Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.

So you're basically saying e.g. "It is an objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion that murder is immoral"?

Reply 2

Picnicl

15

Original post by tazarooni89

So you're basically saying e.g. "It is an objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion that murder is immoral"?

No, the lawmakers compose only a small percentage of the population and what they propose isn't always necessarily what the majority would agree to. But once a law has been agreed, it serves to have an equal expectation on all, which is a practical kind of objectivity.

Reply 3

ThatOldGuy

19

Original post by tazarooni89

So you're basically saying e.g. "It is an objective fact that most people are of the subjective opinion that murder is immoral"?

No. I think he's saying that there are objective facts that inform our morality. For instance:

1) Humanity has a strong survival instinct.
2) We have an instinctual revulsion of death.(Note that this is not universal, but it is objective. It is an objective fact that humanity is of the type that develops two arms. The fact that some people have birth defects or damage that removes that does not change that objective fact.
3) Because of our survival instinct and revulsion of death, our morality is informed by that hatred of death. How that works specifically is subjective. IE: We may say that our connection with family trumps our fear of death, therefor we are morally obligated to protect our children and are willing to die or kill to do so. Another person may be a complete pacifist that absolutely refuses to murder. Another person may say that only they have a moral right to live while those around them do not.

Reply 4

michaelhw

17

Original post by LegalTom

Morality may be based on the subjective interpretation of good and evil, but that interpretation forms an objective law that guide’s behaviour in the form of convention. So, morality has a base structure of subjectivity with a superstructure of objectivity. Therefore, morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.

Many feminists seem to suggest that morality is relative to a man's penis. Oddly, some men protest?

(edited 6 months ago)

Reply 5

Melancholy

There are objective components to the apparatus with which humans develop moral feelings. The "golden rule", Kant's "categorical imperative", Rawl's "reflective equilibirum", and most reflections of key thinkers on morality have key features in common. As an evolved, social species, the idea of demanding from others an expectation that they ought to treat us how they'd like to be treated themselves is a substance which exists in this world. How we wish to be treated is a subjective matter (but neither widely nor irreconcilably so), and there are various peripheral matters which are a source of moral conflict. However, few would disagree with the central tenet which guides most moral (and rational and explainable) judgements.

(edited 2 months ago)

Reply 6

Original post by LegalTom

Morality may be based on the subjective interpretation of good and evil, but that interpretation forms an objective law that guide’s behaviour in the form of convention. So, morality has a base structure of subjectivity with a superstructure of objectivity. Therefore, morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.

All morality and law is subjective.

Reply 7

Original post by ThatOldGuy

No. I think he's saying that there are objective facts that inform our morality. For instance:

1) Humanity has a strong survival instinct.
2) We have an instinctual revulsion of death.(Note that this is not universal, but it is objective. It is an objective fact that humanity is of the type that develops two arms. The fact that some people have birth defects or damage that removes that does not change that objective fact.
3) Because of our survival instinct and revulsion of death, our morality is informed by that hatred of death. How that works specifically is subjective. IE: We may say that our connection with family trumps our fear of death, therefor we are morally obligated to protect our children and are willing to die or kill to do so. Another person may be a complete pacifist that absolutely refuses to murder. Another person may say that only they have a moral right to live while those around them do not.

Those aren't objective facts. They are generalisations.

Reply 8

Some people seem to be confusing "objective fact" with "general consensus".

Reply 9

OP

Original post by 2WheelGod

Some people seem to be confusing "objective fact" with "general consensus".

My post: ‘Objective law guides behaviour in form of convention’

The sentence above clearly distinguishes between objective law and convention, the former controls the latter.

There was no conflation, you did that. Please read carefully next time.

Reply 10

OP

Original post by 2WheelGod

Those aren't objective facts. They are generalisations.

Generalisations? I never said anything about facts, but objective laws and its objectively compulsive character.

For example, you choose not to whip your phallus out in public because there is a social and legal rule that prohibits it (objective character), these implicit and explicit rules then compel you to behave accordingly - convention.

So, despite these rules arising from subjective interpretation of what is good and bad, they have an objective character and subsequently, an objective hold.

Reply 11

ThatOldGuy

19

Original post by 2WheelGod

Those aren't objective facts. They are generalisations.

I think you might not know what an objective fact is. Or you don't know what a generalization is.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I even pointed out how in that post.

Reply 12

Original post by ThatOldGuy

I think you might not know what an objective fact is. Or you don't know what a generalization is.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I even pointed out how in that post.

Says the person confusing objective fact with generalisation. lol!

Reply 13

michaelhw

17

Original post by LegalTom

Morality may be based on the subjective interpretation of good and evil, but that interpretation forms an objective law that guide’s behaviour in the form of convention. So, morality has a base structure of subjectivity with a superstructure of objectivity. Therefore, morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.

You have solved no philosophical dilemma. If it is subjective, it follows that there is variation, and that variation will manifest itself throughout our objective superstructure. Nothing is solved. Tomorrow I will perform harakiri or burn some widows to prove my point. All remains of what you are saying is that human emotions are based in physiology.

(edited 2 months ago)

Reply 14

michaelhw

17

Original post by LegalTom

Morality may be based on the subjective interpretation of good and evil, but that interpretation forms an objective law that guide’s behaviour in the form of convention. So, morality has a base structure of subjectivity with a superstructure of objectivity. Therefore, morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.

I will add that the epistemological problem you are trying to transcend is one of David Hume's postulates,relating to th e problems of going from is to ought. Sam Harris, one of the four horsemen, thought he could do it. But in fact, they have tried for a very long time, in vain most of them.

Reply 15

OP

Original post by michaelhw

You have solved no philosophical dilemma. If it is subjective, it follows that there is variation, and that variation will manifest itself throughout our objective superstructure. Nothing is solved. Tomorrow I will perform harakiri or burn some widows to prove my point. All remains of what you are saying is that human emotions are based in physiology.

You talk about ‘our objective superstructure, and …..human emotions’

Firstly, my post doesn’t refer to an ‘OUR’ in relation to an objective superstructure, but morality’s appearance in the form of laws and conventions as an objective superstructure, because these laws and conventions compel behaviour. We allow ourselves to be compelled by these behaviours because we acknowledge - tacitly - the absolute hold of laws and conventions.

Secondly, my post has said nothing about human emotions, but morality’s basis in SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of good and evil (which is shaped by many factors not limited to emotions).

Please read carefully.

Reply 16

OP

Original post by michaelhw

I will add that the epistemological problem you are trying to transcend is one of David Hume's postulates,relating to th e problems of going from is to ought. Sam Harris, one of the four horsemen, thought he could do it. But in fact, they have tried for a very long time, in vain most of them.

There is no epistemological problem being transcended here, just an observation that highlights the hybrid nature of morality.

Reply 17

Adurelm

9

Original post by 2WheelGod

All morality and law is subjective.

What makes you say that?

Reply 18

Adurelm

9

Original post by michaelhw

I will add that the epistemological problem you are trying to transcend is one of David Hume's postulates,relating to th e problems of going from is to ought. Sam Harris, one of the four horsemen, thought he could do it. But in fact, they have tried for a very long time, in vain most of them.

Specifically what epistemological problem does Hume’s is-ought gap pose?

(edited 2 months ago)

Reply 19