Danger of Subjective Morality - Oversimplification

Though all subjective, some morality is closer to objective than others

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• objective
• subjective
• morality
• philosophy

[BionicDance]

I don't object to your basic premise.

Originally, I started addressing morality specifically because religious people insist that morals are imposed from without rather than from minds, claiming it was objective. I'm perfectly comfortable with morality being subjective, yet following it ANYWAY. I just object to those who cannot accept that it IS subjective.

[TheDentist27]

@BionicDance the argument at this point is down to the definition of the terms. According to your definition of objective, that is something true regardless of opinion, nothing is objective without an assumption, except existence. To accept an assumption is the same as accepting an opinion.

When most other non-religious people use the word "objective" , is re-defined as "a really really true statement of fact". And you say "but that's a subjective opinion" and you're right, by your definition.

[BionicDance]

@TheDentist27 No, there I disagree...we cannot legitimately CALL something objective because we have to view the world through our imperfect senses, but that does not mean that there are no things which are objective. The universe is not contingent upon our ability to perceive it, and the objective exists both without our consent or knowledge.

But you're right: I AM correct by my definition...it's just most of the people I'm arguing with won't discuss it in those terms, preferring their own.

[TheDentist27]

@BionicDance while we cannot legitimately call something objective (other than existence), and that does not mean that there are no things which are objective, it also does not mean that there are things (beyond existence) that are objective. Anything objective existing beyond existence is a maybe.

Moving onto why people use their definition of objective... it's for the same reason that we use the word "know". It's never quite accurate, but it serves a function. Perhaps our language needs work

[BionicDance]

@TheDentist27 I don't think that "existing beyond existence" in any objective sense is a meaningful concept.

And our language DOES need work. "Objective" is often used to gain false legitimacy for subjective claims, which is why I object to its use.

[TheDentist27]

@BionicDance the meaning of anything objective existing beyond existence, or not, is found in an understanding of the fact that we do not know if anything objectively exists, (other than existence existing) and we do not know if nothing objectively exists (other than existence). Other than existence, we just don't know - it's a maybe. This is a meaningful concept for our understanding the basis of reality.

[2Jax]

It's not acting on an assumtion if all other permises are based on speculation. e.g. we might be plugged into a computer like in the matrix but without any evidence for this it is just speculation and therefore equals zero on a scale of probability.

We can test our senses to show that our senses take information about objects we can't control with our minds. e.g. the ball is green and I can't think it red. So we find an example of our mind's limitations and so we find a sense of self.

[jjjohn]

but isn't objective an absolute? If some are more objective than others, it implies the moral idea in question isn't fully objective, and thus is subjective. objectivity is an all or nothing game