Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

Yes and no. As I said, it's messy. I'd love to have a "better" system, but I do not find one exists. So I accept subjective morality as "what is" and live with it.

So that is your subjective opinion...

Then, IMO, they have not truly looked at the nature of their argument. As I said, it's a tautology. Tautologies don't say anything. Building an entire system on a tautology does not, to me, make any sense.

I'm not sure why believing in God and His universal moral law is a tautology.

Presumably. We never know whether a person has a twisted moral code, or if they are simply failing to live up to the more normal code they actually have.

Now that is interesting. A Twisted moral code according to whom? The Nazis were living up to their code or goal.

There is no UNIVERSAL moral high ground from which to judge these things. There is no ABSOLUTE moral high ground from which to judge these things. There is no ETERNAL moral high ground from which to judge these things. But then this sentence is (again) just another way of repeating, "it's subjective." You haven't said anything. There IS a moral "high ground" that is the basis for judgment - but it is a subjective one.

Well how do you know there are no universal moral truths? But then you would have to agree that gassing Jewish children was right for the Nazis, maybe not for you, but for the Nazis.

In my moral framework, rape is always wrong. In the moral framework of most societies and most people, rape is always wrong. If we encounter a society/person that attempts to defend rape as a moral good, we will attempt to reason/convince otherwise, then we will attempt to isolate/separate, then we will contend.

Well in a lot of societies wife rape for instance is still practiced and acceptable. So that is right for them - correct? And why would you attempt to change them? Since as you said there is no higher moral ground to judge these things?

Subjective morality is what we observe all around us. Until someone can demonstrate 1) why morality MUST be absolute/universal/eternal and 2) that such a moral framework actually exists, subjective morality appears to be what we have to work with. So far, no one has done either 1) or 2). You certainly have not. Even in this post, all you have done is a) reaffirm that subjective morality is subjective, b) complain that it's not objective, and c) attempt another argument from outrage with references ot Hitler, Mao, gassing children, rape, etc. You still have not tackled, in any coherent way, 1) and 2).

I'm not sure you answered the point. Are you agreeing that the claim that all morality is subjective is itself a subjective claim? And how is pointing to historical realities an appeal to outrage?

Meanwhile, I have drawn a parallel between ethics and law (which you continue to ignore), noted that law appears to be perfectly functional as a subjective framework (which you continue to ignore), explained how subjective frameworks deal with differing moral precepts, and given multiple examples of how that plays out individually and culturally.

Right - it plays out with gassing Jewish children and wife rape being morally acceptable depending on the culture.

[carpedm9587]

So that is your subjective opinion...

Umm.. by definition, an opinion is subjective - so that's redundant. And it is my conclusion based on the facts I observe. If someone provides other facts, I may come to other conclusions.

I'm not sure why believing in God and His universal moral law is a tautology.

That is not what I said. What I said was, the arguments you have made objecting to subjective morality is tautological. It doesn't say anything.

Now that is interesting. A Twisted moral code according to whom? The Nazis were living up to their code or goal.

Twisted according to mine, but (more importantly) twisted according to the pervasive moral framework used by most societies and cultures.

Well how do you know there are no universal moral truths? But then you would have to agree that gassing Jewish children was right for the Nazis, maybe not for you, but for the Nazis.

No one has demonstrated any, so I do not believe they exist. And I have already agreed it is possible that a culture may derive a moral code that makes "gassing Jewish children" permissible to them. You're not saying anything new here. Most of society, and I, would not, and would take the usual steps to addres the issue: convince, seperate/isolate, contend.

Well in a lot of societies wife rape for instance is still practiced and acceptable. So that is right for them - correct? And why would you attempt to change them? Since as you said there is no higher moral ground to judge these things?

Yes, such societies exist. Many efforts have been made to convince that this is not acceptable. Isolation and separation is not a viable alternative because people are being harmed, so there is a tendency to escalate to content in such situations.

I did not say there was no higher moral ground - I said there is no universal/eternal/absolute higher moral ground. The higher moral ground is a subjective one.

I'm not sure you answered the point. Are you agreeing that the claim that all morality is subjective is itself a subjective claim?

The claim that morality is subjective is my conclusion based on the available evidence. Ultimately, all of our beliefs are subjective in so far as they are beliefs held by an individual. Hopefully, the beliefs are based in an objective reality. I believe the state of affairs is that there is no absolute/universal/eternal moral framework. I have never seen compelling evidence that such a thing exists, or that it is necessary. I look around myself and see morality operating similarly to legality - but tending to arise from individual frameworks collectively expressed.

And how is pointing to historical realities an appeal to outrage?

It is a common tactic. Find the most offensive moral outrage you can think of, then tell the subjective moralist they have no basis for calling it a moral evil because everyone is entitled to their own moral framework. That argument, of course, completely ignores the reality of human societies and cultures, and the way individual moral frameworks are expressed collectively. It essentially devolves to "but it's not absolute/universal/eternal" - so everything/anything is good! It's a somewhat ridiculous argument, IMO.

Right - it plays out with gassing Jewish children and wife rape being morally acceptable depending on the culture.

Do you REALLY think this tired mantra is convincing anyone, Seer? It is all you can turn to, over and over and over again. And you STILL have not made an argument that 1) moral frameworks MUST be absolute/eternal/objective and 2) shown that one actually exists. You just keep returning to a variation of the same tautology - subjective morality is not universal/eternal/absolute. That's a tautology, Seer, not an argument.

[seer]

It is a common tactic. Find the most offensive moral outrage you can think of, then tell the subjective moralist they have no basis for calling it a moral evil because everyone is entitled to their own moral framework. That argument, of course, completely ignores the reality of human societies and cultures, and the way individual moral frameworks are expressed collectively. It essentially devolves to "but it's not absolute/universal/eternal" - so everything/anything is good! It's a somewhat ridiculous argument, IMO.

And I have already agreed it is possible that a culture may derive a moral code that makes "gassing Jewish children" permissible to them.

So you agree, given the ethos of the Nazi party, was gassing Jewish children a good for them. Thanks

The claim that morality is subjective is my conclusion based on the available evidence. Ultimately, all of our beliefs are subjective in so far as they are beliefs held by an individual. Hopefully, the beliefs are based in an objective reality. I believe the state of affairs is that there is no absolute/universal/eternal moral framework. I have never seen compelling evidence that such a thing exists, or that it is necessary. I look around myself and see morality operating similarly to legality - but tending to arise from individual frameworks collectively expressed.

What would be compelling evidence for objective moral law?

[Charles]

So that is your subjective opinion...

Let's not forget that all you can offer is subjective as well. You believe but cannot prove that God exists. You believe there is some sort of moral nature in God (the God we cannot prove the existence of) that somehow should be a foundation for all sort of ethics though nothing reasonable can be said about the nature and no philosophical discussion on what moral truths is can be had if someone disagrees. And you cannot even start to tell us why one religious view should be more trustworthy than another. Quite subjective if you ask me.

[seer]

Twisted according to mine, but (more importantly) twisted according to the pervasive moral framework used by most societies and cultures.

I don't get this. If the majority cultures practiced wife rape (which is not so far fetched) then your view, being the minority, would be twisted.

Yes, such societies exist. Many efforts have been made to convince that this is not acceptable. Isolation and separation is not a viable alternative because people are being harmed, so there is a tendency to escalate to content in such situations.

I did not say there was no higher moral ground - I said there is no universal/eternal/absolute higher moral ground. The higher moral ground is a subjective one.

That doesn't makes sense, if the higher moral ground is subjective, then they would just as well consider their moral ground as higher to yours or ours. Which still makes me wonder where get the moral or logical impulse to attempt to change their views.

[carpedm9587]

I don't get this. If the majority cultures practiced wife rape (which is not so far fetched) then your view, being the minority, would be twisted.

This is another thing you continually do: propose hypotheticals that have little or no association with reality. Morality is grounded in what we value. If we value life, we develop moral codes to protect and nurture life. If we value health, we develop moral codes to protect and nuture health. If we value freedom, trust, etc., we develop moral codes that protect and nurture health/freedom. The vast majority of us humans do indeed value life, liberty, health, trust, and all of the other things that lead to survival and happiness. So the vast majority of our moral codes are designed to protect and nurture those things.

Is it possible that the entire world will come to value something that leads to a moral code that sees wife-rape as a good? Of course I cannot say it is impossible. what we currently value would have to shift dramatically. If it happened, then we would all see it as a good. It is extremely implausible, at least at this point in our history. But such things have happened in the past. Slavery was widely defended as a "good," in many cultures across many generations. Over time, we began to see the breadth and variability of humanity, to recognize other races as "equally human," and now most of the world rejects slavery as a moral evil.

The same is now happening, in reverse, with homosexuality. It has been widely perceived as an "evil," and we are now moving towards seeing it as no more or less good/evil than heterosexuality.

That doesn't makes sense, if the higher moral ground is subjective, then they would just as well consider their moral ground as higher to yours or ours. Which still makes me wonder where get the moral or logical impulse to attempt to change their views.

It doesn't make any sense to you - because to you everything has to be measured against a universal/absolute/eternal moral measuring stick - one you still have not defended MUST exist, nor have you shown it DOES exist, I might point out.

Each of us sees our own moral framework as the ideal objective, by definition. If we did not, then we would have a different moral framework. When a society gathers, the common elements of the individual moral framework become the framework by which they not only judge their own actions, but the framework by which they judge others as well. It has always been that way. I'm not seeing a problem.

[carpedm9587]

So you agree, given the ethos of the Nazi party, was gassing Jewish children a good for them. Thanks

I'm agreeing that they perceived it as a good for them (possibly). Again, we cannot know if their moral framework was disjoint from that of most people/societies, or if they had the same moral framework which they ignored or failed to live up to. I am NOT, however, agreeing that it was actually a moral good.

What would be compelling evidence for objective moral law?

You're the one arguing that it must be and it is, Seer. I'm not going to make your argument for you. From where I sit, there IS no argument that anyone has ever offered that works. If there were, I would probably not see morality as subjective.

The arguments are always what you have done here: tautologies, flawed analogies, and arguments from incredulity/outrage/belittling. As I have noted, I have never heard anyone make a coherent argument for the need for an objective moral framework, or its actual existence.

[carpedm9587]

Let's not forget that all you can offer is subjective as well. You believe but cannot prove that God exists. You believe there is some sort of moral nature in God (the God we cannot prove the existence of) that somehow should be a foundation for all sort of ethics though nothing reasonable can be said about the nature and no philosophical discussion on what moral truths is can be had if someone disagrees. And you cannot even start to tell us why one religious view should be more trustworthy than another. Quite subjective if you ask me.

Without acknowledging it, religions also practive subjective morality. They are a community that forms a moral code and documents it (i.e., the ten commandments, etc.). This code is then attributed to a god to lend it authority (i.e., it is expressed as coming FROM that god). Each religion does this independently, for their own god, essentially documenting that religion's subjective moral code. Within a religion (e.g., Christianity), when there is a disagrement about the moral code, there is the same cycle. First, the various factions work hard to convince one another that their interpretation of this moral code is the correct one. If that is successful, harmony returns. If it is not, then usually there is the isolation/separation. If it is a small group, it is expelled from the main group and may go on to found its own sect. If it is a sizable group, there is a schism and (again) two sects emerge where there used to be one. One will carry forth the original moral code, the other will carry forth the modified one. Each of these groups will believe (or at least claim) that they are "following god." It is the exact same dynamic we see in secular societies, but it is couched in the language of "sin" and "separation from god," with each sect essentially accusing the othe rone of being sinful and separating from god, but seeing their own moral code as "correct."

All the while, they continue to insist there is one, objective, universal, absolute, eternal moral code. History does not show us any such code, nor does human activity match the claim.

[Tassman]

Again I don't care, but you are wrong.

And again, of course personhood is an arbitrary marker, tell me Tass - when does a human being become a "full person?" Then tell me who is right - you? Starlight and the academics I linked who support infanticide?

Of course they are baby killers, and it will change, but it will take time and more federal judges in place.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

More significant than a house fly? Why? Because you say so?

If houseflies were self-aware then they would probably view their lives as significant as we regard our lives to be. Not even sentient housefly's need the fiction of a deity and promise of eternal life to make them significant.

[Tassman]

So you agree, given the ethos of the Nazi party, was gassing Jewish children a good for them. Thanks

What would be compelling evidence for objective moral law?

YOUR deity.

[seer]

The same is now happening, in reverse, with homosexuality. It has been widely perceived as an "evil," and we are now moving towards seeing it as no more or less good/evil than heterosexuality.

Right and in your world neither position (homosexuality is evil, it is not evil) is objectively more correct.

It doesn't make any sense to you - because to you everything has to be measured against a universal/absolute/eternal moral measuring stick - one you still have not defended MUST exist, nor have you shown it DOES exist, I might point out.

Each of us sees our own moral framework as the ideal objective, by definition. If we did not, then we would have a different moral framework. When a society gathers, the common elements of the individual moral framework become the framework by which they not only judge their own actions, but the framework by which they judge others as well. It has always been that way. I'm not seeing a problem.

That again does not explain why you would consider your moral position to be on higher moral ground. So much so that you would try to change the mores of another culture (a wife rape culture). Is it higher simple because of the fact that you or your culture hold it?

Well talk about timing, I watch a live debate on these very questions last night. Two naturalists; Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein with William Lane Craig. Peterson was quite interesting, as a naturalist he seem to believe in universal moral values - a moral realist. You should watch it if you have a chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDDQOCXBrAw

[seer]

I'm agreeing that they perceived it as a good for them (possibly). Again, we cannot know if their moral framework was disjoint from that of most people/societies, or if they had the same moral framework which they ignored or failed to live up to. I am NOT, however, agreeing that it was actually a moral good.

Well no it would not be a moral good according to your lights, but if you were raised as a good Hitler youth you may have a completely different opinion.

You're the one arguing that it must be and it is, Seer. I'm not going to make your argument for you. From where I sit, there IS no argument that anyone has ever offered that works. If there were, I would probably not see morality as subjective.

The arguments are always what you have done here: tautologies, flawed analogies, and arguments from incredulity/outrage/belittling. As I have noted, I have never heard anyone make a coherent argument for the need for an objective moral framework, or its actual existence.

You are not doing my work for me, you said you saw no evidence for an objective moral framework. I'm just wondering what such evidence would look like according to you. What should we look for, what would you look for?

[carpedm9587]

Well no it would not be a moral good according to your lights, but if you were raised as a good Hitler youth you may have a completely different opinion.

Yes, anyone indoctrinated into a different set of values will have a moral code that will reflect that indoctrination - so a "good Hitler Youth" could indeed see it as a moral good. Again, you're not saying anything except that subjective morality is subjective.

I have the impression, Seer, that by continually pointing ut that subjective moral frameworks don't have an absolute/universal/eternal reference by which to evaluate something as "absolutely/eternally/universally wrong for all people in all places, you are proving something." All you are doing is pointing out, over and over and over again, that subjective moral frameworks are subjective. It's a tautological argument. We already KNOW subjective moral frameworks are subjective.

That being said, I have no problem, whatsoever, asserting that "gassing Jewish children" is a moral evil for everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance I can think of. I can say that because I am assessing it against my own moral framework, and the common cultural framework. That the "good Hitler Youth" would disagree is inconsequential to me. I do not assess morality against THEIR moral framework; I assess it against mine - subjectively. I CAN say, "their moral framework is twisted" because it does not align with mine, or the general cultural norm.

They will disagree, and there is no absolute/eternal/universal measuring stick against which to "prove" their position is absolutely/eternally/universally wrong. But that isn't saying anything except to, again, affirm that subjective morality is subjective: a tautology.

You are not doing my work for me, you said you saw no evidence for an objective moral framework. I'm just wondering what such evidence would look like according to you. What should we look for, what would you look for?

I could not begin to tell you, Seer. I can only tell you what arguments have been attempted (that I know about) have all failed. As best I can tell, there IS no argument for for an absolute/universal/eternal moral framework. If there were, I probably would not accept that subjective moral frameworks are all we have to work with.

[seer]

All the while, they continue to insist there is one, objective, universal, absolute, eternal moral code. History does not show us any such code, nor does human activity match the claim.

Except Charles is a moral realist who believes there are objective and universal values and duties...

[seer]

That being said, I have no problem, whatsoever, asserting that "gassing Jewish children" is a moral evil for everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance I can think of. I can say that because I am assessing it against my own moral framework, and the common cultural framework. That the "good Hitler Youth" would disagree is inconsequential to me. I do not assess morality against THEIR moral framework; I assess it against mine - subjectively. I CAN say, "their moral framework is twisted" because it does not align with mine, or the general cultural norm.

Right and they would assess their ethical framework against yours, and come to a different conclusion. Neither position being logically more correct the the other

I could not begin to tell you, Seer. I can only tell you what arguments have been attempted (that I know about) have all failed. As best I can tell, there IS no argument for for an absolute/universal/eternal moral framework. If there were, I probably would not accept that subjective moral frameworks are all we have to work with.

Wait, you are the one who said he had not seen evidence for universal values, I assumed that you would have some idea what that evidence would look like. And I'm not sure what arguments fail - God and His moral law exist. What is illogical about that?