is morality subjective?

[Kevin Beal]

I admit when I'm wrong. I reject your premise that even if I didn't, it would serve as evidence that I DID say the things you continue to claim I have when I haven't.

I'm not asking you what you accept or reject. I'm simply asking for an example. Can you provide it or can't you?

[powder]

And when they are enlightened to learn that the minimum wage is violence, they will hold the subjective belief that this petty violence is well worth the utilitarian result of avoiding having underpaid workers.  They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market.  Therefore morality is subjective.

This makes my head spin.  the free market doesn't have morality, its a concept.  people's behavior is ethical or it isn't.  Violence is Ok for the 'utilitarian' (whatever that means) result of avoiding having underpaid workers?  People are paid based on the value they provide to others, forcing others to subsidize wages is theft.  

 

If by subjective you mean not universally accepted then sure, but If someone believes or claims that theft is better than cooperation, that rape is better than consensual sex, that violence and coercion are moral, then they are just wrong and misguided.  

 

I was wondering why I had to press 'see it anyway' for someone with only 50 posts - now I get it.  what are you doing here?  

[Kevin Beal]

It's like you're not even trying anymore. Or maybe I'm projecting based on how easy it is to cut through the bullshit.

That's a nice jab. Really. It's clever and funny. But I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I have given up. You might not have seen where I repeated that above, since there is all this tedious moderation recently. God I hate that.

 

I don't think you are going to be receptive to this, but I had an idea I felt like sharing. The theme of all of this has to do with feeling helpless and not having our thoughts heard and understood, which is totally frustrating. Since something here is obviously dysfunctional, it could be that one of us is infecting the other with our own helplessness by doing to the other what was done to us: invalidation.

 

I think it's a bit tricky since in order to protect yourself from invalidation, you have to ignore to some degree what the other person says, and if both of us feel that we are not being listened to (I do) then if that ignoring happens it will feel even more like invalidation. The invalidator should be rejected in order not to internalize the false self doubt, and develop a part of ourselves which acts to invalidate ourselves. The ignoring is a defense mechanism and when the reason for doing so is forgotten and repressed, the ignoring is divorced from actual instances of invalidation and applied to situations which would trigger memories of being chronically invalidated: erased. So, before any exploration occurs, a drive to deny what the other person is saying happens to spare ourselves the (perceived) craziness of being erased.

 

I'm curious about your experience of the conversation itself, ignoring the content. Since you don't trust me, I won't ask you to. I'm not trying to help you, anyway. I don't like you. I'm just curious, in case you felt like sharing.

 

I have a history of being invalidated. It's horrible. It's enraging and a helpless place to be. It's almost like being murdered, like your sense of self is being murdered so that all is left is a hollowed out shell of a person. When I believe that's what's occurring, I feel contempt for that person.

 

Does that sound familiar at all?

 

I'm not interested in debating you, but this is a philosophy forum and I'd like to tease apart some useful principles.

[Pelafina]

This makes my head spin.  the free market doesn't have morality, its a concept.  people's behavior is ethical or it isn't.  Violence is Ok for the 'utilitarian' (whatever that means) result of avoiding having underpaid workers?  People are paid based on the value they provide to others, forcing others to subsidize wages is theft.  

 

If by subjective you mean not universally accepted then sure, but If someone believes or claims that theft is better than cooperation, that rape is better than consensual sex, that violence and coercion are moral, then they are just wrong and misguided.  

 

I was wondering why I had to press 'see it anyway' for someone with only 50 posts - now I get it.  what are you doing here?  

 

If someone believes that theft is better than cooperation, they might be wrong according to your beliefs, but not according to their subjective beliefs.  This is why morality is subjective.  Are you familiar with Austrian economics which promotes the concept that value is subjective?

...people's behavior is ethical or it isn't.  

 

If I ask you if a particular behavior is ethical, you may reply 'yes' or 'no'.  If I ask someone else, they may reply differently than you.  Therefore your statement that "people's behavior is ethical or it isn't" is incorrect.  

[Peaceful Parent]

If I ask you if a particular behavior is ethical, you may reply 'yes' or 'no'.  If I ask someone else, they may reply differently than you.  Therefore your statement that "people's behavior is ethical or it isn't" is incorrect.

 

The same analogy could be applied to a math problem. If one person were to answer incorrectly (different answer) would that make the math problem subjective?

[dsayers]

I'm not asking you what you accept or reject. I'm simply asking for an example. Can you provide it or can't you?

 

"If you don't ask good questions, you aren't going to get good answers." "You gotta try just a little harder." "Perhaps you can forgive me for not feeling terribly motivated." "I don't know why I should care." Kind of a double standard you're engaging in here.

 

I'm not sure what your point is that you didn't ask something. I can provide input that wasn't solicited. Especially when it preempts the question. Which WAS what you asked. You keep moving the goal posts; Leveling one lie, it doesn't stick, trying another, it's refuted, saying you can admit when you're wrong, suggesting I can't, pretending that if I can't provide an example, it means I'm automatically wrong. So how would answering that question bring you closer to anything? Your willingness to not account for your own words indicates that the truth isn't what you're interested in.

 

Of course I can provide it. There are several examples in this very thread. In keeping with the standard put forth earlier, you can look it up. I realize that standard wasn't put forth by you, but since you continue to speak of being obtuse, I'll give you the chance to reverse doing so.

 

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I have given up.

 

Don't know how many times you have to tell me in order to accomplish what? That I will believe it? Repetition is antithetical to "giving up." If you were to make the claim multiple times, it would become a performative contradiction. See, you ARE trying in that you're making an effort as opposed to not. It's just that your efforts at this point aren't as sophisticated if how easy it is to cut through is any indication.

 

I don't think you are going to be receptive to this

 

On what basis? I continue to address what's actually there instead of what I THOUGHT I read. This is manipulative.

 

Since something here is obviously dysfunctional, it could be that one of us is infecting the other with our own helplessness by doing to the other what was done to us: invalidation. 

 

I understand that the departure from accuracy with regards to me isn't about me. The question is what will you do with that information? You took back one false accusation, at least by way of words. What about the others? What about the unphilosophical nature of suggesting that admitting you're wrong means you always do? Or that if I can't, it must mean that I'm automatically wrong? Or saying "who cares" as if that's an argument / blaming me for the actions of others? I could go on.

[dsayers]

And when they are enlightened to learn that the minimum wage is violence, they will hold the subjective belief that this petty violence is well worth the utilitarian result of avoiding having underpaid workers.  They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market.  Therefore morality is subjective.

 

This is like saying that people erect churches because they believe God exists, therefore God exists.

[Pelafina]

The same analogy could be applied to a math problem. If one person were to answer incorrectly (different answer) would that make the math problem subjective?

 

You can't prove your point by pretending that the subject we are talking about is analogous to math.  

 

This is your argument: "Everyone agrees that 1+1=2, therefore everyone must agree with me about morality, and anyone who disagrees is wrong".  I don't buy and and I don't think anyone here does either.

[Kevin Beal]

On what basis? [and then immediately ignore the entire purpose of my post]

That's why I think that. Plus the fact that everything I say is twisted into some kind of horrible thing that I'm doing.

[Pelafina]

This is like saying that people erect churches because they believe God exists, therefore God exists.

 

It's not a valid argument to pretend that what I say is analogous to 1+1=3, therefore my argument is incorrect.

[dsayers]

"[and then immediately ignore the entire basis of my post]"

 

That's why I think that. Plus the fact that everything I say is twisted into some kind of horrible thing that I'm doing.

 

This is doubling down when I don't succumb to the manipulation attempt.

 

The rest of my post demonstrates that I didn't ignore the basis of your post. Is my saying this twisting the events into some kind of horrible thing that you're doing? That is exactly the lack of integrity I've been talking about.

 

The last half of your post wasn't there when I responded to it. That's something you could've learned if you hadn't ignored the basis of my post after just reading "on what basis," while condemning me for what you interpreted as ignoring the basis of your post.

 

if both of us feel that we are not being listened to (I do) then if that ignoring happens it will feel even more like invalidation.

 

You've already owned one time where you said something was said that wasn't. There have been more (increasingly so). Meanwhile, I'm responding to what's actually written. I'm listening to you. I'm just also rejecting the dishonest and manipulative parts, in an outward fashion so you can correct me where I err. Which you are unable to do because you're not listening to me beyond your prejudice that I've said you're a horrible person (despite showing aversion to being praised, but that was a while back now).

 

So I ask again: What do you intend to do with this information? Your subsequent post suggests that it won't be anything of interest to me. I'm only interested in the truth. Making good with others is secondary, and not possible while they're putting this much effort into avoiding the truth. I was trying to make good with you even when you were behaving with what I felt was an uncharacteristic lack of integrity at my expense. You told me that it was setting you up for a combo attack. What can I do in the face of somebody who calls something the opposite of what it is while refusing to accept the possibility that they were wrong.

[Peaceful Parent]

This is your argument: "Everyone agrees that 1+1=2, therefore everyone must agree with me about morality, and anyone who disagrees is wrong". I don't buy and and I don't think anyone here does either.

Incorrect, I haven't put forth an argument; I simply questioned your reasoning. I see you edited the post in question, is it safe to assume you no longer wish to defend the reasoning of if I ask two different people the same question and receive two different answers, then that proves there's no objective answer for that question?

[Agalloch]

It's not a valid argument to pretend that what I say is analogous to 1+1=3, therefore my argument is incorrect.

That's not what is being said. What I meant (as the first person to use the maths analogy) and what peaceful parent likely meant, is that you haven't provided an answer to "1+1". But your proof that morality is subjective, applied to mathematics, means that if anyone says "1+1=3" then mathematics is subjective.

[Pelafina]

Incorrect, I haven't put forth an argument; I'm simply questioning your reasoning. I see you edited the post in question, is it safe to assume you no longer wish to defend the reasoning of if I ask two different people the same question and receive two different answers, then that proves there's no objective answer for the question?

 

What you just said is your personal subjective belief.  Do you agree?

[powder]

If someone believes that theft is better than cooperation, they might be wrong according to your beliefs, but not according to their subjective beliefs.  This is why morality is subjective.  Are you familiar with Austrian economics which promotes the concept that value is subjective?

 

If I ask you if a particular behavior is ethical, you may reply 'yes' or 'no'.  If I ask someone else, they may reply differently than you.  Therefore your statement that "people's behavior is ethical or it isn't" is incorrect.  

 

What does 'better' mean?

 

Maybe you have some sort of subjective definition of 'theft' that you are not sharing.  Does an unethical person think that theft is more profitable or a more efficient way to get resources?  Maybe.  But we are not talking about that.  

 

If someone believes that theft (taking property without consent) is preferable to cooperation then they would not try to hide their intentions or actions and they would not mind if you took their stuff.  Why sneak into a person's house when they are not at home to take their stuff, or hold them up in a dark alley at gunpoint?  

[prolix]

False morality is subjective. Valid morality is objective. It really is that easy. If someones attempts at moralizing are not universal (UPB) then they are attempting morality and failing. If someones moralization is universal then they have given a valid moral statement.

 

It is like criticism. If someone is giving an invalid criticism, then they are not criticizing at all. If someone is giving a non-universal moralization, then they are not moralizing at all. 

 

You can make it more complicated that that, like so many other things, but I don't know why you would. Of course, I am open to why/how that may not be the case, but I can't see it as of yet...

[dsayers]

I like Oblio better

[Pelafina]

If someone believes that theft (taking property without consent) is preferable to cooperation then they would not try to hide their intentions or actions and they would not mind if you took their stuff.  Why sneak into a person's house when they are not at home to take their stuff, or hold them up in a dark alley at gunpoint?  

If someone believes that certain specifically defined instances of theft are better than cooperation they don't mind when that law applies to them and it becomes their turn to get taxed.  For example, liberals believe it's good to tax the rich.  When they receive welfare they are happy with it.  Whenever they become rich, they are happy to pay higher taxes.  This is their subjective belief system.  You have a different belief system.    

[Hannibal]

Morality is all about action, right? In a world where it was impossible to act, then no one could do anything immoral. In a world where all actions were indistinguishable, then there could be no scope for immorality.

So with that being the case, a person must - in order to have moral agency - be free to act of their own volition.

Therefore individual freedom is prerequisite for all further moral narratives.

 

Therefore, objectively speaking, we can say that that much is objectively true with regards to morality.

 

When you think that through a bit more, the inescapable conclusion is that all that is morally virtuous, but stem from individual freedom. I.e. the NAP is objectively valid.

[powder]

theft is taking property without consent.  You must have a different definition.  People consent to be taxed, even if they may agree that it is a good idea, it is not voluntary.  If they had the choice they would likely decline.  If they consent to it, then it is not theft.  

 

what prolix said.  

[Pelafina]

False morality is subjective. Valid morality is objective. It really is that easy. If someones attempts at moralizing are not universal (UPB) then they are attempting morality and failing. If someones moralization is universal then they have given a valid moral statement.

 

 

This is your subjective belief.

theft is taking property without consent.  You must have a different definition.  People consent to be taxed, even if they may agree that it is a good idea, it is not voluntary.  If they had the choice they would likely decline.  If they consent to it, then it is not theft.  

 

what prolix said.  

Some people hold the subjective belief that certain instances of theft (taxation) are morally acceptable.  Therefore morality is subjective.

[powder]

This is your subjective belief.

Some people hold the subjective belief that certain instances of theft (taxation) are morally acceptable.  Therefore morality is subjective.

OK, you have a different definition of theft.  can you tell me what the definitions of 'subjective' and 'moral' are?  we must be talking about different things here.  

[prolix]

This is your subjective belief.

No it is not. It is a objective standard for discerning truth from falsehood. If you care about truth. So, whether you care about truth is up to the subject to decide, but how you arrive  at truth is objective and must rely on universal standard...

[Pelafina]

OK, you have a different definition of theft.  can you tell me what the definitions of 'subjective' and 'moral' are?  we must be talking about different things here.  

moral - whether a behavior is right or wrong / good or bad.

subjective   personal preference

theft - when a person takes something that is not their property.

[Agalloch]

moral - whether a behavior is right or wrong / good or bad.

subjective personal preference

theft - when a person takes something that is not their property.

So... Once again. If I stare that 1+1=3 then all of mathematics becomes subjective because a person holding an incorrect opinion makes all theories subjective?

[Pelafina]

So... Once again. If I stare that 1+1=3 then all of mathematics becomes subjective because a person holding an incorrect opinion makes all theories subjective?

When you make a statement that I disagree with, I will state that your belief is analogous to 1+1=3.  Then I will proceed to conclude that your belief must be incorrect based on the analogy.  Is this a logical way to make an argument?  I think not.

[Agalloch]

When you make a statement that I disagree with, I will state that your belief is analogous to 1+1=3. Then I will proceed to conclude that your belief must be incorrect based on the analogy. Is this a logical way to make an argument? I think not.

Not sure what you're saying here. But the analogy isn't flawed.

[powder]

moral - whether a behavior is right or wrong / good or bad.

subjective   personal preference

theft - when a person takes something that is not their property.

so you are saying that people can think it is preferable to have bad things done to themselves and others.  how can someone prefer to have their property taken without consent?  

[Pelafina]

so you are saying that people can think it is preferable to have bad things done to themselves and others.  how can someone prefer to have their property taken without consent?  

Some people think it's preferable when the government steals and redistributes.  You don't think this is preferable.  Two different opinions regarding morality.  Morality is subjective.

[Agalloch]

Some people think it's preferable when the government steals and redistributes.  You don't think this is preferable.  Two different opinions regarding morality.  Morality is subjective.

Some people think 1+1=3. You don't think 1+1=3. Two different opinions regarding mathematics. Mathematics is subjective.

 

Why don't you understand this? Calling certain statements opinions and then presenting two differing ones does not prove something is subjective.

[Pelafina]

Some people think 1+1=3. You don't think 1+1=3. Two different opinions regarding mathematics. Mathematics is subjective.

 

Why don't you understand this? Calling certain statements opinions and then presenting two differing ones does not prove something is subjective.

 

Yes, and what you said is analogous to 1+1=3, therefore you are incorrect.

[Agalloch]

Yes, and what you said is analogous to 1+1=3, therefore you are incorrect.

What? No!

 

I'm not saying "1+1=3" is equivelant to the claim "morality of objective"and "1+1=2" is equivelant to the claim "morality is subjective", nor am I claiming the inverse. That wouldn't be an analogy, but a loaded pile of crap.

 

The analogy that was made, quite clearly, was that "1+1=3" is equivelant to "theft is good", and "1+1=2" is equivelannt to "theft is bad". Note, that even reversing the roles of those two parts of the analogy doesn't change the meaning. I'm not applying those definitions to prove either is false, but to demonstrate a fault in your logic. The fault is when you go on to say that the existence of the two claims makes all morality subjective. Can you see those two mathematical claims? Do they make all mathematics subjective? If not, then your premises or reasoning are lacking in something, and you need further proof that morality is subjective.

 

I reallly don't understand why you can't get this. I've asked a couple of my non philosophical friends to read my posts and see if they understood, and they were able to clearly state my position back to me without ambiguity and even accepted that it showed a fault in your logic - though that doesn't matter, as you don't even seem to understand the concept. So what exactly are you not understanding?

[Pelafina]

The fault is when you go on to say that the existence of the two claims makes all morality subjective. Can you see those two mathematical claims? Do they make all mathematics subjective? 

 

If morality is not subjective, then how can you prove that your version of what is morally correct, is the correct version?  With math you can use logic to demonstrate the correctness of an equation.  Please explain how you can do the same with morality.

[powder]

the case for the logic of universal morality has been made in this thread.  

[prolix]

If morality is not subjective, then how can you prove that your version of what is morally correct, is the correct version?  With math you can use logic to demonstrate the correctness of an equation.  Please explain how you can do the same with morality.

 

Well, it is super easy.

 

https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb

 

But you will have to graduate middle-school before you are up to the pre-requisite reading level. Maybe find an adult to read it to you. Slowly...