If morality is objective, we can use it to extrapolate general guidelines of how a society functions.
If morality is subjective, then we must either look at it from subjective or objective reasoning.
If we use subjective reasoning, then I can make the claim that subjectively from my viewpoint, my morality is objectively shown through the populace, therefore I can claim it's objective and justify an objective morality in your subjective world. E.G. I can ignore your subjective morality and treat you as a fault in my objectively moral system.
If we assume the argument for subjective morality comes from objective reasoning, then I can use objective reasoning and observation to come to a pseudo-objective morality that is still objectively true.
I can't even figure out what this is supposed to mean
William Reyes
If morality is subjective and we use subjective reasoning to justify it, then I can subjectively say you're full of shit and claim objectivity.
Pretty much justifying a subjective morality with subjective reasoning is a double negative.
Nathaniel Cox
what do you mean by "justify"
Jeremiah Cook
Just because you can claim to know something doesn't mean I accept that you do. That's dumb.
William Cooper
I didn't claim to know something though. I claimed that it's provable. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Robert Sanchez
No, absence of evidence is evidence that you're full of shit and you have nothing.
Parker Reed
...
Elijah Miller
What do you think I mean?
Jason King
How can you falsify a concept such as morality? What measurements do you use to verify if something is moral or not?
Kevin Butler
I think the idea that something can be justified is derivative of the belief in objective morality, and as such you are begging the question.
Luis Myers
Isn't morality just emotional?
Nathan Evans
You are going to have to define morality and "objective/subjective thought" otherwise you are just galloping on top of rushed fallacious implications to a conclusion of your choice.
Liam Gomez
Moral anti-realism is by far the more controversial position among people even remotely well read on the topic.
Just over twice as many of surveyed (all published philosophers) accept or lean toward moral realism, compared to anti-realism.
This isn't an argument in favor of realism, it's just to say that just stating doesn't really cut it.
Read Kant.
That's definitely not true. Moral relativism is an example of a meta-ethical belief that does not entail objectivism, while still clearly being a position that entails that some moral beliefs are unjustified.
Read a book.
Joseph Lopez
Well said. I gotta go take care of a last minute call-in to fix a furnace, so I'll talk to y'all later.
Alexander Gonzalez
I'm not even arguing anything. You, on the other hand, are. And you don't have any evidence.
Angel Gutierrez
Evidence of what? He provided an argument for his position, somebody (you?) came with a non-sequitor - that OP completely understandably dismissed - and now you're just being insufferable.
Jackson Wilson
you're a retard
David Rivera
Objectivity always relies on subjective criteria.
Only arrogant retards think their political opinions are objectively correct.
Brody Ortiz
I don't know, whatever his argument is. That morality is objective? That morality exist in the first place? Like, I'm only reading it now, but he seems to be saying that because reasoning is objective and we use reason to reach moral decisions, morality must then be objective. That is not even taking into account that all systems of morality are based on subjective values, and reason, being a thing that happens entirely within the confines of the human mind, is likewise subjective. We evaluate reason based on its predictive ability - if one uses reason to reach a conclusion that is not in line with objective material reality, then we say that is faulty reasoning. That does not make reason objective.
What I picked up on and first replied to, however, was this:
Which is shifting the burden of proof. ie bullshit
Caleb Campbell
You're assuming the burden of proof is on objectivity in the first place, and that subjective measurement/reference is used. If subjective reference is used, wouldn't it fall under OP's second point that subjectively they can tell "subjectivists" to fuck off?
Justin Ross
Plus I get the impression that OP was avoiding the term burden of proof because he didn't want to turn this into "muh proof" in the first place (which is exactly what you're trying to do).
To quote the Christian from where it was stolen, his proof he's using is ((AvB)->C) where A is objective morality, B is subjective morality, and C is an objectively moral result.
You're trying to claim that ~P^Q when what you're really stating is ~P->Q.
Josiah Baker
Nothing that you're saying relates to the topic at hand.
And yet you're mad when he doesn't take you seriously?
I'm really not that well versed in meta-ethics (just enough to laugh at people who know even less), but I understand the position of moral realism to be: The position that moral statements are truth-apt. As in, any moral statement can be said to be either true or false. Important note: Moral realism says nothing about the methodology of determining whether or not any given statement is true. It doesn't even say anything about our ability to do so. One can be a moral realist, and also think it's impossible to prove the truth of any statement. I probably read this description somewhere, but I can't recall where atm.
That's a pretty fucking strong claim without any reasoning or arguments to back it up.
It does not even remotely follow that something is subjective just because it "happens entirely within the confines of the human mind". That makes no fucking sense at all. Even if we accept that premise, that makes it very easy to argue that absolutely nothing can be said to be objective.
This is demonstrably false. I can make a faulty proof in mathematical subjects that don't relate to any empirical topic. The rules for reasoning might be empirically informed, but that does not make the rules themselves empirical.
Holy shit you are a retard. He's not shifting the burden of proof. He's saying that even if the guy he's responding to is right, it doesn't have any bearing on his argument, and can therefore be dismissed as a non-sequitor.
Wyatt Hall
It's a lot easier to argue that morals don't exist, than whatever the fuck you're trying to do here.
Luis Lee
You're right, that was wrong of me. Sorry.
Why would I be mad at him taking me seriously when I didn't even give a shit about his argument to begin with? I just popped in due to an autistic tic.
It's pretty simply this: any moral argument will come down to the distinction that one state of affairs is better than another from the perspective of the arguer, a subjective value judgment.
Objective morality requires an objective set of fundamental moral values, in other words a determination that so and so is preferable to such and such, which stands independent of any sort of human mind. Since the only way to disprove a moral argument is by reference to a subjective belief, then something couldn't possibly be objectively moral.
I'm pretty sure that's the exact definition of subjectivity. I don't know if the definition is different within whatever discipline you're working in, but that's how it goes in the vernacular. And anyway, that needn't be the case if we can assume that our senses provide use accurate information about the external world. In which case we could say that X is objectively the case if we can see X happening out there.
Ethan Sanders
Damn, that took longer than expected.
Yep.
Jacob White
V I R T U E
Ethan Williams
Morality and politics aren't the same thing. They might tie together at times, but they're pretty separable most of the time.
Joshua Long
ok bud
Anthony Flores
Ignorants, all of you.
Jack Thompson
...
Hudson Gonzalez
This statement is objectively true.
Wyatt Allen
...
Easton Morris
Who decides what is obviously self-evident? Surely not people, that's why we have a single set of universally accepted axioms… oh wait.
Eli Evans
Moral realism just seems like an attempt to conflate morality with ethics to me.
Easton Bell
That doesn't make sense. He is saying morality is both subjective and objective.
Aiden Fisher
The very first premise seems kind of iffy. Just because there's a right thing to do, it doesn't mean that people anywhere are actually doing it.
