Clown Fish Shows WJM a Thing or Two

clown fish @58 You said:

HeKS, no, I am not reversing myself. Most of the people who actually did the killing, probably did it out of fear. But there were still thousands who were actively involved who did it because they believed that it was the right thing to do.

If you want to continue to maintain this, then we are back to my original point on the issue, which is that...

In addition to the fact that you continue to ignore the recognized distinction between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology, you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good. You can’t know this, and what we know about the history of the Holocaust, its motivations and the expressions of people who were involved simply don’t support that interpretation.

You claimed, first, that these thousands of people went along with Hitler because they "believed that it was objectively good", and now, somewhat more vaguely, because "they believed it was the right thing to do." But again, you are really just guessing here, and in kind of an historical vacuum at that, since we know that the motivating ideology that led to the Holocaust had nothing to do with a belief in objective moral values and duties but was intended more as an evolutionary battle between the races in a fight for supremacy. Furthermore, the methods used to persuade people to go along with the Nazi regime's attempt to solve "the Jewish problem" had nothing to do with helping them to somehow recognize that the "final solution" was mandated by a commitment to carrying out some objective moral good. Rather, appeals were made to their desperation, their bitterness, their suspicions, and their self-interest. You said in #58:

If they all did it out of fear, it would have only taken one to say no and stop it.

Nobody said that everyone involved did it out of fear (at least not fear for their lives). But your comments seem to suggest that you think the only two options are that people either did it out of fear or else they did it because they thought it was objectively good. That simply isn't the case. Many did it out of hate. Many did it out of anger and bitterness. Some were clearly demented. The whole affair was justified primarily by reference to social and fiscal and scientific reasons. But there is little reason, if any, to conclude that thousands of people went along with Hitler's murder of Jews and other minorities because 1) they believed that objective morality existed, 2) they held to a deontological moral philosophy, 3) their support for the actions of the Nazi regime was derived from their belief in objective morality and an adherence to their deontological moral philosophy rather than for consequentialist reasons, and 4) they thought the slaughter of Jews and other minorities, in itself, constituted an objective moral good. I'm not aware of any reason to think these criteria were met and the evidence would seem to suggest that they were not met. So, it's not at all clear to me that there is any validity whatsoever to your claim that thousands went along with the Nazis and the Holocaust because they "believed that it was objectively good". Of course, having said all that, we must return to the fact that even if we had some reason to think you might be right about this, it still would not be a valid argument against the existence of objective morality, because the possibility of people being wrong about what is objectively good or bad simply does not mean that there is no such thing as objective morality. Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology are logically independent of each other, as I explained in #55. HeKS

JAD "I wonder if that is an accurate description of the “is/ought” problem. Is God an is?" You will have to take the up with Sev. I think Sev is an atheist. My post 60 was just a follow up to 56. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid to Sev:

One final thought. Since there only is, and one cannot get an ought from an is, we at least know what an immoral act is not. An immoral act is NOT an act we ought not do. Does anyone else find this to be a bit odd?

I wonder if that is an accurate description of the “is/ought” problem. Is God an is? According to an on-line source:

In Ex. 3:13-14, Moses asks God, “Whom should I say has sent me?” and God responds by saying, “I AM that I AM… You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” However, it could be awkward for Moses to go to the Israelites and Pharaoh and say, “I am has sent me.” So, in Ex. 3:15 God revises this phrase and changes it to the third person by saying, “Tell them that ‘He is’ has sent you.” The word “He is” comes from the Hebrew root word haya, which means, “to be.” It is the third person form of this word, “He is,” that becomes the name Yahweh.

https://www.knowingthebible.net/the-meaning-of-yahweh From what I know and have read and studied this appears to be accurate. Therefore, when we ground moral values and obligations in Yahweh we are in fact grounding them in an “is”—His existence. However, God is personal vs. impersonal. The question/problem then is how can we ground morality in the impersonal? (As is what the naturalist believes.) If our existence is the result of mindless/impersonal evolution, what is the grounds of moral values and obligations? That’s the problem which confronts the naturalist/ materialist, grounding morality in the impersonal, because that is ultimately all that there really is (according to their worldview.) john_a_designer

Seversky said:

There are disagreements which can be resolved by appealing to observations of the natural world and there are those that can’t. The first are about objective issues, the latter are subjective.

Are mathematics and logic part of the natural world? If so, can you direct me to where I can find them? No? We all agree that at least the fundamental principles of mathematics and logic are objectively binding commodities or (1) we have no means by which to resolve disagreements about the natural world, and (2) we have no means by which to measure the natural world in a way that will resolve disagreements about it. As I have argued that we operate as if conscience is a sensory ability that can receive objective moral information, so too are the capacities of logical and mathematical thinking. Even though they are abstract and conceptual, we necessarily act as if those capacities are relaying objective, universally-binding information about reality (whether it is limited to what one defines a "natural" or "physical" world or not). We act as if these abstract capacities - logic, math, morality are providing objectively binding information about our experience. Indeed, these abstract concepts are the tools by which we demonstrate the objective nature of things we experience, but logic and math themselves cannot be themselves demonstrated to be objective in nature because they are the root tools by which such things are demonstrated. That morality cannot be demonstrated to be objective misses the whole point: conscience is the capacity, like logical or mathematical thinking, by which objective moral truths can be demonstrated. Thus, our capacity to resolve any kind of disagreements about anything presumed objective in nature requires we acknowledge abstract concepts such as math, logic and morality as objectively binding arbiters.

The debate about whether Newton’s or Einstein’s theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment.

You're skipping the part about how such disagreements about the natural world are arbited. If logic and math were not considered objectively valid arbiters of true statements about the natural world, no such disagreement could ever be resolved.

A disagreement about whether your taste in music is “better” than mine cannot be resolved in that way because taste in music is not a property of objective reality but of our response to that reality. It is subjective.

Incorrect. If one is a physicalist, then one's "taste in music" is in fact a property of objective reality, even though it is is an objectively real fact about an individual that is not shared by everyone, like a fingerprint or iris pattern. Personal preferences and individual values would be like fingerprints or iris patterns - they would be patterns of interacting matter and energy relatively unique to the individual physiology we call a person.

By the same token, our moral judgements or evaluations of human behaviors in the world are subjective. In physics, the speed of light can be measured to see if it is constant, irrespective of the motion of an observer. There is no similar way to measure whether it is always wrong to kill, regardless of circumstances.

How are you going to measure the speed of light without logic or mathematics? Why would you "measure" it at all, or consider it a resolution to the argument about how fast it travels, given that both mathematics and logic themselves cannot be found in the natural world? If they are conceptual and exist only in the minds of individuals, they cannot be accepted as objectively true or universally binding ... right? If your argument is that because we cannot find morality in the natural world, it is therefore subjective, then both math and logic are also subjective. If your argument is that we cannot use our conscience to objectively measure the good or evil in a proposition because our conscience is subjective, then you must certainly agree that neither logic nor mathematics can be used to measure or prove anything because, like our conscience, they are necessarily abstract, subjective concepts.

I see no way to escape the subjectivity of morality.

By your argument, I see no way to escape the subjectivity of mathematics and logic.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, even a moral code handed down from on high inscribed on tablets of stone is just another – albeit divine (allegedly) – opinion.

Even though we cannot find any of the principles of mathematics and logic in they physical world, we are capable of recognizing self-evidently true logical and mathematical statements. We cannot prove them; we cannot find them in the physical world; yet it is by their existence that we are able to prove other things and resolve disagreements about objectively existent commodities. The same is true of morality. There are self-evidently true moral statements (love is good, cruelty is evil) the denial of which result in absurdity, just like denying that 1+1=2 or denying the principle of identity. You cannot act as if logic, math or morality is subjective; it is by those fundamental concepts that we demonstrate objective facts and truths. William J Murray

Sev One final thought. Since there only is, and one cannot get an ought from an is, we at least know what an immoral act is not. An immoral act is NOT an act we ought not do. Does anyone else find this to be a bit odd? Vivid vividbleau

Germans who refused orders during war would have been tried for insubordination. They would then either have been put into a concentration camp or have been shot. This would make their refusal an act of suicide. If that's what you're advocating see #51. -Q Querius

HeKS, no, I am not reversing myself. Most of the people who actually did the killing, probably did it out of fear. But there were still thousands who were actively involved who did it because they believed that it was the right thing to do. If they all did it out of fear, it would have only taken one to say no and stop it. clown fish

Me: "The holocaust, as horrendous as it was, was an outlier." Mungy: "One of the most blatantly ignorant things I’ve ever seen written by clown fish." Well, that has to be the most blatantly ignorant thing said by Mungy, or anybody. If the holocaust wasn't an outlier then it must be part of the norm. And if it is part of the norm then humanity is screwed. Which might make Kairosfocus happy, but it doesn't jive with the rest of society. clown fish

Sev "Indeed they were. But judgements about the immorality of what was done in those camps are quite different from scientific explanations of what was done and why and how it occurred. Again, the difference between ‘ought’ and ‘is’." If a judgement about the immorality of what was done is not a judgement of what " ought" not have been done what are we judging? To call it "immorality" is very strange indeed, it's just "is" I've rephrased what you mean below, without smuggling in the word "immorality" Indeed they were. But judgements about the" ISness "of what was done in those camps are quite different from scientific explanations of what was done and why and how it occurred. Again, the difference between ‘ought’ and ‘is’. Vivid vividbleau

clown fish @46

HeKS: “you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good.”

No, actually I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives. The big question is, if you were a German soldier in one of those camps, would you turn the gas valve? I can’t honestly say, one way or the other. And I don’t think you could either. That is what is so scary about subjective morality. But not liking the possible implications of a scary situation doesn’t change it.

With all due respect, the big question is not whether you, or I, or anyone else would turn the gas valve. The big question is whether or not turning gas valve would truly be wrong. Furthermore, I have to point out that you have reversed yourself here on your prior claim about the Holocaust. You initially said this:

[The Holocaust] was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good.

However, now you are admitting this:

I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives.

If most of these people were going along with this horrible evil because they were trying to preserve their own lives, then they were not doing it because they thought it was objectively good. Those two motivations, at their core, represent completely different moral philosophies. That's not to say that it's impossible for a person to ever operate according to multiple moral philosophies (after all, people have been known to behave inconsistently at times), but in terms of a philosophical rationale for action, the two propositions are inconsistent, with the acceptance of one motivation making the other unnecessary. If someone is told to do something that they themselves think is objectively good, they don't need to be intimidated into doing it on fear of being murdered if they don't. And if someone does something because they are afraid they will be murdered if they don't, we aren't really justified in speculating that they may have also thought the thing objectively good even in the absence of the threat to their life. It must also be noted that if most of these people went along with the Holocaust out of fear for their lives rather than because they thought it was objectively good, then we would have to conclude that if anyone was doing it because they thought it was objectively good (rather than simply necessary for a desired outcome) - which we can't know and have reason to think was not the case - those ones would have to be considered outliers. Finally, we must contend with the proper distinction between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology. To see the reason for this recognized distinction we need only consider the logical claim underpinning the argument against objective morality on the basis of moral disagreement. In arguing that objective morality must not exist because people disagree about what is objectively good or evil, one is making the claim that it is logically impossible that, on the one hand, certain objective moral truths, values and duties could exist while, on the other hand, humans could a) fail to properly discern what all of those truths, values and duties are, and/or b) disagree about what some of those truths, values and duties are. The argument is a claim that these two propositions are logically contradictory and mutually exclusive. The problem, of course, is that there is no obvious logical link between these propositions, or any clear reason why they would be mutually exclusive. Instead, the propositions more obviously seem to belong to two separate spheres of inquiry, and hence the reason that they have been relegated to two different categories of philosophical consideration, with the first belonging to Moral Ontology and the second to Moral Epistemology. HeKS

The holocaust, as horrendous as it was, was an outlier. One of the most blatantly ignorant things I've ever seen written by clown fish. Not that it's objectively morally wrong, mind you. Mung

vividbleau @ 37

Sev “The debate about whether Newton’s or Einstein’s theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment.” Was the Holocaust not observed? Did we not observe the gas chambers, the stacks of dead emaciated corpses, we’re not the despicable horrors not documented?

Indeed they were. But judgements about the immorality of what was done in those camps are quite different from scientific explanations of what was done and why and how it occurred. Again, the difference between 'ought' and 'is'. Seversky

Clown "In none of these does fear for your life if you don’t comply come into play. At worst, they are dealing with peer pressure. Hardly justification for systemic racism." Hmmmm yeh. So how is this relevant? Vivid vividbleau

Excellent points, HeKS. Without an objective morality to the contrary, it becomes imperative that the "redundant" human population on earth be significantly and immediately reduced in the name of slowing the severe anthropogenic environmental destruction in progress. That human evolution can now be scientifically monitored and directed is also undeniable, thus . . . Each human should receive a "Darwin Evaluation Score" (DES) based on - Genomic health - Intelligence - Significant contributions - Current age - Mental health - Societal compatibility Excess populations that fall below these criteria would be humanely eliminated regardless of their antisocial objections. From what I've read so far, it seems obvious that CF would not make the cut. But let's see whether CF might have some irrational, sentimental objection to phase 1, voluntary suicide. CF? - Q Querius

Vivid: "If the answer is no then the following is not an objection to objective morality but just an observation that fear and things like peer pressure can get us to do things we might personally think immoral. Isn’t this rather obvious? ” If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do “objectively” bad, why did it happen?”" On this I would agree. The holocaust, as horrendous as it was, was an outlier. I think that most people who had an active role, did so out of fear. But how do you explain slavery? The people supporting it were not the fringe, or doing it out of fear. The same holds for the people who prevented women from getting the vote. Or those that thought it was morally imperative to forcibly remove Indian children from their culture so that they could be raised as Christians. Or those who thought it was morally acceptable to allow children to work in coal mines or textile factories simply because their parents were poor. Or those who forced black people to the back of the bus, or those who denied them service at s whites only diner. In none of these does fear for your life if you don't comply come into play. At worst, they are dealing with peer pressure. Hardly justification for systemic racism. clown fish

Clown If the answer is no then the following is not an objection to objective morality but just an observation that fear and things like peer pressure can get us to do things we might personally think immoral. Isn't this rather obvious? " If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do “objectively” bad, why did it happen?" Vivid vividbleau

Vivid: "Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that if morality was objective everyone would always act in accordance with that objective morality." No. We can obviously be influenced out of fear, or peer pressure, or the offer of tickets to the next Justin Bieber concert. But you will not succeed in something that the populace is strongly opposed to unless you have force to back it up. Surely you are not suggesting that everything throughout history that we would disagree with was the result of force. clown fish

Clown "Presumably, they could have opted for the objectively moral route. But they didn’t.....If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do “objectively” bad, why did it happen?" Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying that if morality was objective everyone would always act in accordance with that objective morality. Vivid vividbleau

HeKS: "you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good." No, actually I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives. The big question is, if you were a German soldier in one of those camps, would you turn the gas valve? I can't honestly say, one way or the other. And I don't think you could either. That is what is so scary about subjective morality. But not liking the possible implications of a scary situation doesn't change it. Even KairosFocus, in the same situation, would probably turn on the showers. He would like to think that he wouldn't (as we all would) but he would be a damned liar if he categorically said he wouldn't. clown fish

Hi clown fish, I'm just about to head out, but I want to quickly point out that you haven't really addressed the point. Whether Hitler personally pulled a trigger isn't the issue. In addition to the fact that you continue to ignore the recognized distinction between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology, you're simply assuming that those who did Hitler's bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good. You can't know this, and what we know about the history of the Holocaust, its motivations and the expressions of people who were involved simply don't support that interpretation. No less than Hitler, the philosophy of those involved in the Holocaust was consequentialist in nature rather than deontological, with one of the intended consequences being the preservation of their own lives, which they feared would be forfeit if they refused to comply. Other higher-ups clearly felt no compunction whatsoever about ignoring any objective moral standards. Gotta run. HeKS

HeKS: "It’s certainly hard to keep aware of who is who around here :) You see two screen names expressing similar ideas in similar ways and you wonder if it’s the same person or just coincidence." I know. I wonder who's to blame? :) I would much prefer my Acartia persona, but that is not morally acceptable here. And I have probably shortened my Nemo existence by even mentioning it. But I prefer honesty. Thank you you for allowing me to respond to your previous thread here. If WJM is opposed, I will honour his decision "But why should we think that’s the case? Why should we think that Hitler truly believed in objective moral values that are binding on humans?" Does it really matter? How many people did Hitler personally kill? My guess is, none. But he relied on others to do it. Thousands. Presumably, they could have opted for the objectively moral route. But they didn't. "Hitler’s ethic was, by his own admission, scientific and evolutionary, not religious." Well, we could argue this for days, but Hitler, to the best of my knowledge, never pulled a single trigger. If Obama (or Trump, or whoever) told you to kill a bunch of Jews, would you do it? I know very little about you, but I know enough to say that you wouldn't. And neither would I. If the killing of Jews, or any identifiable group, is do "objectively" bad, why did it happen? clown fish

Hi clown fish, It's certainly hard to keep aware of who is who around here :) You see two screen names expressing similar ideas in similar ways and you wonder if it's the same person or just coincidence. If you would have liked to have responded further in that thread, you can always address issues here as they would certainly be relevant to the thread subject and so I don't think WJM would consider it a thread hijack. Or I suppose you could comment over in that thread if you are able to. Regarding your comments about Hitler...

that was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good. If we can have that big a disagreement about what is morally acceptable, how can we argue that morality is objective?

... I will offer the same response that I did to Mark Frank when he raised a similar argument in that other thread:

The point you are trying to make is based on the assumption of “everything else being equal”. In other words, it assumes that what we have here is a mere difference of opinion on what the objective moral truth happens to be, while all the underlying philosophies on both sides of the equation are essentially the same (or close enough that it makes no material difference). But why should we think that’s the case? Why should we think that Hitler truly believed in objective moral values that are binding on humans? Why should we think that he didn’t disregard or suppress the prodding of his conscience for one reason or another? And why should we even think that Hitler viewed what he was doing as “murder”. Hitler’s ethic was, by his own admission, scientific and evolutionary, not religious. His rationale was utilitarian. His moral philosophy was consequentialist in nature rather than deontological. So everything else was not equal.

HeKS

Hi a Vivid, my weekend is great. 27 degrees and sunny (that is hot and sunny for you less metrically inclined):) "What is it besides “people disagree therefore it cannot be objective” that the answers given to this objection are not persuasive to you?" It is not that people disagree that is the problem. It is the frequency, and extent, and amplitude, to which they disagree that is the problem. A sociopath or psychopath (or several) that disagree is an aberration. An outlier. It ceases to be an outlier when the outliers become the norm. The argument against evolution is the number, frequency and amplitude of evidence that you say is counter to it. We can argue whether or not the evidence against evolution is real, but why aren't you holding objective morality up to the same standard of proof that you are holding evolution? clown fish

HeKS: This is one of the issues I addressed in my first post here, starting at the heading, Arguments Against Objective Morality." I remember it well. It was in response to one of my previous responses, under a different name (acartia_bogart). I also remember that you took flack from some of the less civil (moronic and childish) UD regulars for accepting my commendation for honestly representing what my views were. "Also see my comments 35, 69 and 80 in the ensuing discussion thread (80 addresses Mark Frank’s attempt to counter this distinction)." I would have responded further, but someone banned me from commenting (not your fault). clown fish

Clown Hi Clown hope you are enjoying your weekend. "But, regardless, that was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good. If we can have that big a disagreement about what is morally acceptable, how can we argue that morality is objective?" It seems to me that we keep going around in circles. You keep bringing up this objection, it keeps getting answered, then it is brought up again as an answer to the objection :) What is it besides "people disagree therefore it cannot be objective" that the answers given to this objection are not persuasive to you? Heks in 38 just addressed this very thing. Perhaps a fresh perspective would help, I dunno, but I would highly recommend reading the link Heks gave where once again this objection has been addressed. A valid response is not to repeat the objection "that people disagree therefore it can't be objective" That's just going around in circles. Just saying... Vivid vividbleau

Vivid: "Yeh evil like beauty is in the eye of the beholder as you stare at the pictures of the stacked bodies in the railroad car." Hi Vivid, yes, I don't think that anyone here (subjectivist or objectivist) would look on those pictures as anything but abhorrent. But that is why I am optimistic about the future. But, regardless, that was not done by one person, or ten, or one hundred. That required the support of thousands. Thousands who believed that it was objectively good. If we can have that big a disagreement about what is morally acceptable, how can we argue that morality is objective? clown fish

WJM, You've written a lot of great articles on this subject. Your problem is that you're dealing with people who do not understand that a distinction exists between Moral Ontology and Moral Epistemology. A failure to understand this distinction is why they keep trotting out the same tired counter-argument against objective morality (i.e. people disagree about morals). This is one of the issues I addressed in my first post here, starting at the heading, Arguments Against Objective Morality. Also see my comments 35, 69 and 80 in the ensuing discussion thread (80 addresses Mark Frank's attempt to counter this distinction). I'm sure you personally know all this stuff, WJM, but these people disagreeing with you and your articles need to have these distinctions drummed into their heads so they start looking at this whole subject matter from a proper perspective and stop making these kinds of silly and misguided epistemological arguments against the basic existence of objective morality, which is a question of Moral Ontology. If there is some kind of valid argument or there against the existence of objective morality, it certainly isn't that "people disagree", no matter how many times people claim otherwise. HeKS

Sev "The debate about whether Newton’s or Einstein’s theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment." Was the Holocaust not observed? Did we not observe the gas chambers, the stacks of dead emaciated corpses, we're not the despicable horrors not documented? Vivid vividbleau

Sev "A disagreement about whether your taste in music is “better” than mine cannot be resolved in that way because taste in music is not a property of objective reality but of our response to that reality. It is subjective." Yeh evil like beauty is in the eye of the beholder as you stare at the pictures of the stacked bodies in the railroad car. Listen I know you find what happened appalling and I know you are as sickened as anyone. Here is what I also think, that in any conceivable time, place or universe, the Holocaust is,was, and always would be an objectively evil act. Am I right? As to your moral equivalency argument about God, the Bible, Noah , whatever, it is irrelevant, it is a distraction. My only and final comment on this (I should not even comment really because it is a deflection from the issue before us) is that if such acts of evil intent were perpetrated by God then God is despicably wicked. Vivid vividbleau

William J Murray @ 21

Seversky @18: Because people and cultures and religions disagree about a thing doesn’t mean that thing itself is subjective in nature. This has been pointed out several times in many different threads. Did you miss them all?

No, but there are disagreements and disagreements There are disagreements which can be resolved by appealing to observations of the natural world and there are those that can't. The first are about objective issues, the latter are subjective. The debate about whether Newton's or Einstein's theories offered a better, more comprehensive account of the physics of the Universe was resolved by observation of that Universe, either directly or by experiment. A disagreement about whether your taste in music is "better" than mine cannot be resolved in that way because taste in music is not a property of objective reality but of our response to that reality. It is subjective. By the same token, our moral judgements or evaluations of human behaviors in the world are subjective. In physics, the speed of light can be measured to see if it is constant, irrespective of the motion of an observer. There is no similar way to measure whether it is always wrong to kill, regardless of circumstances. I see no way to escape the subjectivity of morality. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, even a moral code handed down from on high inscribed on tablets of stone is just another - albeit divine (allegedly) - opinion. Seversky

Mung: "Could you provide an example of one of these innate objective moral values instilled in us all by nature?" Obviously this is just opinion, but I suspect that things like protecting your children and immediate family would be one of them. clown fish

WJM: "Name me one war that was fought over what people considered to be subjective, personal preferences." Crusades were fought over subjective beliefs that Christianity was superior to Islam. French religious wars were fought over the subjective belief that one flavour of Christianity was better than another. Isis is fighting over the subjective belief that Islam is better than everything. "People and cultures now and throughout history have widely disagreed about all sorts of things we consider physical, objective facts,..." Thank you for the red herring. My Omega-3 levels were down. Physical objective facts are generally resolved to the acceptance of all those with a few firing neurons through physical measurements, experiments and observations. The only tool available to the objective/subjective morality debate is observations. And, unfortunately, objective morals are losing the observation wars. "If CF was a robot, he’d be failing." I find it amusing that WJM would reference a test proposed by a man driven to suicide due to persecution by a society that treated his sexual orientation as objectively immoral. The very subject that triggered this multi-thread attempt to justify objective morality and truth. clown fish

clown fish:

I would also argue that some of this behavioural conditioning is innate (ie, the result of millions of generations of evolution). These innate “morals” would come the closest to what WJM, Kairosfocus and Barry would consider to be objective.

Could you provide an example of one of these innate objective moral values instilled in us all by nature? Mung

Finally Mung and I agree on something, almost. Even though he meant it sarcastically. Actually, I was just trying to accurately summarize your position. Does it bother you in the slightest that your position begs the question? Because it ought to. Mung

If CF was a robot, he'd be failing the turing test right about now. William J Murray

CF said;

Yet, we do it all of the time. Individually and as a community. We have even gone to war over it. Hundreds of times.

Name me one war that was fought over what people considered to be subjective, personal preferences.

How is that in any way an objective rule. For most of our history we limited who we showed an equal level of respect to. Generally people in our own social community, or our own race. If showing respect is such a universal objective rule, how do you explain the way white people of European descent treated black people?

People and cultures now and throughout history have widely disagreed about all sorts of things we consider physical, objective facts, like what causes illness, weather, and the motion of the stars, moon, sun and planets, and the origin and history of mankind. That different people and cultures through time have disagreed upon a thing doesn't mean that thing itself is subjective in nature. Would you at least acknowledge that you have read the above statement in bold and understand it? This has been pointed out to you multiple times yet you keep trotting out this empty defense as if it hasn't been utterly debunked several times in several threads. William J Murray

It occurred to me that some of our moral subjectivist interlocutors may be confused about what we mean by objectivism and subjectivism. Here if a brief explanation. When we, at least most of us who are objectivists, talk about objective moral values we are not talking about how moral values are apprehended (to become aware of or perceived.) Of course, moral values are apprehended subjectively. So they are not objective the way rocks, trees, planets, animals and people are spatially-temporally objective. In other words, moral truth is something we come to know and understand with our minds not out senses. Mathematical truth is also something that is also apprehended subjectively by the mind. However the truths of mathematics are not matters of subjective opinion, they are objective facts that are either true, false or undetermined. For example, “there are no more than five platonic solids.” Is that true, false or undetermined? How about Goldbach’s conjecture? Or is 56779 is a prime number? Like me you probably don’t know just by looking at it. However, because you don’t know doesn’t change the factuality of whether it is or is not—it either is or it isn’t. (In this case it is not unknown or indeterminate.) Neither does your subjective personal opinion or belief have anything to do with whether or not the number is prime. Mathematical truths are objective truths even though they are apprehended subjectively. The same can be argued for moral truth. john_a_designer

Mung: "Morals come from our conscience, and our conscience is just the repository of deeply held behavioral conditioning." Finally Mung and I agree on something, almost. Even though he meant it sarcastically. I would also argue that some of this behavioural conditioning is innate (ie, the result of millions of generations of evolution). These innate "morals" would come the closest to what WJM, Kairosfocus and Barry would consider to be objective. clown fish

Barry: "The moral norms that are being expressed do not vary and are not relative." Except when they do vary and are relative. That is some amazing and consistent system you are shilling for. clown fish

WJM: "Sane people know it is wrong to force personal, subjective habits/preferences/values on others no matter how strongly you feel about them." Yet, we do it all of the time. Individually and as a community. We have even gone to war over it. Hundreds of times. "your conscience bothers you because a basic objective moral rule is being transgressed, and that is showing respect, consideration and kindness to others." How is that in any way an objective rule. For most of our history we limited who we showed an equal level of respect to. Generally people in our own social community, or our own race. If showing respect is such a universal objective rule, how do you explain the way white people of European descent treated black people? How do you explain the Indian caste system? And, if it is such a universal moral rule why did my parents have to repeatedly reinforce it? If you think that it is such a universal rule, try watching a group of very young children playing together when there is only one toy, unsupervised. No, you will have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone sitting on the subjective/objective fence that it is objective. clown fish

Morals come from our conscience, and our conscience is just the repository of deeply held behavioral conditioning. Of course, that does beg the question, but who cares about that!? A salivating dog would appear to be the most moral of creatures. Mung

So, if you persist in making the false claim that subjective morality is no more than personal preference, then you have no idea what subjective morality is. Bad bad WJM. You ought not make that false claim because it's objectively morally wrong to make that false claim. Or clown fish would strongly (rather than weakly) prefer that you not do so, to please him. Mung

bFast @ 19: Cultural expressions of moral truths may vary by custom. Generally speaking, a cultural error such abortion begins with a core group of either moral subjectivists, might-makes-right supremacists or some expression of radical, irrational sentiment (like racism). Through a concerted effort at psychological intimidation and sentimental manipulation that abandons fundamental principles of credible moral worldviews (or sometimes just by force), the public can often be swayed into agreement with immoral, unreasonable laws - or, even if they disagree, forced by threat of prosecution to go along with unjust laws and stay silent. "Abortion Rights" was the intellectual construct of racist Darwinian supremacists (Margaret Sanger) who wanted to keep the black population under control. Yet, through a careful campaign based on sentiment, it has been sold to the general population as a "right" women have to "control their own body". The sentimental attack came in several fronts; horrific descriptions of illegal, back-alley abortions, an angry rejection supposedly of men "controlling" the bodies and lives of women, and a narrative about "unwanted" children and the "inequality" of the burden women were being forced to endure that men did not have to suffer through. Note how none of those arguments have anything to do with rational inferences from a grounding of metaphysical natural law. They are all rhetorical manipulations preying on empathy, sentiment, guilt, and the general lack of critical thinking skills in the populace. That abortion is wrong is easily understood via simple logic from core, easily recognized moral first principles, the primary of which is a right to life. The right to live transcends all other rights because without life, one cannot make any moral judgements or have any other rights. We know for a scientific fact that human life begins at conception; thus, at conception, a human life ought be treated accordingly. Unless the mother's life is at stake, it is logically clear that the living, unborn child has a right to life that transcends sentimental arguments otherwise, including the comfort and convenience of the mother. William J Murray

Seversky @18: Because people and cultures and religions disagree about a thing doesn't mean that thing itself is subjective in nature. This has been pointed out several times in many different threads. Did you miss them all? William J Murray

bfast: normative in a community vs statistically normal/ typical in same vs morally sound vs manifestly evident core principle of the moral law of our nature as responsibly free rational creatures of quasi-infinite worth. KF PS: Hitler had to hide the holocaust. He tracked down and judicially murdered the White Rose movement's members for exposing initial facts about it -- 300,000 Jews murdered in Poland etc. (NB: Some of their leaflets made it outside of Germany, were picked up by the allies and were dropped by bombers in quantity.) kairosfocus

"Cultural expressions of moral norms vary and are inculcated." This adds up. This explains Clown Fish's perspective on "opening doors". The "moral norm" is an obligation to honor the weaker, honor the elder, honor the "could be somebody's mother". The cultural expression of opening the door is the expression. "The moral norms that are being expressed do not vary and are not relative." We live in a society that says that a woman has the "right to choose" whether or not to murder her kid. You and I know that this is heinously wrong. This is an absolute breach of a moral truth. Yet this is our society's practice. (And getting many Christians to stand up and say so in the public sphere isn't very easy.) "The moral NORMS that are being expressed" are a breach of the absolute moral code that we both recognize. As such I cannot accept the terminology "moral norms". The term "norm" itself is one loaded with statistical baggage. Hitler et el created a society that accepted as "normal" his practice of extermination. We looked back after the fact and declared that he did not have the right of moral norm. He and his had committed crimes against humanity despite the fact that they had succeeded in normalizing their perversion. bFast

vividbleau @ 4

WJM Or you can argue Seversky “I argue, that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder” http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/C/dead8.jpg Sick Vivid

The Holocaust was appalling. I was appalled by such images and what I read about it, much as just about everyone else was - and is. We all share that revulsion. We don't have to check scripture to see what that says before we are appalled, nor do we wait to see what philosophers reason about it, whether ancient Greek or modern. We are appalled and while it says nothing directly about whether it is objective or subjective, if anything is, that feeling and others like it are the foundation of morality. I would also point out that, according to the Bible, apart from a few chosen humans and other animals, all life on Earth - human or otherwise, young and old, born or unborn - was exterminated in The Great Flood. That was a holocaust on a scale that dwarfs what the Nazis achieved. Yet the account was included in - and remains in - the Old Testament so we are entitled to assume that the event meets with the approval of Christians, that it was a moral act. So we have one holocaust that Christians condemn as immoral and one that they consider moral. So what is all this about objective morality? Seversky

bFast @ 16. WJM dealt with the issues you raise at comment 14. Short answer: Cultural expressions of moral norms vary and are inculcated. The moral norms that are being expressed do not vary and are not relative. Barry Arrington

I hate to be on clown fish's side, but somehow he makes a valid point. What I would like to see is a definition of "moral" that separates the marrow of "preferences" from the bone of "absolute morality". 'Seems to me that some things are deeply wrong -- murder, abortion rape. Other things are very subjective -- holding doors open for people. And, ultimately, Clown Fish is exactly right when he says that morality runs the gamut from "deeply entrenched to weakly held". I would say that they run the gamut from absolute to relative. Is there an absolute moral core? Yup. Is there a bunch of relative morality built up on that moral core? Yup. Is it as simple as "my parents beat into me" like Clown Fish says? Well, no. Do we, each of us, sometimes get it wrong even when we are trying are darndest to do what is right? Well, if we have a pea of humility and a pea of respect for history, we do. bFast

Care about your neighbor as you care about yourself Leviticus 9:18 Laozi, c 500 B.C. Mah?bh?rata Sh?nti-Parva 167:9 This is the basic morality. It appears over and over in the positive ("golden rule") and negative form ("silver rule") in ancient religious and philosophical sources. Everyone except sociopaths knows this, regardless of the particular cultural manifestations, and regardless of how well we do it. C.S. Lewis wrote a nice little book on the subject of the "Universal Tao" that Clown Fish might get some benefit from, called The Abolition of Man. mike1962

CF attempts to respond:

No, I showed you how something obviously subjective, like opening doors for others, could become so deeply entrenched in the way I think and behave that my conscience is bothered when I don’t do it.

CF, you really need to stop. You just need to stop trying to come up with examples to support the absurd idea that morality is subjective because it just shows how superficial your thought is on the matter. Your conscience bothers you, CF, not because you didn't open the door for them nor do you get mad at young men for failing to open doors for others; your conscience bothers you because a basic objective moral rule is being transgressed, and that is showing respect, consideration and kindness to others. Opening doors for others is a culturally subjective custom that demonstrates one's consideration, respect and kindness towards others. If the cultural custom was to bow lower than the other person bows, that is what you, as a good moral person, would do. There are different customs in different cultures that are employed to exhibit one's compliance with the same fundamental moral rule. However, nobody has argued that we do not have deeply entrenched behaviors and preferences that we agree are 100% subjective, CF. Try and understand that. It's important that you understand this so you might be able to tackle what the argument is really about. The difference between a sane person and an insane sociopath is that sane people do not try to force their subjective personal values/preferences/habits on others no matter how strongly they feel about them. Sane people know it is wrong to force personal, subjective habits/preferences/values on others no matter how strongly you feel about them.

And how I get mad when I see young men not opening doors for others. In short, how I act as if opening doors is objectively the right thing to do.

Showing respect, consideration and kindness to others is the objectively right thing to do. Opening doors for others is one way we in our culture adhere to that objective moral rule. So, once your example is properly parsed and examined, we see that you have mistaken a culturally subjective form of expression for the objective moral rule that, in this culture, makes opening doors for others an objectively good moral habit.

If it can do this for something as trivial as opening a door,

It's just so sad that you don't even understand the moral principle behind why we open doors for others in our culture. You think it's just some morally ambiguous habit trained into you. Opening doors for others is hardly a trivial expression of the moral good.

..why would more critical and fundamental values (the ones where we disagree on whether they are objective or subjective), ones that are shared by most people, taught to us at a very young age, repeatedly reinforced through positive or negative reinforcement, not be established in a similar fashion? And, if these values are so deeply “beaten” into us from the time we are born, can they really be called personal preferences?

Are you listening to yourself? In what world is it a moral good to inflict your personal habits or values or behaviors on others simply because of how you were treated and told growing up? Does getting abused when you were young turn your later abuse of others into a moral good? Being moral is what you strive and struggle to be despite how you were raised, despite what may have been done to you when you were young. Being raised to hate people of other races doesn't make hating people of other races a moral good for anyone and you know this. For god's sake, will you say anything, no matter how horrible or absurd, to cling to the insufferably notion that morality is subjective?

Whether it is OK or not is a subjective evaluation that can often not be made until after the fact.

If it's a subjective evaluation, who cares?

We did this to end slavery and we now judge that to be “OK”.

By your reasoning, slavery is just as moral as freedom - it's just a matter of subjective views.

We did this to get women the vote and we now judge this to be “OK”. We did this to forcibly remove North American Indian children from their families to raise them as Christians, and we now judge this not to be “OK”. During WWII we expropriated land from US and Canadian citizens of Japanese descent and interred them in camps, and we now consider this to not be “OK”

Yeah. We used to consider smoking healthy. We used to think a diet heavy with red meat and dairy was healthy. We used to think that the Earth was a couple of hundred thousand years old. We used to think the sun revolved around the Earth. We used to think the universe was an eternal, "steady state" universe. It boggles my mind that you are immune to the fact that this particular defense of moral subjectivism has been thoroughly debunked several times now. Try and actually absorb this, CF: just because our understanding of a thing changes over time and varies between cultures doesn't mean that thing itself is subjective in nature.

What these all have in common is that, at the time that these things were happening, the people advocating for forcing these “personal preferences” on others thought that they were doing the morally correct thing.

So? Just because people disagree on a thing doesn't mean that thing is subjective in nature. What is it about this that you keep failing to understand? Will your confirmation bias not even allow you to see the words in bold? Do you understand it? This is really unbelievable. William J Murray

TWSYF: "Clown fish is an utter fool. His comments are mildly entertaining, but only in a sad, pitiful sort of way. Poor creature has completely lost his mind." As a serial hermaphrodite, I might now be a she. clown fish

Clown fish is an utter fool. His comments are mildly entertaining, but only in a sad, pitiful sort of way. Poor creature has completely lost his mind. Truth Will Set You Free

Vivd: "I thought they were the chocolate turtles?" Now, chocolate turtles are objectively good. Nobody can convince me otherwise. clown fish

WJM: "Yeah, it’s mind boggling. I asked him to show me a moral that isn’t based on personal preference, and he shows me a moral he says is a personal preference with a very high degree of feeling behind it." No, I showed you how something obviously subjective, like opening doors for others, could become so deeply entrenched in the way I think and behave that my conscience is bothered when I don't do it. And how I get mad when I see young men not opening doors for others. In short, how I act as if opening doors is objectively the right thing to do. If it can do this for something as trivial as opening a door, why would more critical and fundamental values (the ones where we disagree on whether they are objective or subjective), ones that are shared by most people, taught to us at a very young age, repeatedly reinforced through positive or negative reinforcement, not be established in a similar fashion? And, if these values are so deeply "beaten" into us from the time we are born, can they really be called personal preferences? "CF and zeroseven appear to be making the case that if you feel strongly enough about some subjective value due to some mixture of nature and nurture, that means it’s okay to force that value onto others whether they agree to it or not." Whether it is OK or not is a subjective evaluation that can often not be made until after the fact. We did this to end slavery and we now judge that to be "OK". We did this to get women the vote and we now judge this to be "OK". We did this to forcibly remove North American Indian children from their families to raise them as Christians, and we now judge this not to be "OK". During WWII we expropriated land from US and Canadian citizens of Japanese descent and interred them in camps, and we now consider this to not be "OK" What these all have in common is that, at the time that these things were happening, the people advocating for forcing these "personal preferences" on others thought that they were doing the morally correct thing. clown fish

Fat is a state of mind. And therefore subjective. Death and income taxes are the only things that are objective. Which is why you should always pay your VAT in full to the undertaker. Bob O'H

Bob O vividbleau – "chocolate is itself subjective. If you taste it it melts away into the ether, leaving a brown stain on your napkin." Bob thanks for clearing that up for me, I always wondered where that chocolate went. To think all this time I thought it made me fat. Vivid vividbleau

vividbleau - chocolate is itself subjective. If you taste it it melts away into the ether, leaving a brown stain on your napkin. Bob O'H

Bob O "But they’re SUBJECTIVE turtles. That makes all the difference." I thought they were the chocolate turtles? Vivid vividbleau

So, ClownFish’s argument boils down to, “it’s turtles all the way down”?

But they're SUBJECTIVE turtles. That makes all the difference. Bob O'H

WJM Or you can argue Seversky "I argue, that evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder" http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/6/C/dead8.jpg Sick Vivid vividbleau

CF and zeroseven appear to be making the case that if you feel strongly enough about some subjective value due to some mixture of nature and nurture, that means it's okay to force that value onto others whether they agree to it or not. Which begs the question, what does "strongly enough" mean if there is no objective standard for how strongly one must feel before it's okay to force those feelings on others? Well, it means whatever the individual thinks. Although CF attempts to put distance between his "strongly held" feelings and much less strongly felt preferences like for ice cream flavors, his subjectivist view that such criteria are entirely subjective renders his "but they area really, really strong feelings" objection moot. If CF wanted to, he could set the "feelings" bar at the level of favorite flavor of ice cream and force every personal whim on others and the result would be that his behavior is every bit as moral as it was before, justified simply by his setting his persnoal feeling standard lower. So, that there is a much higher degree of feeling involved in one is entirely irrelevant. You don't force what you consider to be personal, subjective values on others no matter how strongly you feel about them. Only sociopaths do that. William J Murray

So, ClownFish's argument boils down to, "it's turtles all the way down"? OldArmy94

Yeah, it's mind boggling. I asked him to show me a moral that isn't based on personal preference, and he shows me a moral he says is a personal preference with a very high degree of feeling behind it. William J Murray