Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Nonpareil]

Opinions themselves are the culmination of a series of physical interactions, and are not more than that.

Yes.

Unless you are going to argue free will or indeterminism, then you are trying to separate diametric opposites which aren't actually diametrically opposite.

No.

"Subjective" is just a word for those objective processes of which one has the capacity to be aware.

No, benny. We just discussed this. That is not what "subjective" means.

In the search for the ultimate source of morality, it will easily be seen that it is not only arbitrary-- it is not even MOSTLY arbitrary.  This can be seen by looking for moral behaviors in worms, in lizards, in birds, in higher mammals.  You can clearly see that the motives for moral ideology are more apparent in mammals, and in apes in particular.  The love of self and others, guilt, social fears, and so on are ingrained in us.  That they manifest in different sets of rules means that those moral rules (called "morality") are highly subjective  That they are omnipresent in humanity, and that all human societies have moral rules of some type, means that the moral impulse (also called "morality" but holding a different meaning), are intrinsic to the species.

That other apes also show at least some signs of the same impulses shows that they developed before humans did; research shows that chimps and gorillas have a sense of right and wrong and of fairness, for example.  Our instincts as social animals, therefore, represent an objective morality

No, benny. They represent a consensus morality, which is still subjective, because it is still only considered valid if you share the same opinion on what is right and wrong.

[bennyboy]

No, benny. We just discussed this. That is not what "subjective" means.

Whatever. It is not for you to define the term. "Subjective" does not mean "true if you agree with it." I guess we can go to a couple dictionaries and actually look at the word, but I don't think this discussion is likely to go anywhere interesting.

Start here, understand what it says, and then get back to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

[Nonpareil]

No, benny. We just discussed this. That is not what "subjective" means.

Whatever.  It is not for you to define the term.

I'm not, benny. I'm telling you what the dictionary definition of "subjective" is.

It is not "something that is perceived".

Start here, understand what it says, and then get back to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

[bennyboy]

Okay. I talked before about the subjective agency which establishes a limited context in which SOME things can be said to be true: "It is true that I like chocolate better than strawberry ice cream." Opinions are not subjective truths in any sense more than that. But none of this changes the fact that humans are moral animals and worms are not, and that this is because of a genetic inheritance that predates, and therefore is objective to, the individual (or even plural/cultural) existence of human beings.

But I more recently distinguished between two definitions of "morality" that I felt could put this conversation to bed.
1) A system of ideas about what represents right or wrong, and about behaviors which represent them.
2) The capacity or tendency to have a sense of right or wrong, and the motivation to act accordingly.

The former, which I think you are talking about when you talk about opinions being variably true or not true, is most usefully described in subjective terms.
The latter, which is ingrained in us at a genetic level, and which has been studied in animals not capable of forming linguistic ideas or holding "opinions," is most usefully described in objective terms.

I would still argue that the former is also more accurately described as objective, but I can also see that it is pragmatic in talking about our experience of subjective agency to see people as active agents, rather than passive observers of brain function that isn't actually under our control.

[Nonpareil]

Okay.  I talked before about the subjective agency which establishes a limited context in which SOME things can be said to be true: "It is true that I like chocolate better than strawberry ice cream."  Opinions are not subjective truths in any sense more than that.

This is correct.

But none of this changes the fact that humans are moral animals and worms are not, and that this is because of a genetic inheritance that predates, and therefore is objective to

No, benny. That is still not what "objective" means.

But I more recently distinguished between two definitions of "morality" that I felt could put this conversation to bed.
1)  A system of ideas about what represents right or wrong, and about behaviors which represent them.
2)  The capacity or tendency to have a sense of right or wrong, and the motivation to act accordingly.

The former, which I think you are talking about when you talk about opinions being variably true or not true, is most usefully described in subjective terms.

Yes. That is what this entire thread about the existence of objective morality has been discussing.

No one disputes that people have moral opinions and act upon them.

The latter, which is ingrained in us at a genetic level, and which has been studied in animals not capable of forming linguistic ideas or holding "opinions," is most usefully described in objective terms.

Perhaps, depending on what it is that you wish to say about it.

It still does not establish that the claims made by moral systems are anything other than subjective.

I would still argue that the former is also more accurately described as objective, but I can also see that it is pragmatic in talking about our experience of subjective agency to see people as active agents, rather than passive observers of brain function that isn't actually under our control.

You keep trying to rope "agency" into this when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Stop it. You are only confusing yourself further.

[Angrboda]

Okay.  I talked before about the subjective agency which establishes a limited context in which SOME things can be said to be true: "It is true that I like chocolate better than strawberry ice cream."  Opinions are not subjective truths in any sense more than that.  But none of this changes the fact that humans are moral animals and worms are not, and that this is because of a genetic inheritance that predates, and therefore is objective to, the individual (or even plural/cultural) existence of human beings.

It's true that humans are moral animals because of our DNA, however our DNA does not constitute a moral system in the same sense that the design of an automobile does not constitute a car. Thus if DNA is objective or not is irrelevant.

But I more recently distinguished between two definitions of "morality" that I felt could put this conversation to bed.
1)  A system of ideas about what represents right or wrong, and about behaviors which represent them.
2)  The capacity or tendency to have a sense of right or wrong, and the motivation to act accordingly.

The former, which I think you are talking about when you talk about opinions being variably true or not true, is most usefully described in subjective terms.
The latter, which is ingrained in us at a genetic level, and which has been studied in animals not capable of forming linguistic ideas or holding "opinions," is most usefully described in objective terms.

No. The brain functions which comprise the thoughts of morality are still subjective, whether they're viewed in terms of blood flow and fMRIs or not because they are the thoughts and opinions of a subject, just viewed in a different form. You don't get from subjectivity to objectivity simply by changing viewpoint; objectivity means you are completely outside the loop of internal mental events, whether they are viewed as blood flow or as thoughts. Perhaps you mean the latter is most usefully described third person, but that's not the same as objectively.

I would still argue that the former is also more accurately described as objective, but I can also see that it is pragmatic in talking about our experience of subjective agency to see people as active agents, rather than passive observers of brain function that isn't actually under our control.

And I would argue that you're still confused about the meaning of objective.

[bennyboy]

It's true that humans are moral animals because of our DNA, however our DNA does not constitute a moral system in the same sense that the design of an automobile does not constitute a car.  Thus if DNA is objective or not is irrelevant.  

But I more recently distinguished between two definitions of "morality" that I felt could put this conversation to bed.
1)  A system of ideas about what represents right or wrong, and about behaviors which represent them.
2)  The capacity or tendency to have a sense of right or wrong, and the motivation to act accordingly.

The former, which I think you are talking about when you talk about opinions being variably true or not true, is most usefully described in subjective terms.
The latter, which is ingrained in us at a genetic level, and which has been studied in animals not capable of forming linguistic ideas or holding "opinions," is most usefully described in objective terms.

No.  The brain functions which comprise the thoughts of morality are still subjective, whether they're viewed in terms of blood flow and fMRIs or not because they are the thoughts and opinions of a subject, just viewed in a different form.  You don't get from subjectivity to objectivity simply by changing viewpoint; objectivity means you are completely outside the loop of internal mental events, whether they are viewed as blood flow or as thoughts.  Perhaps you mean the latter is most usefully described third person, but that's not the same as objectively.

Well, let's assume that most people are both intrinsically moral (i.e. they have the capacity to act on a sense of right and wrong) and have moral ideas (they creatively apply concepts of right or wrong to their cultures, their life experiences and so on). I don't think anyone would argue that specific moral ideas and systems are not subjective in the sense that they come from subjective consideration of one's feelings and one's environment, including cultural ideas one is immersed in. But what about morality as a capacity to form and act on ideas about right or wrong? I'd say this is a more essential definition, and that it is very much an objective property of humans and maybe some animals.

Take a sociopath whose condition is based on brain damage. He is still capable of understanding moral ideas in a pedantic sense, but he is much less likely than others to act on them. This demonstrates to me that morality, and I use this in the sense of the capacity and tendency to ACT on moral ideas rather then simply to understand them (or even form them), is a matter of brain function, but not only of cognitive brain function.

All healthy humans will have a moral sense, no matter what culture they are in. Some unhealthy humans will fail to act according to moral ideas, because they lack the mechanism for moral motivation. The capacity to act morally is therefore more physical than it is mental (read: subjective), though in 100% of cases, and very much by definition, those behaviors will always be mediated by the subjective flow of feelings and ideas. The ideas are not the essence of morality, rather they are the subjective expression OF morality.

---

You keep trying to rope "agency" into this when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Stop it. You are only confusing yourself further.

I might have to stop responding to you, only because your condescending tone reduces my enjoyment of the discussion, and enjoyment is why I spend time on these forums. Please stop it, or be ignored.

"Agency" has a lot to do with ideas and with actions, and has plenty to do with the subject at hand. If you don't think that to be the case, then you'll have to define your terms more clearly. What does "subjective" mean to you? By what criteria do you judge something to be subjective? How do you identify that which is subjective in the real world?

[Angrboda]

The ideas are not the essence of morality, rather they are the subjective expression OF morality.

This is just playing with words. Morals are a product of brain activity so yes the ideas are the essence of it.

[bennyboy]

The ideas are not the essence of morality, rather they are the subjective expression OF morality.

This is just playing with words.  Morals are a product of brain activity so yes the ideas are the essence of it.

My point is that while specific moral ideas are mediated by personal and cultural differences, the tendency to formulate and act on moral ideas is intrinsic to the species.  It is so predominant that it represents an objective reality, no less than humans having 10 fingers and toes and so on.

[Nonpareil]

What does "subjective" mean to you?  By what criteria do you judge something to be subjective?  How do you identify that which is subjective in the real world?

I have spent the entire discussion thus far explaining to you, repeatedly, clearly, and simply, what "subjective" and "objective" mean. I have gone so far as to directly link you to the search results necessary to find the definitions in question, and even posted screenshots of those definitions for you to view directly.

"Subjective" means "a matter of opinion; not true from every point of view".

"Objective" means "a matter of fact; true from every point of view".

I am not using some sort of arcane, unrecognized, difficult to understand alternative definition for either term. Nor am I failing to state it clearly.

This is not me attempting to condescend to you. This is just a statement of fact.

These words have simple definitions, and you are using them incorrectly.