There is no more or less objective the way that I use the term. Something either is or isn't. And morality isn't. Nor is it universal. Near universal isn't universal, so if a moral judgement is only near universal, then it isn't universal. It helps to be logical. You should give it a try.

Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. — Rank Amateur

This what subjective means. You referenced a thought...thats the domain of subjectivity. Morals are not found under rocks, or anywhere in the physical world. You find them in minds, and of course those minds manifest in the physical world, in this case they manifest as actions concerned with morality. The moral agreement you speak of doesnt make those notions of morality as happening somewhere else besides in our minds excepting as I described above as manifested in our world by humans. As usual when dubjectivity and objectivity are being used in discussion, the disagreement is almost (dare I say) illusiory, a matter of semantics and categories.

But it doesn't point to that at all, no more than it points to God or flying space teapots or luminiferous aether.

↪Rank Amateur There is no more or less objective the way that I use the term. Something either is or isn't. And morality isn't. Nor is it universal. Near universal isn't universal, so if a moral judgement is near universal, then it isn't universal. — S

So exactly how many does it take in your world to shift it from objective to subjective 1 in 7.5 Billion, 10, 1000, 1%. ? Rare exceptions does not proof subjectivity.

you did not address the source of these judgments.

I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same. — Rank Amateur

They are subjective because they are mental notions. Again, thats what the subjective realm is. No minds, no subjectivity.

False dichotomy. It is not a coincidence that we have noses. An explanation has been given which doesn't fit your false dichotomy. You're just coming up with ways to reject it because you can't handle the truth. Morality must be objective and God must exist, right? Why even bother trying to be rational if that's how you're approaching this? Why even enter into philosophical discussion about these things?

you did not address the source of these judgments. — Rank Amateur

It actually has been addressed, I think whats tripping you up perhaps is that there is an interaction between objective stuff and subjective stuff. Draw a distinction between morality and moral acts. These happen in different domains so the source of moral judgements is seperate from the morality people live in accordance with. The latter are acts of morality, the objective manifestation of subjective judgements.

,

Not being obstinate or argumentative. Maybe just ignorant. I just don't see the logic in the biology argument, as defacto proof of subjective morality. Again it well could be my ignorance of the topic. But we just at a point now where we are just repeating the same thing. I'll do some reading on your position and see if I can get the logic.

Have to get back to real life.

Objectivity is not a scale or quantitative. It is not a matter of popularity or prevalence. That has already been refuted with a reduction to the absurd about slavery and Flat Earth Theory, so you should concede the point. You are either making a category error or talking about something else. Universality is quantitative: it means all. But universal or near universal doesn't mean or logically imply objectivity. That is your fallacy.

And there is no need to prove the obvious subjectivity in moral matters. That is not controversial at all, and is accepted on both sides. But you have a massive burden to prove that morality is objective. Do not try to shift the burden again or you'll trigger my wrath. There are rules about this for a reason. You don't get to just assume something controversial and sit back whilst goading others to argue against it. That is dishonorable. It is immoral. It is a vice. Please don't be a bad pupil. Learn from our previous encounters. You should explicitly state that you're either unable or unwilling to meet your burden if that is the case. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do. That would be the right thing to do. I am very strict on things like this, because it is very important. Far more important than relatively petty complaints about tone or insults. You can call me a cunt, but don't dare break my rules about intellectual honesty, the burden of proof, remaining on point, and so on. That's a cardinal sin. And I hope the Kantian in the background is taking note, because this is what philosophical maturity looks like.

We can try. We ought try.
— creativesoul

Sure, but only to the extent of patience, re: when barking at the moon and Wiki have equal dialectical authority, I find myself with nothing to say. — Mww

I like the way your expressions land. Worthy of copying.

If one gets that(non and/or prelinguistic thought/belief) wrong, then they've gotten all sorts of other things wrong as a result.
— creativesoul

Quite so. As we can see here........

“Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be deriv’d from reason... — Mww

This presupposes that nothing and/or no things that has/have/had an influence on actions and affections can be derived using reason. As if these possibilities are mutually exclusive and/or incompatible with one another. That is a very dubious presupposition that quite simply does not correspond to that which happened yesterday, is happening today, and will most likely be happening again tomorrow..

Some political/financial powers have world-views that are so heavily laden with thinking about thought/belief that one could sink a ship with them. Those belief systems are operative and derived from thinking about thought/belief. Some people have tremendous power over other folks' lives and/or financial livelihood. Some of those people write the morality which not only governs lives, but also affects/effects an overwhelming number of the citizens living in the world.

That which influences actions and affections can be derived from reason. Hume's mistake is conflating simple, rudimentary, and/or basic thought/belief with the linguistically informed/ladened. He was not alone.

Your mistake is to not understand that when he talks about reason in passages like that, he means reason alone as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains. Pure reason, not reasoning about passions you have experienced. The latter only supports his point that reason is the slave of the passions, as the reasoning follows suit to the passions. The passions are master. If you want to win over the master, you appeal to him as directly as possible. Appealing to the slave won't do any good, except by relaying the message to the master.

Non-sequiturs won't do here.
— creativesoul

Aren't non-sequiturs only pertinent to arguments? I wasn't forwarding an argument in what you quoted relative to this response. I was simply making some comments. — Terrapin Station

I'm confused then, I suppose. Did you not quote me and charge the excerpt with ignoring and/or neglect?

Yes, that actually happened.

Three charges of neglect. None true.

When I wrote "non-sequitur" I was drawing your attention to the situation at hand. None of those charges follow from my position. You quoted me, and then aimlessly opened fire. "Non sequitur" was not about your argument, it was about the fallaciousness of your inquiry.

Hume is washing down Heraclitus' river...

I already have very little reason to believe what you say about Hume. Comments like that aren't exactly helping.

I already have very little reason to believe what you say about Hume. — S

And yet you've been handed more than adequate reason on a silver platter.

Hume's notion of "passions" contradicts that which has happened everyday, and is still happening.

It leads to false conclusions; they do not square with fact. Validity is utterly inadequate for truth. A position can be very complex, very coherent/valid, and arrive at falsehood.

That's just the way it is. I'm not making it up. I'm just pointing it out.

Meaning there is some source of this judgment that is not relative or subjective to the person, the culture or the time. — Rank Amateur

Yes, maybe. What you're adding to that without due cause is that this 'source' is only the source of the majority. Why is it not also the source of the minority. What support do you have for the notion that the 'source' must deliver a single proposition? Why can this 'source' not hand out to most people the idea that murder is wrong, but to a small minority hand out the notion that murder is OK?

No problem. I too will have to duck out for a while because I'm afraid CS's writing makes me want to smash my phone and I can't really afford to do that.

Hume is wrong/mistaken because he's that which contradicts the corresponding existentially dependent thinking about thought/belief yesterday and/or today and/or tomorrow about that which is/isn't the prior to that which precedes language and/or naming.

That's just the way it is. The Oracle has spoken. Turns out that wisdom sounds a lot like gibberish.

I'm confused then, I suppose. Did you not quote me and charge the excerpt with ignoring and/or neglect?

Yes, that actually happened.

Three charges of neglect. None true.

When I wrote "non-sequitur" I was drawing your attention to the situation at hand. None of those charges follow from my position. You quoted me, and then aimlessly opened fire. "Non sequitur" was not about your argument, it was about the fallaciousness of your inquiry. — creativesoul

"Non sequitur" refers to something being stated in the context of an argument as if it follows--that is, as if it is valid, but it actually does not follow, it is not valid.

All you're saying really is that you disagree with me that "Morality is codified rules of behaviour. Code is language" "amounts to ignoring a significant portion of the phenomena that people typically characterize as morality, moral stances, etc"--well, we should hope you disagree with that, otherwise you'd be forwarding stances more or less dishonestly, because you'd think that you're ignoring something but you'd not care.

Nevertheless, what you stated amounts to ignoring a significant portion of the phenomena that people typically characterize as morality, moral stances, etc.

I do not understand your link between our near general agreement agreement about some things, and our biological development. — Rank Amateur

Your brain is part of your biology. Your brain is as it is due to a combo of genetics (which have an evolutionary history) and environmental factors. From person to person, brains have a lot of similarities because of this.

Well, what it is to have mental phenomena is for a brain to be in a particular state.

I use the term "subjective" to denote mental phenomena.

If you include some near universal evolutionary dispositions I am there. But I don't get the link between we all have a nose and 10 toes so we all think the same about a specific thing and it is subjective. — Rank Amateur

The link is simply that your nose and fingers and brain are all part of your body. Your body is as it is due to genetics (with an evolutionary history again) and environment. Nature and nurture. Your brain, part of your biology, is what functions as a mind. The term I use for mental phenomena is "subjective." It's just another way of saying that we're refering to mental phenomena, and not other sorts of things that aren't mental phenomena.

Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. — Rank Amateur

Why? Because I'm using the term to denote mental phenomena. It's basically a synonym for that in my usage.

People in that same mental phenomenon make a moral judgment, that the sorce of that thought is nearly universal, inherent in being human. Call it human nature or evolution- but if you agree such judgments exist they would seem to be much much more objective than subjective. — Rank Amateur

Since I'm calling mental phenomena "subjective" and I'm reserving "objective" for things that aren't mental phenomena, then if we're talking about people making a moral judgment as mental phenomena--we're saying that what it is to make a moral judgment is to be in a particular mental state, then even if 100% of everyone, throughout all of history, has that same exact moral judgment, because of how humans have evolutionarily developed, and that led to their brain working a particular way so that they all make that same moral judgment, then I'm calling that moral judgment "subjective," solely because/only because we're talking about mental phenomena, and "subjective" is a term I use to refer to mental phenomena.

It seems to me like I'm explaining this in a way that anyone should be able to understand (not necessarily agree with, but simply understand). But people are responding as if it's very difficult to understand for some reason. I don't know how to explain it so that it's simpler or more straightforward.

I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same. — Rank Amateur

You keep repeating this, and it's why I've used the analogies to things that should be less controversial.

Unless you think that we're not the sources of our noses, for example, you'd have to explain why the fact that we're the individual source of our own noses makes it a coincidence that there are such similarlties in them re placement, function, shape, etc.

If you think that we're not the sources of our noses, then you'd have to explain what you believe the source to be.

Part of the issue here might be confusion over whether we're talking about x as x--noses as noses, versus things that are prerequisites for x, preconditions for x, things that contribute to x being what it is, without actually being x itself. So, for example, genetics contributing to nose development, while the genetics in question aren't actually a nose.

I'm not going off on this tangent to be silly. I'm trying to understand what seems to be a perplexing viewpoint--the fact that you seem to think that if something is "of us"--it only occurs in or of our bodies, then it must be an odd coincidence that there would be any similarities in it.

The 10 toes was part of an example about something else (medicine) besides morality where we make “near universal” judgements based on our bodies developing in certain ways.
Correct me if im wrong on that Terrapin. — DingoJones

Not a judgment about. It's something that is a part of our body, that has a lot of similarities from body to body (almost everyone has 10 of them, etc.), but that we're not stumped about regarding how there can be such similarities if it's something that's simply a development of our bodies.

Meaning there is some source of this judgment that is not relative or subjective to the person, the culture or the time. — Rank Amateur

Because on your view, we'd not be able to explain the similarity unless we receive the judgment from somewhere else, right?

seems we just have a definition argument.

Since I'm calling mental phenomena "subjective" and I'm reserving "objective" for things that aren't mental phenomena, then if we're talking about people making a moral judgment as mental phenomena--we're saying that what it is to make a moral judgment is to be in a particular mental state, then even if 100% of everyone, throughout all of history, has that same exact moral judgment, because of how humans have evolutionarily developed, and that led to their brain working a particular way so that they all make that same moral judgment, then I'm calling that moral judgment "subjective," solely because/only because we're talking about mental phenomena, and "subjective" is a term I use to refer to mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

This was clear, I understand. And just disagree. Which is fine.

So exactly how many does it take in your world to shift it from objective to subjective 1 in 7.5 Billion, 10, 1000, 1%. ? Rare exceptions does not proof subjectivity. — Rank Amateur

No number can do it. It's not a term about how common something is, or how universal it is. It's a term denoting whether something is a mental phenomenon or not. If 50 trillion people, always, for all time, in the past, now, and for all of the future, think exactly the same thing, it's still something they think. That's all I'm saying. It's something they think, and not something other than what they think.

Once you understand how the term is being used, the next step is to understand the logical upshots of whether we're only talking about a mental phenomenon or not.

The most important aspect of this is the belief that there's some significance to something being very common, being near-universal, aside from the fact that it's very common or near-universal.

We need to explore the belief that there's some other significance to it.

I see. I used “judgement” to try and put things in a way Rank would easier digest but if that twisted what you meant then apologies. It should teach me not to speak for others but it wont ;)