morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Edwardo Piet]

It's as objective as science. All the arguments made against a science of morality can be made against a science of health.

And no, it's ontological objectivity that is absurd. The idea that morals exist "out there"... apart from our subjectivity. But epistemic objective morality makes sense. The idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what we all value and care about: i.e. well being and suffering. That's analogous to the idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what's good and bad for our health.

---

Also, I can test for the existence of something (harm), but assigning en emotional value to it is what makes it subjective.

Ontologically subjective, but still epistemically objective.

 I can objectively say that oxygen molecules exist.  Adding that Oxygen is good because mammals breath it, is subjective.

It's an epistemically objective fact that oxygen is good for the ontological subjectivity of all mammals.

[Neo-Scholastic]

But epistemic objective morality makes sense.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying you know all about something that doesn't exist.

[brewer]

---

Of course you do. It gives you the perfect excuse for your behavior. Why even try to change?

You just completely ignored my arguments, quoted me out of context and conflated determinism with fatalism. Congratulations.

I don't care. Your arguments are invalid to me. Nope, didn't conflate. You believe that preceding events caused you to be who you are, not that all things are set. You can't change the past and causal events dictate, therefore you can't change.

[Edwardo Piet]

But epistemic objective morality makes sense.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying you know all about something that doesn't exist.

You've already said that before and I've already answered it before:

So you don't think it exist but you still know all about it. That doesn't even make sense.

I don't think what exist? What you said didn't even make sense.

Truth is different to existence... "2+2= 4" is true without there having to be an object that 'exists'...

---

I don't care. Your arguments are invalid to me.

The fact you consider my arguments invalid to you personally is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether my conclusions are actually true.

Nope, didn't conflate

Yes you did. You asked me why I would bother to change if there's no free will. That's fatalism; not determinism. You conflated the two.

You don't even understand the difference between the two things you are conflating. Which is exactly why you are conflating them.

You believe that preceding events caused you to be who you are, not that all things are set. You can't change the past and causal events dictate, therefore you can't change.

Of course I can and do change. My motives are part of the causal stream that bring about changes in me.

You believe in the silly hocus pocus idea that our actions are "independent of" causality. You may as well believe in immaterial souls and magic.

[Aroura]

It's as objective as science. All the arguments made against a science of morality can be made against a science of health.

And no, it's ontological objectivity that is absurd. The idea that morals exist "out there"... apart from our subjectivity. But epistemic objective morality makes sense. The idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what we all value and care about: i.e. well being and suffering. That's analogous to the idea that there are right and wrong answers in principle to increasing and decreasing what's good and bad for our health.

---

Also, I can test for the existence of something (harm), but assigning en emotional value to it is what makes it subjective.

Ontologically subjective, but still epistemically objective.

 I can objectively say that oxygen molecules exist.  Adding that Oxygen is good because mammals breath it, is subjective.

It's an epistemically objective fact that oxygen is good for the ontological subjectivity of all mammals.

I don't know.  I dislike using the word "good" here, I would say necessary.  Oxygen is necessary for the existence of the animal.  But saying it is good, means that the existence of the animal is "good" for the animal, and I know you would debate that point, as you have claimed you are an anti-natalist.

Good implies that the existence of the animals has an objective quality of goodness, but good is an entirely subjective term in the first place.

This appears to much like the supposed conundrum that a doctor cannot determine your pain. But much like a physician saying that your back hurts, the hurt objectively exists.  The doctor can detect the damage that causes your pain.  The quality of the pain is subjective, though, and must be left to the person experiencing it to relay, the doctor cannot objectively tell you what that is.  This is the subjective part, just like with morality/harm/suffering.

The damage/harm is quantitative, measurable.  The suffering/morality we assign it is qualitative; different people or groups of people might assign different suffering/moral values to the same measured damage/harm.  

As far as I can tell, epistemology is irrelevant here.

p.s. I agree many people conflate fatalism with determinism.  We are more than rocks, and even rocks change over time.  We have desires, and can act in accordance with those desires.  But as you've pointed out, having desires and being able to fullfill them do not = free-will.  Compatibilism is silly.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Truth is different to existence... "2+2= 4" is true without there having to be an object that 'exists'...

Just as I thought: magic.

[brewer]

---

I don't care. Your arguments are invalid to me.

The fact you consider my arguments invalid to you personally is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether my conclusions are actually true.

Nope, didn't conflate

Yes you did. You asked me why I would bother to change if there's no free will. That's fatalism; not determinism. You conflated the two.

You don't even understand the difference between the two things you are conflating. Which is exactly why you are conflating them.

You believe that preceding events caused you to be who you are, not that all things are set. You can't change the past and causal events dictate, therefore you can't change.

Of course I can and do change. My motives are part of the causal stream that bring about changes in me.

You believe in the silly hocus pocus idea that our actions are "independent of" causality. You may as well believe in immaterial souls and magic.

Your conclusions are true, HAH. True in what sense within the confines of free will? That only means that they are true to you. Just because they exist as a philosophy position does not make them true. 

From what I've read fatalism can be a part of determinism. How many times have I heard you say I can't or I'm not responsible or it's not my fault or I can't help it or some one/thing else is to blame. You are every bit the fatalist. 

Explain "my motives are part of the causal stream". What motives?

[Catholic_Lady]

This is an interesting thread. I appreciate everyone sharing their views. I'm surprised to see that so far Aroura has been the only one who has the 2 positions I presented in the OP. I was under the impression that most people here held both of those beliefs.

[Whateverist]

But I presuppose naturalism without doubting free will.  Given a choice, why would anyone presuppose supernaturalism?  I am fiercely pro natural world, proud to be a natural animal and think everyone with a lofty idea of themselves as a free floating/radically free willing disembodied mind is just off their rocker.  Being an animal is a great privilege, being a deluded and pompous non-naturalist is ... unnatural!

You can't have free will without a non-physical process that is capable of physical causation (a mind) because if not, all you have are 100% physical causal processes that would only give you the illusion of free will. So, on your presupposed naturalism, how did a non-physical mind come from purely physical processes? Is there another example in the known universe that the physical has produced anything other than physical?

I don't pretend to know what is or is not required for free will, a word that already stretches to the breaking point our ability to agree on terms.  But neither do I accept that anyone else knows either.  You're welcome to your hypotheses but it sure looks like mental masturbation to me.

---

1. Assuming for the moment the truth of what you're saying,inn what way does that make it *objective* (that is, existing independently of opinion, reason, or mind)?  You're describing something else I think.

2. Are those God's rules moral because God commands it, or does god command it because it's moral?  This isn't a question that gets sidestepped so easily by asserting that a hypothetical creator gets to make the rules - that may be true or not, but it doesn't describe objectivity.

1. It makes it objective because Natural Law is integral to how the universe was made and how the universe works. Just as rules to a game a person creates are integral to how the game was framed and how it is set up to work. For this reason, Natural Law is the objective reality of the world around us. 

2. They are moral because they are in accordance with God's nature. And God created the world in accordance with His own nature. So the two things (morality and God) cannot be separated.

So you say (where I bolded) but I think "natural law" is just people's best guess as to how the world works. It isn't something handed down from on high and no one 'enforces' it; it's not authoritative and is subject to revision at every turn. I think the various ways "law" is used contributes to the confusion.

---

You presuppose the mind isn't physical.  Sources please?

Well, if you suppose that it is purely physical (physicalism), we are really not distinguishing anything from the brain and we are right back where we started--no free will. I should have said: non-physical mind.

It isn't that our experience of consciousness has no physical basis, it's just that -whatever it may be- it is transparent to us from within that experience.  Fish probably are equally unaware of water, that doesn't mean there is anything about a fish that does not depend on the water.

---

But epistemic objective morality makes sense.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying you know all about something that doesn't exist.

Um .. pot to kettle?

[The Grand Nudger]

So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do. 

So how can you justify being angry at the person who rapes, kills, steals, lies, cheats, is conservative, is religious, likes Trump, IS Trump, etc etc? Am I missing something?

I get angry when I find a worm in my apple, too.  I don't require any elaborate justification.  Anger is an appropriate response to pests doing what pests are going to do. Besides, it's not like I can help it, it just bubbles up. Isn't that how anger seems to work for you? Do you decide what to be, and what you are angry about?