Morality

[Kenny]

Ken: So is this another way of saying Subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did?

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, because they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they selfishly desire, or that it even matters to them. They are gods to themselves!

You are making the common mistake of confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism.

Ken

No Kenny, he's not. I think you need to re-google the difference. Ethical subjectivism holds that all moral principles are justified only by the individual, and do not necessarily apply to people other than the individual who accepts them.

Which is what Philip said, when he said, "they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they selfishly desire, or that it even matters to them."

He would have been more accurate if he said "they act and think as if there is no morality beyond what they believe". Subjective morality isn't about what the person desires, its about what they believe.

[Kenny]

No. I'm not making any such argument.


Not exactly Ken. I believe those names listed before, Mao, Stalin, etc., didn't believe in God, therefore, didn't believe in objective morality.

Does that help?

Do you believe the Objective/Subjective morality issue was even a thought much less a consideration when they decided to commit those evil acts? I have no idea.If not, isn't it fair to conclude subjective morality had nothing to do with what they did? No, that conclusion doesn't logically follow your premise.

I believe the conclusion does logically follow the premise because if we assume you are correct and morality IS objective, this would be the case regardless of people like me who believe it is subjective.
Since all moral acts are objective, the acts of evil men can’t be blamed on subjective morality because subjective morality doesn’t exist.
Would you mind explaining why you say the conclusion does not logically follow the premise?

Kenny,

How many times do you need me to explain that it's the belief in subjective morality that I'm talking about?

We might have to agree to disagree on this one. I think Philip said it best when he said;

“They don't care about philosophical analysis of their motivations. Even if they believe right and wrong is objective - they care about but one thing, following their on subjective ideas about what suits them”.

And with that I agree! They probably didn’t even know what subjective or objective morality means! These men had a desire for power, they had armed forces backing them, and they killed anybody who opposed them to get that power; a belief in subjective morality had nothing to do with it.

If I feel like I can do whatever I want, because I believe morality is subjective,even though in reality it's objective, then the logical conclusion to that belief in subjective morality , is that my preference to murder millions, is no better or worse, than my preference for chocolate ice cream!

Previously you said:

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That wasn't what I was suggesting. That would be equal to me saying that Theists cannot commit mass murders. That's just not logical.

And with that I agreed with you. These men didn’t do what they wanted because they believed in Subjective morality, they did what they wanted because they had the backing of armed forces that allowed them to.

If someone has a subjective morality worldview, then one doesn't have to consciously think about subjective morality every time one does something evil.

And if someone has an Objective morality worldview, they don’t have to consciously think about objective morality every time one does something evil as well.

That's why your conclusion doesn't follow your premise.

Just like for me, as one who has an objective morality worldview, I don't consciously think, "objective morality" every time I act.

But if you don’t think of objective morality every time you act, and a subjective moralist doesn’t think about morality every time he acts, and as you stated before that they probably would have done those evil things even if they believed morality were objective, how can you blame their evil acts on subjective morality?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
But if you don’t think of objective morality every time you act, and a subjective moralist doesn’t think about morality every time he acts, and as you stated before that they probably would have done those evil things even if they believed morality were objective, how can you blame their evil acts on subjective morality?

I never stated that they would've done those things even if they believed morality was objective.

And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
But if you don’t think of objective morality every time you act, and a subjective moralist doesn’t think about morality every time he acts, and as you stated before that they probably would have done those evil things even if they believed morality were objective, how can you blame their evil acts on subjective morality?

I never stated that they would've done those things even if they believed morality was objective.

Humm… So what did you mean when you asked;

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That's just not logical.

Kinda sounds the same to me.

And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

*Morality: Doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
*Obedience: Doing what you’re told, regardless of what’s right.

Ken

[RickD]

ken wrote:

Humm… So what did you mean when you asked;

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That's just not logical.

Thanks for actually asking what I meant this time, instead of assuming.

It's not logical, because I didn't know them. It's not logical to presume what someone would've done in some hypothetical which would've completely changed the scenario.
Understand now?

RickD wrote:
And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

ken wrote:
*Morality: Doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
*Obedience: Doing what you’re told, regardless of what’s right.

I don't understand your point, with posting a definition of morality that makes absolutely no sense within your subjective morality worldview.

Doing what's right? Define "right" in a subjective morality worldview.

[Kenny]

ken wrote:

Humm… So what did you mean when you asked;

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That's just not logical.

Thanks for actually asking what I meant this time, instead of assuming.

It's not logical, because I didn't know them. It's not logical to presume what someone would've done in some hypothetical which would've completely changed the scenario.
Understand now?

RickD wrote:
And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

ken wrote:
*Morality: Doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
*Obedience: Doing what you’re told, regardless of what’s right.

I don't understand your point, with posting a definition of morality that makes absolutely no sense within your subjective morality worldview.

Doing what's right? Define "right" in a subjective morality worldview.

Moral subjectivity means I know the difference between right and wrong. What is right? It depends on the situation. If you give me a scenario, I can tell you what's right and why it is right.

[RickD]

ken wrote:

Humm… So what did you mean when you asked;

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That's just not logical.

Thanks for actually asking what I meant this time, instead of assuming.

It's not logical, because I didn't know them. It's not logical to presume what someone would've done in some hypothetical which would've completely changed the scenario.
Understand now?

RickD wrote:
And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

ken wrote:
*Morality: Doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
*Obedience: Doing what you’re told, regardless of what’s right.

I don't understand your point, with posting a definition of morality that makes absolutely no sense within your subjective morality worldview.

Doing what's right? Define "right" in a subjective morality worldview.

Moral subjectivity means I know the difference between right and wrong. What is right? It depends on the situation. If you give me a scenario, I can tell you what's right and why it is right.

No Kenny. You're not getting it. I didn't ask you what's the right thing to do in a given situation. I asked you to define "right".

[Kenny]

ken wrote:

Humm… So what did you mean when you asked;

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That's just not logical.

Thanks for actually asking what I meant this time, instead of assuming.

It's not logical, because I didn't know them. It's not logical to presume what someone would've done in some hypothetical which would've completely changed the scenario.
Understand now?

RickD wrote:
And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

ken wrote:
*Morality: Doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
*Obedience: Doing what you’re told, regardless of what’s right.

I don't understand your point, with posting a definition of morality that makes absolutely no sense within your subjective morality worldview.

Doing what's right? Define "right" in a subjective morality worldview.

Moral subjectivity means I know the difference between right and wrong. What is right? It depends on the situation. If you give me a scenario, I can tell you what's right and why it is right.

No Kenny. You're not getting it. I didn't ask you what's the right thing to do in a given situation. I asked you to define "right".

In this context, right means fair. How do you define right?

[RickD]

ken wrote:

Humm… So what did you mean when you asked;

Am I suggesting that if those men believed in objective morality, therefore they believed in God, that they wouldn't have done those things? No. That's just not logical.

Thanks for actually asking what I meant this time, instead of assuming.

It's not logical, because I didn't know them. It's not logical to presume what someone would've done in some hypothetical which would've completely changed the scenario.
Understand now?

RickD wrote:
And second, I wasn't "blaming" subjective morality for the evils they committed. I said that the evils they committed are consistent with a subjective morality worldview.

ken wrote:
*Morality: Doing what’s right regardless of what you’re told.
*Obedience: Doing what you’re told, regardless of what’s right.

I don't understand your point, with posting a definition of morality that makes absolutely no sense within your subjective morality worldview.

Doing what's right? Define "right" in a subjective morality worldview.

Moral subjectivity means I know the difference between right and wrong. What is right? It depends on the situation. If you give me a scenario, I can tell you what's right and why it is right.

No Kenny. You're not getting it. I didn't ask you what's the right thing to do in a given situation. I asked you to define "right".

In this context, right means fair. How do you define right?

So, in a subjective morality worldview, right is defined as fair?

Do you see my point? "Right" has lost its meaning in a subjective morality worldview, to the point of you redefining it to mean "fair".

[Kenny]

Thanks for actually asking what I meant this time, instead of assuming.

It's not logical, because I didn't know them. It's not logical to presume what someone would've done in some hypothetical which would've completely changed the scenario.
Understand now?



I don't understand your point, with posting a definition of morality that makes absolutely no sense within your subjective morality worldview.

Doing what's right? Define "right" in a subjective morality worldview.

Moral subjectivity means I know the difference between right and wrong. What is right? It depends on the situation. If you give me a scenario, I can tell you what's right and why it is right.

No Kenny. You're not getting it. I didn't ask you what's the right thing to do in a given situation. I asked you to define "right".

In this context, right means fair. How do you define right?

So, in a subjective morality worldview, right is defined as fair?

Do you see my point? "Right" has lost its meaning in a subjective morality worldview, to the point of you redefining it to mean "fair".

Okay RickD. I said in THIS context it means fair. As you know; right is one of those words that has multiple definitions; opposite of left, correct, etc etc.
Right in this context means the same thing to me as it does to you, as it means to everybody else; but everybody will define it differently. It doesn’t mean it has lost its meaning, it just means the words used to define the term is subjective not objective.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Right in this context means the same thing to me as it does to you, as it means to everybody else; but everybody will define it differently.

Contradiction much?

It doesn’t mean it has lost its meaning, it just means the words used to define the term is subjective not objective.

So lemme get this straight...

Not only do you have a subjective morality worldview, where each individual is the moral barometer, but you also have a subjective dictionary world view, where each individual can make up their own definitions of words, to fit their beliefs?

Seriously Kenny,

You need to step back and examine your worldviews.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Right in this context means the same thing to me as it does to you, as it means to everybody else; but everybody will define it differently.

Contradiction much?

It doesn’t mean it has lost its meaning, it just means the words used to define the term is subjective not objective.

So lemme get this straight...

Not only do you have a subjective morality worldview, where each individual is the moral barometer, but you also have a subjective dictionary world view, where each individual can make up their own definitions of words, to fit their beliefs?

Seriously Kenny,

You need to step back and examine your worldviews.

*Neither categorizing morality subjective/objective, or defining words, qualifies as a “world view”.
*I never said anything about making up words to fit beliefs, I said the words used a description will vary from person to person, even though the meaning will be the same.
Again; how do YOU describe the word “right”?

[Philip]

Again; how do YOU describe the word “right”?

It's a consideration of judgement based upon whatever one measures, per some standard they recognize as being definitive, which believe to be always true for everyone, everywhere. Only a theist could realistically believe such a standard exists, because any thinking non-theist should realize this standard to be mostly an outcome of whatever we evolved from, and that is purely a matter of opinion, even if it's a widely held and mutually beneficial one found in most societies. And only if there is some Entity with the power and right to hold up such a standard, would it TRULY exist. As otherwise, any standard is, in reality, merely subjective.

[Kenny]

Again; how do YOU describe the word “right”?

It's a consideration of judgement based upon whatever one measures, per some standard they recognize as being definitive, which believe to be always true for everyone, everywhere.

Who believes it to be true for everyone everywhere? The person making the judgment or everyone the judgment is to be applied to?

Only a theist could realistically believe such a standard exists, because any thinking non-theist should realize this standard to be mostly an outcome of whatever we evolved from, and that is purely a matter of opinion, even if it's a widely held and mutually beneficial one found in most societies. And only if there is some Entity with the power and right to hold up such a standard, would it TRULY exist.

Who gives this Entity the power and right to hold such a standard?

As otherwise, any standard is, in reality, merely subjective.

What about this Entity with power you speak of? Isn’t the standard subjective to his whims?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Right in this context means the same thing to me as it does to you, as it means to everybody else; but everybody will define it differently.

Contradiction much?

It doesn’t mean it has lost its meaning, it just means the words used to define the term is subjective not objective.

So lemme get this straight...

Not only do you have a subjective morality worldview, where each individual is the moral barometer, but you also have a subjective dictionary world view, where each individual can make up their own definitions of words, to fit their beliefs?

Seriously Kenny,

You need to step back and examine your worldviews.

*Neither categorizing morality subjective/objective, or defining words, qualifies as a “world view”.
*I never said anything about making up words to fit beliefs, I said the words used a description will vary from person to person, even though the meaning will be the same.
Again; how do YOU describe the word “right”?

Under a subjective morality worldview, there is no right. That's my point.