Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Nonpareil]

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.

No.

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.

Which is still subjective. It is simply subject to societal opinions rather than individual ones.

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.

No, benny. That is still not what "subjective" means. "Subjective" means "not true from every point of view".

[bennyboy]

No, benny. That is still not what "subjective" means. "Subjective" means "not true from every point of view".

Unless you think my vocabulary is really that poor, you should probably consider why you need to keep repeating the obvious. As commonly used, the word refers to the agency of a sentient experiencer. You say morals are subjective because they are ideas which individuals can make on their own, and which in many cases differ from moral ideas of other.

You should be able to infer from my ability to write sentences and to put words together that I know what words mean, and that I'm attempting to engage in a philosophical discussion rather than a semantic one. I'm saying that your view of what is subjective and objective is arbitrary and ultimately not representative of reality. If I could accurately define a "soul," this wouldn't demonstrate that the idea of soul, or words used about it, mean anything that matters.

[Nonpareil]

Unless you think my vocabulary is really that poor, you should probably consider why you need to keep repeating the obvious.

Because you keep making the same mistake.

As commonly used, the word refers to the agency of a sentient experiencer.

No, benny. "Subjective" means "not true from every point of view; opinion rather than fact".

And before you go off on a tear about it meaning "having to do with the subject of something", that may be a valid alternative definition, but it has nothing to do with the conversation currently in hand, and it doesn't make your ramblings any less incoherent.

You should be able to infer from my ability to write sentences and to put words together that I know what words mean

You're certainly trying very hard to make people think otherwise.

 I'm saying that your view of what is subjective and objective is arbitrary and ultimately not representative of reality.

If that is what you have been trying to say - and you have been expressing it very poorly if it is - then you have absolutely failed to establish it.

If I could accurately define a "soul," this wouldn't demonstrate that the idea of soul, or words used about it, mean anything that matters.

And?

[bennyboy]

No, benny. "Subjective" means "not true from every point of view; opinion rather than fact".

You're begging the question. Unless you want to argue that ALL truth is intrinsically subjective, then I don't think you'll have much luck finding any dictionary that matches your definition about truth from different points of view.

You're also ignoring the question of agency-- do you think that a subjective agent has anything special that distinguishes it from the rest of the universe? If not, then what, really, is the agency which is required in order for something to be called an opinion?

If you can't define what subjective agency IS and how you identify it, then using terms which depend on the concept is pretty dodgy. I don't think you CAN define subjective agency, or explain how, without begging the question even further, you would identify it.

[Nonpareil]

No, benny. "Subjective" means "not true from every point of view; opinion rather than fact".

You're begging the question.

No, benny. That would require me making some kind of argument whose conclusion is contained in its premises. I am not doing that. I am pointing out that you do not understand what the word "subjective" means.

Unless you want to argue that ALL truth is intrinsically subjective, then I don't think you'll have much luck finding any dictionary that matches your definition about truth from different points of view.

That is what the first definition says, benny. That is what "based on opinion rather than fact" means. And this does not imply that all truth is subjective.

You really seem to have a serious problem with understanding simple words.

You're also ignoring the question of agency

No, benny. The question of agency does not enter into it. The word "subjective" does not have anything to do with the concept of agency. It simply requires that a given position be based on opinion rather than fact - that is, that it is not true from every standpoint.

[bennyboy]

No, benny. That would require me making some kind of argument whose conclusion is contained in its premises. I am not doing that. I am pointing out that you do not understand what the word "subjective" means.

Show me anywhere that subjectivity is defined in terms of variable truth. You will not.

Then, consider that this question is in the philosophy section, and discover that "subjective" has specific meanings in that context. If you actually want to engage in a discussion about whether truth can be (or maybe MUST be) subjective, then we can talk about that. But I think you just want to keep trying to explain what everyone already knows-- that "subjective" normally refers to those ideas or views which may vary among individuals, rather than those facts which are invariable despite individual views or beliefs.

No, benny. The question of agency does not enter into it. The word "subjective" does not have anything to do with the concept of agency. It simply requires that a given position be based on opinion rather than fact - that is, that it is not true from every standpoint.

What's an opinion, and how would you differentiate it from fact? How do you determine whether either of those is "true"?

I'd say an opinion is one's position on an issue which does not HAVE an objective truth value-- for example, it is my opinion that chocolate ice cream is the best, or that Abba is shit music. In order to hold this opinion, I must have the capacity to experience those things, and to compare my affect against states they produce in me. That's subjective agency. I cannot say, "In my opinion, the sky is purple," because the color of the sky has an objective truth value.

HOWEVER, unless you are asserting a mind/matter duality, 100% of my subjective experiences, and the conclusions I draw from them, are ALL objective to everything else, including other subjective agents in the universe. The subjective and objective perspectives aren't aspects of reality, but of your chosen perspective-- you must establish a context in order to use the words.

As a non-truth-related opinion, "Chocolate is the best" is my opinion, and it may be said to be true subjectively. OBJECTIVELY, given say brain scans when I eat chocolate or talk about it, you must refine your context: "It is objectively true that chocolate most stimulates those parts of the brain responsible for pleasure in bennyboy."

[Nonpareil]

Show me anywhere that subjectivity is defined in terms of variable truth.

That is what "based on opinion" means, benny. It means that it is only true if you share the same basis for making the judgment of value. "La La Land should have beaten Moonlight for Best Picture" is only true for you if you share the same opinion about what makes a movie good.

Then, consider that this question is in the philosophy section, and discover that "subjective" has specific meanings in that context.

Yes.

It means "based on opinion; not true from every perspective".

 If you actually want to engage in a discussion about whether truth can be (or maybe MUST be) subjective, then we can talk about that.

I have never said, or implied, that truth "must be" subjective. I have stated, simply and plainly, that value judgments are, by definition, subjective, and as such, "objective morality" is a contradiction in terms. You then went off on a dozen incoherent rambles using definitions of "subjective" that have nothing to do with the discussion in hand, and continually failed to understand it when this was pointed out to you.

I am beginning to suspect that you went off on a tear against my posts while under the impression that I was arguing for something entirely different.

What's an opinion, and how would you differentiate it from fact?

An opinion is a judgment of value. It is based on opinion, and is only "true" inasmuch as you may or may not share the same opinion.

A fact is a fact. It is true regardless of your opinion.

This is not complicated.

I'd say an opinion is one's position on an issue which does not HAVE an objective truth value-- for example, it is my opinion that chocolate ice cream is the best, or that Abba is shit music.

This is correct. It is, in fact, my entire point. Judgments of value - that is, opinions - are only "true" so far as you agree with them. They are not objective. They are subjective.

As a non-truth-related opinion, "Chocolate is the best" is my opinion, and it may be said to be true subjectively.  OBJECTIVELY, given say brain scans when I eat chocolate or talk about it, you must refine your context: "It is objectively true that chocolate most stimulates those parts of the brain responsible for pleasure in bennyboy."

Again, correct. This is what I have been saying. This is the distinction that I have been drawing, repeatedly and consistently, throughout this entire discussion.

I am not sure what you think that you are arguing against, at this point.

[bennyboy]

I have never said, or implied, that truth "must be" subjective. I have stated, simply and plainly, that value judgments are, by definition, subjective, and as such, "objective morality" is a contradiction in terms.

Right. That's the normal position. My position is that "value judgments" are in fact expressions of genetic predisposition, i.e. that the ideas serve the machinery underlying them, and that they are consistent enough across the population to be taken as an objective property of the human condition. You claim these are something like "culture subjective."

Maybe we can agree on something like this-- that the details of moral systems vary a lot and can be called subjective, but that the moral impulse is always rooted in the objective facts of human evolution. This explains why "morality" refers both to the moral ideas or systems, and also to the condition of being moral.

[Nonpareil]

Right.  That's the normal position.  My position is that "value judgments" are in fact expressions of genetic predisposition, i.e. that the ideas serve the machinery underlying them, and that they are consistent enough across the population to be taken as an objective property of the human condition.  You claim these are something like "culture subjective."

Because they are. What you describe is not objective morality, but consensus morality. This is not objective. It is still dependent on your opinion.

It just happens that humans are predisposed towards certain opinions. This is objective fact, but it does not make the basis for the value judgments being made any less subjective.

Maybe we can agree on something like this-- that the details of moral systems vary a lot and can be called subjective, but that the moral impulse is always rooted in the objective facts of human evolution.  This explains why "morality" refers both to the moral ideas or systems, and also to the condition of being moral.

This is correct, but, again, it is important to note that "rooted in the objective facts of human evolution" is not equivalent to "are not subjective".

[bennyboy]

Because they are. What you describe is not objective morality, but consensus morality. This is not objective. It is still dependent on your opinion.

It just happens that humans are predisposed towards certain opinions. This is objective fact, but it does not make the basis for the value judgments being made any less subjective.

Opinions themselves are the culmination of a series of physical interactions, and are not more than that. Unless you are going to argue free will or indeterminism, then you are trying to separate diametric opposites which aren't actually diametrically opposite. "Subjective" is just a word for those objective processes of which one has the capacity to be aware. You don't have control over the causal chain which leads to you manifesting particular ideas-- you are just a witness to their manifestation.

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-- and the details of moral systems represent a subjective morality.