If morality is subjective, then morality is still objective

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 245
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Its very simple.

Subjective morality says that morality is a matter of an opinion.

Thus, only two possibilities can follow:

1. Some moral opinions are objectively better proven than others, thus they are objective ones.
Or
2. All moral opinions are equally unproven.

To avoid conceding to an objective morality, some naive person could say "all moral opinions are equally unproven".

But that results in a very simple objective conclusion:

1. If all moral opinions are equally unproven, then all moral opinions are equal. This is an objective fact.

2. If all moral opinions are equal, they all deserve to be equally applied.

3. The only way all moral opinions can be equally applied is if all have same amount of area for application.

4. Thus, each person can own his body and apply his moral opinions to it.

To go against 4 would yield an objective contradiction.
If one person was to attack other person, his moral opinion would extend beyond its borders and claim that it deserves more area than other moral opinions, which it, by objective fact of being equally unproven and thus forced to be equal to others, cannot have.

By being equally unproven, no opinion can be above other, thus cannot logically get more than other in terms of distribution of area it rules in, but it can only have same.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,550
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Most philosophers believe that even if God exists, morality would not depend on God, because either morality is just what god wants, in which case it is arbitrary and so there is no reason to follow it, or God knows moral truth/the correct moral standard, so it exists external to him and we could presumably find it. The question of what this standard is though, and how it is justified, is the fundamental question of ethics, so there aren’t easy answers. Some philosophers appeal to intuition, or intuition refined by formulating principles by abstracting from (some of) our individual moral intuitions and then testing those same principles against (other) intuitions, ultimately bringing them into harmony (this is known as “reflective equilibrium”). Some (mostly Kantians) argue that morality is entailed by the standards of “practical reason”, or reasoning about our actions. Some try to analyze/reconstruct the logic of moral language or moral argumentation and develop moral theories based on that. There are many different theories.
#3
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
3. The only way all moral opinions can be equally applied is if all have same amount of area for application.

4. Thus, each person can own his body and apply his moral opinions to it.
This doesn't work. You can claim all moral opinions have the same validity or worth, but once they are applied in the same area they will contradict eachother. That conflicts with the concept of either of them being objective.
Topic's author
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
 once they are applied in the same area they will contradict eachother
They each get their own separate area. None are applied in same area. Due to them being equal, each gets equal separate area to be applied in.
Topic's author
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
If all moral opinions are equal, none can seek to be above other or to destroy other or to rule over other or to claim more area than other or to claim any greatness over other, as the very idea of them being equal forbids that.
#6
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 395
Posts: 1,776
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Just throw out subjective and objective morality. End the contention .
#7
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
They each get their own separate area. None are applied in same area. Due to them being equal, each gets equal separate area to be applied in.
That's not how it works. If your morality says murder is immoral and mine says it is moral, then when someone is murdered our moralities will conflict with eachother.

If all moral opinions are equal, none can seek to be above other or to destroy other or to rule over other or to claim more area than other or to claim any greatness over other, as the very idea of them being equal forbids that.
Exactly, which means that neither of our moralities can be considered right or wrong according your framework, which contradicts the concept of any morality being objective.
Topic's author
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
If your morality says murder is immoral and mine says it is moral, then when someone is murdered our moralities will conflict with eachother
They wont, because objective morality bans murder.

Equally unproven moral opinions = equal treatment

Equal treatment = none can destroy other, thus if any tries to destroy other, it becomes objectively wrong.

which means that neither of our moralities can be considered right or wrong according your framework, which contradicts the concept of any morality being objective.
I dont see how you make that conclusion.
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
They wont, because objective morality bans murder.
I just stated that my morality accepts murder as moral, and you cannot negate it so you are according to your own framework, objectively wrong.

I dont see how you make that conclusion.
If no morality can seek to be above the other then there is no such thing as right or wrong. That directly conflicts with the definition of being objective. 
Topic's author
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
I just stated that my morality accepts murder as moral, and you cannot negate it so you are according to your own framework, objectively wrong.
I can negate it, and I did.

If no morality can seek to be above the other then there is no such thing as right or wrong. 
Again, if any morality claims to be above others, it becomes objectively wrong.

Thus, if you think murder is moral, you cannot possibly realize that morality without destroying some other morality. 

This creates an objective contradiction in your morality, since your equally unproven morality seeks non-equal treatment.
#11
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,155
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
For morality to even exist there must be an objective standard to even establish morality of any kind.  That objective standard will come from one of two places.  Religion or the whims of society. Most people today base their moral compass based on the ever changing whims of society, hence making morality subjective constantly and continuously except when the whims of society deems it objective when one debates the subject from a secular perspective. Religious based moral standards never change. What was fucked up then is fucked up now regardless of the whims of society and what it thinks at any given moment. The whims of society are an objective moral standard, until they completely change and then what was a moral standard is not anymore, thus making morality subjective constantly and continuously except during the brief period where it is objective as deemed by the whims of society at any given moment. Today you are a good person tomorrow you a fucking shit stain on society.
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I can negate it, and I did.
Then you are contradicting yourself

Again, if any morality claims to be above others, it becomes objectively wrong.
You can't negate someone else's morality without claiming your morality, or at least someone else's morality, is above it. Otherwise all you're doing is negating all morality, which aside from being a meaningless point also contradicts the idea that any morality let alone all morality is objective.

This creates an objective contradiction in your morality, since your equally unproven morality seeks non-equal treatment.
The contradiction is in the premise that all morality is objective. The rest is just where it inevitably leads.
Topic's author
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
You can't negate someone else's morality without claiming your morality, or at least someone else's morality, is above it. Otherwise all you're doing is negating all morality, which aside from being a meaningless point also contradicts the idea that any morality let alone all morality is objective
The contradiction is in the premise that all morality is objective. The rest is just where it inevitably leads.
Thats the point. The point is to prove that some morality is objectively wrong, thus the premise (all morality is equally non-proven) becomes false, thus subjective morality is disproven.

To put it in premise form:

P1. If any moral opinion is equally non-proven as others, but seeks better treatment than others, then it commits a contradiction it cannot justify, and becomes disproven.

What is your objection to this premise?

If you have no objection to this premise, then this premise stands true and proves that some moral opinions are objectively wrong.
#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
For morality to even exist there must be an objective standard to even establish morality of any kind.
For morality to exist there must be a standard, there is no such thing as an "objective standard" because the term itself is incoherent. The standard is the basis on which all actions are compared. An action can be objectively good or objectively evil within a given framework, but the framework itself will always be a matter of opinion for which people will disagree.

And by "people", I'm referring to any thinking agent which includes God if there is one.

Religious based moral standards never change.
So when God wrote the old testament, was slavery moral?

Topic's author
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
You can't negate someone else's morality without claiming your morality, or at least someone else's morality, is above it. 
If someone else's morality commited an obvious violation and claimed to be above others, it commits a contradiction which negates it and places it below other moral opinions.

There is nothing confusing about this. If we both have 1000$ each, but you claim to have 1000000$, you would be lying and thus objectively wrong.

Same goes with any moral opinion which seeks to be above others when being equally non-proven. It becomes disproven and objectively wrong.
#16
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
P1. If any moral opinion is equally non-proven as others, but seeks better treatment than others, then it commits a contradiction it cannot justify, and becomes disproven.

What is your objection to this premise?
I have a few actually.

The term "non-proven morality" is problematic from the start. Morality begins with a moral standard, that standard will always be subjective so no morality could ever be "proven". Therefore this right off the bat seems to confuse what morality is.

Moreover, you're claiming that the very act of one morality "seeking better treatment" than others negates itself which is logically absurd. The entire point of morality is to determine what behavior is acceptable within a society. This idea negates that entirely by asserting that everyone's morality is equal all the time, so by extension Ted Bundy's morality is just as good as yours, which means he should have never been locked up and instead sent free to continue his actions.

That's not morality, that's the absence of morality. Basically, your argument is the equivalent of arguing that atheism is a religion.
Topic's author
#17
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
The term "non-proven morality" is problematic from the start. Morality begins with a moral standard, that standard will always be subjective so no morality could ever be "proven". Therefore this right off the bat seems to confuse what morality is.
If morality is not proven, then it is non-proven.

If all moral opinions have zero proof to support them, they are equal in terms of proof.

Moreover, you're claiming that the very act of one morality "seeking better treatment" than others negates itself which is logically absurd.
Actually, I have already explained it to you and you didnt respond.

The very idea that all moralities have zero proof for them means that none of them can justify trying to be above others, and if any seeks to be above others, it creates a logical contradiction and deducts from own proof, thus becomes less proven than others.
#18
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,155
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Hey I am just the messenger, 100% of all people will use the 2 sources as their moral compass or a combination of both. Everyone is an immoral shit stain.

No one is without sin and no one agrees 100% with what society proposes. You all are immoral blights on society. Religion is just more consistent than society. Who the fuck knows what society will deem moral or immoral from one day to the next.
#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
The very idea that all moralities have zero proof for them means that none of them can justify trying to be above others
This is known as the nuclear method, a classic logical fallacy.

It's most widely used to equate unjustified claims of knowledge with claims of knowledge that are justified - all on the basis that justified claims can't be proven with absolute certainty. Think of the guy who claims to know the election was stolen. When pressed, cannot present any evidence whatsoever so instead of recognizing that and retracting their statement responds with "well you can't know you're not in a mental institution dreaming this whole argument up". Which is true, none of us can know this with absolute certainty, that doesn't make their conspiracy claims any more justified. Effectively, their tactic is to blow up all knowledge so that their unjustified claim to knowledge is on the same standing as the claim that you are sitting where you are right now.

You're doing the same thing with morality. You start by adopting the religious mantra that the only morality which can be placed above any other is one that is objective, therefore if there is no objective morality than the guy who runs around killing and raping people for fun is the same as the guy who spends his life donating to charity. It's an absurd point for obvious reasons, but the idea that those two things are the same negates the entire idea of what morality is from the start.

Morality is, by definition, a system by which people judge actions as right or wrong. If you are logically forced to acknowledge all actions as the same, then the system we call morality is not possible.

Moreover, the point of all of this is that you are supposed to be arguing that morality being subjective makes it objective, but objective morality has an actual definition. If it's objective then any given action either is or is not moral, not by a matter of opinion, but because it just is, the same as two plus two equaling four. Yet you yourself argue that it is impossible to get there from a subjective starting point, so your argument directly contradicts your OP.

You should rename your OP. You're argument is not  that morality being subjective makes it objective, but that morality being subjective means there's no such thing as morality.
Topic's author
#20
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
None of that has anything to do with what I am saying, but I got bored of this conversation, so bye.
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
You all are immoral blights on society. 
This reminds me of Ray Crocs schtick where he goes around asking people if they've ever told a lie, when they of course say yes he tells them that means that they are a liar and therefore need to repent.

It sort of sounds powerful until a few seconds of thought is applied. Being a liar is a bad thing, bit that depends on how you define the term "liar". A person who has told a lie once before in their life is not a liar by any reasonable definition, so the charge there is meaningless semantics macerating as a serious point.

Same goes for your claim above.

Religion is just more consistent than society
According to the bible, if your child is being unruly the proper response is to take them to the edge of town and stone them to death.

Consistent and good/useful are not the same thing.
#22
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,155
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Like I said, you pick and choose what is convenient for you, you will always be a immoral blight on society just like me and everyone else. You can no more prove you are not immoral than you can prove you are not a racist or a liar. Thing is, I just don't give a fuck what anyone thinks. I have my job security,  I pay my bills, provide for my family and the whole world can go pound sand if they have anything to say about how I do that or what I think about anything.
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
you will always be a immoral blight on society just like me and everyone else.
If everyone will always be an immoral blight on society no matter what they do then the term immoral blight is entirely useless.
#24
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
@Best.Korea
3. The only way all moral opinions can be equally applied is if all have same amount of area for application.

4. Thus, each person can own his body and apply his moral opinions to it.
This doesn't work. You can claim all moral opinions have the same validity or worth, but once they are applied in the same area they will contradict eachother. That conflicts with the concept of either of them being objective.
What he said.
Topic's author
#25
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Again, this conversation is over since people engaged in it arent on my logical level and thus, cannot possibly understand my words, let alone refute them.
#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,227
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
When me and ADreamOfLiberty are united against your argument, you really need to rethink your argument.
Topic's author
#27
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 354
Posts: 10,534
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
When me and ADreamOfLiberty are united against your argument, you really need to rethink your argument.
No, but there is no way for me to educate you, as my logic is far greater than yours combined, so naturally you cannot even understand it let alone do something against it. And it doesnt even matter how much ramble you both produce, as random rambling isnt an argument.
#28
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,155
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Yep, no matter what you do, millions upon millions if not billions will consider you a immoral blight on society.  I mean I didn't just make up my moral compass yet millions upon millions in this country alone consider me a moral blight who shouldn't even be allowed to have a say in anything. Or maybe I am just a stupid fucking retard that doesn't get anything or understand anything and I just don't know it.. Anything is possible.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
True.

Within the context of material development, language and communication has proved to be a valuable asset.

Though the the term "immoral blight", certainly doesn't bring a whole lot to the evolutionary party.


In terms of data assessment, process dictates that everything is resultant of a subjective process.

Especially an abstract concept such as morality.


#30
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,888
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Aesop Fables, Fracturde Fariy Tales, Mr. Peabody via the super-sonic flying squirrell and more from some of our childhood experiences