Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#151
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
It's like the border of the observable universe.  We know there's a border.  There is no logical contradiction with identifying the border.  What's on the other side of that border?  NOUMENON.
We don't know that there's a border; we posit that there's a border as a epistemological/"metalogical" consequence. It's purpose is as you say, "a placeholder." It's a mere negation which cannot provide any sort of information.

Well, logically, we know it can't be "no-thing".  Because there can't be "no-thing".  There is no such thing as "no-thing" because it can only be no-where and no-size and no-shape and no-substance and no-information.  It actually defines itself out of existence (Ex Nihilo).

If it can't be "no-thing" then it must be NOUMENON (not some-thing, but also not-nothing).
Is there knowledge beyond us?

It emphasizes our epistemological limits (AND) it "answers" idiotic questions claimed to be the exclusive domain of religion.
Does it emphasize or answer? Or is it a mere and unavoidable logical statement (much like p and not p?) The meaning is contingent upon one's acceptance of logic.
Topic's author
#152
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Logically fallacious reasoning (red herring, ad hominem, etc.) prove that there are objectively more rational approaches to your beliefs. The parameters that define rationality are objective.
#153
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Logically fallacious reasoning (red herring, ad hominem, etc.) prove that there are objectively more rational approaches to your beliefs. The parameters that define rationality are objective.
Although not everyone agrees that logically fallacious arguments are invalid.  In fact, there is a lot of evidence that appeals to fear and appeals to authority and appeals to emotion are generally much more compelling than appeals to pure reason.
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
It's a mere negation which cannot provide any sort of information.
The mere concept of NOUMENON does not contain any sort of information (other than simply "epistemological limit").
#155
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Is there knowledge beyond us?
That's tricky.

(IFF) knowledge is consciously retrievable information stored inside a brain (THEN) there can be no knowledge "beyond" human comprehension.
#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
It emphasizes our epistemological limits (AND) it "answers" idiotic questions claimed to be the exclusive domain of religion.
Does it emphasize or answer? Or is it a mere and unavoidable logical statement (much like p and not p?) The meaning is contingent upon one's acceptance of logic.
Yeah, it is like "p or not p".  Although, by naming it, NOUMENON feels more substantial, it seems to take on a "thingness", even though it is defined as being technically unknowable and or incomprehensible.  In the same way that gods are sometimes described as Magum Mysterium.
#157
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
Morality is subjective, Law is objective and Ethics is the mixing of the two.
Ethical laws are subjective opinions of morality enforced by the will of those who have the means to do so unless there is an objective, unchanging, absolute, universal source and reference point to ground good and evil upon. 

#158
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Anything derived from internal data processing is subjective.

So I'm not sure if there is really such a thing as objectivity.

Because to assume that one is proffering an objective thought is to be subjective.
If you are not sure then your statement itself fails to meet an objective standard in its own right. Why should I believe your opinion? It is worth no more than any other opinion. You can definitely state it but I don't think it meets the experiential standard (i.e., you can't live by it). As soon as you are facing a life and death situation in which someone deems your innocent child not worthy of living you know they are wrong. Then there are some things that are surely, definitely wrong. Do you disagree? If so would you be willing to put your thinking to the test? No, I don't think so. 


I would suggest that social morality can only be a collective decision, based on a subjectively acquired consensus.

Then, "goodness" has no identity. It can mean whatever you (or the social group) want it to mean. Now, that may work in theory but you cannot live experientially with such conflicting states of contradiction. A=A. (good is good). Either it is good to kill your neighbour for pleasure or it is wrong to kill your neighbour for pleasure. It can't be good and bad at the same time and in the same manner. 
 
Goodness either has an identity and is what it is or it does not exist. Goodness can't be the opposite of what it is (good is bad).

Thus, when you have two different societies (A and B) that both pass a law regarding the same thing are in conflict then one is wrong. Say Society A passes a law on abortion is good and a woman's right to choose as opposed to Society B passes a law that states abortion is wrong and a woman does not have the good/right to choose to kill her unborn, then one of the two societies has a wrong opinion of what is right and what is wrong regarding abortion. If goodness has an identity it can't be its opposite. 


#159
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Math is a thought process. Without thoughts there is no math.
So are you saying that 2+2=4 is not always true?
#160
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
The universe would continue to move and if someone where alive to describe those movements they could invent language to do so but the movements are not the math describing the movements they are the movements. Math is a human invention used to give us convenient reference points when discussing the universe nothing more.
So if there was no one to think it 2+2=4 would no longer be true??? 

Now 2+2=4 does not depend on you or me thinking it, but I agree with you that it does require a mind for it to be known. Since it is always true regardless of whether you or I believe it, IMO, it requires a necessary Mind for its existence. We, as human beings, are just thinking the thoughts of our Creator, since as the Bible says, we are created in the image and likeness of God. 

#161
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
But we're starting to go down a rabbit hole. I was interested in discussing whether morality is objective or subjective.
Agreed. Math is really off topic.  In order to prove morals are objective I propose you show a truly objective standard. One that can be measured like one measures the temperature of soup or the speed at which venus orbits the sun. Do you have such a standard and if so why do humans not seem able to agree on the small minutia of morality? If such a metric existed would we not simply be able to get out the moralometer and measure the badness in men's hearts? Why would we bother with legal systems and juries? Surely if morality could be measured we wouldn't need to judge people innocent or guilty. Judgement is by its very nature subjective. A judgement is essentially an opinion. 


Judging someone as innocent or guilty implies a standard that is valid in determining this. Not only that, it would have to be objective and universal one or it is arbitrary, or as you say just an opinion. What makes your opinion any "Better" than mine? Nothing, not even brute force. All brute force does is forces you to do what I like. That in no way makes it good or better. And how would you ever determine "better" unless there is an objective best to compare better to in its degree of goodness? Since social rules and laws keep changing, and some would argue getting "better," how would you know what better was without a fixed reference point to compare it?
#162
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
If there is no evidence that there is any objective morality (no perfect standard that can be calculated mathematically or measured physically) but there is evidence that people hold different subjective opinions about morality then subjective morality has been demonstrated and objective morality has not. Under those circumstances it is more rational to believe in the proposition that has been demonstrated than the one which has not.
If there is no evidence then there is no good, only opinion --> likes/dislikes. I think you can theories this but it does not pass the experiential test (you can't live with it). Thus, by necessity, there has to be an objective source for morality or morality is meaninglessness since it can mean what the subjective individual or group deems it to mean, and when two groups conflict then logically one has to be wrong. So again, objective morality is the more reasonable system of belief. 

Not only this, I believe there are reasonable and logical proofs for God's existence presented not only in the universe (i.e., on what has been made) but also in the Bible which claims in various ways to be God's revelation to humanity.

Now, since we are flawed because of our humanity and sinfulness we only see in part whereas God sees the whole. Thus there are 'good' reasons not to kill innocent people, good reasons not to lie, good reasons not to commit adultery, good reasons not to steal. Not only are these a revelation of the biblical God but they make sense. We as human beings seem to understand them to a large extent. Thus they are innate.  
#163
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Innocent is prescriptive in this case not descriptive. We define  innocent as not guilty of wrongdoing. Everyone agrees (most everyone anyway it is subjective after all and some people do believe in general purpose punishment as a deterrent) that we should not punish someone who is not guilty of wrongdoing. What we disagree on (because it is subjective) is exactly what constitutes wrongdoing. That innocent people should not be punished is generally agreed upon. Who I'd and is not innocent is not. Please do not conflate prescriptive language with descriptive language it only muddies the water.
All moral values are prescriptive. 

Empirical values are descriptive since we measure them by sight, sound, touch, taste, and feel. That is not something you can do with qualitative values. They are abstract, not physical, in their very nature. Thus they have to have a non-physical fixed measure to exist, just like quantitative values have a physical measure and reference point. 

That is the difference between an is and an ought. What is has a physical measurement. What ought to be has a different standard of measurement. That standard is a Mind. Morality exists within the mind and it can only derive its existence from an ultimate, objective, fixed necessary Mind, the final reference point for it to exist. 

Now, I'm sure you would agree it exists? If not then don't object to someone torturing innocent people. There would be nothing wrong in doing so unless it is universally wrong to do so. Even more extreme, how does it pass your experiential test? What now happens if that someone joyfully decides to torture you for their mere pleasure? Still nothing wrong with it. What about your child? Still nothing wrong with it? 

You see, in theory, you can say all morality is subjective but you can't live by theory. That theory just doesn't work in everyday life. 

#164
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
If what constitutes an offense is subjective then what does not constitute an offence is also subjective.

Whether the offence is right or wrong (morality) constitutes objectivity, or else it is not right or wrong, just preference. Objectivity is what is true to what is the case. If laws are made up and are subjective they are not based on right and wrong (morality) but on preference (likes/dislikes). The truth of right and wrong is not known by mere preference since preference is subjective. 
#165
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
I do. There is no number of people who hold a subjective opinion that will transform a subjective opinion into an objective fact.
Like what? My opinion is that if you do not do as I say is 'good' and 'right' (subjective opinion) then I will punish you until you see things my way (objective fact).

#166
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Objective =/= agreed upon. Objective = irrespective of opinion.

It does not matter how many people hold the same opinion. It is still an opinion and opinions are subjective by definition 

But there again, a subjective opinion can line up with what is actually the case --> thus objective fact.
#167
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Killing humans is sometimes considered justified in all cultures. What is disagreed upon is when the killing of humans is justified. This is because it is subjective.

But killing an innocent human being (i.e., a human being who is not guilty of doing the wrong charged) should never be justified in any culture. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, okay, you're next! Still disagree? Is it subjective that killing innocent human beings is wrong? No, okay, you're next! 

You see, experientially you can give lip service to such thinking (it is okay to kill innocent human beings) but in practice, it fails the experiential test. 
#168
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Firstly subjective and objective are dichotomous.  If one then not the other. Also natural selection can predict amd explain at least these four kinds of traits/behaviors.
Again, I hate that you give human characteristics to a chance happenstance. There is no intent behind evolution. Things just happen. It is not good or bad, just is. 


Those that promote species interest (sometimes manifesting as altruism/empathy).
Again, there is no promotion in a random chemical reaction. Things just happen. You respond one way and someone else responds another. There is no right and wrong in that. You equate behaviourism to survival. A behaviour is, it describes the way things are, not the way they ought to be. 

"Look, John jumps when I prod him with a stick in the ribs!" It describes the behaviour I generate when I prod John with a stick. 
Now, why I ought not to do it is prescriptive and prescribes what ought to or ought not to be done. 

Behaviour --> is
Good --> What ough to be. 

Behaviour --> What is observed.
Good --> Mind dependent on what should be.


Those that promote self interest as individual survival is necessary for a viable species.
Granting that a viable 'species' is desirable. 

What makes that morally good? If you are eating my food and it means I will not survive if you continue it is either one or the other unless my Christian values kick in, then I will gladly die that you may live.

Why do human beings seek goodness and make moral judgments in a meaningless universe? Even more to the point, in a meaningless universe why should they? We constantly seek meaning in such a universe. That should give you a hint. Have you thought that perhaps God has programmed us to be moral beings instead of random chance happenstance? 


Those that are incidental but not detrimental to species or individual survival.

Those which once promoted species or individual survival but which no longer serve their purpose in an organism's current environment.
Do you think Chairman Xi cares if you survive? Do you think he cares if the Chinese in Hong Kong survive if it does not serve his interests and he can get away with mass extermination? Possibly the only thing holding him back is world condemnation because most recognize that some things are morally wrong. 

Do you think Kim Jong-un cares whether you survive? As long as he retains control he does not care about the majority of masses that do not serve his interests. 
#169
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think Chairman Xi cares if you survive?
All humans (mammals) are inculcated with a basic value hierarchy from birth.

(1) Protect yourself
(2) Protect your close friends and family
(3) Protect your territory

Your relationship with your parents is your model for your gods.

That's why gods are most often portrayed as king-sided-humans.

Your KING is modeled after your eldest sibling who's left in charge while your parents are away.

They continuously warn, don't make the gods mad! Do what I say or else they'll punish you!

Each of us devise our own strategies to accomplish these (3) primary-goals and juggle these power-models.

Many if not most of these strategies involve disregarding and or violating the rights of our competitors.

We like to call this NATURAL-LAW.

ANARCHISM = LAW OF THE JUNGLE

Without some mechanism to defend the defenseless, then AUTOCRACY (FASCISM) is inevitable.

HUMAN-RIGHTS BECOME MEANINGLESS.

The biggest proponents of ANARCHISM are the rich and powerful.

If you are pro-anarchism (Autarchism/Voluntarism/Minarchism) and you are NOT rich and powerful, then you have been BRAINWASHED.
#170
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But killing an innocent human being...
According to Christian doctrine, there is no such thing.

Remember "original sin"?

Doesn't god kill innocent teeny-tiny-babies every-single-day through miscarriage?

Why does god do that?

Doesn't the good-ol U.S.A. incarcerate innocent children?

Are homeless people "innocent" if the crime they are charged with is vagrancy?

Innocence seems to be rather subjective.
#171
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But there again, a subjective opinion can line up with what is actually the case --> thus objective fact.
Even REAL-TRUE-FACTS are not "objective" because they are BIASED.

All facts are Sample-Biased. [LINK]
#172
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...then I will punish you until you see things my way (objective fact).
This is actually a hypothesis.
#173
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So are you saying that 2+2=4 is not always true?
It's only true if you define it as being true (TAUTOLOGICALLY).

If you presented your 2 + 2 = 4 to a person uninitiated into the cult of mathematics, they would likely conclude your squiggly scribbles were meaningless.

For example, does glimbald + predcon = blatercall ?
#174
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Ethical laws are subjective opinions of morality enforced by the will of those who have the means to do so unless there is an objective, unchanging, absolute, universal source and reference point to ground good and evil upon. 
BINGO.

Please reveal your unchanging absolute universal moral AXIOMS.
#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are not sure then your statement itself fails to meet an objective standard in its own right. Why should I believe your opinion?
It depends on your Standards-of-Evidence and your understanding of Efficacy and Logic.
#176
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Then, "goodness" has no identity. It can mean whatever you (or the social group) want it to mean.
Welcome to planet Earth.
#177
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
I would be willing to debate this topic with someone. I can see subjective or objective morality being a thing, based mostly on if God exists.
#178
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think Chairman Xi cares if you survive?
All humans (mammals) are inculcated with a basic value hierarchy from birth.

(1) Protect yourself
(2) Protect your close friends and family
(3) Protect your territory

Your relationship with your parents is your model for your gods.
Are you speaking generically or specifically? 

If the latter, no, it is not. I never once, not once in my life, saw my mother or father go to church. I never once in my life remember my father talking about religion or the Christian God other than to jokingly say that he was a bush Baptist (we lived in isolated communities in Africa before moving to the capital). 

Both my parents were alcoholics, yet I loved them and they loved me. That is more than some families get. The point, they lived as pagans/atheists in the sense that religion or God/gods were unimportant to them.


That's why gods are most often portrayed as king-sided-humans.

Your KING is modeled after your eldest sibling who's left in charge while your parents are away.
Again, I do not recall my sister ever going to church or speaking about religion during my youth. She is ten years older than me. Apart from a brief two year period during my early youth she went to boarding school and I never really knew her until I was perhaps ten years of age and she had finished school and was living at home again. 



They continuously warn, don't make the gods mad! Do what I say or else they'll punish you!
Again, I don't believe in gods as anything other human creations. I believe in the one and only true God. 


Each of us devise our own strategies to accomplish these (3) primary-goals and juggle these power-models.

Many if not most of these strategies involve disregarding and or violating the rights of our competitors.
That is not the Christian way although I believe Christianity does speak truth to power as well as the powerless. 


We like to call this NATURAL-LAW.

ANARCHISM = LAW OF THE JUNGLE
Again, I do not believe in macroevolution. Natural law to me is discovering how God has designed nature and makes it uniform by the laws that sustain that uniformity. 


Without some mechanism to defend the defenseless, then AUTOCRACY (FASCISM) is inevitable.
That mechanism is not socialism or liberalism either, IMO. Judging from the elected Democrats (generally speaking and IMO), they are nuts. These people have a screw loose and those who vote for them are gullible or brainwashed by their propaganda. 


HUMAN-RIGHTS BECOME MEANINGLESS.
They are meaningless without an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging standard and reference point - God. 


The biggest proponents of ANARCHISM are the rich and powerful.

If you are pro-anarchism (Autarchism/Voluntarism/Minarchism) and you are NOT rich and powerful, then you have been BRAINWASHED.

I am a capitalist, not a socialist or anarchist for what it is worth. 
#179
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,181
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MisterChris
I would be willing to debate this topic with someone. I can see subjective or objective morality being a thing, based mostly on if God exists.
There is no straight line between the "existence" of any particular "gods" and "objective morality".

(IFF) your hypothetical gods are not universally recognized (THEN) their "existence" does not qualify as "an objective fact" (identical to all possible observers and not subject to opinion or bias).

(IFF) your hypothetical gods do not qualify as "objective facts" because some people's opinions disagree (THEN) any moral code you associate with those hypothetical gods or attribute to those hypothetical gods cannot qualify as "objective fact".

A secret, or undiscovered, or unverifiable "objective code of ethics/morality" is indistinguishable from a non-existent "objective code of ethics/morality".

(IFF) you have an "objective code of ethics/morality" (THEN) simply make your AXIOMS explicit.
#180
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
It is obviously objective and any moral principle can be boiled down to it's essence to show every single culture to ever exist shared that same principle