To summarize for a newcomer to the thread.  Objective:  not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts  Subjective:  based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.  Both autonomy and utilitarianism are ontologically or foundationally derived from subjectivity and are therefore categorically subjective moralities.  Autonomy is inherently subjective in that the moral truth value of a given action is entirely up to the personal feelings, and opinions of each individual.  A statement that has been affirmed within this thread.  Utilitarianism is subjective in that it derives the moral truth value of a given action based upon maximizing well-being, and well-being is entirely determined by the personal feelings or opinions of the individual's involved.  This is also a statement that has been affirmed within this thread.  However, both autonomy and utilitarianism are inconsistent and should therefore be rejected as a reasonable explanation for the ontology of morality.

Autonomy is inconsistent with reality in that while it maintains morality is not objective, society applies moral laws objectively.  If autonomy were true then no single moral truth claim could be applied to multiple individuals as this would be inconsistent with the foundation of autonomy.  In other words, autonomy as a moral framework, prevents any universal application of a moral truth claim.  Yet, we as a society function in just the opposite way.  Society functions by universally applying moral truth claims.  Take the moral truth claim:  it is wrong to murder.  Society has establishes a law, based upon this moral truth claim, stating that murder is illegal, and that anyone who murders will be punished.  If autonomy were true, then a person who murders wouldn't be punished.  If autonomy were true, society would respond to the murderer by saying, well that's immoral for me, but moral for you, therefore we have no basis by which to punish you.  It is in this way that autonomy is inconsistent with reality and should therefore be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.

Utilitarianism is logically inconsistent.  Utilitarianism determines the moral truth value of a given action based solely upon whether or not the action maximizes well-being, and well-being is ultimately subject to an individual's opinions and preferences.  Therefore the foundation or origin of morality within the utilitarian framework is subjective.  The foundation of utilitarian morality is at it's essence one single moral rule:  Do what maximizes well-being.  Any action concurring with this rule is moral, and any action contradicting the rule is immoral.  Functioning within utilitarianism however, requires applying the moral rule universally and thus subjecting every individual to it.  Therein lies the inconsistency.  If something is applied universally it is no longer subject to an individual's feelings or opinions and is therefore no longer subjective.  This is a category mistake.  Because utilitarianism derives it's moral truth values subjectively but functions objectively it makes a category mistake.  Therefore, because utilitarianism is logically inconsistent it should be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.

So what about God?  Isn't He a person?  Isn't His asserted morality subjective in that His morality is derived from His personal feelings or opinions?  If God is a person and He determines morality then isn't morality subjective after all?  Is the Christian moral framework logically inconsistent as well?  These are common objections that demand an answer.  In Christianity, the moral truth value of a given action is determined not by God's personal feelings or opinions but by His inherent nature.  This is why Christians can consistently claim that morality is objective.  Morality is determined as an extension or expression of God's eternal nature, it is not determined by His personal feelings or opinions.  Therefore it is by definition objective.  From our perspective, it is also objective in that it is determined outside of mankind's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and is therefore universally applicable to us.  Between utilitarianism, autonomy, and Christianity, only Christianity can provide a logically consistent framework of morality, and thus a reasonable ontology of morality.

ugh.... had a whole post typed out to you Rob, and lost it when I went to preview... Will see if I can get to it tomorrow. 

Seems like I have a few glitches with this forum (mostly return not working correctly when typing posts, but occasional crashes).   I'm trying firefox now, had tried Edge, IE, and Chrome before.   Is there a browser that works better for this forum?

Oh dear, sorry to hear that!

If you're doing a big old post, I'd advise writing it out first in an offline program like Word, saving it and then copying it over. Easy for me to say, I've had the same thing happen to me of course!

I use chrome and it's generally OK.

@ Rob

Yay! I use Chrome too. Let us be Chrome buddies

I just made a video response to Orangebox's reply, which I've put in hide tags below. Everyone else is of course welcome to comment on my vid, as with my video responses to Roadrunner on the previous page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ46w6J10GI

(February 3, 2016 at 4:08 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Utilitarianism is logically inconsistent.  Utilitarianism determines the moral truth value of a given action based solely upon whether or not the action maximizes well-being, and well-being is ultimately subject to an individual's opinions and preferences.  Therefore the foundation or origin of morality within the utilitarian framework is subjective.  The foundation of utilitarian morality is at it's essence one single moral rule:  Do what maximizes well-being.  Any action concurring with this rule is moral, and any action contradicting the rule is immoral.  Functioning within utilitarianism however, requires applying the moral rule universally and thus subjecting every individual to it.  Therein lies the inconsistency.  If something is applied universally it is no longer subject to an individual's feelings or opinions and is therefore no longer subjective.  This is a category mistake.  Because utilitarianism derives it's moral truth values subjectively but functions objectively it makes a category mistake.  Therefore, because utilitarianism is logically inconsistent it should be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.

Moral utilitarianism will not become what you wish for it to be no matter how many times you pitch this straw. Moral utilitarianism, like all moral systems (including your own) have strengths and weaknesses. Thy all have problems. You, however, have consistently failed to identify those problems in -any- case...either the problems of a competing moral system, or the problems of your own. For all the world, you appear to be completely incapable of engaging in a discussion regarding this subject by any means other than constant reassertion of your religious beliefs and an unwavering refusal to accept those corrections others give you regarding their own positions, or even those things that 2 minutes spent with google would iron out for you.

Quote:So what about God?  Isn't He a person?

No?

Quote: Isn't His asserted morality subjective in that His morality is derived from His personal feelings or opinions? 

Technically it's derived from your feelings and opinions, but let's run with it.....

Quote:If God is a person and He determines morality then isn't morality subjective after all?

It would be, if god were a person, but he isn't. In the absence of that we have only you, a person, -purporting- to inform us of the morality of a god.

Quote:Is the Christian moral framework logically inconsistent as well?  

Not on those grounds, nope. The logical inconsistencies of a christian moral framework have nothing to do with it;s claimed objectivity. Rational people don't factor fairy tales into their assessments of competing moral systems.

Quote:These are common objections that demand an answer.  In Christianity, the moral truth value of a given action is determined not by God's personal feelings or opinions but by His inherent nature.  This is why Christians can consistently claim that morality is objective.  Morality is determined as an extension or expression of God's eternal nature, it is not determined by His personal feelings or opinions.  Therefore it is by definition objective.  From our perspective, it is also objective in that it is determined outside of mankind's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and is therefore universally applicable to us. 

Christians can claim alot of things.  We know that you claim things, but let me suggest that this bag is already filled to the brim and really wouldn't stand to profit from yet another addition.  Where you have trouble, is demonstration.......  

Quote:Between utilitarianism, autonomy, and Christianity, only Christianity can provide a logically consistent framework of morality, and thus a reasonable ontology of morality.

.....case in point.  Big claim, no demonstration thereof. You wasted alot of words to play out your own internal arguments, I think. -Any- moral systems can be made to be logically consistent. It's a simple matter of definition. You and I both would take a look at many those shitty systems, and their shitty definitions...and say "I'll pass". You desperately wish for there to be a need for your religious horseshit..some place to plug it into your life. Some place where there's simply no alternative. There isn't.

If it's important to pick a "moral system" that never changes, why pick god's character? Why not roll some dice to pick your morals, and then all Christians use those? At least you'd all agree then, as well.

And of course, there's the problem that God is a horrific arse hole. He describes himself as such in his own propaganda.

I get the feeling people want it to be the case that if you do what God desires, that's somehow automatically what's best for us. This has never been even vaguely demonstrated. And unless you have a separate standard of what actually is good for us to compare it to, you're just flying blind. You don't know if you're bowing down to an angel or a demon.

It comes down to what your goal of morality is. Mine is, above all, wellbeing. If someone else has a different goal I'm happy to hear it, along with why that goal is preferable.

And why is it desirable to refuse to ever change your morality, based on new experiences and evidence?

Even if utal/auto were shown to be "inconsistent", that doesn't automatically leave Christian doctrine as the only alternative either.

(February 2, 2016 at 10:55 am)robvalue Wrote:

---

So I made a video response to all of RRs points over the last couple of pages. I think there is a massive confusion of what terms mean. It's in two parts.

http://youtu.be/bjcjWr23EW0

http://youtu.be/-41jGxs1nCE

---

First, my apologies for the delay.  I've been sick for weeks, and haven't gotten online much.  Also, to note, I find that videos, unless really well done to be horrid.  (I suppose for some that may make them immoral).  The jitteriness, reading responses, it all takes away from what you have to say.  It also takes 20 minutes, to go through what would take a couple in text, and it is more difficult to respond to a video.  But poor format, doesn't effect the arguments.

From what I can tell, you have offered just about all the arguments against an objective morality, and I don't think that you have attempted to tie them together in a coherent fashion.   It really seems as if it is just anything but objective reality.    Some of these may even qualify as objective, just an alternative to a transcendent cause.  I have seen moral nihilism presented, and argument from biology, subjectivism, and social consensus.  It would seem that you need to pick one of these, or tie them together in some kind of sensible fashion as to what your basis for morality is.

Secondly; I have seen two main arguments from you. That there is disagreement on morality, and that we are unable to test or measure morality in a way similar to mass, to come to a consistent conclusion. However both of these depend on knowledge, and has no foundation in whether morality is subjective or objective (based within the subject, or external and applying the same to all.) I have already covered how physical tests comparison is a category mistake. It would be as improper as demanding a physics test to see if something is objective or not. You are not free to make up your own logic, and the question is if morality is similar. (Logic is another transcendental which provides difficulty to account for from a materialistic perspective). So, on to disagreement, or dis-similar opinions on what qualifies as moral. Disagreement does not equate to subjectivism. It can mean that the answer is not entirely clear, or that people do not want to accept it as reality, or that there is simply a lack of knowledge. There are disagreements in evolution studies, it does not mean that the answer is subjective, and contradicting ideas, are both correct.

I would also point out here, that subjectivism in regards to say reporting is slightly different than what I am talking about. In this case, when we speak of someone being objective, we are saying, that they are only giving the facts, without personal opinion. That they are not giving an interpretation. In this manner, most of common descent evolution is subjective. Just the objective facts, don't necessarily give you evolution. And that is fine. But it does not mean that there isn't an objective answer to if this type of evolution occurred to be discovered and verified as either true or false.

You also pointed to morality being a judgement call. I don't disagree. And this doesn't make it subjective. In fact, I would say that judgment makes it objective. There isn't a judgement if it is based on yourself, and may be completely different for someone else. I do believe that we are judging if an act has the qualities which are equal to being moral (or right or how one ought to behave). It's not based on my preferences. There are times, where what I desire, may be immoral. The fact, that you may struggle with morality means that your preferences are not the basis. It's not based on pragmatism or well being (both would be objective by the way). Stealing from my employer who has a lot of money, provides greater well being for me, and especially if he is unaware, barely effects him. Yet this is immoral. Similarly the person who attempts to trip me and fails is considered immoral, yet the person who does trip me by accident is not (this goes against pragmatism). And even basing it on an evolutionary disposition is difficult, as self sacrifice is normally considered a moral characteristic. Yet it provides greater survive-ability to the one who is receiving or is greedy.

I don't see where your or my judgement on morality is based on something particular to ourselves. And we act as if it is not. We act as if there is an objective reality, to which we ought to uphold. Even in this thread, I have seen you doing this. So are your actions, and your beliefs incoherent? Even if we disagree on particulars in some circumstances, why does our sense of morality agree in most circumstances. Do you think that throwing babies into a wood chipper for the pleasure of it, can ever be moral for anyone based on the subject?

It doesn't -matter- whether or not Rob, or anyone else..thinks that throwing a baby in a wood chipper can be moral.  He will only be reasserting his subjective moral opinion.  That others consistently have and will -continue- to see things he sees as immoral, possibly even throwing babies in wood chippers, stranger things have happened, -as moral-.... is the very meaning of subjective morality.

Acknowledging that others agree or do not agree, or comparing two moral systems to decide which a person sees as superior, doesn't even -approach- an objective morality, and it's patently ridiculous for you to claim that people who have repeatedly stated that their morality is subjective act as though it is objective. How do they do that, praytell, while explicitly and repeatedly acknowledging that it isn't? Incoherence indeed......

Your example of stealing from your employer is conveniently simple and entirely non-representative of utilitarianism. Does it benefit society to be arranged such that theft is okay? No it does not. If it's "okay" for you to steal from your employer on the grounds you offered, it's "okay" for someone poorer than yourself to steal from you...and there will always be someone poorer in the chain..a never-ending trail of legitimized theft and harm. Well being, the greatest common good, has gone out of the window entirely in your example.

Hi RR, thanks for your reply. I'm sorry you've been sick, I hope you feel better.

I thought a video reply would make a more interesting and digestible response. Clearly in your case, I misjudged so I apologize. I wonder if anyone else has any feedback about whether my video was useful or just plain inferior to a text response? I'm genuinely interested. If it's bad, I want to know. If I could alter the format, any feedback is welcome.

I can't make a lot of sense of what you're saying. You seem to agree that morality is a judgement call, agree everyone makes different judgement calls, but then start calling it all objective. That doesn't seem in any way accurate or useful. If you didn't properly take in what my video said, then I don't really feel like repeating it all in text version.

I just can't understand your arguments I'm afraid. I don't know what you're driving at, or why. The idea that we behave "as if" there's an objective morality is blatantly false. Even if we agreed on a principle like "improve wellbeing", then how we apply that principle is entirely subjective. Wellbeing is not a simple, well-defined concept. We all decide what we think is best, and we don't agree. I wildly disagree with several things that society as a whole finds acceptable. Overlap, also, is not uniformity. Overlap is easily explained by evolution. Basically, you're agreeing with what I say about morality, and then calling it something else. To what end, I don't know.

If morality is not what individuals feel, then I don't know what you think it is or how it can apply independent of a particular observer. Objectly measuring outcomes can be done. Objectively interpreting those outcomes, without any agreed criteria or viewpoint, cannot be done. I notice you are still leaving God out of all this. Would you care to bring him in? Or do you agree with me that he is irrelevant to morality, even if he exists?

Here are my videos for reference, if anyone wants to give feedback. I enjoy doing them and I'd like to improve! I won't be offended by constructive criticism. You can read along to what I'm responding to from RR on pages 14 onwards of this thread.

http://youtu.be/bjcjWr23EW0

http://youtu.be/-41jGxs1nCE