Subjective Morality?

[Amarok]

The inability of religious people to show that God is objectively doesn't prove that God isn't real, either.  However, their inability to provide evidence to support their claim means that if I don't already hold their belief, then there's little reason for me to do so.

I don't share your belief that morality is objective, unless you want to appeal to a determinist material monism, and claim it's all just brain states or whatever.  But then, we've given up one of the axioms which I outlined as necessary for me to participate in a discussion about morality: the existence of meaningful subjective agency.

At any rate, here are some of the things you've done which I consider typical of religious faith-based argumentation:
1)  Claimed an objective fact, despite having no real objective data or observations (at all) upon which to base your claim.
2)  Attempted to put the BOP on a critic: "You can't PROVE God objective real morality isn't real."
3)  Switched to dirty debating tactics: ad homs and outrage (feigned or otherwise) in lieu of actual support for your claim.

But what I can't understand (and this is sincere) is WHY an atheist would want to claim that there are objective true mores at all.  Isn't one of the best features of atheism the dropping of shackles which bind you to an inflexible perspective, and the realization that we can live perfectly fine through a process of negotiation and discussion about the kinds of values we each would like to see represented in our society?  It feels to me very much like despite being atheist, you have some kind of hunger for moral absolutism.

So I guess we're not going to see you actually back up your argument.  I didn't claim an objective fact, you asked for an example.  I provided a prospective one for you to demonstrate your argument upon.  You've essentially declined and simply keep asserting your dogmatic religious beliefs.  I've repeatedly stated that I am not claiming that morals are necessarily objective, only that they may be, and that because of that, you need to show that they aren't.  That you are now lying about that fact is yet more evidence that you are not arguing in good faith, including in this last post of yours.  Why are you such a liar, benny?  And waffling about like you are when challenged on dogma is about as religious as it gets.  You didn't even bother responding to the substantive part of my reply.

You're not simply a critic.  You've claimed that morals are subjective.  That claim carries a burden of proof.  Instead of meeting your burden of proof you've repeatedly attempted to fallaciously reverse the burden and place it on me.  Everything you've accused me of I've been innocent of and you yourself have been guilty of.  You are the biggest fucking hypocrite.

What the hell is dirty about pointing out that a person who pushes an argument that they know to be false is likely not arguing in good faith?  Beyond that, I insulted you.  That's not an ad hominem argument, and that you're misrepresenting it as such is yet more evidence that you're not arguing in good faith.  Outrage?  What the fuck is this bullshit?  Being disgusted with someone isn't a dirty debate tactic, and that you characterize it as such, especially without reason, is yet more evidence that you're not arguing in good faith.  And I didn't insult and make ad hominems in lieu of actual arguments so that's yet another lie of yours.  And again, that is actually something that you yourself have just done.  When you repeatedly lie, fail to present arguments and instead simply make what is in fact an ad hominem, namely claiming that I'm acting like a religious person, then you definitely have given plenty of evidence that you aren't arguing in good faith.

Stop the bullshit, benny.  You're just being an ass because you can't show that morals are any less objective than reality.  We do observe objective moral facts.  It's called having a conscience and moral intuitions.  Even if morals were in some sense subjective, based upon properties of mind, it wouldn't mean that they are predicated upon our feelings.  I don't know anyone who is convinced that their moral judgements are just a preference for some things that make them feel good and an aversion to things which make them feel bad.  Unless I'm special and exceptional, I don't know anybody who experiences morals this way.  People tend to default to trying to argue that morals are subjective because they can't establish an objective basis for morals and are embarrassed by that fact.  I strongly suspect this applies to you.  In response to your bullshit about me hungering for moral absolutism, that's yet another side of an ad hominem argument, and I don't, so you can take that shit and shove it up your ass sideways.  

Regardless, I've made a valid analogy between objective physical facts and objective moral facts.  If you can't prove that physical perceptions necessarily correspond to objective physical facts, then requiring me to demonstrate that moral intuitions necessarily correspond to objective moral facts is just special pleading.

Get to work or shut the fuck up.

Brilliant 

[The Grand Nudger]

JFC. WTFE. (I gave you good logic to present, and you ignored it.) You know who you are.


http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1930/1/T...prints.pdf

BINGO!

And there you have it.  Nobody is completely satisfied with a tautology.

Thus, it takes a second order explanation to avoid Tarski's undefinability theorem.

The physicist needs a quantum physicist to explain 'charge';
The sociologist needs an evolutionary biologist to explain 'inequality'; and
The ‘moral scientist’ needs a best-practivist to explain 'injustice'.

Although, to be more precise, a best-practivist is more focused on the proximate 'why'... one still needs an evolutionary biologist for the ultimate 'why'.  

If anyone wants a best-practice explanation of morality, let me know.  Consultant rates apply.  

Will your best practivist explanation of morality contain references to mind independent facts?  Will it be objectively true?

[DLJ]

...
Will your best practivist explanation of morality contain references to mind independent facts? 

Nope.

...
Will it be objectively true?

Yup.

[The Grand Nudger]

...
Will your best practivist explanation of morality contain references to mind independent facts? 

Nope.  

Then it would be no more accurate a picture of morality than creationism is an accurate picture of biology.  

...
Will it be objectively true?

Yup.

Then best practivism is, properly, a form of moral realism.

The two questions, which you answered seperately and disparately, are functionally equivalent. You either do or don't think that it will be objectively true, and for anything to be objectively true, it must refer to mind independent facts. That's what the term objective means in the first place.

Even the subjectivists contention that morality refers to mind dependent facts is asserted objectively, that purported fact is contended to be mind independent. I appreciate that this may create confusion due to the ground being staked out by the respective positions...but hey, morality is complicated, whatever it is, eh?

[Angrboda]

Just to restate a previous complaint, pragmatism is shit when it comes to epistemology. Best practictivism sounds like a version of pragmatism. If so, it's a poor tool with which to approach the moral question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed, it's always been the case that we might have compelling practical reasons to do some thing, even if it's a bad thing.  That the thing is a practical course of action is entirely uninformative with respect to it's moral status, or the ontological status of morality.  

To combine this with one of Benny's pet subjects - it's entirely practical for us to hit cattle over the head like it's our job and engage in "bovine rape" (in fact, both things are someone's job) - this doesn't even approach the question of whether or not is is right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or evil.

(I really can't recommend The Geometry of Desert enough when it comes to explaining the field of play as far as how any moral system deals with this state of affairs.)

[DLJ]

...
Then it would be no more accurate a picture of morality than creationism is an accurate picture of biology.  
...

An explanation in the form of information requires a mind to understand it. Evolution is similarly an explanation. It's algorithmic, as is morality.

...
Then best practivism is, properly, a form of moral realism.  

The two questions, which you answered seperately and disparately, are functionally equivalent.  You either do or don't think that it will be objectively true, and for anything to be objectively true, it must refer to mind independent facts.  That's what the term objective means in the first place.

Even the subjectivists contention that morality refers to mind dependent facts is asserted objectively, that purported fact is contended to be mind independent.   I appreciate that this may create confusion due to the ground being staked out by the respective positions...but hey, morality is complicated, whatever it is, eh?

It's actually not that complicated. But it is complex.

Objectively = quantitatively measurable
True = a label (t/f) attributed to a proposition for a given epistemology
Objectively true = quantitatively measurable proposition for a given epistemology

It could be similarly described as subjectively true in that it contains also qualitative metrics.

This is why the words 'subjective' and 'objective' are best avoided altogether.

The model of morality contains no morality.

[Angrboda]

Method fail. A priori truths are not quantifiable, so you've just been denied the logical truths you need to prosecute any argument in favor of practivism. Thank you and have a nice day.

[The Grand Nudger]

...
Then it would be no more accurate a picture of morality than creationism is an accurate picture of biology.  
...

An explanation in the form of information requires a mind to understand it.  Evolution is similarly an explanation. It's algorithmic, as is morality.

This isn't something that a moral realist or subjectivist would disagree with.  As I keep trying to impart upon you and others, regardless of the ontological status of morality we are subjective creatures and we are using our minds to try and determine the status of this that or the other.  This is not what mind dependence (or independence) refers to.

We contend that there is a fact of the existence of our toes.  A mind dependent toe is not a comment on how some mind believes that it has a toe, but that the toe literally exists only in the mind.  A mind independent toe is not a comment about no mind believing that it has a toe, but that there literally is a toe regardless of what the mind believes about it's existence.  This is what is being discussed by mind dependent toe facts, and mind independent toe facts...and it is also what's being discussed by mind dependent moral facts, and mind independent moral facts.  

If your best practivist explanation of morality refers to no mind independent facts it is very literally a fact free belief in best practivism.  How you determine the most practical course of action in the absence of any fact..is a mystery.

If your best practivist explanation of morality does refer to mind independent facts, then it is contended to be an objectively accurate description of morality.....and a full throated invocation of a subset of moral realism.
  

It's actually not that complicated.  But it is complex.

Objectively = quantitatively measurable
True = a label (t/f) attributed to a proposition for a given epistemology
Objectively true = quantitatively measurable proposition for a given epistemology

It could be similarly described as subjectively true in that it contains also qualitative metrics.

This is why the words 'subjective' and 'objective' are best avoided altogether.

The model of morality contains no morality.

  Meh, 1/10, low effort.  That you wish to avoid the terms subjective and objective is nothing more than an indication that you would like to entirely avoid the discussion.  You don't need to say anything to do that..and, in fact, saying nothing is the most practical way to avoid the discussion.

[Angrboda]

I'll also point out that the proposition that quantitatively measurable propositions are objectively true is not a quantitatively measurable proposition and so practivism is self refuting.

You might want to read up on the last two centuries of philosophy instead of burying your head in business books by Tom Peters.