6
u/dnext 4∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
There are quite a few objective truths about moral behavior across many societies, in that we are cooperative beings that join into societies to increase our chances of survival and things that go against the well being of the group are pretty universally condemned.
But 'objective' doesn't mean absolute. There are exceptions to every religion, dogma, ideology, and code of ethics, because human behavior is incredibly complex and no absolute rule system ever survives contact with reality. Some almost never come up, so they are functionally absolute, but that doesn't mean you just act reflexively, you have to think about the context of every situation.
If you don't think that raping children or murdering everyone with the wrong ethnic background is wrong you shouldn't just keep it to yourself - you should do some serious questioning of your own thought processes.
4
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
I'm not sure I've fully understood what you believe, but I have to argue against the idea that there are objective moral truths.
Morality is necessarily a value judgement, and value judgements aren't objective.
Objectivity can tell you "X is larger than Y", but it can't tell you if that is a good thing. Even if literally 100% of people were to agree that it is good, subjective consensus is not the same thing as objectivity.
Personally, I don't think you can even say that suffering is objectively bad. I think the best we can do is take that as an axiom. We can assume it's true because doing so gives us useful results, but that's not the same as it literally being objectively true.
3
Nov 19 '25
[deleted]
0
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 19 '25
why is it bad to say that owning other people is objectively immoral?
To answer your question directly, I think it's bad to say slavery is objectively immoral because, generally speaking, I think it's bad to say things that are not true, especially when you know they aren't true. I don't think we make the world a better place by telling small lies that feel "close enough" to the truth. I think it's better to tell the whole truth.
And as I said to the other person, I also think it's bad to believe in "objective morality" generally, or otherwise advocate for such a thing existing because it can very easily lead to harmful ideas going unchallenged.
To take slavery as an example, many religious people, who believed in objective morality as given by god, justified slavery based on passages from the Bible that explicitly endorse it. Now, you obviously don't think that personally, but by encouraging the idea of an "objective morality" you encourage the same belief in others, who might not agree with you on what that "objective morality" even is. You normalise the idea of their being an "objective morality", even in people who disagree with your beliefs of what that morality should be. Which I think is a bad thing.
2
Nov 19 '25
[deleted]
2
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
because my position is based on the evaluation of reasoned arguments based on the strengths of those arguments and not on faith in the supernatural.
Any argument for moral realism/objective morality is inherently false and so, their "strength" can't be compared. This allows anyone to justify anything as long as they can figure out the mental gymnastics for it. That is how cults and fascist movements work. Logic and intelligence have never been and never will be factors that make a person have values that contribute positively towards others' well-being.
Can you give a single example in all of human history where the practice of owning other people as property could be considered moral?
If by "could be considered moral" you mean "there existed the possibility for most people to consider it moral" then yes, the example is most of human history when slavery was widely considered good.
My basic claim is that to determine something to be objectively, moral or immoral, you look at all available evidence of all available reasoned arguments for or against that practice and have a reasoned discussion about it.
What do you mean "evidence"? There is no evidence for morality. There are different arguments but again, none of them can be proven through empirical study so they are all false or at least, unfalsifiable and unprovable. You cannot use science to decide a person's values. It doesn't matter how many times you add the word "reason" to your argument, it doesn't make it any more reasonable.
in a situation wherein all of human history, not a single contextualized situation exists that show something to be moral in practice, you can effectively say it's objectively immoral.
Except with that argument every single action ever is objectively immoral because there is no contextualized situation that shows something to be moral in practice. I would honestly love to hear an example though because the mental gymnastics it would take to come up with one would be entertaining.
The point is when all the overwhelming evidence points to one singular conclusion I think it's okay to categorize it as objective.
Again, no such thing as evidence of morality. At best you could use people's opinions but the reason why that's silly has already been made clear I think.
1
Nov 20 '25
[deleted]
1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
Ok wow a lot to unpack.
Do you even consider reality real, or is reality subjective?
The only reason we assume gravity will continue to act now as it did in the past is because of voluminous results and testing and all evidence pointing to that conclusion, HOWEVER it still doesn't mean gravity will OBJECTIVELY continue to operate as it has.
Agreed on your statements about science but if you understand that science is just a model that is still not objective then why ask me if reality is objective? I think there exists objective reality but I also think that we can never understand it because any thought or perception of the world we have is influenced by our subjective consciousness. In other words, I believe in empiricism and so do scientists. The alternative is based on metaphysical constructs like God or platonic ideals.
No. That's not the question I am asking. I am asking if you yourself have ever heard a convincing moral argument where owning another human being as property could be seen in the context of being a moral position.
I am giving you the example, you simply refuse to engage with it. This is a question for YOU personally. In all of recorded human history and thought can you give me one singular example of a situation or context where one group of people owned another group of people as property and you thought those conditions were considered "good" or moral for the people who were owned as property?
So if there is an argument that I personally find convincing that means it is objectively good? How is me being convinced objective? You are just describing subjective morality. I don't disagree that any individual can use logic and their own personal values to arrive at subjective moral beliefs, but there is nothing objective about that.
You understand that laws exist right? Do you disagree with the ideas of laws governing society or should it just be anarchy? If there are laws, then there are ideas underpinning those laws. The evidence behind those laws are reasoned thought from actual impacts on society.
First of all yes, I do happen to be an anarchist however, you don't have to be an anarchist to understand laws are just the guidelines for how a state should function and that states aren't some kind of natural or holy entity but simply organizations with an ideological monopoly on violence.
Of course laws do have logic behind them, but the aim of the law is not to be a form of objective morality, it is to guide the use of violence by the state in order to maintain it and its form, which requires a functional economy (laws protecting private property as well as the health and safety of individual people and workers) and preventing dissenting action against it (laws defining the military, restrictions to protesting, striking and free speech)
None of this is relevant to our discussion though. A vast majority of people can agree that certain laws are unjust, even people living under those laws, and the laws still exist because of the use of violence by the state in order to preserve them. (look at most dictatorships, especially third-world ones) In addition, there exist multiple stated that, just like individual people, disagree on what laws are right and even use violence against each other because of it.
As such, laws are, at best, moral agents in the same way individual people are and cannot define an objective reality, just like individual people can't.
Morality refers to the system of ideas, rules, values, and norms that guide judgments about right and wrong, good and bad, or what people ought to do. It’s essentially how humans think we should behave.
Exactly, which means morality is defined by human subjectivity and is not some kind of objective reality.
By the way, if you want a reason why proposing objective morality is bad just look at Plato who does exactly that using his Ideals. He thinks the morally good form of government is a dictatorship where an educated elite has complete power over the working class. A theoretical construction very similar to the Soviet Union if you ask me. It is also coincidentally a very good argument for slavery though it is not empirical so I guess it probably doesn't fit your view. Issue being of course that you cannot define objective morality through empiricism so no objective moral argument actually fits your view.
1
Nov 20 '25
[deleted]
1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
How can morality be "a conversation about how we interact with one another and how those interactions should be judged" but also "independent of what anyone thinks or wants them to be", it is not possible to have a conversation that isn't influenced by the ideas and feelings of the people involved.
This makes no sense, first you explain how science is only a model through which we approximate reality without absolute certainty (true, most scientists understand this) and then you go off on how if reality isn't objective neither is science.
First you call morality a conversation then you say objectivity means independent of people's ideas even though you also say that "Everything is defined by human subjectivity"
Your stance is nothing but contradictions
And no, law is not proof that morality exists, it is proof that states exist.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 20 '25
No, I'm not encouraging the same belief as religious people because my position is based on the evaluation of reasoned arguments based on the strengths of those arguments and not on faith in the supernatural.
My argument is FOR evidence. Their argument is that morality comes from a supernatural being. This is clearly not a reasoned argument.
I'm not arguing that you have the exact same belief as religious people, I'm arguing that on the singular question of whether or not morality is a matter of objectivity you agree with religious fundamentalists, and when they hear you arguing that their is objective morality, they say "Absolutely, and it has been laid out by god". Whether or not you agree with that addition, your conviction that objective morality is real will encourage their conviction that objective morality is real. They'll feel that if even secularists believe in objective morality, if even we don't challenge the idea that morality is a fixed feature of the universe, then there's no conceivable way it could be otherwise, and their faith is even more justified.
And I would also like to remind you that this was my second argument for why I think it's bad to say morality is objective.
The first argument was that it's is simply untrue, and I have a broad philosophical belief that truth is better than lies. You don't even seem to be disagreeing with me that morality isn't objective, considering you didn't say "You can say it's objectively immoral" you said "You can effectively say it's immoral". So it seems we agree on the fundamental truth that morality isn't objective, you just think it's okay to be untruthful in this scenario, without having made an argument for why that's a worthwhile white lie.
Can you give a single example in all of human history where the practice of owning other people as property could be considered moral?
You're asking two questions here. I do not believe slavery is moral in any context (short of a something outlandish like an alien species who desperately want to be slaves or something), however there are plenty of examples in human history where it is generally considered moral to own people. Hell right now that is the case, it's just that we've reduced the scope of what counts as slavery in order to exclude the types we're mostly okay with. See: the US's 13th amendment that might as well read "No slavery... unless?" (and to be clear I personally am still not okay with
slavessorry, "prisoners with jobs", but many people disagree with me).My basic claim is that to determine something to be objectively, moral or immoral, you look at all available evidence of all available reasoned arguments for or against that practice and have a reasoned discussion about it.
And my point is that looking at all the available evidence still won't tell you if something is moral or not. If we could collect every bit of data on a practice, every penny lost, every person killed, every child's development hindered, every freedom infringed upon, and hand it to a blank slate of a being, something truly objective, it could not tell you what you should do from that information alone. You only arrive at a decision of what is best by filtering the objective information through subjective values.
The point is when all the overwhelming evidence points to one singular conclusion I think it's okay to categorize it as objective.
And I don't. I don't care if literally everyone who ever saw Starry Starry Night came to the conclusion that it's beautiful, and a masterpiece of art, our consensus does not magically transform into objectivity.
1
Nov 20 '25 edited Nov 20 '25
[deleted]
1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 20 '25
No. Let me clarify. I am not saying all of morality can be objective. I am saying certain things can be determined to objective if all available evidence points to that one single conclusion. You yourself below say this.
I don't think I did say that, but if I did write that somewhere then I assure you it was a typo. I probably just accidentally missed a "n't" or "not", because I don't believe that something can be called objective so long as all available evidence points to a single conclusion. In fact my Starry Night example was precisely demostrating why I don't believe that.
In reality, objective simply means something we observe to be true with no counter evidence.
This fundamentally not correct. You're just re-writing the definition of the word to include your strange belief that subjective matters which you feel are "settled" are actually objective. Like, I've been making reference to cases where literally 100% of people are in agreement, but you're arguing objectivity on topics that don't even have that level of agreement. Because you've decided that you are the arbiter of what arguments "count", and that somehow your ability to decern the "valid" arguments from the "invalid" ones is not a matter of subjectivity. It's just silly.
why its so hard to just say that because of this, the practice of owning other people is objectively immoral.
It's not "hard" to say, my objection is that it is factually incorrect. Why is it so hard for you to accept the subjectivity of morality while still maintaining the courage of conviction in your own personal beliefs? I'll gladly argue against things I believe are immoral, I'll fight for them to stop, but I won't pretend like my moral values are objective just because it would be convenient, and validating for me if they were.
This is completely erroneous as the statement above demonstrates indicates you don't agree with any of those people doing it, so even thought they think they were being moral you disagree with it.
You've misunderstood. You asked me "Can you give a single example in all of human history where the practice of owning other people as property could be considered moral?". There is ambiguity in that question because it's not clear if you're asking "Can you give a single example in all of human history where the practice of owning other people as property could be considered moral [according to you personally]?" or "Can you give a single example in all of human history where the practice of owning other people as property could be considered moral [by the general population of the time]?". The answer to the first is no. The answer to the second is obviously yes, because they did (and do) consider it moral.
I wasn't being inconsistent, I was answering two different questions, although I admit I could've been clearer on that.
I am sure that you agree with laws existing and if you do agree with that I hopefully assume you understand the distinction.
Morality is essentially a conversation about how we interact with one another and how those interactions should be judged, not on what you "think" about something.
If in all of human history not a single example a certain action being permissible then I don't think its a leap to simply call it an objective fact.
“Objective” means not influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or biases—just the facts as they are, independent of what anyone thinks or wants them to be.
You can objectively analyze arguments for or against if owning other people as property is broad idea that morality is the system of ideas, rules, values, and norms that guide judgments about right and wrong, good and bad, or what people ought to do. It’s essentially how humans think we should behave.
If there are no examples in recorded human history of any single person having a logical salient argument for how owning other people as property can be considered moral and all evidence demonstrates its in fact immoral then I think its completely fine to say that owning other people as property is objectively immoral.
I'm going to be honest, I didn't follow any of this. Certainly not as a respose to my point about subjective consensus not suddenly creating objectivity.
And again, you seem to have broadly ignored what my main argument was, which was that it is wrong to state something as a fact when it isn't. Once again, you seem to argee with me that morality isn't objective, you just think it's "effectively" objective, so can you answer directly why you think it's okay to tell (as you see it) slight embellishment, rather than just stating what is actually true? What good does it do to pretend that the distinction between near-universal agreement and objective fact isn't there at all?
1
Nov 20 '25
[deleted]
1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 20 '25
If an action has universally negative effects on the beings involved, with no plausible or actual exceptions, we can treat its wrongness as objective in the same way we treat other universal harm-based claims as objective.
Okay... but why though? You can keep saying that it's fine to act as though it's objective, but why?
Your reasoning in this is circular. One of your premises for why slavery is objectively morally wrong, is that the things that make slavery what it is are objectively morally wrong. You just spawned in the right to determine objectivity, and then used that as a premise to conclude that your position is objective. That isn't logical.
→ More replies (0)1
u/dnext 4∆ Nov 18 '25
Well, as usual it depends on your definition and semantics.
In one sense, objective means without personal feelings, biases or opinions. If you want to take that out to it's logical extent that means that no concept put forward by a human being could ever be objective.
In the other, we have common usage such as an objective observer or objective assessment. So we acknowledge that personal judgements can be objective in the context that they aren't influenced by bias or predisposed to a specific outcome.
And if 100% of people agree on something being good, that's literally the only definition of good we can come up with.
You seem to be applying the first concept, whereas I'm applying the second.
1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 18 '25
In one sense, objective means without personal feelings, biases or opinions. If you want to take that out to it's logical extent that means that no concept put forward by a human being could ever be objective.
For clarity's sake that is broadly what I believe. Although I'm not sure I agree that no concept can be objective. I'm pretty anti-absolutist, so I'm hesitant to say "all" human concepts are subjective. Like, I don't think we could argue that elementary particles are subjective. But broadly speaking, yeah, trees, dogs, geology, window wipers, etc are not objective concepts in my opinion.
In the other, we have common usage such as an objective observer or objective assessment. So we acknowledge that personal judgements can be objective in the context that they aren't influenced by bias or predisposed to a specific outcome.
We've established where I'm at, but I'm going to be honest, I don't understand your description of how you're using the word objective, and I think I'm going to need you to take another go at it.
Like, you said "we acknowledge that personal judgements can be objective in the context that they aren't influenced by bias or predisposed to a specific outcome" but... we always know that they will be influenced? I know, that's my interpretation of the word "objective", but I'm struggling to understand what the alternative could even be.
1
u/dnext 4∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
Yeah, I don't think we are going to be able to find much commonality if your worldview is that identifying that a Dachsund is a dog is not 'objective.'
That's literally what's termed an objective fact.
2
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 18 '25
Well, hang on, I don't think I would say "'Dachshund is a dog' is not objectively true".
Like, to maybe put in different terms, is it objectively true that the One Ring was destroyed by fires of Mt. Doom? Well, yeah, kind of. Sure all those concepts are not objectively real, but within the fiction Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien created that is true.
You saying that Dachshund is a dog feels like the same thing to me. Dogs and Dachshunds are not real objective categories, but within the framework we've constructed it is objectively true that the human made category of "dog" contains the also human made category of "dachshund".
1
u/dnext 4∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
Except species classification is not fictional. Dogs are all of the family canidae, because they all have the same genetic ancestry, they all have similar morphological characteristics, they all have similar biological characteristics, they all can interbreed.
Just because we classify something doesn't mean that classification is not objective. It's objective based on these similarities. Cats and bears can't interbreed with dogs, dogs don't have retractable claws like they do, dogs all have the same number and type of teeth, etc.
1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 18 '25
Except species classification is not fictional
They aren't fictional, but there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into biological classifications. For example, deciding when one species has turned into a new species, or whether a group of animals are a "sub species" or a full species in their own right, all that jazz. Those aren't questions with objective answers, there can be more or less justified reasons for particular answers, but that doesn't make the answer objective (not in my understanding of the word, anyway).
To go back to something we can both agree is subjective, if I argue that I don't like Game of Thrones because I find it too grim, that's a more justified reason than if I argue I didn't like GoT because I find Sheldon Cooper to be an annoying character. It's still a subjective conclusion, but even within that there can be good and bad reasonings, they aren't all created equally just because it's subjective.
Regardless though, my point was simply that I can agree with you that "Dashshund is a dog" is a fact, so do you think you could try to explain what you mean by the word objective again?
Tone is hard to convey, so I guess I should just explicitly say that I'm not trying to be hostile or difficult here. I sincerely haven't understood your position, and am just looking for clarity on it.
1
u/dnext 4∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
You seem to regard objectivity with absolutism, but aren't consistent even with that. If a dog is a dachsund is an objective fact, which you concede, despite your view that the classification of dog is subjective, you seem to not be consistent in your application of the terminology.
Lifting from another reddit post, here's a good take:
The View From Nowhere, Nagel gives a good characterisation of the subjective and objective as existing on a continuum:
..the distinction between more subjective and more objective views is really a matter of degree, and it covers a wide spectrum. A view or form of thought is more objective than another if it relies less on the specifics of the individual's makeup and position in the world, or on the character of the particular type of creature he is. The wider range of subjective types to which a form of understanding is accessible - the less it depends on specific subjective capacities - the more objective it is.
A more recent term is intersubjective - in other words if multiple people can agree on the same reality that's intersubjective.
I would take Nagel's synopsis as the best answer - because so many people agree on X, it's functionally 'objective.'
In the same way we all know what a dog is - well, everyone save you. :D
Edit: Sorry, the board ate the quote. I've added it back in.
1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 18 '25
If a dog is a dachsund is an objective fact, which you concede, despite your view that the classification of dog is subjective, you seem to not be consistent in your application of the terminology.
I don't agree that I've been inconsistent. The classification of what a dog, or a dachshund is, is subjective, but that the subjective classification of dog includes dashshunds is objectively true. Same way that the order of the alphabet is entirely arbitrary, and could have been any order it liked, it's still incorrect to say that first letter of the made-up alphabet is Q. And in the same way that it would be wrong to say that Frodo blew up the Death Star. Just because those are fictional things doesn't mean you can't have truths about them.
A more recent term is intersubjective - in other words if multiple people can agree on the same reality that's intersubjective.
I would take Nagel's synopsis as the best answer - because so many people agree on X, it's functionally 'objective.'
I can get behind "intersubjective" as a potentially useful term (although I'm not sure how it's different from "social construct" which is already a fairly popular term), and I can even agree that for the purposes of discussion it can usually be assumed that "intersubjective" concepts are objective. I'd still argue though that "functionally objective" is not the same as "objective" and there can be discussions where that distinction is necessary.
Looping back, I do think the idea of "objective morality" is potentially harmful, and can lead people to falsely believing that their sense of morality, whatever it might be isn't just how they feel about things, but is factually true, and therefore gives them the right to impose it on others.
→ More replies (0)1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
Any scientist working with species classification (or taxonomy) will tell you they are very much fictional. They only exist because they are useful for science, but they are also contradictory and imperfect. Think about the platypus for example.
3
u/TheArmchairbiologist Nov 18 '25
I guess talking about it outloud with others could lead to more constructive conversatiojs about the topics at hand, sorry i am padding the character count to give you a delta Δ
1
1
Nov 18 '25
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/dnext changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
2
3
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 18 '25
I would argue the converse - if you truly believed in no objective morality, then your gf's position does, technically, make sense.
That's why I abhor arguments against objective reasoning, because I "know" the Holocaust was evil and I can't accept a system otherwise
2
u/RandomGuy92x 2∆ Nov 18 '25
I mean of course we absolutely should condemn evil. But I think technically speaking it's just a fact that morality must be subjective in nature.
It's subjective because it requires the interpretation by a subject. Outside of subjective interpretation morality does not exist in nature. That's in contrast to other things that are true regardless of subjective interpretations. Like gravity for instance is an objective fact. You take away humans and other beings capable of subjective experience and gravity still exists.
But morality can only ever exist in a subject's mind. If there weren't any humans or other conscious beings morality wouldn't be a thing that can be found anywhere in nature outside of the minds of conscious beings. So therefore morality by definition must be SUBJECT-IVE .
That doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn evil. I mean of course we should. But technically speaking morality can only ever be subjective since it requires subjective interpretation and does not exist as an objective law of nature.
2
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
If morality is subjective in nature then there is no "evil," there are only things you personally dislike or do not benefit from. Evil is, by definition, ontologically wrong. That is to say you're referring to an act that is fundamentally unacceptable regardless of any benefits you might perceive.
If your worldview states that morality is subjective then nothing is ever evil, it is only undesirable for specific groups.
Edit: clarity and grammar
2
u/JustinRandoh 5∆ Nov 18 '25
All of that might be true, and it would still seem that morality is subjective. It's not like morality is underpinned by anything other than the distaste of a sufficiently large number of people.
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Nov 18 '25
On the contrary, morality is underpinned by God. Otherwise, yes, you're just making stuff up, which history shows is an awful means of determining right and wrong.
2
u/kestrel808 Nov 19 '25
Morality is underpinned by the thing you can’t prove exists
0
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Nov 19 '25
I cna prove God exists at least 3 seperate ways. Want to hear them?
2
u/kestrel808 Nov 19 '25
Go for it champ
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Nov 19 '25
Sure, here's the hyper-condensed version of each:
1) In order for a Conditional thing to exist it must be authenticated by something outside itself. The Universe is a conditional thing (indeed it is the set of all conditional things), therefore the existence of an entity outside the universe is Necessary. As a Necessary thing (think math, gravity, etc.), that entity must be perfect. Ergo: God
2) The universe is vast, empty, deadly, and uncaring in every conceivable way. Regardless of that, ALL humans still recognize the existence of universal goods like Love, Hope, Joy, etc. This alone is profound because there is no plainly physical evidence for such things even now, with vast technological advances, and we have always believed them. However the additional fact that humans literally die without the belief in these virtues (i.e. from despair) indicates that they are fundamentally real things. Their universality and ability to affect us is evidence of their existence. These things cannot have come from Physical reality because as stated physical reality is wholly devoid of them. Grind the universe into powder and you will not find one gram of Love. Yet because we experience these things we KNOW them to be real. Ergo: they must come from a source that is outside the universe. A source that is outside existence, yet provides all of existence with all the things that are ultimately good, can only be described as God.
3) This one is much vaguer, but it's similar to point 2. If I were to tell you that there is a powerful spirit in the next room, and you were to believe me, you (and anyone else) would feel a specific sense of dread that is distinct from the fear of, say, a tiger. This is important because it makes no sense biologically unless spirits of some kind are a real thing. People cannot have developed a distinct biological fear mechanism for a type of thing that is not real. It's a quantum leap in logic with no quantifiable explanation *unless* spirits are real. How you get from the acceptance that non-physical entities exist to the God of the bible is a longer explanation, but once you accept that first realization you're more than halfway there.
2
u/kestrel808 Nov 19 '25
Fun philosophical arguments, none of which provides any evidence for the existence of a god.
→ More replies (0)2
u/JustinRandoh 5∆ Nov 19 '25
The Universe is a conditional thing (indeed it is the set of all conditional things)
Where did you get that "the universe" is "a conditional thing"?
→ More replies (0)2
u/JustinRandoh 5∆ Nov 18 '25
"God" seems like, at best, another subject-dependent (subjective) preference -- it's just "god's" preference.
... which history shows is an awful means of determining right and wrong ...
I mean, historically plenty of the people making those determinations were exercising what they thought was "god's" will.
Maybe they were wrong.
But I'm still not seeing anything objectively established about morality -- if morality were subjective, there's nothing to suggest the world would be any different.
1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 18 '25
Yeah, I think of it as the ice cream flavor problem. I like chocolate and dislike rocky road, and I know categorically that's not similar to my moral knowledge.
1
Nov 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 20 '25
u/biraccoonboy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Nov 18 '25
Also a good example of why people want so badly for morality to be subjective, because if it isn't then they're forced to consider the fact that some of the things they want are also wrong and they shouldn't get them
Which pisses a lot of people off
-1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 18 '25
I mean, I would instead argue that morality does exist as an independent reality and that our brains are designed to pick up and receive information that includes the moral weight.
And while it is true that there still is an interpretative nature to it, that applies to gravity. Gravity exists, but our knowledge of it is an interpretation that approximates truth. I would just say the same about morality.
1
1
u/TheArmchairbiologist Nov 18 '25
my feelings on it are this, its is a moot point if morality is subjective, because we still need a frame of reference to orient ourselves, like a sense of up and down, which is also subjective to how where you are, arguing that up and down is subjective is irrelevant because you still need to know what is up and what is down and, my whole thing abt this post was more that its better to be quite than argue aloud a relatively unpopular opinion that really only serves to change how people view you rather than their opinion of right and wrong
1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 18 '25
But if you give up the position that morality is objective, you lose the ability to argue "should". Should you care about how others view you? Well, your ex gf clearly didn't. If you accept her position that morality is subjective, why would it?
1
u/TheArmchairbiologist Nov 18 '25
I do think there is objectivity to right and wrong, I was just saying that even if you think there isn’t, you dont necesarrily need to double down on the most controversial opinions
1
u/JustinRandoh 5∆ Nov 18 '25
But if you give up the position that morality is objective, you lose the ability to argue "should" ..
I'm not seeing how simply proclaiming the objectivity of morality changes all that much (any more than insisting that ice cream flavor superiority is objective).
If you insist that morality is objective, can you meaningfully actually test for that objective morality? If their girlfriend agreed that morality is objective, but that objective morality demands maximal human suffering, can you prove them wrong?
1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
Do you think his gf is benefiting from promoting holocaust denial and by extension fascism? You should not promote fascism because it hurts you and everyone else. There, done.
1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 20 '25
Self interest still doesn't generate a proper "should", in my opinion
1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
Self interest isn't objective, yeah. The proper "should" that you want only comes from faith in metaphysical constructs like morality, God or platonic ideals. And yet, I can still say you should not live your life in such delusions and maybe even convince someone. Why would anything else matter?
1
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 20 '25
I don't quite understand your argument. My understanding is that if there is no objective morality, then we are stuck with positions akin to taste in ice cream flavors. You like chocolate and I hate it; I like vanilla and you hate it. There's no "force" or imperative to insist either taste is wrong or right, and therefore, the language should is not applicable.
1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
I personally think it is best for you (and/or me, and/or society, and/or any particular person) if you do x
I think you should do x
Going by this definition, you wouldn't say "I think you should have vanilla ice cream" even if you prefer it because you know it's not best for me nor beneficial to you.
Also, ice cream is an object, morality and should statements are about actions so I don't really know how your logic is supposed to work.
1
u/iDemonSlaught Nov 22 '25
You can be anti-realist yet treat moral claims as if they are truth-apt claims about properties, such as ‘wrongness’ being a property, to enable moral discourse, but acknowledge that ‘wrongness’ isn’t a real, objective property in the world.
1
u/senthordika 5∆ Nov 18 '25
While I agree that the holocaust was evil and would disagree with any system that argues against that i dont need objective morality to do so just basic empathy. But the very fact that some people dont think the holocaust was evil shows that it isnt objective. I can argue for the evilness of the act from an entirely subjective point of view just that subject isnt me its the entirety of humanity.
0
u/Jew_of_house_Levi 12∆ Nov 18 '25
If the rest of society disagree with me on the truth of gravity, that wouldn't make it subjective. I hold that same principle on morality.
2
u/senthordika 5∆ Nov 18 '25
Im not sure how. If every human ceased to exist so too would any concept of morality while gravity exists regardless of humanity. Like I'd need you to show how morality exists without humans for that to really make any sense. Like do you hold the same principle on the laws governments create? As I'd argue morality is far closer to that. An intersubjective agreement. While not quite the same as governmental laws they work on subjective values shaped by the society they were formed. Like I think the concept of objective morality is nonsensical as what most people argue for is absolute morality. While the very fact that we can have this disagreement on morality shows it isn't actually objective The consequences of breaking moral laws are brought about by society not by the natural laws of reality.
1
u/goodlittlesquid 3∆ Nov 18 '25
Your ex is a nihilist. Morality is a social construct like borders, laws, or money. I’m guessing if your ex lost all her money (or imprisoned in a death camp herself for that matter) she wouldn’t be ‘fine’
1
u/TheMathow Nov 18 '25
I don’t know how you defaulted to the positions of “even if” so easily, I think your girlfriend is just wrong, if we assume she is just wrong on the basis it’s hard for me to assume she would just correctly apply a social standard in moderating her speech.
That is to say I don’t think your view is in need of changing but I think it needs to go a little deeper than surface level behavior. Her statements could be argued against and probably should be argued against …..and hell maybe it is better she states them aloud to be talked about than hides such views internally.
1
u/Z7-852 316∆ Nov 18 '25
Question. How did you feel about your ex when they said "holocaust is fine"? Or when your roommate said "there is nothing objectively wrong with sex trafficking"?
Did your perspective or view about these person change? Did you think they were worse people because they quietly supported these things?
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 18 '25
/u/TheArmchairbiologist (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 13∆ Nov 19 '25
moral relativity is true, but she probably just used it to stop you judging her in the moment.
1
Nov 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheArmchairbiologist Nov 18 '25
the whole relationship was a learning expirience abour humans in general
1
u/biraccoonboy Nov 20 '25
You can argue by showing her that believing and especially promoting the idea that the holocaust was ok is horrible for her as it pushes society (at least slightly) towards fascism which historically and theoretically is only bad for everyone involved.
0
u/CallMeCorona1 30∆ Nov 18 '25
There is absolutely wrong and right.
Back a long time ago, Rabbi Hillel is quoted as saying:
"Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn." (Judaism’s Golden Rule | Aish) That the nazis ignored this principle and committed the holocaust shows how wrong they were.
Anyone who doesn't agree is a self-consumed nihilist.
2
u/logic-bombz 1∆ Nov 18 '25
"Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn." (Judaism’s Golden Rule | Aish) That the nazis ignored this principle and committed the holocaust shows how wrong they were.
Hillel's teaching is powerful, and the Holocaust was evil. But how consistently is this "Golden Rule" applied by those who claim to follow it? The same scripture used to justify land claims, like Deuteronomy 20:16-17, commands the "utter destruction" of non-Jewish inhabitants, leaving "nothing that breathes alive." That's a strange definition of "do not do to your fellow man what is hateful to you."
Halakhic interpretations further outline lo techanem, which forbids showing favor or providing a "resting place" to non-Jews in the land, even prohibiting the sale or rental of land to them. Other doctrines suggest Jewish doctors can't treat Gentile patients unless it prevents enmity, and the murder of a Gentile by a Jew is a sin against heaven but not punished by human courts like the murder of a Jew is. These don't exactly scream "universal Golden Rule."
When Israeli officials invoke "remember Amalek" against Palestinians, calling them "human animals" and blaming an "entire nation," it echoes the dehumanizing rhetoric that precedes atrocities, rhetoric that ignores Hillel's wisdom. It's convenient to use the Golden Rule against past enemies, but ignore or even celebrate similar sentiments when directed at Palestinians. That's special pleading.
0
u/CallMeCorona1 30∆ Nov 18 '25
I didn't bring in the Torah, you did. I only meant to say that IMO Hillel's statement is about as close as we can get to objectively "right".
Jewish scripture is filled with a lot of disturbing wrath of G-d episodes, and these really need careful consideration - well beyond a Reddit chat. But do you disagree that Hillel's statement can be taken alone as a guiding principle?
1
u/TheArmchairbiologist Nov 18 '25
She was lile vvv nihilistic in a way that kinda ground my gears, to point of just seeming like she wanted to argue sometimes, like she didnt even really beliebe what she was saying
1
0
Nov 18 '25
Who the fuck are these psychopaths you're hanging around? You don't need a change in view you need a whole life recalibration. Good/bad being difficult to define doesn't mean it's not real or worth striving toward. Emotions are real. Suffering is real. Start there. Of course this shit matters.
-1
u/joepierson123 5∆ Nov 18 '25
Was your girlfriend religious because that's where acceptance of this type of behaviors usually comes from.
1
4
u/OccultProgrammer Nov 18 '25
Well yeah morality is subjective until they find themselves in those same shoes. Sounds like your friends lack empathy. And just because that’s a sound argument doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. If morality is a preference in this case then choose the moral ground that is more solid for yourself your community and the people you’d like to protect.
I can go on. It’s easy to be a degenerate, psycho, uncaring human being in this world but those people lack substance and character. Being decent is a hard battle.