10 minutes ago, cbae wrote
If there are different definitions of morality, and some of those, by definition, can be subjective, then you can't say morality, in general, is objective.
You can only say your definition of morality is correct, but that is highly subjective.
I've already said disagreement doesn't equate to subjectivity. Morality cannot be subjective because then it ceases to be morality - that is a logical paradox; in such a case "right" and "wrong" cease to have any meaning.
Subjective morality can be subjective morality. The only thing it can't be is objective morality, but you haven't shown that objective morality exists.
I don't have to. Either objective morality exists or no morality exists. If morality exists then it must by definition be objective since existence is universal. If it does not exist then it simply doesn't exist, nothing need take its place.
The existence, or not, of objective morality has no bearing on the impossibility of subjective morality.
You agree with what? I said that IF morality were objective, then it'd be just be "morality".I didn't agree that the "if" posit was true.
I quite agree that if morality is objective then to specify objective morality as opposed to simply morality would be meaningless. So I agree with your logic. I accept the conclusion you claim flows from my premise (because it does).
What I disagree with is your inference that because we have the word subjective morality this is proof morality must be subjective. I can say 2+2=5; that doesn't make it true.
In fact, I don't believe that objective morality exists. I tend to think unqualified morality is, by definition, subjective morality of the zeitgeist. History shows what was considered "moral" in the past isn't necessarily what is considered moral today and it will be different from what we consider moral tomorrow. That happens because the prevailing attitudes and beliefs change over time.
You make the error of assuming that what someone considers moral and what actually is moral are one and the same. The existence of objective morality doesn't preclude error in determining what is, in fact, moral. The existence of a spherical earth didn't preclude people from erroneously thinking it was flat.
Simply believing that good is good and bad is bad isn't proof of objective morality.
I never claimed it was, I simply claimed that it's an priori proof that subjective morality is impossible:
- Morality is the process of determining good from bad
- The statement that good is good and bad is bad is an objective statement
- Therefore subjective morality can have no concept of good and bad
- Therefore subjective morality cannot exist
Morality can only be what we perceive as morality. How can it be what we don't perceive as morality?
Did photons exist in Newton's day? Of course they did. But how could light be anything other than what Newton perceived it as (a wave)? Turns out there's this thing called "reality".
And if morality is simply what we perceive as morality what about the suicide bomber who truly believes he's doing God's work? I'm sure he perceives what he's doing as very moral; you can only say it's immoral if you invoke objective morality (and if you invoke a lack of any morality you must remain indifferent). Similarly for Hitler and countless other very nasty characters.