Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

In my view I don't think that either side, can make a definitive argument for the conclusion.   However I don't think that it is incorrect, to appeal to the consequences of the logical conclusion of a view (especially when adherents to that view don't behave in a manner inconsistent with that belief). This is part of what is meant, by appealing to an innate sense concerning objective morality.  Now I would agree, that just because we don't like the consequences or it gives a negative emotional reaction, that we cannot logically conclude that it is either true or false.   This would be the fallacy that you speak of.  But I find a dissonance between what is said that subjective moralist believe, and how they behave.  Requiring you to accept the consequences of said belief is not illogical or incoherent.  Your example about condemning the Nazis is apropos.

It is a pickle. I have had a similar initial visceral reaction to a friend going with 'morality is subjective', however my cognitive dissonance at the idea doesn't mean it's wrong or that I get to try to back him into a corner regarding endorsing atrocities if he doesn't accept that doing so is an implication of his position.

I can't comment intelligently on the Nazis position on OM (perhaps they had varying views as the label doesn't require any particular holding that I know of) Also, an incorrect belief, doesn't change whether the topic at hand, is objective or subjective by nature (regardless of the subjects belief about it's nature).  Here I normally ask the question though.   What is it based on the subject that makes it wrong?   Is it merely against your tastes or preferences?  With a different subject thus a different basis, isn't their position equally valid; subjectively?

I think there is a repetitive attempt to make those that hold that morality is subjective as having a morality equivalent to having a preference for a particular kind of ice cream. I think that's a false equivalence, because moral choices are drastically more consequential. It's an attempt to demean the position rather than refute it, like saying team sports hold little value because it's just people chasing balls. Morality can be subjective, but involve life-and-death consequences...and virtually everyone subjectively does not want to be murdered or tortured.

Now I find that most people behave as if there is a moral realism.  That morals are objective, and actually honorable or wrong, regardless of the subject, time, or culture.  That there is an innate sense, that some things are definitely wrong, outside of the subject (culture), and anything within them.  Subjective is not the default position (neither is objective).  And as I said, I don't think either can make a strong argument that it is one way or the other. However I find that the behavior of people shows more about what they really believe, rather than any statements or what they think the believe.   It's similar to the post modern notion held by some, of objective truth or that of philosophical nihilism.  In reality, they quickly betray what they say it is they believe.

Do they really say they believe that all actions are morally equal? Just because they don't conform to how you think a moral subjectivist 'must' behave doesn't mean they aren't a moral subjectivist. None of those things you say people have an innate sense about is universal; and if it was an innate sense, it would be universal. There could reasonably be defective individuals who didn't have that 'sense', but there wouldn't be cultural differences over whether genocide is okay.

I'm a moral realist, btw, but I get that if you don't find the axiom that what is good for people is good self-evident, you're not going to agree with my moral reasoning, though you may coincidentally agree with my moral conclusions. When someone says their morality is grounded on a deity's pronouncements, they're just basing their morality on a different axiom than I do. I don't find that one self-evident at all.

I  have already linked these clowns to a article defining subjective morals but they keep repeating the same thing over and over. As for the Nazi example I already grilled wooter for this. The Nazis did not believe in subjective morality . They believed what they were doing was objectively right . ISIS isn't running around saying "In the Name of our favorite flavor of Soda the heathens must die." Even the Soviets argued that objective morality stemmed from the inevitability of history. There defense has reached cartoonish levels absurdity.

[Astonished]

It is a pickle. I have had a similar initial visceral reaction to a friend going with 'morality is subjective', however my cognitive dissonance at the idea doesn't mean it's wrong or that I get to try to back him into a corner regarding endorsing atrocities if he doesn't accept that doing so is an implication of his position.

I think there is a repetitive attempt to make those that hold that morality is subjective as having a morality equivalent to having a preference for a particular kind of ice cream. I think that's a false equivalence, because moral choices are drastically more consequential. It's an attempt to demean the position rather than refute it, like saying team sports hold little value because it's just people chasing balls. Morality can be subjective, but involve life-and-death consequences...and virtually everyone subjectively does not want to be murdered or tortured.


Do they really say they believe that all actions are morally equal? Just because they don't conform to how you think a moral subjectivist 'must' behave doesn't mean they aren't a moral subjectivist. None of those things you say people have an innate sense about is universal; and if it was an innate sense, it would be universal. There could reasonably be defective individuals who didn't have that 'sense', but there wouldn't be cultural differences over whether genocide is okay.

I'm a moral realist, btw, but I get that if you don't find the axiom that what is good for people is good self-evident, you're not going to agree with my moral reasoning, though you may coincidentally agree with my moral conclusions. When someone says their morality is grounded on a deity's pronouncements, they're just basing their morality on a different axiom than I do. I don't find that one self-evident at all.

I  have already linked these clowns to a article defining subjective morals but they keep repeating the same thing over and over. As for the Nazi example I already grilled wooter for this. The Nazis did not believe in subjective morality . They believed what they were doing was objectively right . ISIS isn't running around saying "In the Name of our favorite flavor of Soda the heathens must die." Even the Soviets argued that objective morality stemmed from the inevitability of history. There defense has reached cartoonish levels absurdity.

What in the hell is that even supposed to mean?????

[Amarok]

I  have already linked these clowns to a article defining subjective morals but they keep repeating the same thing over and over. As for the Nazi example I already grilled wooter for this. The Nazis did not believe in subjective morality . They believed what they were doing was objectively right . ISIS isn't running around saying "In the Name of our favorite flavor of Soda the heathens must die." Even the Soviets argued that objective morality stemmed from the inevitability of history. There defense has reached cartoonish levels absurdity.

What in the hell is that even supposed to mean?????

They believed that the history of civilization always objectively goes in a certain pattern. And that communism was a process of that pattern. (Using wacky pseudohistory to justify it)  . And that they were carrying out said pattern and that said pattern was moral . Thus the atrocities carried out by the soviets were just them because it fulfilled the pattern .

[Astonished]

What in the hell is that even supposed to mean?????

They believed that the history of civilization always goes in a certain pattern. And that communism was a process of that pattern. Using wacky pseudohistory . And that they were carrying out said pattern.

So...like, we have no control over ourselves and actions because we'll inevitably repeat our failures no matter how successful we become and return to a standard minimum before starting the cycle over again? Well so much for personal accountability or the idea of free will. Morality becomes completely arbitrary then because it doesn't matter what form it takes, we can perform directly opposite actions but somehow the effect will still result in the same outcome. Fucking psychotic. Impressive how they could believe that without basing it around a deity.

[RoadRunner79]

RoadRunner, thank you for your thoughtful and nuanced approach.

Observation does seem to support your statement "most people behave as if there is a moral realism.  That morals are objective, and actually honorable or wrong, regardless of the subject, time, or culture."  Certainly most of us tend to behave as if morality could be objective, regardless of whether or not it actually is (or could be) objective.

---

On another matter, I see an additional problem with Little Henry's insistence that morality must be grounded in a supreme being of some sort.  What happens when the belief system or the attributes of a god change, as they so often do?  The nature of the being that one believes in will largely determine what is considered good or bad in that system.

Yes... I suppose that I agree.   Which is why objective does not necessarily equate to universal or absolute.  If the basis changes then so too, would that which follows from it.

[Amarok]

They believed that the history of civilization always goes in a certain pattern. And that communism was a process of that pattern. Using wacky pseudohistory . And that they were carrying out said pattern.

So...like, we have no control over ourselves and actions because we'll inevitably repeat our failures no matter how successful we become and return to a standard minimum before starting the cycle over again? Well so much for personal accountability or the idea of free will. Morality becomes completely arbitrary then because it doesn't matter what form it takes, we can perform directly opposite actions but somehow the effect will still result in the same outcome. Fucking psychotic. Impressive how they could believe that without basing it around a deity.

Please note this was not Marx's original idea . Nor did he try and claim it as an ontology. And this was rejected by more libertarian communist . My point is those communist who did believe in it argued it was objective and treated it as such .

[RoadRunner79]

In my view I don't think that either side, can make a definitive argument for the conclusion.   However I don't think that it is incorrect, to appeal to the consequences of the logical conclusion of a view (especially when adherents to that view don't behave in a manner inconsistent with that belief). This is part of what is meant, by appealing to an innate sense concerning objective morality.  Now I would agree, that just because we don't like the consequences or it gives a negative emotional reaction, that we cannot logically conclude that it is either true or false.   This would be the fallacy that you speak of.  But I find a dissonance between what is said that subjective moralist believe, and how they behave.  Requiring you to accept the consequences of said belief is not illogical or incoherent.  Your example about condemning the Nazis is apropos.

It is a pickle. I have had a similar initial visceral reaction to a friend going with 'morality is subjective', however my cognitive dissonance at the idea doesn't mean it's wrong or that I get to try to back him into a corner regarding endorsing atrocities if he doesn't accept that doing so is an implication of his position.

I can't comment intelligently on the Nazis position on OM (perhaps they had varying views as the label doesn't require any particular holding that I know of) Also, an incorrect belief, doesn't change whether the topic at hand, is objective or subjective by nature (regardless of the subjects belief about it's nature).  Here I normally ask the question though.   What is it based on the subject that makes it wrong?   Is it merely against your tastes or preferences?  With a different subject thus a different basis, isn't their position equally valid; subjectively?

I think there is a repetitive attempt to make those that hold that morality is subjective as having a morality equivalent to having a preference for a particular kind of ice cream. I think that's a false equivalence, because moral choices are drastically more consequential. It's an attempt to demean the position rather than refute it, like saying team sports hold little value because it's just people chasing balls. Morality can be subjective, but involve life-and-death consequences...and virtually everyone subjectively does not want to be murdered or tortured.

Now I find that most people behave as if there is a moral realism.  That morals are objective, and actually honorable or wrong, regardless of the subject, time, or culture.  That there is an innate sense, that some things are definitely wrong, outside of the subject (culture), and anything within them.  Subjective is not the default position (neither is objective).  And as I said, I don't think either can make a strong argument that it is one way or the other. However I find that the behavior of people shows more about what they really believe, rather than any statements or what they think the believe.   It's similar to the post modern notion held by some, of objective truth or that of philosophical nihilism.  In reality, they quickly betray what they say it is they believe.

Do they really say they believe that all actions are morally equal? Just because they don't conform to how you think a moral subjectivist 'must' behave doesn't mean they aren't a moral subjectivist. None of those things you say people have an innate sense about is universal; and if it was an innate sense, it would be universal. There could reasonably be defective individuals who didn't have that 'sense', but there wouldn't be cultural differences over whether genocide is okay.

I'm a moral realist, btw, but I get that if you don't find the axiom that what is good for people is good self-evident, you're not going to agree with my moral reasoning, though you may coincidentally agree with my moral conclusions. When someone says their morality is grounded on a deity's pronouncements, they're just basing their morality on a different axiom than I do. I don't find that one self-evident at all.

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

[Astonished]

So...like, we have no control over ourselves and actions because we'll inevitably repeat our failures no matter how successful we become and return to a standard minimum before starting the cycle over again? Well so much for personal accountability or the idea of free will. Morality becomes completely arbitrary then because it doesn't matter what form it takes, we can perform directly opposite actions but somehow the effect will still result in the same outcome. Fucking psychotic. Impressive how they could believe that without basing it around a deity.

Please note this was not Marx's original idea . Nor did he try and claim it as an ontology. And this was rejected by more libertarian communist . My point is those communist who did believe in it argued it was objective and treated it as such .

Well, duh. It never would have crossed my mind to think it had anything to do with Marx's philosophy. Communism in the Soviet Union was as big a bastardization of the idea of Marx's socialism as the U.S. government is of the ideal democracy.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

No external basis is required.  That's kind of the point of calling some x subjective assessments.

What's your basis, and is it actually external? How much thought have you given this?

Their actions most likely follow from what they subjectively describe to be right and wrong. There's no disconnect. There is -no- functional difference between an objective and a subjective morality. Person A thinks x is subjectively wrong and they do y. Person b thinks x is objectively wrong....and they do...wait for it.......y.

[Whateverist]

I suspect no more than his happy frame of mind will allow.