positions are going to be human-centric at best. And since you could never get 100% consensus on every so-called "moral question", all you end up doing is proving that subjective moral opinions is all that exists.

So any attempt to try to argue for any objective morality always ends up just proving that subjective morality is all that exists anyway.

Are you interested in truth? Or are you just determined to be correct at all cost in the hopes of trying to support arguments for theism?

You've ignored all the truths that we observe in the real world. Including the truth that there is clearly no evidence for any universal intuitive morality among humans. Sure, you could make compelling argument for extreme cases like perhaps getting 100% consensus that innocent babies shouldn't be tortured.

But if that's all you have, then you clearly have nothing.

You need to do far better than that.

The bottom line Tanager is that you simply aren't willing to accept when your arguments for objective morality have been shown to be deeply flawed and without merit.

You going to continue to argue for a universal human moral intuition when the evidence in the real world has already demonstrated that this clearly isn't the case?

That's nothing more than a display of extreme unwillingness to accept that your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Refusing to admit when you've lost a debate doesn't help your case.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #145

Post by The Tanager »

Divine Insight wrote:It's not even that easy. Although proving that any theism is true would be a totally lost cause. Surely you're aware of that.
I am aware of the debate and don't call me Shirley.
Divine Insight wrote:In order to claim that some objective morality exist it would need to exist above and beyond any Gods that might be said to exist. And they too would need to be under that objective moral law.
You use "objective morality" here in a different way here than I've been using it during this entire conversation. I've directly stated on multiple occassions that I was talking about an objective source for the human morality we observe.

If morality ultimately stops with humans, then subjectivism (as I've described that term) is true. If human morality ultimately stops with something outside of humans, then objectivism (as I've described that term) is true. Wherever that ultimate outside source is (God, World of Forms, physical element), we could say morality is subjectively related to that source. Fine. That is no problem for anything I've stated here. You are confusing these things and, therefore, think it a blow to my view when it is not.
Divine Insight wrote:And since you could never get 100% consensus on every so-called "moral question", all you end up doing is proving that subjective moral opinions is all that exists.
Using that same principle, since we can't get to 100% consensus on every so-called "scientific question," all you end up doing is proving that subjective scientific opinions are all that exists. Same error as before.
Divine Insight wrote:The bottom line Tanager is that you simply aren't willing to accept when your arguments for objective morality have been shown to be deeply flawed and without merit.
I have not convinced you. Okay. Should others want to hear me out, I'll be glad to share my thoughts with them as well.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #146

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote: If morality ultimately stops with humans, then subjectivism (as I've described that term) is true. If human morality ultimately stops with something outside of humans, then objectivism (as I've described that term) is true. Wherever that ultimate outside source is (God, World of Forms, physical element), we could say morality is subjectively related to that source. Fine. That is no problem for anything I've stated here. You are confusing these things and, therefore, think it a blow to my view when it is not.
All you're doing here is trying to claim that a subjective experience constitutes a objective thing. But isn't that a silly argument? All that amounts to is word play.

This is a problem with trying to even have a meaningful conversation with someone who wants to take philosophical ideals to the extreme. It's a riduculous argument.

Of course consciousness is required for judgement of morality. But what we know from observation is that these conscious judgements are subjective. That's the whole point.
The Tanager wrote:
And since you could never get 100% consensus on every so-called "moral question", all you end up doing is proving that subjective moral opinions is all that exists.
Using that same principle, since we can't get to 100% consensus on every so-called "scientific question," all you end up doing is proving that subjective scientific opinions are all that exists. Same error as before.
A typical false claim by a theist. Besides, science doesn't claim to be subjective therefore it doesn't need 100% consensus. All that needs to be done is to demonstrate who is being real and who isn't. Reality tells the story, not humans.

And by the way, if you're trying to refer to questions in science that have not yet been answered with certainty, then you're only fooling yourself, because science doesn't claim to have official answers to questions that have not yet been officially answered.

So no, science doesn't need consensus from anyone. Nature rules what the answers must be in science. Not humans.
The Tanager wrote: I have not convinced you. Okay. Should others want to hear me out, I'll be glad to share my thoughts with them as well.
Why bother? Are you interested in truth? Or just interested in trying to convince people of your thoughts that have no foundation in reality?

The question really isn't open anymore. The evidence is already in. We know that humans don't have universal intuitive ideas on morality. That's a fact. A fact that you must ignore for you to continue to try to hold it up as though it has any merit.

You may as well be arguing for a flat earth, and you could definitely find people to buy into those arguments as well, as there actually exist groups of people who buy into that sort of nonsense.

But which are you interested in? Truth, or nonsense?

The truth is that there is no evidence for any objective morality beyond human opinions. That's the truth.

Does this mean that there can't exist a God somewhere who holds different opinions on morality from humans? Of course not.

But that's ultimately not the question. The ultimate question is: "Which is there evidence for, and which is there no evidence for?"

That's the real question. Lose sight of that and you're lost in a bottomless philosophical rabbit hole.

If you want to be a theist, why not just confess to the truth that there is no evidence for an objective morality, but that you would prefer to place faith in the idea that one exists anyway?

That's what theism is truly about. Theism was never meant to be a science. If it was a science it would have confessed a very long time ago to having no evidence to support its hypotheses.

If you want to believe on faith that there exists a fair and just ultimate judge of humanity, by all means do so.

But your arguments that there exists evidence for such a thing simply don't hold water.

Why not accept the truth?

What's wrong with the truth?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #147

Post by The Tanager »

Divine Insight wrote:
If morality ultimately stops with humans, then subjectivism (as I've described that term) is true. If human morality ultimately stops with something outside of humans, then objectivism (as I've described that term) is true. Wherever that ultimate outside source is (God, World of Forms, physical element), we could say morality is subjectively related to that source. Fine. That is no problem for anything I've stated here. You are confusing these things and, therefore, think it a blow to my view when it is not.
All you're doing here is trying to claim that a subjective experience constitutes a objective thing. But isn't that a silly argument? All that amounts to is word play.
Nothing in what I say there is equivalent to claiming a subjective experience constitutes an objective thing. If human morality is sourced in God/Form/Physical Element, then it is objective in relation to humans.
Divine Insight wrote:A typical false claim by a theist. Besides, science doesn't claim to be subjective therefore it doesn't need 100% consensus. All that needs to be done is to demonstrate who is being real and who isn't. Reality tells the story, not humans.

And by the way, if you're trying to refer to questions in science that have not yet been answered with certainty, then you're only fooling yourself, because science doesn't claim to have official answers to questions that have not yet been officially answered.

So no, science doesn't need consensus from anyone. Nature rules what the answers must be in science. Not humans.
My wording must have caused you to miss my point. I'm not saying science needs consensus. You note above that if something is objective, consensus doesn't matter. I agree. Everything I've been saying in the context of this part of our posts relies on that point being true. The question under consideration is whether morality is objective or not. We can't beg the question either way. Therefore, we can't use consensus to prove morality is objective or subjective. But you keep acting as though we can.
Divine Insight wrote:Why bother? Are you interested in truth? Or just interested in trying to convince people of your thoughts that have no foundation in reality?
I am interested in truth and love. That's why I share my thoughts and let others make up their mind, doing my best to stick to the arguments and refrain from empty rhetoric.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #148

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote: Therefore, we can't use consensus to prove morality is objective or subjective. But you keep acting as though we can.
I believe it was you who was arguing for a universal human moral intuition as support for an objective morality. Moreover, I would agree that if we actually saw evidence for universal moral intuition that would be quite interesting and certainly be cause for questions. However, the fact is that we don't see universal moral intuition on anything save for the most extreme cases like torturing innocent babies. We often can't even agree on things like murder. Murder requires us to make a judgement on whether or not someone was justified in killing another person. We often can't even come to a consensus on that.

And besides, I'm not saying that consensus on morality would prove the existence of objective morality. I'm simply pointing out the fact that we don't even see any real consensus on moral issues anyway.

If we're going to make an argument for objective morality based on universal moral intuition we would at least need to observe universe moral consensus, which we clearly do not see. So it's not even there to begin with.

The Tanager wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:Why bother? Are you interested in truth? Or just interested in trying to convince people of your thoughts that have no foundation in reality?
I am interested in truth and love. That's why I share my thoughts and let others make up their mind, doing my best to stick to the arguments and refrain from empty rhetoric.
Acknowledging that your debate opponent has made the case for his position is hardly empty rhetoric.

My position is that all we have evidence for is morality as subjective human opinions and there is no evidence for anything beyond this.

Instead of acknowledging my position you create a strawman target by moving the goal post to be about me having to provide evidence for the "existence" of some imaginary "subjective morality".

Like as if I had failed to achieve this strawman goal.

But what are you even talking about? What could constitute subjective morality beyond the subjective moral opinions of humans (or any other conscious creatures that are capable of subjective experiences and thoughts)?

You act like I somehow failed to show the subjective morality exists and this is all we have evidence for. But I have done precisely that. There is no subjective morality beyond this.

So I have done precisely what I had set out to do. I demonstrated that all that exists is evidence of subjective moral opinions, and there is no evidence for anything beyond that.

The least you can do is acknowledge that I made the case I said I would make.

And you have not made a case for objective morality at all. All you've done is try to point to an ideal of universal moral intuition, but no such thing exists. The real world evidence is a counter-example to that very hypothesis.

So if you want to stick to the facts how about admitting to them instead of talking about "empty rhetoric"? Something that has absolutely nothing to do with our conversation here.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #149

Post by The Tanager »

Divine Insight wrote:
Therefore, we can't use consensus to prove morality is objective or subjective. But you keep acting as though we can.
I believe it was you who was arguing for a universal human moral intuition as support for an objective morality.
Yes, I did and I did so with a case that had absolutely nothing to do with consensus. It wasn't about people's opinions, but noticing their initial intuitions regarding moral things. Initial in life (but not just the first historical time), not how seasoned subjectivists now initially respond to each moral situation.
Divine Insight wrote:Moreover, I would agree that if we actually saw evidence for universal moral intuition that would be quite interesting and certainly be cause for questions. However, the fact is that we don't see universal moral intuition on anything save for the most extreme cases like torturing innocent babies. We often can't even agree on things like murder. Murder requires us to make a judgement on whether or not someone was justified in killing another person. We often can't even come to a consensus on that.
I've replied multiple times how I'm not talking about intuitions concerning specific ethical cases like torturing innocent babies. You keep ignoring that.
Divine Insight wrote:Acknowledging that your debate opponent has made the case for his position is hardly empty rhetoric.

My position is that all we have evidence for is morality as subjective human opinions and there is no evidence for anything beyond this.

Instead of acknowledging my position you create a strawman target by moving the goal post to be about me having to provide evidence for the "existence" of some imaginary "subjective morality".
You have made a claim and made a case for that position. I have not been persuaded. I have made claims and made a case for those positions. You have not been persuaded. We think each other has misunderstood things about our view. We have tried to clarify and it hasn't worked. I see no need for us to now make statements like...note I said like, not that I'm quoting you..."I've clearly made my case and you have clearly not, and you should just admit it, admit you have moved the goalpost like I say you have, you are obviously being dishonest..." and other empty rhetoric like that. We don't agree with each other on our perception of how this discussion has gone. That's okay. Let our posts speak for themselves.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #150

Post by Divine Insight »

The Tanager wrote: You have made a claim and made a case for that position. I have not been persuaded.
How can you claim to not have been persuaded when all I did was point out the clear and obvious facts of reality?

Are you denying that all that we can observe is that there are different human opinions on morality?

What is there to not to be persuaded about? :-k
The Tanager wrote: I have made claims and made a case for those positions. You have not been persuaded.
You have not made a case for objective morality. All you've done is claim that there exists universal moral intuition when in fact we both know that no such thing exists.

Both scientists and philosophers would have made a huge deal about universal moral intuition if it actually existed. The fact is that it doesn't exist. And the fact that it doesn't exist is a counter-example to your claim that it does exist.
The Tanager wrote: We think each other has misunderstood things about our view. We have tried to clarify and it hasn't worked. I see no need for us to now make statements like...note I said like, not that I'm quoting you..."I've clearly made my case and you have clearly not, and you should just admit it, admit you have moved the goalpost like I say you have, you are obviously being dishonest..." and other empty rhetoric like that. We don't agree with each other on our perception of how this discussion has gone. That's okay. Let our posts speak for themselves.
I'm pretty sure our posts already have spoken crystal clear for themselves.

And I think this thread will stand as a prime example of how some theists simply cannot accept reality.

It's difficult for me to understand how you can claim to be able to make logical arguments yet you cannot see the obvious results of our discussion.

Morality as a human subjective view is all there is any evidence for. And no two humans can even agree on what things should be considered to be moral or immoral save for a very few extreme cases.

The evidence that morality is nothing other than human subjective opinions is as crystal clear as the earth is globe.

And you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. All you've done is try to lay claim to universal moral intuition which is clearly not supported by the real world.

Why is it that you cannot accept the truth of reality?

You claim to want truth, but you flat out refuse to acknowledge it.

This makes about as much sense as the people who are still arguing for a flat earth even after they've flown around the globe to attend their flat earth meetings.

It just truly baffles me how some people can continue to stand behind claims and arguments that are so clearly proven wrong by everyday reality.

So go ahead, climb on board a jumbo jet and fly around the globe to attend your next flat earth meeting. Because that's basically exactly what your doing with your argument for objective morality for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

You can call that "empty rhetoric" if you like. That makes about the same amount of sense as your arguments for objective morality with no evidence. You have nothing, and you refuse to acknowledge that all we have evidence for is individual subjective human opinions that aren't even in agreement on the vast majority of moral issues.

You'd be far better off to argue that you think there "should be" an objective morality, while at least confessing that there is unfortunately no evidence to suggest that such a thing exist.

At least that would make sense. I would love for there to be a "Perfect Objective Morality" and a "Perfectly Fair and Just Judge" for all humanity too. That would be GREAT! I'll take that any day of the week!

But wanting something to be true, and finding evidence for it, are two entirely different things.

If you want to argue that this would be a good thing if it did exist, I'll stand right beside you and argue right along with you!

But if you're going to try to argue that there is any evidence for such a thing, that's when I'll need to step away because there is no evidence for it.

I'm at least willing to accept the reality of that.

Wishing something could exist, and having evidence that something exists are two entirely different things.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply