I think you have misunderstood what I have said. It is not my judgement I am using to determine right and wrong. I am saying that if someone uses subjective morality then they cannot know what is ultimately good or evil. Not because of what I say but because of what anyone says. Each person will have their own version of what is good and evil. So, if Ken-1122 takes a moral position on what is good and evil someone like yourself or anyone else will have their own view and so on. No one can determine what is good and evil.
I have already explained and given the argument based on logic how objective morality must be anchored in someone outside humans, so it is not based on what I think either. Objective morality makes the object (moral) itself truth or fact not what the subject (human) says. So if I say the earth is round that is objectively true as the object being the earth is factually round regardless of what I or you or flat earthers believe.
That reasoning is kind of invalid, wouldn't you agree?
You say that under "subjective morality" no one can determine what is "good and evil"... by which you mean, of course, "objectively good and evil"... but you have still not established that an "objective good and evil" even exists.
You simply assert that, because it objective morality cannot be established under subjective morality, it must be objective.
So, objective morality must exist for objective morality to exist.
Yes, I would agree. But if objective morality does
not exist... it doesn't need to be determined what is objectively "good and evil"... because it simply does not exist.
Still that doesn't mean that
subjective (or intersubjective] morality isn't a thing.
So under objective morality to say that kindness is a virtue is to give a moral truth that kindness will always be a virtue regardless of what anyone believes.
Yes, I understand that. The question is: how would you even start to determine that... without anyone "believing" it... that is: making a subjective moral judgement.
There are people who would disagree... who would say that kindness is not always a virtue, or even that kindness isn't a virtue at all.
They could even say that this is
objectively true.
And the million-dollar-question still is: how would you determine that this is objectively true or false?
Because people act like there is objective morality. They live it out. They believe they invent morality but in fact, we discover it. There are moral objectives out there. Some say objective truths are a part of nature, i.e. natural laws.
That does nothing to show the existence of objective morality.
First: People act like there are
different objective moralities. They (often) act like
their moral system is objectively right, and those that disagree are objectively wrong. People with different moral systems do that... and that means they cannot be all objectively right. But, as that line continues: they can all be objectively wrong. Or, in that case, be wrong about the "objective" part.
But they are only morals according to the individuals and the group who agrees. A different set of morals can be held by another set of individuals and group that opposes your ideas of morals and even have morals that are evil to you and your group. Thus, these morals say nothing about moral objective truths.
Exactly. That is what I am saying. These morals do not say anything about moral objective truths.
Do you have anything different to offer?
You are advocating objective morals by saying that your group or any groups morals are correct and are imposing what you think on the individuals of that group by acting against them for breaking those moral rules. If the morals your group hold are subjectively determined by the individuals of that group (in other words just the views of your group) how can they be forced onto someone else as though they are right for everyone? That is acting objectively.
That might even be correct... but that still doesn't mean that my (hypothetical) claim to objectivism is right.
In fact, I recognize this problem and thus do not make such a claim. I do not assert that my morals are objective, nor do I use this argument to "force" them on anyone.
I already mentioned that in my last post: "subjective morals" are faced with the question of how to implement them. "Force" is of course one option. "Conviction" would be another, and there are several approaches in between.
You might notice that these are the same methods that your "objective" morals are enforced.
Just because the group agrees on the morals doesn’t make those morals objectively correct.
Correct. But this isn't the question. If morals are fundamentally subjective, then "making them objective" is nonsensical.
What about when individuals disagree with your groups set of morals. The individuals within that group have every right to hold their moral views and follow them just as much as you do according to subjective morality. Why should they trust your moral judgements. Groups have been wrong about their morals many times, just look at the way colonialist governments treated indigenous people believing that their white ways were better for everyone to live by.
Again, partially correct. The question is valid: what about disagreements? I'll get back to that.
The "right to hold their moral views"... well... I don't believe in "rights". Not as "natural" attributes. "Rights" are also "subjective"... subject to human rule.
I cannot keep you from having your moral views... insofar you have the "right". But in the same way I have the right to disagree... and somehow we have to work that out.
Why should they trust "my" moral judgements? Again, good question. Let's try to work it out.
See, the problem is that you are faced with exactly the same questions... you just stop for a simplistic answer.
You said earlier: "people act like there is objective morality"... and still they differ and get things "wrong". It seems that this "objective morality" doesn't prevent all the problems you state.
We still have to find a way to "discover" this morality... and to determine that it is correct. But you don't have a method to do that.
You have to revert to authority. The moral system becomes "because I say so". Subjective. People will disagree with that, and doubt
your moral judgement. So you go one step further... "because I say that someone else said so". Still subjective. So it goes up to "because I say that someone else said that the ultimate all-powerfull and good creator said so".
And still people can and will disagree... because
they say that someone else said this ultimate all-powerfull creator said something different. Or is different. Or doesn't exist at all.
You still have no way to determine your objective morals. You still have to resort to "force". Or conviction.
They are only complex when we listen to the rhetoric or personal views explained. But as a reaction, people act the same. Everyone will object when their child is abused for example.
Correct for the most part I would say... humans can be very weird. But not everyone will object with
someone elses child is abused.
Example: all those good Christians who assert their belief in objective morality and who have no problems with torturing a potential terrorist's family.
Their morality is, if not necessarily subjective,
situational. It is ok to do this thing that your objective moral says is "objectively wrong"... in certain circumstances. It is not simple: "do not abuse children." or "do not kill". It is always "yes, under these circumstances, it is allowed to do that... or even good to do that."
Communist troops come to your country to free you from the evils of the capitalist yoke. They don't want to kill you or your family. They want to help you.
Now, to defend your lifestyle, your 'freedom', your wealth, your power over your employees... would you kill an invading soldier? Someone's son, someone's father, someone's brother?
Do not kill?
Someone breaks into your home and is about to run of with your stereo. Would you kill someone who enters your home illegally or forcefully?
Do not kill?
Someone is attacking you, beating you up. You have your gun at your belt. Do you draw and shoot them, in "self defense"?
Do not kill?
Morality is never black and white.
Which shows how hypocritical it is to say one thing and act another way. Reactions speak of the truth when it comes to morality.
Quite true. Interesting to see how widespread this behaviour is in the "religious" population
The example of the Blue folder comes to mine where the student handed in an essay about morality was relative and there is no truth about right and wrong. So, the teacher gave him an F because his assignment was in a blue folder. The student reacted and protested that it was totally unfair that he was marked F for having a blue folder. The teacher said to the student “I thought you said in your assignment that there was no right and wrong and it was all subjective. Well, I happen to dislike blue folders so based on that I gave you an F.
Good example. Good argument... for subjective morality.
There are rules. These rules are set... and maybe agree on. They are not "discovered"... and they can be arbitrary and subjective.
How would the "objective" situation look like? If there was an objective rule to not use blue folders? This objective rule might even be hidden... "undiscovered". The student would be objectively wrong to use a blue folder... even if he hadn't yet "discovered" this rule.
Now he has. He has broken the objective rule... and has to face the consequences.
Is there such a rule? All the teachers say: yes. The student is not having a right of choice of his own folder-colour... he is objectively wrong.
The student may think this is "unfair". He is still objectively wrong. He is deviant. His moral conscience is seared. He is a sociopath. Everyone else uses non-blue folders... except the immorals.
Is that better? What method would someone use to "discover" this objective rule... and why would such a rule exist?
A different example. I am sitting in my car, setting the signal to right and take the right turn. Brakes screech, the oncomming traffic piles up, angry shouts fill the air.
Oops... I am driving in the UK.
I have broken
their rules. These rules are not "objective"... I can do such a manoeuver just fine here in Germany. I am not objectively wrong for doing so... and still I am wrong doing so in the UK, or any other left-driving country.
Subjective rules exist, and they work quite fine. They are not arbitrary... they are based on agreement... forced or convinced. But the very existence of different-side-driving systems shows - functioning systems - demonstrates that there is no need for objective rules in these cases.
People claim they have certain views about right and wrong until they are wronged and then they react like what the other person did was wrong. They can later try to explain why they thought the action was OK but that is just trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted.
But that is subjective. It is their subjective judgement that this action happening to them is morally wrong. If they in turn then change their views on this action happening to others or not... that doesn't matter. It remains situational, it remains subjective.
But the keyword there is except. By using an exception means that it is acknowledged that killing is objectively wrong. It just tries to find an exception or justification for killing despite it being objectively wrong. There would be no need to even use the word exception if there were no objective morals. It would just be a case that it’s OK to kill according to that person’s views or this person views full stop no need to make excuses, exceptions or justifications.
No. That is just wrong... not morally, linguistically. "Except" means just that. "There is a general number of cases where X is the rule... and there are other cases where this rule is not applicable."
It is quite to opposite: if there were objective morals, there would be no use for the word "exception" (in moral context)... because there could be no exceptions... this action would
always be right or wrong.
You are implying that all these, always, are
invalid excuses, exceptions or justifications.
If you can and do live according to such a moral code... applause for you. You would be an... exception.
No just the rationalizations and exceptions become complicated.
Sometimes it comes down to a different understanding between two groups such as cultural meanings about how morals are applied that people get confused and think morality is subjective.
Sometimes it does. And often it does not.
For example, Indians believe the cow is sacred and say it is wrong to kill a cow. But in the west, we slaughter cows for meat. Two different moral views. But not really. Indians regard the Cow as sacred because they believe in reincarnation. So, they believe that there are people in the cow so to kill a cow is to kill a person. That is the same moral as the west which is to hold life sacred and to not kill people.
This a nice example. Too bad that it is false.
Hindus (not necessarily Indians) consider cows as a special symbol for life and the Mother Goddess. Reincarnation can, according to the, happen as all kinds of animals, and the majority of Hindus has no special reverence for other animals. Still, cows are "sacred" even for non-vegetarian Hindus.
So not killing (or eating) cows is not a matter of not wanting to kill a person... it is a question of blasphemy.
You might want to consider the punishment for blasphemy according to the source of your "objective morals". It was only when it became inconvenient for a sizeable portion of the population that blasphemy stopped to be a capital offence in Christianity... and it wasn't until the advent of secular governments that it stopped to be a legal offence at all... sometimes that took a loooong time, and there are still christian countries where it is an offence that is harshly punished.
Seems that the discovery of the objective moral that it is wrong to punish someone for their beliefs is still not finished.
And that brings us back, at last, to the real problem: there simply is no way to "discover" these elusive objective morals.
