Is this meta-ethical counter a good counter to moral objections?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Theists generally claim that if morality is subjective, then all moral positions are equal. Thus, anyone can dismiss or accept moral positions without any justification by simply saying it is subjective, so it doesn’t matter. For the sake of exploration, consider that this is true, that morality is subjective and there is no objective morality and consider that someone makes a moral objection to me and I just say, “morality is subjective, like preferences. It is your preference, and I don’t have to care about it. Thus, your moral objection doesn’t matter.” Is this counter to moral objections a good one?

Also, I consider that most people here will be cognitivists, which is a position that says moral statements are truth-apt, meaning they can be true or false.

If that’s the case, then logically, if morality is subjective and there is no objective morality, then all moral statements are false. Because when we say statements like “killing is bad,” “raping is bad,” “torturing someone is bad,” and many others, we are claiming that the action has the property of badness, but it doesn’t have it. It is just your subjective imagination and nothing else. And that’s how all moral statements would be false if morality is subjective. So my question is: Is it a good counter to say a moral objection is false if someone makes a moral objection? And if these theories are true, does it give a person a free pass to do anything?

2

Within the ESGTRV framework, it is necessary to distinguish between a moral code and the morality of an action.

A moral code is a set of behavioral rules developed by society and functioning within specific historical conditions. Therefore, what is considered moral in one code may be regarded as immoral in another.

The morality of an action manifests itself within a moral code, since a person evaluates actions based on the norms internalized from society. However, the objective evaluation of an action is determined not by these norms, but by its spirituality and rationality — that is, by the degree to which it corresponds to beauty, harmony, and justice in the surrounding world.

In a person guided by the emotions of Reason, a conflict may arise between the learned norms of the moral code and the inner emotional assessment of an action. This is connected to the structure of the thinking apparatus at the physiological level — the level of intellect, meaning the quality of rational thinking.

This level is epigenetically determined at the moment of zygote formation and defines a person’s ability to perceive and amplify rational structures.

In other words, morality establishes social norms of behavior, whereas the evaluation of the morality of an action is determined by the spirituality and rationality of a person at the deep structural supragenetic level — that is, at the level of the physical organization of their thinking.

Thus, people differ in their degree of spirituality and rationality, and accordingly differ in how they perceive the morality of actions.

3

.

That is why morality is objective..

1 Like
4

A biological processing physical machine BODY programmed with binary software is an atheists and a theists because it claims that God exists and doesn’t exist.

It’s never been about whether you exist or don’t exist even though you do exist because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist…its always only ever been about whether you are alive or dead whilst you claim things.

A binary processing biological machine is dead…because it doesn’t possess life…….its a meat machine.

5

.

..got any stats to go with that hearsay?
.

Changing the goal posts, but not the actual theme? Ok..

6

It’s not hearsay Surya….It’s sound representation of reality science,something that you are unfamiliar with clearly because you much prefer fake misrepresentation reality science.

A binary processing biological machine which can’t prove or disprove the existence or non existence of God does processes all possibilities with binary programming logic.

Descartes claim “I am binary electrical signals,therefore I am” revealed his completely and utter lack of understanding of actual reality.

1 Like
7

And what is the problem?

8

I assume we refer to Abrahamic religions?

First, let the theists clarify what they mean by “objective”.

If it is a set of unchanged moral rules, I do not see how it can be justified. Which moral code is unchangable? If you are God’s favorite, you can have incest relationship (the chosen one Abraham with his sister Sarah, Lot with his daughters). If God commands it, it is ok to perform human sacrifices (again Abraham, ready to sucrifice Isaac), or kill in general (wars with infidels). For less important moral rules, bigger ambiguity is observed.

If by objective we mean what God commands, we need the instruction manual. With so many alterations in God’s orders presented to the prophets, to God sons, or to the representatives on earth, it starts looking very close to subjective morality.

By the way, subjective morality is not identified only by one person, it can be a group of people, like a society. It is what usually refers to as “social construct”, where many people agree to follow certain moral rules that ensure coexistence between them.

9

You have to prove that force absolutes don’t exist in reality before you start making up your own moral rules though ghatzige.

Mainstream science is unable to do that as we know because it’s impossible to cancel out the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS that exist between all spinning particles which make up all matter.So you first have to see if science can be explained with just these two force absolutes before you start inventing your own .i.e. gravity;electromagnetism;strong and weak nuclear forces.

As you can explain reality perfectly with the two force absolutes.i.e. attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes then you don’t need mainstream sciences mythical forces.

10

The problem is you don’t think therefore you are as Descartes claimed, that’s a ridiculous assertion……because you need to exist first to think and claim things ……. a lifeless binary processing biological machine needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist.

As a very minimum you are a biological machine which exists and claims things Arzin….Its a scientific fact because we know that this machine picks up via its antenna senses and converts binary data into sounds,visions and sensations which the metaphysical self interprets.

11

First: Its interesting that the concept objective morality gets thrown around so much, but i have never once seen it objectively defined or pointed out.
”Objective” suggests that its unbiased and tainted by one’s own values. That its the same standard for all and everyone who looks at it and measures it.
”Objective morality” takes this seven steps further by claiming that EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE can accept the laid out values as the same.

If i wanted to be funny, i’d just say that the mere fact that you disagree with others about “objective” morality, already disproves it’s existence cause afterall, it should be something equally measurable for everyone.
But i’ll bite: What on earth do you think even fits this bill of “objective morality”?

And now, to answer your question…
If you want to tackle morality as a concept, you can do it by scale. Thats probably the simplest way:
Morality of what?
1 person? 1 household? 1 house? 1 street? 1 city? 1 state? Country? Race, religion, species, planet, universe, etc etc etc etc

If objective reality was a thing, then you’d need to find an answer that holds objectively true on ALL scales whether its 1 person, 1 species, life as a whole, or this universe and all it entails.
I will go ahead and say that you wont be able to do that because all encompassing systems have zero concept of things like life and death. At the top, imperfection and suffering are considered part of perfection, so you will always have clashing morals between each levels of the scale/magnitude.

And that is specifically your answer right there.
Morality is subjective, but that does not mean you have a free pass to do everything.
You bring up examples like killing or raping. There are people who find those things subjectively positive on an individual level. However, the next levels might denounce that and crush it just like society catches murderers and rapists or how religion denounces you for it.

The tl;dr would be that morality is subjective and is a construct, but it works just fine when you work with it subjectively.
A person has their morality. A household has its morality. A street has its morality. A city, a country, a religion, a species, scaling up and down morality is there even if its nothing more than normalcy enforced by the larger masses

If you are however looking for a “one size fits all” concept… yeah that will never happen.

12

Force absolutes exist in the cosmos because it’s impossible to cancel out attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes so moral absolutes exist.

13

How do you equate physical forces to morality?
Also, how would you know that your claim about forces are permanent and not just subjective to this present state of the universe?
If you want to be technical about it, the universe itself is subjective cause theoretically neither space time nor any of the current physical laws existed before the big bang.

14

See this thread to accurately assess what you’re in for here with that discussion:

Hope I can save you some time.

15

The single big bang is a made up fairy story.How can all matter have come from and will end up at a single point when we know that all matter enters and exits the cosmos from/into the holes at the centre of multiple galaxies….LOL…..surely you don’t believe in the mythical single big bang theory nonsense still when it’s established fake news that is gathering dust in the archives of false theories.

Mainstream scientists make stuff up as they go along to suit their religious beliefs.As attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes exist in the cosmos moral absolutes exist and have always existed.You won’t find a single scientists anywhere in the world that can prove how attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out in the cosmos.They don’t cancel out and yet mainstream science is still continuing with fake science on the assumption that they do cancel out.

You need to think what you are saying before you claim nonsense because you make yourself look a complete fool.We know that a single big must have either happened by magic or the atheists +=- and -=+ starting philosophy is incorrect.We know that mainstream science is all fake because it’s either founded upon magic or an incorrect starting philosophical assumption regarding force absolutes..If something caused this mythical single big bang other than magic then there wasn’t a cancelling out prior to it silly………LOL!!!

16

Тело запрограммировано в четверичной системе счисления.

17

If that’s the case then we are all condemned to be free and you can’t rationally argue why your subjective morality is superior then the subjective morality of a rapist, killer, torturer or other heinous people. Rendering moral talk rationally pointless or philosophically dirty. Because only thing you can do is just psychological manipulation or physical force to stop them. You can’t do any rational talk to show one subjective morality is preferable then the other.

1 Like
18

“you can’t rationally argue why your subjective morality is superior to the subjective morality of a rapist, killer, torturer, or other heinous people.”

That’s right… so the only way to avoid this embarrassing nonsense in human discourse all together - a society producing scumbags that have no freewill, then we try to blame them when they become scumbags, etc… it’s such amateur crap - is to identify the features of society that generate this embarrassing crap and make efforts to eliminate them.

But as Harris, Sam said (not verbatim): the open admission of there being no freewill would precipitate a culture war far more fucked up than the controversy of evolution.

This is why the true philosopher drops out of society. He’s not able to tolerate its madness and the lunacy of the cave dwellers. And the courtroom is the darkest, most dangerous part of the cave. It is where this lunacy exhibits the most power.

19

Do you know the saying of Archimedes?
“Give me but one firm spot on which to stand and I will move the earth.”
It really just works like that.
Is there any fix point to which you can refer that would move all and everything? I dont really think so.
All i have, all you have, all we have are frames of reference.

I can by all means claim that my subjective morality is superior to that of a rapist, killer, torture or otherwise, but i will have to name the frame of reference. Its superior for me. Its superior for my family. Its superior for all who are not psychopaths and take enjoyment out of harming others.

Im not sure about the rest.
Only thing i can do is to do psychological manipulation or use physical force?
Yes. Thats how society functions as we speak. In fact, that has always been the way of life on this planet since its beginning.
I do not see a contradiction, problem or point here. That is precisely how humanity is. How ALL of life is.

On a sidenote:
Do you know why religion is such a fun way to cheat this system?
Because it makes up the “universal” morality.
Worshippers can always go “You see, i am but a man just like you and thus i do not get to judge or punish you… on the other hand, i have this thing called god here that is the creator of everything and since he owns all of existence, he gets to say what goes”.

A story as old as humanity itself: Claiming absolute moral authority on the basis of “because the brain ghost i made up says so”. Deus Vult.

20

Honesty first: I didn’t read on this.

I don’t know which words you use for this, but as long as I can remember, moral means what is disapproved, and ethics is about what is bad. Morality is subjective and ethics is not. It is moral for people to remove bodily parts from newborns yet it is bad. Ethics doesn’t assume or define but research on what is good/bad.

1 Like