Subjective Morality and God

[liamconnor]

Many here like to point out that morality is subjective. But many like to point out the moral wrongs of the so called god of the bible.


But if morality is subjective, then why are the doings of this god wrong?

Is it possible that there is a god, that it is the god of the bible, and that morality is subjective?

This question is for people who have subscribed to a subjective moral worldview, and yet continue to denounce the god of the O.T. as being objectively immoral.

If there is no objective morality, then the god of the o.t. cannot be denounced on moral grounds (other grounds, yes, but not moral grounds).

Right?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]


Okay, before we continue, let me take the word "actually" out of the equation. With this being the case, the question would be,

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, this would mean that no one can be rightly accused, of being immoral?

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

You are confusing the subjective, with the objective. If a race course is measured, then it is measured by an objective standard, no matter which type of measurement you use. Both, "meters, and furlongs" would be an objective measurement.

If the race is measured in meters, then those who participate, must travel the measured distance, and it would be the same with furlongs, since they are both objective standards of measurement.

When we turn our attention to morality, there is no objective measurement to gauge those who may be running the race. We are all left to our own subjective opinion as to what the measurement would be.

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Exactly! This is because there are those who have, "STIPULATED" how long the race would be. They are the ones who make the "rules" and if we want to participate in this race, then we must abide by their rules.

Who is it, who has "STIPULATED" the rules of morality? Who is it that, has determined the rules? We have just agreed that in a race there is a rule determining exactly how long the race will be, and I am sure we could find out exactly who all was responsible for making the rules. So what are the rules concerning morality?

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.

First, none of us can "stipulate" that morality is subjective. Morality is subjective, or it is not, it cannot be, "stipulated."

Next, if morality is subjective, then there are no rules! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

If you like the taste of liver, and I do not, then it is all good. Why? Because it is subjective and there are no rules. I would rather have a dog for a pet, while others prefer a cat, and it is all good. I would rather drive a Chevy, while there are others who prefer a Ford, and it is all good. And again why? Because these things are subjective, and there are no rules!

So then, if morality is subjective in the same way as all these things above, then there are no rules, and no one can be accused of breaking the rules.

This is what it means for something to be subjective. Something that is subjective, is based upon feelings, tastes, and opinions, and there are no rules concerning such things. Once rules are stipulated, it becomes objective.

It is like this. For something to be subjective, there are not rules, there are only opinions. If something is objective, then there are rules, and your opinion would not factor into the equation.

[Bust Nak]

...if morality is subjective, then there are no rules! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

Incorrect. If morality is subjective, then there are as many sets of rules as there are people thinking up rules, said rules can change depending on the opinion, feelings and taste of a person! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

[Realworldjack]

...if morality is subjective, then there are no rules! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

Incorrect. If morality is subjective, then there are as many sets of rules as there are people thinking up rules, said rules can change depending on the opinion, feelings and taste of a person! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

Incorrect! There are no rules with things that are subjective. You are confusing "rules", with "opinions." You see, there are only, feelings, tastes, and opinions, with things that are subjective.

When you begin to add rules, then you have left the subjective, and have entered into the objective.

I really do hate the taste of liver. This is not a rule, rather it is my taste. There are others who enjoy the taste, and it is not a rule.

Now, if I had the power over the world, I may make it a rule, that no one could ever eat liver, and if there were those caught eating liver, then they would be put to death. If I were to do this, then this rule would be an objective rule. Everyone could clearly understand that it was against the rule, to eat liver.

What I could not do, no matter how much power I have, is to enforce a rule, that no one can like the taste of liver.

Can you see the difference now? I may be able to force you to behave a certain way, and if I were to do this, it would be by enforcing rules. What I cannot do, is to force you to like it, because these things are subjective.

So then, if morality is subjective, you may be able to force me to behave a certain way, by enforcing objective rules, but what objective rules cannot do, is to force me to agree that, these rules are moral, since morality is subjective, and not based upon facts.

I realize how frustrating this must be, but you cannot insist morality is subjective, and then go on to rightly say, "someone is acting immorally", because there are no facts involved, only feelings, tastes, and opinions.

It is like there are those who want their cake, and eat it, as well. In other words, we want to insist that morality is subjective in order to prevent others from forcing their objective standard of morality upon us, however, we then want to go on to insist, there are others who are living immorally.

The most anyone could rightly say is, "these folks are not living up to what I would consider morality", but this would not be any sort of rule concerning morality, rather it would simply be and opinion.

Here is the definition of the word subjective straight from an on line dictionary,

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"

You see? Also notice the example sentence. This sentence tells us, this person's views, are not grounded in any facts. Rather, it is simply how he feels.

Now, let's think about this. This person cannot be incorrect about the way he feels. However, the way he feels may be incorrect. The only way, the way he feels would be incorrect, is if the subject under discussion was an objective one, in which it would be possible to demonstrate to him, the way he feels does not factor into the equation.

As an example, my wife strongly feels like it should be against the rules for one player to strip the ball out of the arms of another player, on the football field. Now, she is correct about the way she feels, because I am sure that this is the way she feels about it. But you see, I have clearly demonstrated to her, that the way she feels is incorrect, and the way she feels does not factor into the equation.

So then, if the subjective is "based upon, or influenced by, personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", then a person would not be incorrect about the way they feel, and the way they feel would not be incorrect. The only way, the way one feels could be incorrect, is if it can be demonstrated that, the way one feels does not factor into the equation, because the subject is not based upon, nor influenced by "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions." This person would still be correct ABOUT the way they feel, but the way they feel, would be incorrect.

Now let's consider the definition of the word, objective.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective

1.Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

You see? The objective is not influenced by "personal feelings, nor opinions." Rather it is influenced by facts.

If something is subjective, there are not facts, simply, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" and everyone's "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, are valid, because there are not facts involved.

For something to be objective, there must be facts involved, and our "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", would not in any way, influence the facts.

[Bust Nak]

Incorrect! There are no rules with things that are subjective.

False by counter-example; here is a rule that is subjective - thou shalt not eat liver.

You are confusing "rules", with "opinions."

There is no confusion: Some rules are made in according to a person's opinions.

You see, there are only, feelings, tastes, and opinions, with things that are subjective.

Which can then be made into rules.

When you begin to add rules, then you have left the subjective, and have entered into the objective.

What made my example rule "objective?" Bearing in mind, that whatever you said here, will be used against you, as your thesis seems very conflicted, if not out right contradictory.

I really do hate the taste of liver. This is not a rule, rather it is my taste. There are others who enjoy the taste, and it is not a rule.

Sure, but you can easily make it into one, see my above example.

Now, if I had the power over the world, I may make it a rule, that no one could ever eat liver, and if there were those caught eating liver, then they would be put to death.

You don't need power over the world to make rules. I made one up just now. I have zero power to make it known to the population, zero power to enforce it.

If I were to do this, then this rule would be an objective rule. Everyone could clearly understand that it was against the rule, to eat liver.

Perhaps you meant "official" instead of "objective?" I see nothing objective about my rule on liver eating.

What I could not do, no matter how much power I have, is to enforce a rule, that no one can like the taste of liver.

Right you are.

I may be able to force you to behave a certain way, and if I were to do this, it would be by enforcing rules. What I cannot do, is to force you to like it, because these things are subjective.

Correct again.

So then, if morality is subjective, you may be able to force me to behave a certain way, by enforcing objective rules, but what objective rules cannot do, is to force me to agree that, these rules are moral, since morality is subjective, and not based upon facts.

Close but same complain as above, re: objective rules.

I realize how frustrating this must be, but you cannot insist morality is subjective, and then go on to rightly say, "someone is acting immorally", because there are no facts involved, only feelings, tastes, and opinions.

False by counter-example, watch as I demonstrate once again, that I can indeed insist morality is subjective, and then go on to rightly say, "someone is acting immorally."

I hereby declare that morality is subjective and rightly say, "someone (Hitler) is (was) acting immorally."

It is like there are those who want their cake, and eat it, as well. In other words, we want to insist that morality is subjective in order to prevent others from forcing their objective standard of morality upon us, however, we then want to go on to insist, there are others who are living immorally.

That's because there is no such thing as objective standard of morality. How is that having the cake and eating it?

The most anyone could rightly say is, "these folks are not living up to what I would consider morality..."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is synonymous with "these folks are immoral," given moral subjectivism. If you only want to address one point, it is this. Your entire thesis boils down to, "you cannot do A, you can only do B," which is self contradictory given A=B.

...but this would not be any sort of rule concerning morality, rather it would simply be and opinion.

But it can easily be made into one: "thou shalt not act as these folks do."

[definition cropped]...Now, let's think about this. This person cannot be incorrect about the way he feels. However, the way he feels may be incorrect. The only way, the way he feels would be incorrect, is if the subject under discussion was an objective one, in which it would be possible to demonstrate to him, the way he feels does not factor into the equation.

Correct!

As an example, my wife strongly feels like it should be against the rules for one player to strip the ball out of the arms of another player, on the football field. Now, she is correct about the way she feels, because I am sure that this is the way she feels about it. But you see, I have clearly demonstrated to her, that the way she feels is incorrect, and the way she feels does not factor into the equation.

Incorrect. Whether it should be allowed one to strip the ball out of the arms of another, is subjective and is based solely on how she feels about it.

So then, if the subjective is "based upon, or influenced by, personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", then a person would not be incorrect about the way they feel, and the way they feel would not be incorrect. The only way, the way one feels could be incorrect, is if it can be demonstrated that, the way one feels does not factor into the equation, because the subject is not based upon, nor influenced by "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions." This person would still be correct ABOUT the way they feel, but the way they feel, would be incorrect.

Right, but that's moot since her feeling does factor into this, the subjective subject is based upon, influenced by "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions." Perhaps you meant to say "it is against the rules...?"

If something is subjective, there are not facts, simply, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" and everyone's "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, are valid, because there are not facts involved.

Close enough. "Realworldjack does not like liver" is a fact about opinion, so facts can be involved, but that is too pedantic even for me.

[Realworldjack]

Incorrect! There are no rules with things that are subjective.

False by counter-example; here is a rule that is subjective - thou shalt not eat liver.

You are confusing "rules", with "opinions."

There is no confusion: Some rules are made in according to a person's opinions.

You see, there are only, feelings, tastes, and opinions, with things that are subjective.

Which can then be made into rules.

When you begin to add rules, then you have left the subjective, and have entered into the objective.

What made my example rule "objective?" Bearing in mind, that whatever you said here, will be used against you, as your thesis seems very conflicted, if not out right contradictory.

I really do hate the taste of liver. This is not a rule, rather it is my taste. There are others who enjoy the taste, and it is not a rule.

Sure, but you can easily make it into one, see my above example.

Now, if I had the power over the world, I may make it a rule, that no one could ever eat liver, and if there were those caught eating liver, then they would be put to death.

You don't need power over the world to make rules. I made one up just now. I have zero power to make it known to the population, zero power to enforce it.

If I were to do this, then this rule would be an objective rule. Everyone could clearly understand that it was against the rule, to eat liver.

Perhaps you meant "official" instead of "objective?" I see nothing objective about my rule on liver eating.

What I could not do, no matter how much power I have, is to enforce a rule, that no one can like the taste of liver.

Right you are.

I may be able to force you to behave a certain way, and if I were to do this, it would be by enforcing rules. What I cannot do, is to force you to like it, because these things are subjective.

Correct again.

So then, if morality is subjective, you may be able to force me to behave a certain way, by enforcing objective rules, but what objective rules cannot do, is to force me to agree that, these rules are moral, since morality is subjective, and not based upon facts.

Close but same complain as above, re: objective rules.

I realize how frustrating this must be, but you cannot insist morality is subjective, and then go on to rightly say, "someone is acting immorally", because there are no facts involved, only feelings, tastes, and opinions.

False by counter-example, watch as I demonstrate once again, that I can indeed insist morality is subjective, and then go on to rightly say, "someone is acting immorally."

I hereby declare that morality is subjective and rightly say, "someone (Hitler) is (was) acting immorally."

It is like there are those who want their cake, and eat it, as well. In other words, we want to insist that morality is subjective in order to prevent others from forcing their objective standard of morality upon us, however, we then want to go on to insist, there are others who are living immorally.

That's because there is no such thing as objective standard of morality. How is that having the cake and eating it?

The most anyone could rightly say is, "these folks are not living up to what I would consider morality..."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is synonymous with "these folks are immoral," given moral subjectivism. If you only want to address one point, it is this. Your entire thesis boils down to, "you cannot do A, you can only do B," which is self contradictory given A=B.

...but this would not be any sort of rule concerning morality, rather it would simply be and opinion.

But it can easily be made into one: "thou shalt not act as these folks do."

[definition cropped]...Now, let's think about this. This person cannot be incorrect about the way he feels. However, the way he feels may be incorrect. The only way, the way he feels would be incorrect, is if the subject under discussion was an objective one, in which it would be possible to demonstrate to him, the way he feels does not factor into the equation.

Correct!

As an example, my wife strongly feels like it should be against the rules for one player to strip the ball out of the arms of another player, on the football field. Now, she is correct about the way she feels, because I am sure that this is the way she feels about it. But you see, I have clearly demonstrated to her, that the way she feels is incorrect, and the way she feels does not factor into the equation.

Incorrect. Whether it should be allowed one to strip the ball out of the arms of another, is subjective and is based solely on how she feels about it.

So then, if the subjective is "based upon, or influenced by, personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", then a person would not be incorrect about the way they feel, and the way they feel would not be incorrect. The only way, the way one feels could be incorrect, is if it can be demonstrated that, the way one feels does not factor into the equation, because the subject is not based upon, nor influenced by "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions." This person would still be correct ABOUT the way they feel, but the way they feel, would be incorrect.

Right, but that's moot since her feeling does factor into this, the subjective subject is based upon, influenced by "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions." Perhaps you meant to say "it is against the rules...?"

If something is subjective, there are not facts, simply, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions" and everyone's "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, are valid, because there are not facts involved.

Close enough. "Realworldjack does not like liver" is a fact about opinion, so facts can be involved, but that is too pedantic even for me.

Well yeah, we are really struggling, but I am here to help, and I will be here until you understand!

So let's attempt to explain it like this. There are Christians, who claim there are rules concerning morality. The problem is, they cannot in any way demonstrate that there are rules. Rather, what they do is to attempt to claim that the rules in the Bible, are the rules. But, in the end, we all know, this is simply their opinion, because they cannot in any way demonstrate these rules in the Bible, are the rules of morality.

Simply claiming, "the rules in the Bible are the rules of morality" would not in any way cause them to be the rules. In fact, if there are rules of morality, and they do not line up with the rules of the Bible, then the rules of the Bible, may still be rules, but they would not be, "the rules of morality."

I am afraid that you are in the same boat, as these Christians, my friend! Either, there is morality, and there are rules concerning this morality, which would mean, "feelings, tastes, and opinions" would not factor in. Or, morality is subjective, which means that it is based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", and everyone's "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, of morality would be valid, because you cannot be incorrect concerning those things that are based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions."

The only difference between you, and these Christians, is the fact that they at least claim "morality is objective", before they go out to condemn the actions of others, for violating morality, while you seem to want to proclaim "morality is subjective", and go on to condemn the actions of others.

Allow me to show you where you are getting close, but have not quite arrived as of yet. I said,

As an example, my wife strongly feels like it should be against the rules for one player to strip the ball out of the arms of another player, on the football field. Now, she is correct about the way she feels, because I am sure that this is the way she feels about it. But you see, I have clearly demonstrated to her, that the way she feels is incorrect, and the way she feels does not factor into the equation.

To which you respond,

Incorrect. Whether it should be allowed one to strip the ball out of the arms of another, is subjective and is based solely on how she feels about it.

You are correct to state, "Whether it should be allowed" would be based upon her, personal feelings, but because football has rules, her personal feelings would have nothing to do with the FACT that, it is perfectly fine to do this sort of thing. So then, my wife can say that she does not agree with the rule, but she cannot rightly say that a player is acting wrongly to strip the ball, because they are not.

Now, if football had no rules, and everyone was allowed to act as they wished, then my wife could play, and never attempt to strip the ball from another player, but she cannot rightly say, "others who do, are acting wrongly" since there are no rules.

Let's look at what you say here,

False by counter-example; here is a rule that is subjective - thou shalt not eat liver.

The statement, "thou shalt not eat liver", is simply that, it is a statement. It does not make it a rule, because it does not apply to anyone at all. In order for something to be a rule, it has to apply in some way, to somebody. If you make this rule apply, then this rule would become an objective rule, to all that it applied too.

I think where the confusion comes in is, you seem to think rules equals right, when it does not. Let's go back to the football field.

It use to be a rule in football, that all forward passes had to be thrown overhand. A pass thrown forward underhanded was called a forward lateral, and was against the rules.

This was a good rule, because anything that is thrown backwards, and hits the ground is free game for the opposing side, while forward passes that hit the ground, are simply incomplete. By allowing passes to be thrown forward underhand, it is difficult to determine when a ball may have been fumbled. Therefore, in my opinion the underhanded forward pass, should not be allowed.

But you see, this is simply my opinion, it is not a rule, and it does not apply. The rule is, underhanded forward passes are allowed, and it is an objective rule, and it applies. It may not be a good rule, but my opinion does not factor into the equation.

So if I am going to play the game of football, I am going to have to defend against the underhanded forward pass, and it will not do any good, if the other team throws an underhanded forward pass an scores, for me to say, "in my opinion this was not a score at all", because my opinion would not matter in the least. Only the rule matters!

You see, football is an objective game, with objective rules. However, morality is not objective, but is rather subjective, which means there are no rules! There is only, feelings, tastes, and opinions, and everyone's feelings, tastes, and opinions, are valid.

Let's look, as an example, at one of your statements. I said,

The most anyone could rightly say is, "these folks are not living up to what I would consider morality..."

To which you respond,

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is synonymous with "these folks are immoral,"

You see, these two statements are not even close to being synonymous! Not even close!

You see saying, "I do not agree with the underhand forward pass in football" is a far cry form saying, "the underhanded forward pass is against the rules." These two statements are completely different. The first would be a subjective opinion, while the other would be a statement of fact, one way or the other.

Therefore, if I say, "these folks are not living up to what I consider to be morality", this would simply be me, stating my opinion. However, if I were to say, "these folks are immoral", this is clearly not an opinion, and if something is subjective, you really cannot rightly use factual statements such as the example.

To use a factual statement with the subjective, would be like me saying, "those who like the taste of liver, have no taste." You see, I used a factual statement here, and it would not be true, because the fact of the matter is, those who enjoy the taste of liver, do have taste, it is just that their taste, differs from mine.

So, as we can clearly see, there are those who want to insist morality is subjective, and then go on to claim others are immoral, but all they are really doing is, stating their opinion, as if their opinion were somehow a fact. It may be a fact, that it is your opinion, but it would not be a fact that these folks were truly immoral, because with the subjective, there are no facts, rather there are only, personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, and everyone's personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, are valid, unless the subject in question is objective.

"Realworldjack does not like liver" is a fact about opinion, so facts can be involved

You see, here is the confusion! Let's look at it like this.

If you, and I were to look at the same car, I may say the car is beautiful, while you may look at the same car, and find no appeal at all. We have different opinions, and both of our opinions would be valid, because there are no facts involved, rather these things are totally left to the feelings, tastes, and opinions, of the individual.

However, if we were to look at the same car, and I were to say it was a Chevrolet, while you claimed it was a Ford, then we are no longer talking about opinions, and one, or the both of our claims, are not valid.

So you see, with the subjective, there are no facts involved that determine the way things must be, and they are different to different people, and everyone's opinion is a valid opinion, and no one's can be incorrect.

However, when you leave the subjective, and enter into the objective, there are facts involved, and no one's opinion is valid, because these things are not based upon, nor are they influenced by feelings, tastes, or opinions.

[Bust Nak]

Well yeah, we are really struggling, but I am here to help, and I will be here until you understand!

Is that a promise?

So let's attempt to explain it like this. There are Christians, who claim there are rules concerning morality. The problem is, they cannot in any way demonstrate that there are rules.

If they have some knowledge of the Bible, they can. Even I, a non-Christian with my lackluster knowledge of the Bible, can demonstrate that much.

Rather, what they do is to attempt to claim that the rules in the Bible, are the rules. But, in the end, we all know, this is simply their opinion, because they cannot in any way demonstrate these rules in the Bible, are the rules of morality.

Aha! You just affirmed that there are rules in the Bible. Gotcha!

Simply claiming, "the rules in the Bible are the rules of morality" would not in any way cause them to be the rules. In fact, if there are rules of morality, and they do not line up with the rules of the Bible, then the rules of the Bible, may still be rules, but they would not be, "the rules of morality."

I will give you that much, it is one particular set of rules of morality, not the one and only set of rules. What is this obsession with the rules? I thought you accept moral subjectivism. Recall if you will, I've always maintained that there are lots of sets of rules, as many sets as there are people thinking up rules. My objection against your thesis has consistently been you can't say there are no rules at all, just because there isn't one and only one set of rules. You do remember insisting there are no rules at all, right?

I am afraid that you are in the same boat, as these Christians, my friend! Either, there is morality, and there are rules concerning this morality, which would mean, "feelings, tastes, and opinions" would not factor in.

Granted, but that's moot since you and I both agree that morality is not objective.

Or, morality is subjective, which means that it is based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions", and everyone's "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, of morality would be valid, because you cannot be incorrect concerning those things that are based upon, "personal feelings, tastes, and opinions."

Yep, lets go with that.

The only difference between you, and these Christians, is the fact that they at least claim "morality is objective", before they go out to condemn the actions of others, for violating morality, while you seem to want to proclaim "morality is subjective", and go on to condemn the actions of others.

Granted, that is difference.

Allow me to show you where you are getting close, but have not quite arrived as of yet...

You are correct to state, "Whether it should be allowed" would be based upon her, personal feelings, but because football has rules, her personal feelings would have nothing to do with the FACT that, it is perfectly fine to do this sort of thing. So then, my wife can say that she does not agree with the rule, but she cannot rightly say that a player is acting wrongly to strip the ball, because they are not.

Of course she can say that, whether is it wrong to strip the ball is based upon her personal feelings. She feels it is wrong, then it is wrong, she cannot be incorrect about how she feels, remember?

Now, if football had no rules, and everyone was allowed to act as they wished, then my wife could play, and never attempt to strip the ball from another player, but she cannot rightly say, "others who do, are acting wrongly" since there are no rules.

That's moot since there are rules, the official rules as decided by NFL, as well as your wife's private personal preferred rules for football.

The statement, "thou shalt not eat liver", is simply that, it is a statement. It does not make it a rule, because it does not apply to anyone at all.

Incorrect, it applies to everyone, generic "thou," no exceptions.

In order for something to be a rule, it has to apply in some way, to somebody. If you make this rule apply, then this rule would become an objective rule, to all that it applied too.

But it's not objective, because I just made it up based upon nothing but my personal opinion.

I think where the confusion comes in is, you seem to think rules equals right, when it does not. Let's go back to the football field...

Therefore, in my opinion the underhanded forward pass, should not be allowed.

But you see, this is simply my opinion, it is not a rule, and it does not apply.

It is a rule though, just not the official rule, it is your personal preferred rule based upon your opinion. Good luck convincing others to adopt that rule though.

The rule is, underhanded forward passes are allowed, and it is an objective rule, and it applies. It may not be a good rule, but my opinion does not factor into the equation...

That's moot since what is and isn't allowed by the official rules, is a very different thing as to what should and shouldn't be allowed. Where as what is and isn't allowed by my personally preferred rules, is the same thing as what should and shouldn't be allowed.

You see, football is an objective game, with objective rules.

It has official rules, quite a different thing to objective rules, you've affirmed as much when you told me the rules were changed. The fact that there are two different sets of official rules - NFL and College football, makes that all the more obvious. The official rules are merely agreed upon by us as individuals. The only thing different between your rules and the official rules, is the number of people who agrees to it. But lets not get derailed the conversation over that issue, we are not here to talk about objectivism after all, we want to focus on subjectivism.

...You see, these two statements ["these folks are not living up to what I would consider morality" and "these folks are immoral"] are not even close to being synonymous! Not even close!

They are synonymous if morality is subjective, the are not synonymous if morality is not subjective. Since you accept moral subjectivism, you are contradicting yourself.

You see saying, "I do not agree with the underhand forward pass in football" is a far cry form saying, "the underhanded forward pass is against the rules." These two statements are completely different. The first would be a subjective opinion, while the other would be a statement of fact, one way or the other.

That's the thing, they are not completely different at all, "I do not agree with the underhand forward pass in football" is synonymous with "the underhanded forward pass is against the rules" if the rules are decided by me, based on my opinion and preference. Or given "football subjectivism," as it were.

In the same way "these folks are not living up to what I consider to be morality" is synonymous with "these folks are immoral," if the rules are decided by me, based on my opinion and preference. In other words, given moral subjectivism.

To use a factual statement with the subjective, would be like me saying, "those who like the taste of liver, have no taste." You see, I used a factual statement here, and it would not be true, because the fact of the matter is, those who enjoy the taste of liver, do have taste, it is just that their taste, differs from mine.

It's the same thing, given taste is subjective. And taste is subjective.

So, as we can clearly see...

We can't though. There of use who insist morality is subjective, and then go on to claim others are immoral, are stating their opinion, as if our opinion were our opinion. That is what I can clearly see.

If you, and I were to look at the same car, I may say the car is beautiful, while you may look at the same car, and find no appeal at all...

However, when you leave the subjective, and enter into the objective, there are facts involved, and no one's opinion is valid, because these things are not based upon, nor are they influenced by feelings, tastes, or opinions.

And yet, "rwj likes the car, where as BN doesn't" is a factual statement about subjective taste. Is it not? But like I said, this is a side point that's not important.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 66 by Bust Nak]

Aha! You just affirmed that there are rules in the Bible. Gotcha!

And here is where you are wrong, my friend! There are some folks who do not read very carefully, isn't there? I have never once said, "there are not rules!" I have acknowledge many rules. So now you need to demonstrate where I have said, "there are no rules."

What I have said is, "if morality is subjective, then there are no rules concerning morality, because there are no rules concerning the subjective." Which is a tremendous difference from saying, "there are no rules." Moreover, lets look at my statement you are referring too,

Rather, what they do is to attempt to claim that the rules in the Bible, are the rules. But, in the end, we all know, this is simply their opinion, because they cannot in any way demonstrate these rules in the Bible, are the rules of morality.

So you see, I acknowledge the fact, that there are rules, but go on to say, the rules in the Bible, are not the rules of morality, if morality is indeed subjective, because there would be no rules, only, feelings, tastes, and opinions, and feelings, tastes, and opinions are not rules.

We have laws here in the U.S., which is the same as rules, but these laws, are not the laws of morality, if morality is subjective. So, on the one hand, I acknowledge that there are many rules, and laws, but there are no rules, or laws, when it comes to things that are subjective. These things are left to the feelings, tastes, and opinions, which are no where close to being rules.

So then, there are rules concerning things that are objective. There are no rules concerning the subjective. There are only feelings, tastes, and opinions, concerning the subjective.

I will give you that much, it is one particular set of rules of morality, not the one and only set of rules.

GOOD GRIEF! If we can all make our own set of rules concerning morality, then they are not rules at all, because no one is bound by these rules. You can continue to refer to your, feelings, tastes, and opinions, as if they were rules, but in the end, you only have feelings, tastes, and opinions, and have no rules, if we all make our own rules.

This is no different than saying, "opinions, and rules are one and the same!"

I said,

I am afraid that you are in the same boat, as these Christians, my friend! Either, there is morality, and there are rules concerning this morality, which would mean, "feelings, tastes, and opinions" would not factor in.

To which you respond,

Granted, but that's moot since you and I both agree that morality is not objective.

Exactly! Which means, RULES, ARE RULED OUT WHEN IT COMES TO MORALITY! There are no rules with things that are subjective. Rather, there are only feelings, tastes, and opinions, and feelings, tastes, and opinions, are not rules.

But it's not objective, because I just made it up based upon nothing but my personal opinion.

Then, it is not a rule! Rather, it is your personal opinion. Simply because refer to your opinion as a rule, does not in any way make it a rule, any more then that of the Christian who refers to their opinion of morality being the rules of the Bible, make the rules of the Bible, rules of morality.

And yet, "rwj likes the car, where as BN doesn't" is a factual statement about subjective taste. Is it not?

Exactly! But it is a factual statement concerning your opinion. It is not a factual statement concerning what morality is.

Let's look at it like this. Let's say, we have a certain road, and the speed limit on this road is 55 MPH. Now, I may say, "in my opinion the speed limit on this road should be 70 MPH." I have just made a factual statement concerning my opinion. I have not made a factual statement concerning the speed limit of the road, and my opinion is in no way a rule.

Now, how do you think things will turn out, if I travel down this road at 70 MPH, and get pulled over by an officer, and tell him what my opinion is, and go on to tell him, "it is my rule?" Not so good I would venture to guess. Why? Because my opinion is not a rule. You see, one could be condemned for breaking this rule of 55 MPH.

In the same way, either morality is objective, and there are rules, and we can condemn others for breaking these rules. Or, morality is subjective, and there are no rules, only feelings, tastes, and opinions, which means no one could ever be condemned for breaking the rules of morality.

It has official rules, quite a different thing to objective rules, you've affirmed as much when you told me the rules were changed.

Official rules, are the same as objective rules, and objective rules can change. You can also make your opinion, an objective rule, if you have the power. The speed limit on a road, is an objective rule. But it can, and has changed.

When Jimmy Carter was President he changed the speed limit on the interstates to 55 MPH. This was the official law, and it was also objective, and it did not matter what my opinion was. Since he left the law has been changed, and it is the official, and objective law, and my opinion does not factor in.

The fact that there are two different sets of official rules - NFL and College football, makes that all the more obvious.

You are, "comparing apples to oranges" here, my friend. Both the NFL, and college have official, and objective rules, even if they are different, and if you want to participate, the rules apply to you, and your opinion of the rules, would not factor in.

The NFL is not College, and College is not the NFL. They both have their own set of rules for the game, and they are not subjective, in that anyone can decide which rules they want to follow.

The official rules are merely agreed upon by us as individuals.

This is not true in the least, my friend! There can be rules, that we are bound to, that we have never agreed to.

The only thing different between your rules and the official rules, is the number of people who agrees to it.

Again, not necessarily true. It could be possible that all disagree with the rule, but we are not in the position to make the rules, and if the one person who makes the rules, does not agree with what the majority says, then the rule will be what he makes it, and the rule will be the rule, not matter how many people disagree with it. This can, does, and has happened!

So then, the only difference between my opinion, and the official, objective rule is, my opinion does not matter, and the only thing that matters is what the one in power decides, and if I want to participate, then the rules apply to me, whether I like them or not.

They are synonymous if morality is subjective, the are not synonymous if morality is not subjective. Since you accept moral subjectivism, you are contradicting yourself.

Okay, let's try this again. If the speed limit on a road is 70 MPH, and if there are those who travel 70 MPH, then I could say, "in my opinion they are traveling far to fast", but this is a far cry from saying, "they are breaking the law." These statements are not synonymous.

Now, if we were to have a road, that had no speed limit, I could still make the statement, "in my opinion there are those who travel to fast on this road", but I could not rightly say, "they are breaking the rules", because there are no rules, as far as speed is concerned on this road, and my opinion would not be a rule.

Moreover, making the statement, "in my opinion there are those who travel to fast on this road" is not synonymous with, "they are breaking the law", if there is no speed limit.

If there is no speed limit on a certain road, then we are all left to our own personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, of what speed we travel, and the opinion of others would not be a rule, and would not apply to us, and no one could rightly say, there are those who break the rules, as far as speed.

If morality is subjective, then it would be the same as this road with no speed limit. We could all state our opinion, but our opinion would not be a rule, and no one could be condemned for breaking the rule, since there are no rules.

So then saying, "in my opinion these folks are not living up to what I consider to be moral", is not synonymous with, "they are immoral" any more than saying "in my opinion there are those who travel to fast on this road", would be synonymous with "they are breaking the law", on a road with no speed limit.

You see, you are confusing, rules, opinions, and morality. We can have opinions about certain things, but our opinion is not a rule. We can have many people who hold the same opinion concerning a certain thing, and we can agree to make it a rule, and if we did such a thing, then the rule would be an objective rule, and there could be those who acted against this rule, but this would not in any way mean that the rule we agreed to, equaled morality.

If morality is subjective, then there are no rules concerning morality, which is what it means for something to be subjective, and there are no rules to break.

In the end, all you are really doing is, giving us your opinion, and claiming your opinion is a rule, when it is in no way a rule. As already pointed out, there are Christians who do the same thing. They point to their opinion that the rules in the Bible, are the rules of morality, when they have failed to demonstrate such a thing.

[Bust Nak]

Feel free to skip the individual points and jump right to the tl;dr paragraph at the end of this post if like. I think my summary covers the one major contention.

And here is where you are wrong. And here is where you are wrong, my friend! There are some folks who do not read very carefully, isn't there? I have never once said, "there are not rules!"

And there are some folks who don't remember what they wrote, the record will show that you have consistently stated that there are no rules without the "concerning morality" qualifier. But that besides the point, the "aha" bit was just me being flippant. The point was you said there are no rules concerning morality given subjectivism, but there are rules concerning morality despite your denial, some of which can be found in the Bible.

GOOD GRIEF! If we can all make our own set of rules concerning morality, then they are not rules at all, because no one is bound by these rules.

But people ARE bound by these rules though. When you are making the rules - you can decide who is bounded by it, you are free to pick whoever you want. Don't confuse being bounded by a rule with the consequences of breaking a rule, there need not be any. You are bounded by the rule "thou shalt not eat liver," it says thou, and that means you.

This is no different than saying, "opinions, and rules are one and the same!"

Close enough. That's what I've been saying all along. I kept telling you there are as many sets of rules are there are people thinking up rules, remember?

Exactly! Which means, RULES, ARE RULED OUT WHEN IT COMES TO MORALITY!

Incorrect, that does not follow. There are rules with things that are subjective, said rules are based on feelings, tastes, and opinions.

Then, it is not a rule! Rather, it is your personal opinion.

It's both. "You shouldn't drive so fast" is an personal opinion and it is a rule for driving.

Simply because refer to your opinion as a rule, does not in any way make it a rule, any more then that of the Christian who refers to their opinion of morality being the rules of the Bible, make the rules of the Bible, rules of morality.

That's like saying being 3 months old doesn't make you a newborn, any more than being 24 months old makes you a toddler. Being 24 months old does make you a toddler.

Simply by refer to my opinion as a rule, makes it a rule, just like Christians who refer to their opinion of morality being the rules of the Bible, make the rules of the Bible, rules of morality. That is the essence of moral subjectivism. You cannot subscribe to moral subjectivism, without affirming this. You say you accept subjectivism but you don't even know what you are accepting.

Exactly! But it is a factual statement concerning your opinion. It is not a factual statement concerning what morality is.

Right, I had not implied otherwise.

Let's look at it like this. Let's say, we have a certain road, and the speed limit on this road is 55 MPH. Now, I may say, "in my opinion the speed limit on this road should be 70 MPH." I have just made a factual statement concerning my opinion. I have not made a factual statement concerning the speed limit of the road, and my opinion is in no way a rule.

But it can be rephrased into a rule - the unofficial speed limit is 70 MPH.

Now, how do you think things will turn out, if I travel down this road at 70 MPH, and get pulled over by an officer, and tell him what my opinion is, and go on to tell him, "it is my rule?" Not so good I would venture to guess. Why? Because my opinion is not a rule. You see, one could be condemned for breaking this rule of 55 MPH...

That doesn't mean it's not a rule. It's just not relevant as to whether it is punishable by law or not.

Official rules, are the same as objective rules, and objective rules can change. You can also make your opinion, an objective rule, if you have the power. The speed limit on a road, is an objective rule. But it can, and has changed.

There is no such thing as an objective rule. All rules are constructs based on opinion. For something to be objective, our say so has zero relevance. Just as the shape of the Earth stays the same, regardless of how many people agree that it is a ball.

When Jimmy Carter was President he changed the speed limit on the interstates to 55 MPH.

That should be all you need to know it is subjective, based on the feelings, tastes, and opinions of one Jimmy Carter. It is merely the official law, because people agrees to it by consensus.

You are, "comparing apples to oranges" here, my friend. Both the NFL, and college have official, and objective rules, even if they are different, and if you want to participate, the rules apply to you, and your opinion of the rules, would not factor in.

No, Both the NFL, and college have official, non-objective rules, they are different, and if you want to participate, the rules apply to you, and your opinion of the rules, would not factor in.

The NFL is not College, and College is not the NFL. They both have their own set of rules for the game, and they are not subjective, in that anyone can decide which rules they want to follow.

But anyone can decide which rules they want to follow. They just wouldn't be welcomed in NFL or college football.

This is not true in the least, my friend! There can be rules, that we are bound to, that we have never agreed to.

I did not suggest otherwise. All I said was, the official rules are merely agreed upon by us as individuals. That doesn't contradict with what you said here.

Again, not necessarily true...

But that's moot since it is true.

It could be possible that all disagree with the rule, but we are not in the position to make the rules, and if the one person who makes the rules, does not agree with what the majority says, then the rule will be what he makes it, and the rule will be the rule, not matter how many people disagree with it. This can, does, and has happened!

I know - that's what I kept telling you. Rules are subjective, you can make what ever rules you like. There are as many rules as there are people thinking up rules. Had rules been objective, then no one has any say on what the rules are.

So then, the only difference between my opinion, and the official, objective rule is, my opinion does not matter, and the only thing that matters is what the one in power decides, and if I want to participate, then the rules apply to me, whether I like them or not.

Sure. I had not implied otherwise. That doesn't mean your preferred rules for football, isn't the rules for your preferred way of playing of football.

Okay, let's try this again. If the speed limit on a road is 70 MPH, and if there are those who travel 70 MPH, then I could say, "in my opinion they are traveling far to fast", but this is a far cry from saying, "they are breaking the law." These statements are not synonymous.

Correct. The law is but one set of rules, out of many.

Now, if we were to have a road, that had no speed limit, I could still make the statement, "in my opinion there are those who travel to fast on this road", but I could not rightly say, "they are breaking the rules", because there are no rules, as far as speed is concerned on this road, and my opinion would not be a rule.

Incorrect. You could rightly say, "they are breaking the rules", because there are rules, ones you can make up on the fly, rules that are based on nothing but your opinion. No speed limit just means no official rule, quite a different thing to no rules at all.

Moreover, making the statement, "in my opinion there are those who travel to fast on this road" is not synonymous with, "they are breaking the law", if there is no speed limit.

Correct. However, making the statement, "in my opinion there are those who travel to fast on this road" is synonymous with, "they are breaking my rules." The law is merely the official rules. There are other sets of rules.

If there is no speed limit on a certain road, then we are all left to our own personal feelings, tastes, and opinions, of what speed we travel, and the opinion of others would not be a rule, and would not apply to us, and no one could rightly say, there are those who break the rules, as far as speed.

Incorrect. Speed limit is merely one set of rules, enforceable by law. There are as many sets of rules regarding the driving speed, as there are people thinking up rules, based on their opinion. The difference is whether they are enforceable by law or not, and the number of people who agrees with it.

If morality is subjective, then it would be the same as this road with no speed limit...

We could all state our opinion, and phrase our opinion in the way of a rule, and one could then be condemned for breaking the rule.

You see, you are confusing, rules, opinions, and morality. We can have opinions about certain things, but our opinion is not a rule.

Incorrect. You are the one confusing rules with the power to enforce the rules.

We can have many people who hold the same opinion concerning a certain thing, and we can agree to make it a rule, and if we did such a thing, then the rule would be an objective rule...

Incorrect, and you are confusing agreement with objectivity. No amount of agreeing can make something objective. Facts are not based on agreement. The Earth is not round because lots of people agreed to it. It is round because it just is.

Come on, this is objectivism 101. While "objective" has other meaning, such as "a lack of bias," but when the context is objectivism vs subjectivism, objective has a very specific meaning.

In the end, all you are really doing is, giving us your opinion, and claiming your opinion is a rule, when it is in no way a rule. As already pointed out, there are Christians who do the same thing. They point to their opinion that the rules in the Bible, are the rules of morality, when they have failed to demonstrate such a thing.

But they have demonstrated it, and I can do the same - get your Bible, flip over to Exodus 20 and see for yourself. "Thou shalt..."

tl;dr

In summary, you seem to think that a) an enforceable rule makes it objective and b) an unenforceable rule is not a rule at all. I understand why these two idea would lead you to the conclusion that there are no rules in subjectivism. The problem is neither of these ideas are true. a) is trivially false since one cannot make anything objective. It either is objective, like the shape of the Earth or it isn't like aesthetics. b) is false by counter-example: there are unenforceable laws, and you've already accepted that laws do qualify as rules in your book.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 68 by Bust Nak]



Okay, let's attempt to do it like this. Morality really is subjective. Therefore, there really is, NO set of rules that define, or determine what morality, would really be. Therefore, no one can be said to, "really be immoral", since there is no way to determine what really is moral.

If it can be said that, "someone really is immoral", then we would all be, really immoral, since there are those that hold the opinion that we are, really immoral.

It seems then, the world is filled with, "really immoral people", just like the Christians say.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 57 by Bust Nak]


Okay, before we continue, let me take the word "actually" out of the equation. With this being the case, the question would be,

Can we agree, that if morality is subjective, this would mean that no one can be rightly accused, of being immoral?

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.

That's like saying, "If we agree that race courses are to be measured in meters rather than furlongs, no one can rightly be said to have finished a race."

You are confusing the subjective, with the objective. If a race course is measured, then it is measured by an objective standard, no matter which type of measurement you use. Both, "meters, and furlongs" would be an objective measurement.

If the race is measured in meters, then those who participate, must travel the measured distance, and it would be the same with furlongs, since they are both objective standards of measurement.

When we turn our attention to morality, there is no objective measurement to gauge those who may be running the race. We are all left to our own subjective opinion as to what the measurement would be.

In fact, if you stipulate the length of the course in meters, then the race will be finished when that many meters have been passed.

Exactly! This is because there are those who have, "STIPULATED" how long the race would be. They are the ones who make the "rules" and if we want to participate in this race, then we must abide by their rules.

Who is it, who has "STIPULATED" the rules of morality? Who is it that, has determined the rules? We have just agreed that in a race there is a rule determining exactly how long the race will be, and I am sure we could find out exactly who all was responsible for making the rules. So what are the rules concerning morality?

Likewise, if you stipulate that morality is subjective, then it becomes an objective fact that immorality occurs when someone violates subjective moral rules.

First, none of us can "stipulate" that morality is subjective. Morality is subjective, or it is not, it cannot be, "stipulated."

Next, if morality is subjective, then there are no rules! That is what it means for something to be subjective.

If you like the taste of liver, and I do not, then it is all good. Why? Because it is subjective and there are no rules. I would rather have a dog for a pet, while others prefer a cat, and it is all good. I would rather drive a Chevy, while there are others who prefer a Ford, and it is all good. And again why? Because these things are subjective, and there are no rules!

So then, if morality is subjective in the same way as all these things above, then there are no rules, and no one can be accused of breaking the rules.

This is what it means for something to be subjective. Something that is subjective, is based upon feelings, tastes, and opinions, and there are no rules concerning such things. Once rules are stipulated, it becomes objective.

It is like this. For something to be subjective, there are not rules, there are only opinions. If something is objective, then there are rules, and your opinion would not factor into the equation.

I'm afraid you are the one who is confusing objective and subjective. A meter is not anymore objective than a moral is. A meter does not exist, the concept of measurement only has meaning in human brains. A meter has meaning because it is something that humans have agreed ought to have meaning. Morals are no different. Morals only exist because human brains assign concepts (like good or bad) to things. A foot is also a concept of measurement. So is an AU. The usefulness, and the agreement of that usefulness, differs over time and location. Same with morals. The value and usefulness of a moral differs depending on when and where it is attempted to be used. What is "right" in America is not necessarily "right" in Pakistan or the Brazilian rain forest. What is the "right" unit of measurement in America is not necessarily "right" in Pakistan or the Brazilian rain forest.

Seems morals and meters are much more similar than you first make them out to be...