Subjective Morality

Here is objective morality. Take your pick or take them all. Without folks following them, there is no objective morality. It is when we follow someone else's visions that we create objective morality. Our subjective morality is based in these objective moralities, or just one. We call it subjective because we cannot know what these folks truly thought or believed at any time. We only know what they shared with others. Just like the internet and the vulnerability of being 'discovered', surely they said and wrote things they believed they could live through, no?

https://www.famousphilosophers.org/list/

 

We don't do any such thing, obviously.

 

If you are speaking of God in this answer to me, you are correct, if you believe there is a god or gods. Today and in this forum, there are many who question or do not believe in a god or gods and there are those who do.

I believe in the Christian God. However, since God is not physically present, and we are told to have faith because there will be no proof, we, your faith and mine, believe that God created rules. Because we believe without proof, we create the objective morality as a group of believers.

Your faith is shaken? Do not let it be. I did not say and am not proving there is no God. I am proving faith.

 

Actually the statement is correct regardless of that.

Conflating monotheism with polytheism is a recipe for the creation of imbecilities.

I think you presume too much.

We don't do any such thing, obviously.

Pilgrim, everything I've said here, I know to be true.

 

I find your comment to be immoral.

 

Through or by what do you know everything you've said is true?

 

I can hardly be surprised at this point that you find truthtelling immoral.

By whatever means by which the Founders knew everything they said about natural law in the DoI was true.

How the hell do you not know it?

 

Not even a morality against stealing from your own tribe, or killing a member of your own tribe, without a good justification? One would think these would be universal given what happens when people within a tribe commits these acts. In theft, you might take something the family needs to survive, in murder, you would surely piss off the members of their family. Both would cause social disorder in that tribal society, which has never been acceptable in human cultures.

Of course if you can give me examples where detrimental acts that affect other tribe members were acceptable, instead of being against the rules, against common morality, I will change my mind on this.

 

What if I’m one of the leaders of my tribe and I steal from them via taxes? Is that evil?

 

Doesn't matter who knows it. What matters is who believes it, and a great many do not; and if they can reject your belief and still get what they want, why shouldn't they?

Sure you wanna hang with that?

Because to be charitable, it's one of the most preposterous ideas that ever befouled a human mind.

 

ALL morality is subjective.

 

Hopefully people can become charitable because they want to and not because they are convinced that they must "be better."

 

There are problems with subjective morality: horrific things like the Holocaust being "good" from any viewpoint is a tough position to defend.

 

Problems or not...morality is obviously subjective. Adolf at the least clearly agreed with the Holocaust.

 

I partially agree. You cannot view morality as subjective while being offended by the views of others without being intellectually inconsistent. If something can be right for one and wrong for another depending on the circumstances of their life (culture, education, religion, struggles etc) then necessarily you cannot presume that someone is offending against you without understanding the entirety of their circumstances.

However, the very definition of morality lends itself to degrees of subjectivity. Everyone will agree that murder is wrong. Everyone will agree that self defense is not. Somewhere between the two, half of everyone will say the killing was morally justified and the other half will not, depending on a wide array of circumstances. So the morality of the action everywhere but the two extreme ends of the spectrum is subjective, varying according to the perception of the individual considering it.

Thus, when people take offense to my views despite my informing them that no offense was intended, I conclude that they believe that I should be adopting their morality, and since I'm not going to, I stop caring what they think. This goes for the religiocentrics who would impose a morality based on their subjective interpretation of spiritual text as well as the sociocentrics who believe we have an obligation to agree with the (ever changing=subjective) ethics of a simple majority (their clique). Neither is particularly more logical or reasonable than the other, but rather two different forms of moral authoritarians, or thought police. F them all in their stupid A's for thinking they have a right to tell me how to live.

 

Whoever said there aren’t those who do reject the social norms of right and wrong? As usual you’re very confused.

 

If it was obviously subjective, we'd all be subjectivists. Our intuition is that morality is NOT subjective.

That's not the problem. The problem is defending stuff like: raping toddlers isn't necessarily a bad thing- it just depends on the person. That's a tough sell.

 

We are all subjectivists then. I guess the rapng kids thingy was intended to get a reaction?

 

We're not all subjectivists.

You can replace raping kids with any other morally indefensible thing, it doesn't matter. The point is, a subjectivist has to defend the morally indefensible.

 

I disagree...I guess that opinion is subjective. I also find Donald Trump to be indefensible....Do you agree?

If not then please defend him.

 

So may I take that as a yes?

Maybe if you repeat this asininity a million more times it will become true.

Like Hell it does...

...and if it did, this would hardly be the case.

The thinking here is hopelessly sloppy. If we dump every homicide into a virtual pot, analyze all the circumstances and somehow determine that half the people will think half the killings are justified and half will not, we can derive nothing intelligent that's relevant here, as every homicide must be judged by its attendant circumstances. Accordingly, we may rest assured that half the people didn't think the Tate-LaBianca murders were justified, and that half the people will not think it unjustified for a 110# woman to give a 250# man a lead overdose in the face of an immediate and credible threat of rape; and moreover, we may also rest assured that those holding the minority opinion in either case can most charitably described as mental defectives.

Now if we consider more ambiguous cases, their difficulty lies not in any moral subjectivity, but in the perceptual subjectivity of the jurors and other observers who can't get inside the head of the perp.

Given that I never said anyone said that, the question is retarded. You're welcome.

As if confusion is something you observe, rather than something you're desperate to create.

 

How is that functionally different from a subjective morality?

 

Then what was your childish rant about?

 

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but perceptual subjectivity applies here to the material senses, through which a juror must try to determine motive; but if the impartial juror could bypass all that and get inside the perp's head, his apprehension of objective morality would make the truth of the matter obvious.

As much as I appreciate this testament to your increasing desperation...

...it's not my policy to translate plain English into plain English. You're welcome.

 

So it was just a childish rambling rant by you. Got it.