Confused About Morality

Honestly, I don’t understand why so many people are so stupid.  In a recent discussion, I had a pile of people demanding that morality was objective, yet apparently didn’t understand what the term even meant.  I explained it, using dictionary definitions, and they still kept clinging to their belief that morality had to be objective, even though the evidence absolutely proves otherwise.

And I think that’s the issue, these people aren’t interested in reality, they want to feel good about what they believe, truth be damned.  This became especially clear when I pointed out that one of the “objective morality” defenders was, in fact, actually arguing for subjective morality.  He kept saying that everyone has their own view on morality.  Um… that’s called being subjective.  But no, morality must be objective because… reasons.

I honestly don’t get how these people can be so self-deluded, just because they want things to make them feel good.  I have never seen anyone make a decent case for an actual, demonstrable objective morality. They all fall into wishful thinking or logical fallacies.  Some are just the redefinition of words.  I think Matt Dillahunty’s arguments are exactly that.  Morality is “objective”, but only after you decide entirely subjectively what criteria you’re going to have for things being moral.  Well that’s called subjective morality!  You just can’t get around it.

For the slow people who might be reading this, in order for there to be an objective morality, there would have to be moral views that exist in all cultures, across all of time and space.  It would have to be like gravity.  The gravitational constant on Earth is 9.8 meters per second squared.  It doesn’t matter where you are, it is always the same.  It doesn’t matter if you live today, a thousand years ago or in a billion years, it will always be the same.  It is a constant.  That’s what objective means.  In dictionary terms, objective is defined as “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”  Yet these people don’t get that.  Instead, they are pointedly looking at morality subjectively, or “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”  Yet they don’t appear to know what these terms mean and when things don’t go their way, all of the dictionaries in the world seem to have conveniently vanished.

And that’s why it’s important to demand this inconvenient little thing called evidence for any claims that anyone makes about anything.  I’m not interested in your feelings.  I’m not interested in your wishes and desires.  I care about your facts.  Present them so that I can test them objectively, otherwise we really have nothing to say to each other.  It’s just too bad that most debates never work out that way.

2 thoughts on “Confused About Morality”

  1. Assuming that "stupid" refers at least in part to intelligence, remembering that intelligence is normally distributed in the population may help. This means that, by definition, half of the population is going to be below average on any decent measure of intelligence. While I personally would not equate this with stupidity, it does mean that there are going to be quite a few people out there who might have difficulty grasping ideas some of us find straightforward.

  2. All meaning is subjective. There is no objective meaning in this world. People who can't see this are deluded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)