Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Nonpareil]

You could say that one individual's ideas about morality are subjective TO HIM, but the cultural or species-wide mores are not.

But they are still subjective.

It just happens that the viewpoint they are subject to is that of the culture or species.

[bennyboy]

You could say that one individual's ideas about morality are subjective TO HIM, but the cultural or species-wide mores are not.

But they are still subjective.

It just happens that the viewpoint they are subject to is that of the culture or species.

Sure, they're subjective in the sense that they are experienced as ideas by people.  They're also objective-- they are the outcome of a physical system, starting with the Big Bang, moving through the evolution of life, the evolution of the human brain, the expression of DNA in individual members of the species, the physical interactions between their brains and the environment and so on. It's all just part of the big machine called the Universe, n'est ce pas?

"Subject" and "object" are only diametrically opposed in a particular relationship.  If I'm looking at a bird, that bird is the object which I subjectively experience; that bird has (I believe) an objective reality-- it simply is what it is.  At the same time, the bird is eyeing a juicy worm: it's having a subjective experience about its object, the worm.  So is the bird's existence subjective or objective?  Given that the bird isn't a philosophical zombie, then it's clearly both.

If I consider the moral ideas of other people, those are objective-- they are what they are, essentially written in stone-- either in the laws of the land or in the behaviors of its citizens.  I can (perfectly objectively) say that most people in country X think Y, and that most people in another country think Z.  I can tabulate data, dig through texts and do statistical analyses on them, I can do surveys, and so on.

[SuperSentient]

But they are still subjective.

It just happens that the viewpoint they are subject to is that of the culture or species.

Sure, they're subjective in the sense that they are experienced as ideas by people.  They're also objective-- they are the outcome of a physical system, starting with the Big Bang, moving through the evolution of life, the evolution of the human brain, the expression of DNA in individual members of the species, the physical interactions between their brains and the environment and so on.  It's all just part of the big machine called the Universe, n'est ce pas?

"Subject" and "object" are only diametrically opposed in a particular relationship.  If I'm looking at a bird, that bird is the object which I subjectively experience; that bird has (I believe) an objective reality-- it simply is what it is.  At the same time, the bird is eyeing a juicy worm: it's having a subjective experience about its object, the worm.  So is the bird's existence subjective or objective?  Given that the bird isn't a philosophical zombie, then it's clearly both.

If I consider the moral ideas of other people, those are objective-- they are what they are, essentially written in stone-- either in the laws of the land or in the behaviors of its citizens.  I can (perfectly objectively) say that most people in country X think Y, and that most people in another country think Z.  I can tabulate data, dig through texts and do statistical analyses on them, I can do surveys, and so on.

There is a difference between subjective and objective truths, as it was already shown here.

[bennyboy]

There is a difference between subjective and objective truths, as it was already shown here.

Okay, so what is subjectively true, except what it's like to experience. Is there a moral idea which is subjectively true but not objectively true?

[Nonpareil]

Sure, they're subjective in the sense that they are experienced as ideas by people.

No, benny. That is not what "subjective" means.

They're also objective-- they are the outcome of a physical system

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

"Subject" and "object" are only diametrically opposed in a particular relationship.  If I'm looking at a bird, that bird is the object which I subjectively experience; that bird has (I believe) an objective reality-- it simply is what it is.  At the same time, the bird is eyeing a juicy worm: it's having a subjective experience about its object, the worm.  So is the bird's existence subjective or objective?  Given that the bird isn't a philosophical zombie, then it's clearly both.

No, benny. The bird has objective existence, and it is objectively true that it is thinking that the worm looks delicious. The bird's opinion that the worm looks delicious, however, is subjective, because not everyone likes the taste of worms.

If I consider the moral ideas of other people, those are objective-- they are what they are, essentially written in stone-- either in the laws of the land or in the behaviors of its citizens.  I can (perfectly objectively) say that most people in country X think Y, and that most people in another country think Z.  I can tabulate data, dig through texts and do statistical analyses on them, I can do surveys, and so on.

Yes, benny. Because it is objectively true that people have opinions. But those moral ideas are only subjectively true, because whether or not you agree with them depends on whether or not you share the same opinions.

This is not complicated.

---

There is a difference between subjective and objective truths, as it was already shown here.

Okay, so what is subjectively true, except what it's like to experience.

Value claims. Whether or not they are true depends on whether or not you share the same opinions on what is valuable.

This includes moral systems, as well as things like opinions on which movies are good and which flavor of ice cream is most delicious.

Is there a moral idea which is subjectively true but not objectively true?

All moral ideas. They are value claims.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Value claims. Whether or not they are true depends on whether or not you share the same opinions on what is valuable.

Are some physical objects better instances of a triangle than others? Is that just a subjective opinion or can such a judgement be made objectively?

[Nonpareil]

Value claims. Whether or not they are true depends on whether or not you share the same opinions on what is valuable.

Are some physical objects better instances of a triangle than others?

That depends on what you mean by "better".

If you simply mean that some objects meet the definition of "triangle" and others do not, then yes. This is not a value claim. Nor is it subjective. It is a simple matter of definition.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are some physical objects better instances of a triangle than others?

That depends on what you mean by "better".

If you simply mean that some objects meet the definition of "triangle" and others do not, then yes. This is not a value claim. Nor is it subjective. It is a simple matter of definition.

That is because it means something to be a triangle. The realist position is that triangles in some way actually exist, as mathematical objects. The question, and one that is certainly open to debate, is whether that idea can be extended. Does it mean something to be a chair? After all a chair with a broken leg is a much worse chair than one that is not broken. That seems like a pretty objective way to evaluate the 'value' of a chair. What about living things? Does it mean something to be a cat? Is a healthy Burmese tiger a better example of a cat than a one-eyed, three-legged alley cat with the mange? Cats are objects. To evaluate their degree of "catness" seems like a fairly reasonable undertaking. Hmmmm...interesting question, yes?

[Nonpareil]

Does it mean something to be a chair?

I only point this sentence out because it indicates a slightly confused position on your part. You are starting to mix the definition of an object with subjective claims of an entity's worth based on how closely it adheres to that definition. This doesn't actually change anything about the rest of my response, but is worth pointing out regardless, because it might clear things up down the road.

After all a chair with a broken leg is a much worse chair than one that is not broken. That seems like a pretty objective way to evaluate the 'value' of a chair.

No. Assuming that an entity, regardless of how many legs are broken or not, or how comfortable it is to sit in, meets you definition of "chair", all claims of one chair being "better" than another are subjective. They all require you the same basis for judgment of worth - in this case, whether or not it stands upright.

What about living things? Does it mean something to be a cat?

Yes. It means "to be a member of one of the species collectively referred to as 'cats'".

Is a healthy Burmese tiger a better example of a cat than a one-eyed, three-legged alley cat with the mange?

Depending on your subjective basis for evaluating which cat is "better", perhaps.

Cats are objects. To evaluate their degree of "catness" seems like a fairly reasonable undertaking. Hmmmm...interesting question, yes?

Not particularly, no.

[bennyboy]

Value claims. Whether or not they are true depends on whether or not you share the same opinions on what is valuable.

The problem is that you are conflating an idea with physical reality. The agency of the self, and all that implies-- free will, and an "opinion" that is more than a mechanical brain state-- is itself an idea. The physical reality is that humans are hard-wired to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways, and that if you consider populations as a whole, you get a statistical truth that is no less objective than observations about the desk in front of you.

A "value claim" at its utterance surely seems like a private and individual thing. But that's an illusion. It is in fact the deterministic outcome of processes that began exclusively before and beyond the individual brain. You can no more isolate that particular physical state and process than you can claim that a wave is unique to the ocean on which it supervenes.

"Subjective" isn't a word for "of the self, apart from the Universe," unless you are positing a soul. "Subjective" means only that someone has some experience of a particular physical state.