That doesn’t follow. We decide subjectively that they do deserve that punishment.
Subjective is not an illusion.
We argue that we share the same subjective judgements on morality. That’s the justification.
They may have believed it was objective, but they were most certainly mistaken. They lived in radical opposition to the Gospel—perhaps embodying the most extreme negation of it the world has ever seen.
The same could be said of the desires and demands of those who seek sexual relations with children; in the Netherlands, there was even a political party devoted to that cause. So what?
So, to you, does the fact that human beings are flawed—and often act against their own good and against God’s commandments—mean that morality is not objective? To me, it simply shows that we are flawed creatures, capable of great good yet inclined toward evil.
It is quite simple: to me, being fully human means following Christ—striving to imitate Him and to act as He would in any given situation. As a Christian, I believe He is both God and the greatest human being who ever lived. For that reason, I do not believe there can be true humanism where Christ is rejected.
“To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of “doctrine,” seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure. We have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. “Adult” is not a faith that follows the waves in fashion and the latest novelty. Adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth. We must mature in this adult faith; we must lead the flock of Christ to this faith. And this faith, the only faith, creates unity and takes place in charity.”
1 Like
Some social animals have ‘rules’ enforced by pack leaders. If objective morality is being reduced to just the “core of agreed upon principles by most moral systems”, animal ‘morality’ may be includable.
Though I doubt this is resolvable, since those who claims the existence of objective morality are extremely reluctant to enumerate their supposed core of agreed upon moral principles.
Besides which the original statement shows a sandbox-level grasp of the concepts involved: Jesus wasn’t talking about written vocabulary but about concepts.
Sure it can – it just shows that people aren’t objective.
2 Likes
They claimed it was objective, that they were doing the Lord’s work. So how can you disagree with an objective moral standard, especially one handed down by God?
Something that’s not there. Subjective morality is definitely there. My wants and needs are most definitely there.
Morality isn’t stable. Look back through history. If, according to you, morality is objective then how could it have changed? History itself disproves an objective morality.
Which government policies are moral and which are not? The answer is ARGUE OVER IT!!! Voice your opinion. Point to others that share your opinions. Construct arguments that focus on what it means to be human. That’s how you do it.
1 Like
They may have believed it was objective, but they were most certainly mistaken. They lived in radical opposition to the Gospel—perhaps embodying the most extreme negation of it the world has ever seen.
The same could be said of the desires and demands of those who seek sexual relations with children; in the Netherlands, there was even a political party devoted to that cause. So what?
So, to you, does the fact that human beings are flawed—and often act against their own good and against God’s commandments—mean that morality is not objective? To me, it simply shows that we are flawed creatures, capable of great good yet inclined toward evil.
It is quite simple: to me, being fully human means following Christ—striving to imitate Him and to act as He would in any given situation. As a Christian, I believe He is both God and the greatest human being who ever lived. For that reason, I do not believe there can be true humanism where Christ is rejected.
“To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of “doctrine,” seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure. We have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. “Adult” is not a faith that follows the waves in fashion and the latest novelty. Adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth.”
1 Like
I’m getting a 404–logic not found error. If you go into a room and 5 people give you five different opinions on something, your conclusion should not be that it is impossible any of them are correct. That just does not follow at all. Disagreement only demonstrates that the answer is not universally agreed upon or not obvious to everyone.
Another non-sequitur. Morality only applies to those with rationality and intellect. Humans are the only ones that fit the bill. I’ve never considered an animal guilty of a moral crime even if engaging in something mortifying like filial cannabilism.
That is inconsistent if not outright arbitrary. If you are correct then humans are creating a moral system based on their need and wants. One of those needs is for morality to be objective. On what grounds could you claim your subjective standard is better? You clearly insinuate this but your subjectivist opinion here is no more forceful than you disagreeing over your favorite color or arguing that the big puffy clouds are better than the thin and wispy ones. One made up belief is just as good as another. The desire for a cosmic authority --real or imagined-- is also a human need/want. By your own metric, why is inventing a God to satisfy that need not an equally valid way to construct a moral system? You are showing your cards. “By their fruit . . .”
Which is exactly the problem.
“Other people agree with me” is your justification? Well, other people don’t agree with you or them.
Vinnie
4 Likes
With added emphasis:
The above perfectly sums up this thread.
Objective facts are independent of individual views.
The fact that you can’t cite an objective standard independent of humans to determine which standards are right or wrong only further supports the conclusion that morality is subjective.
Then morality is subjective because it is based on the subjective wants and needs of humans.
No, it isn’t.
Already given.
Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
. . .
Subjective does not mean unimportant. A subjective morality is one rooted in human feelings and desires. These are the things that are most important to us, indeed the only things important to us!
Why in the world wouldn’t we base our morality on our most important emotions? Why wouldn’t we try to shape a future that fits what we want as humans?
Baloney.
Subjective does not mean arbitrary. Human feelings are not arbitrary. It is not arbitrary that we love our children while most of us dislike and fear spiders and snakes, nor that most of us like the taste of chocolate while shunning excrement. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature, being a product of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary.
Then how can we differentiate between something believed to be an objective morality and one that is not objective?
You are going to have to spell that one out. Have you read the Old Testament? God orders genocide at least once in the Bible.
So you are saying that society in general approves of pedophilia?
It’s the fact that no one can agree on what God’s commandments are. Just look at all of the contradictions between the world’s religions. Who can show that they are right in an objective sense?
That’s all based on bare assertions, not an objective standard.
That’s a very Orthodox view.
1 Like
Who decides what emotions are most important? on what grounds?
1 Like
There’s the problem – as I’ve said, I think that Vinnie has established that there is objective morality, but also that we humans have lousy access to it at best.
1 Like
If you reject teleology and the teachings of Jesus, there is no way to do so.
I have read the entire Bible multiple times and know the New Testament by heart—virtually mnemonically at this point. The four Gospels and several Pauline letters I know them mnemonically. I have always interpreted the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.
In 2026? No. In 100/150 years? Who knows.
We have the life of Jesus Himself. It is certain that if someone imitates Him—if they follow Him and strive to act in every situation as He would—they become the best version of themselves. Following Jesus does not mean only gaining eternal life; it also means becoming fully and truly human in this life.
I am absolutely Catholic and always will be, but I also deeply love and respect the Orthodox Church. The prayer of the heart Prayer of the Heart and Humility - Orthodox Road has been a regular practice for me.
1 Like
Excellent analogy! While it is POSSIBLE that the five people are all wrong,
some extremists do assert that this state is the same as saying that it is
IMPOSSIBLE for any of the five people to be correct.
I will remember this distinction!
G.Brooks
2 Likes
I will remind the readers that this question is the core of all THEISMS.
It is a faith-based grounding in a presumed objectivity. It’s the theological
equivalent to Churchill’s maxim, which I paraphrase here:
Winston Churchill, speech to the British House of
Commons (1947-11-11):
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried
in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that
democracy [aka pluralism] is perfect or all-wise. Indeed,
it has been said that democracy is the worst form
of Government except for all those other forms….”
The only tolerable solution to the human condition is
not to eliminate religion, but to discover the most tolerant
and tolerable one. BioLogos, 2026-02Feb-12.
G.Brooks
1 Like
5) Subjective morality is invented, not found.
Anyone who goes to New York City can find the Empire State Building because it really exists. Anyone who goes to New York City cannot find the Fountain of Youth, because it is imaginary. That makes it an invention of the human mind just like subjective moral systems. A person could of course believe the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park is the long-lost Fountain of Youth and that if they bathed in its medicinal waters their aging would stop. However, simply believing the water possesses such magical properties does not make it so.
There is no scientific test that we could conduct to prove that racism or murder is morally wrong. Without objective standards, we cannot even offer philosophical arguments that amount to anything more than “my opinion vs. yours.” We can only hope that we share the same subjective standards to approach an issue from, but we have no way of actually demonstrating that the standards we adopt are correct.
To be clear, I do not believe morality is imaginary like the Fountain of Youth. It is an objective fact that humans are moral creatures. However, if morality is subjective, so too is human meaning. Subjective moral arguments cannot traverse the is/ought divide; they are extremely narcissistic and no more compelling than asserting your favorite color is the “true” color or arguing the big and fluffy clouds are nicer than the thin and wispy ones. The quote from C.S. Lewis used earlier is appropriate here as well:
“The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head,’ how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.”
Inventing my own ethical system in a subjectivist framework where human life has no intrinsic meaning seems as artificial as inventing my own religion while knowing God did not exist. Even though fictions can be helpful, the purpose or end of rationality is to seek truth. An Invented moral rule in such an instance is comparable to an invented deity. A further difficulty is that subjectivist moral systems are knowingly playing make believe but they don’t act like it. Moral systems generally consider themselves superior to those that disagree with them. Suppose blue is your favorite color while mine is red. I don’t think my color choice is actually better than yours. I simply think it is my favorite color and blue is yours. I’d say we are both correct. I would not say this about two moral systems that differed on the issue of pedophilia. But this is where subjective moralists leave us: demanding others adhere to their personal inventions.
To avoid a false dichotomy, I admit a third category exists between real physical objects (the Empire State Building) and imaginary ones (the Fountain of Youth). There are social constructs—inventions such as money or traffic laws that are real because we agree they are real. We have decided that red means stop and green means go but we could have reversed the colors or chosen other ones to achieve these same effects. The subjectivist might treat moral laws in the same sense as traffic laws –human inventions that keep us from dying. I do not deny the utility of traffic laws in preventing death or injury, but utility is not the same as moral obligation. We are back to Hume. That our traffic laws have utility doesn’t mean anyone “ought” to follow them. If I want to cut people off, run red lights, speed, drink and drive, text and drive, or close my eyes and drive, who is to say I am morally wrong or that I ought not do this? Subjectivists traffic laws work on a conditional if/then basis. If you want to be safe you will stop at red lights, especially at busy intersections. But they tell us nothing of moral obligation.
The comparison between morality and traffic laws breaks down because the latter are actually dependent on the former. Traffic laws are meant to preserve and protect something real: human life. If human life has no intrinsic value or meaning, traffic laws are no more important than the rules of monopoly and we no more have an obligation to follow traffic conventions than we do the rules of Monopoly while driving. Subjectivism attempts to create a traffic system where no destination matters and the passengers have no intrinsic value. Subjectivists demand we follow the rules of the road while simultaneously viewing the road, car and the people using them all as meaningless accidents (pun intended).
3 Likes
You cannot find your supposed objective morality.
Inability to understand the difference between objective facts and objective standards noted.
Humans can and do devise objective standards, including moral systems. That the selection of which objective standard(s) to apply may be subjective does not mean that the standards are subjective.
Yet all the effort is being put into arguments for its existence. No attempt is being made to actually find it.
Are traffic laws objective or subjective?
6) Subjective Morality, the is/ought problem and sociopaths
If we start with the assumption that human life has no intrinsic value or purpose, then human rights are just (useful) fictions. I don’t have to agree with you on whether or not abortion is right or wrong any more than whether or not lilies are prettier than daffodils. Neither is objectively true and both are matters of opinion. Moral values reduce to expressions of sentiment, preference or social conditioning and they lack rational authority over those who disagree with them. No one has any obligation to agree with anyone else on any subjective issue. Well, perhaps you should agree that chocolate ice cream is the best flavor. Any other view is beyond redemption.
Some people genuinely lack sympathy, empathy and guilt. We might refer to them as sociopaths and we can punish, restrain or dislike the serial murderer or child predator, but we cannot say their behavior is wrong or that that our sentiments and moral preferences are actually better than theirs. We can only disagree with them. We can be passionate about our views, like our favorite football team or baseball player, but I think most people recognize morality belongs in a different category. I certainly won’t try to lock you up in jail because you don’t think Tom brady is the greatest quarterback of all time.
Some people seem to have little regard for human life and if we describe the world without telos, can we really blame them? Expecting something to have a high view of life when we claim it has no intrinsic meaning or purpose is like expecting something to be fruitful and multiply after castrating them. Subjective morality has little to say to the sociopath or person who does not share the same views. Ed Feser wrote:
“And for that reason the Humean has nothing to say to the sociopath who simply happens not to share these attitudes, other than that he is not like most people. Nor does he really have anything to say to a group of sociopaths – Nazis, communists, jihadists, pro-choice activists, or whomever – who seek to remake society in their image, by social or genetic engineering, say. The Platonist, Aristotelian, or Thomist can say that such people are behaving in an inherently irrational and objectively wicked manner, given human nature. All the Humean can say is “Gee, hope they don’t succeed.” [The last Superstition]
Our inability to condemn the sociopath stems from the categorical gap between facts and values. “Is” statements are descriptions of things. “Ought” statements are about actions or what you should do. We cannot logically move from “is” to “ought” without other premises. This argument goes back to Hume and without final causality or telos in the world, the Humean gulf between “is” and “ought” is infinite in extent. Here are Hume’s own words:
“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning… when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.” [A Treatise on Human nature]
An example of this will be helpful:
1. Cyanide is poisonous to humans.
2. Bob is a human.
Therefore, you should not give Bob cyanide.
This argument is not valid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. We would need to smuggle in a hidden premise such as “It is wrong to poison humans.” But this is the exact premise subjectivists cannot demonstrate is true. What happens if we add a few more premises:
1. Cyanide is poisonous to humans.
2. Bob is a human.
3. If you give Bob cyanide he will suffer.
4. If you give Bob cyanide he will die.
5. If Bob dies his family will be sad and miss him.
Therefore, you should not Give Bob cyanide.
Even if all five premises are true, the argument is still not valid. We could stack one million descriptive or “is” statements but it will not matter. We cannot deduce morals or values from statements that don’t already have them. Just because something “is” does not mean we ought. Now someone might claim, “Well, harming innocents is obviously bad” but this is not a universal fact like the law of gravity in a subjective framework. It is a shared preference, one that the sociopath is perfectly free to ignore.
2 Likes