Of course morality is subjective.

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 219
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I know that YOU regard them as moral systems and the people that agree with YOU regard them as moral systems, don’t be so sensitive.
I am comfortable using your preferred definition of morality. Just be careful not to define morals out of existence. That to would lead to the end of this conversation. 
#32
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
I am relating the direct nature of principles. 
Which I believe are objective if you want to argue otherwise you’re gonna have to prove otherwise.
#33
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists. If you would like to say that morality cannot exist sans some god(s) then there just isn't any reason to believe in morality. Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason. From there it is up to you to show that there is anything more to appeal to and then to demonstrate SEPARATELY that this something more is something more than some god(s) subjective opinion.
Topic's author
#34
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
I'm saying that it a tautology to say that principles subjective, and I already explained this, furthermore, this was NOT my only point. ANd you have not addressed it, nor have you addressed my actual explanation. The proof. 
#35
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You see I'm not arguing that anything exists that we do not both agree exists.
Yes you are, I don’t believe in subjective morality.

Just people trying their best to get along with one another for... whatever reason.
Whatever reason isn’t a reason, and if that’s the case there’s also no point of getting along with one another.
Topic's author
#36
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Subjective morality does exist - Do not murder because it is bad to humans, that can be subjective, not believing in subjective morality is not believing in opinions
#37
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Yes you are, I don’t believe in subjective morality.
We don't have to call it that. We can call it "systems of human accountability, even if only to oneself" if you like. It's a bit more cumbersome but changing what we call it doesn't really change what it is.
Whatever reason isn’t a reason, and if that’s the case there’s also no point of getting along with one another.
I am not saying we ought to have some reason only that most of us do have some personal justification for our actions and attitudes. I am presenting an is not an ought. You are the only one here claiming that there is some objective reason to get along. I am only arguing that we as humans do seem to get along enough of the time to form societies and other social groups.
#38
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
Subjective morality does exist - Do not murder because it is bad to humans, that can be subjective, not believing in subjective morality is not believing in opinions
Again, I’m receiving this different from how you’re giving it to me. Do not murder because it is “objectively” bad to humans. In order to receive it differently you’re gonna have to prove it as such. As for that last point I know a plethora of opinionated topics that I’m sure you wouldn’t call “subjectively” moral, wanna know?
#39
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It's a bit more cumbersome but changing what we call it doesn't really change what it is.
Exactly, so I don’t even know why you even offered that as a suggestion.

I am only arguing that we as humans do seem to get along enough of the time to form societies and other social groups.
So what? That doesn’t answer the big question in terms of morality.
#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So what? That doesn’t answer the big question in terms of morality.
Oh I thought you understood. I don't believe in morality as you are presenting it only in systems of human accountability, even if only to oneself. At least not unless you can demonstrate any. 
#41
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
only in systems of human accountability
So taking responsibility for your actions is subjectively moral? You still have to prove that.
#42
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
So taking responsibility for your actions is subjectively moral? You still have to prove that.
I am not proposing that any given human will take responsibility for their actions. I am only arguing that the thing you call morality (and preclude by definition any other possible idea of what constitutes moral) and which I have agreed upon definitionally for the purposes of this conversation does not exist. I am not arguing that the systems I observe humans to adhere to are intrinsically moral or correct but in fact the exact opposite. That nothing intrinsically moral can be demonstrated at all.
#43
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That nothing intrinsically moral can be demonstrated at all.
Then why do you believe in it?
Topic's author
#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
That's the point, he doesn't believe in objective morality.
#45
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
That's the point, he doesn't believe in objective morality.
Then I ask that he demonstrate subjective morality.
#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I don't believe in morality as we are using the term in this discussion. That is what I am trying to tell you. I am not proposing anything new or that you cannot observe for yourself. 

You believe that if some higher authority (as yet undefined) does not sign off on an idea or attitude that it cannot be moral. I am agreeing to that definition but as there is no sufficient reason to believe in any higher power that I have yet presented with there is by necessity no reasonable logical need to believe in morality at all (as defined here).

The universe need not approve or disapprove of my actions for me to care about myself and other humans and as far as I'm aware I don't need a reason to care beyond being a human with a reasonable amount of empathy myself in order to care about myself and other humans. 

We don't even need to discuss what makes the moral pronouncements of a higher power we are discussing objective before the higher power is demonstrated. 
#47
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I am agreeing to that definition but as there is no sufficient reason to believe in any higher power that I have yet presented there is by necessity no reasonable logical need to believe in morality at all (as defined here).
Once you realize how depressing and confusing nihilism is maybe then you’ll change your mind.

The universe need not approve or disapprove of my actions for me to care about myself and other humans
No, but the question as to why always remains, especially if you can’t prove the value of human life.

before the higher power is demonstrated.
Well at least you believe the higher power is demonstrated, I rest my case.
#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Once you realize how depressing and confusing nihilism is maybe then you’ll change your mind.
I am not a nihilist I am a skeptic. I find meaning in many things. I simply recognize that what is meaningful to me may not be meaningful to you. For me promoting human wellbeing is meaningful as a goal in and of itself and I don't need the universe to agree with me in order to try to promote human wellbeing any more than you need to really have a definite understanding of what ever system of ethics you imagine some god(s) must have in order to try to live up to your best understanding of them. Hell the god(s) you believe in would not even necessarily have to actually exist for you to be doing your very best to please this hypothetical figure. That would be your subjective understanding of what you call morality (which you have still not demonstrated to exist).
#49
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
We don't even need to discuss what makes the moral pronouncements of a higher power we are discussing objective before the higher power is demonstrated.
Well at least you believe the higher power is demonstrated, I rest my case.
In order to dismiss the idea of morality (as here defined) as unfalsafiable and therefore worthy of dismissal from our arguments. 
Topic's author
#50
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
To be honest I wouldn't bother, Tarik likes to talk in circles and repeat things back at you as if he knows what they mean, for example: an appeal to emotion, proof, morality, etc, if it doesn't align with his conclusion it is "not demonstrated" after he ignores your explanation.
#51
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
@Theweakeredge
Weaker

We seem to have a problem with definitions here. Would you mind for the sake of clarity to the reframing of your thread title to "of course morality doesn't exist only systems of human accountability, even if only to oneself?"

Tarik

May I add tha I personally would soften that even further to read "I have yet to be presented with any sufficient evidence of morality although I am aware of human systems of accountability, even if only to oneself".


#52
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
To be honest I wouldn't bother
Why, you still did (even after the fact)?

Tarik likes to talk in circles and repeat things back at you
No, it only seems that way to you because you keep dodging the question.
#53
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
"I have yet to be presented with any sufficient evidence of morality although I am aware of human systems of accountability, even if only to oneself".
Why are you linking morality with accountability?
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
"I have yet to be presented with any sufficient evidence of morality although I am aware of human systems of accountability, even if only to oneself".
Why are you linking morality with accountability?
I am not. I am dismissing morals (as here defined) altogether from the discussion until you A) present evidence sufficient to warrant belief in a higher power (as yet undefined) and B) somehow prove that the moral pronouncements of this higher power are somehow more than a system of accountability no different than a human one and determined entirely by the higher power in question's subjective opinion. 

Systems of human accountability are simply all that is left in morality's place to explain human behavior. I find that it is a sufficient explanation for the world of human interaction that I have observed. No morality needed.
#55
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I did warn you that you might be defining morality out of existence. 
#56
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
The only way you prove that is through a God that says you should or shouldn’t do something.
That’s makes morality *subject to* whatever God says.
#57
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
 *subject to* 
Doesn’t mean subjective.
Topic's author
#58
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Kinda does though
#59
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
Kinda does though
I was subjected to this weather. That sentence has nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence (so much for “I wouldn't bother”).
#60
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
There are three brands of moral code.

Loyalty
Justice
Mercy

These are three very different things once you fully understand them.

Loyalty at its unhealthy extreme is corruption and organised crime.
Justice at its unhealthy extreme is brutality and tyranny.
Mercy at its unhealthy extreme is neglect and anarchy.

So you may ask, wait? What about the opposite to loyalty? Disloyalty is either done in the name of justice, mercy or loyalty to something else (perhaps oneself).