can you give just one example of anything that is subjectively better than anything else, in any sense of the word better, that is not just an opinion/view. — Rank Amateur

With repect to "not just an opinion/view," no, because that's what "better" is. It simply amounts to preferring one thing over another, often because of some goal that one has.

In your view - that in no way is any kind of a truth statement — Rank Amateur

That's a fact (that that's what judgments are). It's the way the world is ontologically.

the objective standard (although obviously it is not an object) is the shared set of mores which have evolved — Janus

Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, the Boy Scout Pledge.....whatever the KKK uses....objective shared set of standards or mores, represented by an object. Any cultural code of conduct.

Those to be taken as objective morality is the categorical error.

It simply isn't universal. Full stop. — S

It's all but universal, and that's what matters. The anomalies of a deviant few are irrelevant.

I appeal within myself, not outside of myself to others. — S

Ah, the romantic fantasy of the individualist! You're not the first to indulge it, and you won't be the last; but it's a woefully simplistic view.

How would you justify that to yourself? — Janus

I'd just want the money. I wouldn't care about the moral status of the act.

As I see it "the debate that's going on" is itself a litany of irrelevancies and category errors. — Janus

Not so different from other debates then. The key debate, as I see it, has been about meta-ethics, and has been moral subjectivism vs. moral objectivism, with some trying and failing to argue for a sort of "third way" whereby they have their cake and eat it.

Those to be taken as objective morality is the categorical error. — Mww

Of course they are not really "objective" they are inter-subjective. And we might judge them according to their efficacy in promoting harmonious relations. The individualistic ethos of capitalism is arguably not going to lead to the most harmonious communal life or to sustainable future for humankind.

I'd just want the money. I wouldn't care about the moral status of the act. — S

So, you'd do the same to an individual as you would to a corporation then? Just for the money?

As to meta-ethics; I don't believe there is any such coherent thing distinct from ethics; so perhaps that is where the disagreement really lies.

It's all but universal, and that's what matters. The anomalies of a deviant few are irrelevant. — Janus

But it doesn't matter that it's all but universal in terms of my morality, because that's not where my morality stems from. My morality has pride of place in any consideration of morality whatsoever. If murder being good was part of my morality, then that would be of greater importance to me than an almost universal judgement that it was not good.

The anomalies of a deviant few if they are other than me are irrelevant either way, because it is my moral judgement that matters to me. I'm not appealing to theirs or anyone else's. You are fundamentally mistaken about where morality stems from. It stems from the individual, from their moral feelings. I would stand by my moral judgement that murder is wrong, even if everyone else in the world judged it to be right.

Ah, the romantic fantasy of the individualist! You're not the first to indulge it, and you won't be the last; but it's a woefully simplistic view. — Janus

It's just the truth, plainly spoken by yours truly. The fantasy is yours. Universal my arse.

So, you'd do the same to an individual as you would to a corporation then? Just for the money? — Janus

No, you know that I didn't say that, and you're bright enough to pick up that I specified a corporation for a reason.

In practice, though, your morality is not going to differ form the vast majority unless you're one of the deviant few; so it is not uniquely yours, and you never would have had it in the first place if you were not enculturated into it.

Of course, on the other hand, I am not saying that an individual's moral principles are not what matters most to them.

No, you know that I didn't say that, and you're bright enough to pick up that I specified a corporation for a reason. — S

Yes, and I suspect that would be because you don't consider corporations to be morally justified in their practices, and therefore feel justified in taking whatever you can from them. But you declined to spell that out.

Ah, the romantic fantasy of the individualist! — Janus

:up:

Of course they are not really "objective" they are inter-subjective. — Janus

:up:

You are fundamentally mistaken about where morality stems from. It stems from the individual — S

And where does the individual stem from? Hint: It begins with "S". You didn't choose your moral system so much as it chose you.

In practice, though, your morality is not going to differ form the vast majority unless you're one of the deviant few; so it is not uniquely yours, and you never would have had it in the first place if you were not enculturated into it.

Of course, on the hand, I am not saying that an individual's moral principles are not what matters most to them. — Janus

Whether it is uniquely mine or not, in the sense of whether or not it matches up to the moral judgements of others, is a difference which makes no difference.

Yes, and I suspect that would be because you don't consider corporations to be morally justified in their practices, and therefore feel justified in taking whatever you can from them. But you declined to spell that out. — Janus

That's true to some extent. But I've also knowingly done bad things in the sense of popular or traditional morality, and in the sense of being in two minds about something, perhaps feeling that it is wrong in a sense, but also right in a sense, yet doing it nevertheless. I am indeed an amoralist at times. It is quite liberating. You know, just steal the wallet and don't even worry about it. Morality is what we make it and nothing more. Life is what we make it and nothing more. There are no rules which we simply must follow, absolutely. And being categorised as a rapist or murderer really only matters insomuch as it matters to me.

How's that for radical thinking? Does that make me a deviant? Even if it does, does it matter to me? It's just another box to be put in.

And where does the individual stem from? Hint: It begins with "S". You didn't choose your moral system so much as it chose you. — Baden

Except that I'm autonomous and it is fully within my power to override whatever influence that the morality of society has over me. Do you think that I would let that stop me if it mattered that much to me? If, for example, I really thought that murder was good, and worth the very high risk of going to prison?

I haven't seen a good response to this. Just name calling. Ugh! Deviant! You're irrelevant! You don't matter! You're an anomaly!

You're a fragment of the sociocultural awkwardly expressed through the mostly compliant body of an ape. Your perceived individualism and autonomy is largely formed of retroactive confabulations designed to make the marriage between the fragment and the ape less acrimonious. There's plenty you can't do but manage to convince yourself you don't want to.

You're a fragment of the sociocultural awkwardly expressed through the mostly compliant body of an ape. Your perceived individualism and autonomy is largely formed of retroactive confabulations designed to make the marriage between the fragment and the ape less acrimonious. There's plenty you can't do but manage to convince yourself that you don't want to. — Baden

Trying to play psychologist, are you? I can do that too. You're just rationalising your own deep-seated aversion to confronting the dark side of our human nature.

Trying to play psychologist, are you? — S

It goes for almost all of us to a large degree except for true deviants like sociopaths where through some combination of environment (often abuse) and genetics, enculturation is seriously short-circuited.

You're just rationalising your own deep-seated aversion to confronting the dark side of our human nature. — S

Nothing you've come up with here is particularly dark compared to what goes on in the real world daily.

It's all but universal, — Janus

The popularity of a view is irrelevant to it being correct.

And we might judge them according to their efficacy in promoting harmonious relations. — Janus

Aside from just what counts as harmonious relations being a matter of individual judgment, lest you be suggesting yet another argumentum ad populum, the notion that harmonious relations are preferable is yet another individual judgment (or argumentum ad populum that you'd be forwarding)

It goes for almost all of us to a large degree except for true deviants like sociopaths where through some combination of environment (often abuse) and genetics, enculturation is seriously short-circuited. — Baden

True as that might be, there's a trend in ethics to dismiss anything too different or radical as some kind of illness, even though they almost certainly aren't qualified to make that judgement, given that they're most likely a) not a psychiatrist, and b) even if qualified, have not performed a proper assessment.

It paints a neat little picture, but that's all it really is. And the irony is that I've been called a romantic and a fantasist.

We are human, all too human. Being human is not an illness, is it?

Nothing you've come up with here is particularly dark compared to what goes on in the real world daily. — Baden

And the irony here is that you actually know very little about me and my life. Certainly not enough to rule out that I'm part of the dark goings on in the real world which occur on a regular basis.

It's prevalence not popularity; to call it popularity is inapt.

The difference between prevalence and popularity is?

And the irony here is that you actually know very little about me and my life. Certainly not enough to rule out that I'm part of the dark goings on in the real world on a regular basis. — S

Not important, I'm more interested in the general point, which is that we're all apt to overestimate our moral autonomy and when it comes to the crunch, fall mostly in line, often inventing some reason why we 'had' to.

Not important, I'm more interested in the general point, which is that we're all apt to overestimate our moral autonomy and when it comes to the crunch, fall mostly in line, often inventing some reason why we 'had' to. — Baden

Sure, that's true. Except when it isn't. And there's also a popular psychological mechanism to deny or underplay the darker side of our nature. Even though, like you say, it goes on every day. There have been hundreds of wars, barbaric torture, genocide, slavery, rape, and this continues into our modern times. There are still wars, crimes are committed all of the time, there's modern slavery, stoning to death, cutting off of heads, and so on. That is just part of human nature. Wherever there are humans, there are these sort of things.

Not important, I'm more interested in the general point, which is that we're all apt to overestimate our moral autonomy and when it comes to the crunch, fall mostly in line, often inventing some reason why we 'had' to. — Baden

You can't be non-autonomous when it comes to your ethics, because no one else can make a judgment for you.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/example/anglais/degree-of-autonomy

You are fundamentally mistaken about where morality stems from. It stems from the individual, from their moral feelings. I would stand by my moral judgement that murder is wrong, even if everyone else in the world judged it to be right. — S

How do you think socialization works? How do you think society works? If we were all lone wolves fighting for territory, this might make sense. As the human world is, it doesn’t make any sense.

The difference between prevalence and popularity is? — Terrapin Station

The way you constantly misunderstand English is irritating. Look up a dictionary on this too and if you still can't figure it out, I'll tell you. But make an effort.

The way you could constantly misunderstand English is irritating. Look up a dictionary on this too and if you still can't figure it out, I'll tell you. But make an effort. — Baden

Not near as irritating as your attitude. Presumably I'm challenging that there is any difference in this context, right? So how about supporting the notion that there's a difference?

thank you for the history, truly thank you for taking the time and making the effort.

My main issue in the debate is not that morality purely objective, as you can see above I have already conceded such a thing is not possible. As well as no such thing as purely subjective morality is possible. We as individuals and as a culture and as a society place ourselves somewhere on the continuum between those exteams. What ever particular label you place on the points in between I am not that concerned with.

My issue is if you chose as best you can to place yourself close to subjective end, you are forgoing the right to evaluate the moral judgment of others. It can't just be subjective for you. Nietzsche has to assume the guy stabbing him in the back with a knife is just listening to his particular truth, and his personal morality based on that truth

How do you think socialization works? How do you think society works? If we were all lone wolves fighting for territory, this might make sense. As the human world is, it doesn’t make any sense. — Noah Te Stroete

You're either drifting off topic or making an illogical connection. The functioning of society has nothing to do with the point that I was making. Why do people keep confusing normative ethics and meta-ethics? The issue is not what the goals of society should be and how we should best achieve them or anything of that sort. The topic isn't whatever you imagine or would like it to be.

Nothing to do with any teleological goals of society, unless you mean the survival of the community. Morality comes from society/socialization as we are inherently social creatures. Morality does NOT come from the individual. If it did, the world would look very much different. We probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion in such a world as the one you are claiming exists.

My issue is if you chose as best you can to place yourself close to subjective end, you are forgoing the right to evaluate the moral judgment of others. It can't just be subjective for you. Nietzsche has to assume the guy stabbing him in the back with a knife is just listening to his particular truth, and his personal morality based on that truth — Rank Amateur

And you're completely wrong on all of those points.

I'm not "choosing" to place myself somewhere on the scale, I'm making an honest assessment and reporting that assessment.

I'm not forgoing "the right" to evaluate the moral judgement of others. Rights are just a useful fiction anyway, and I most certainly can and do evaluate the moral judgements of others.

It can indeed be subjective for me, and it is so.

There's not much that Nietzsche can do about a guy stabbing him in the back with a knife, unless he is equipped to defend himself and manage his knife wound, if it isn't fatal in a matter of minutes. But he certainly doesn't have to accept it with indifference as you have persistently asserted with no reasonable support whatsoever, and it makes no sense to anyone other than to you, in your own mind, with your own blinkered assumptions. So it is completely ineffectual as a criticism.