I think moral values are demonstrably subjective. Here is my simple argument:
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued.
2. Only a subject can value something
3. Therefore, for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued by a subject. — Bartricks
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued.
2. Only a subject can value something
3. Therefore, for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued by a subject. — Bartricks
moral values are not my (or your) states of mind. — Bartricks
We're going in circles. This argument establishes that moral values are not my values:
1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable (if P, then Q)
2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable (not Q)
3. Therefore moral values are not my values (therefore not P)
That argument is valid and sound. You can run it again with yourself mentioned in premise 1 and 2 rather than me and it will remain valid and sound.
You can run it for everyone.
I conclude that moral values are the values of a mind and the mind in question is who she is - which is not one of us. — Bartricks
1610s, originally in the philosophical sense of "considered in relation to its object" (opposite of subjective), formed on pattern of Medieval Latin objectivus, from objectum "object" (see object (n.)) + -ive. Meaning "impersonal, unbiased" is first found 1855, influenced by German objektiv. Related: Objectively.
objective (n.)
1738, "something objective to the mind," from objective (adj.). Meaning "goal, aim" (1881) is from military term objective point (1852), reflecting a sense evolution in French.
Turning to moral value: something (an act, a person, a state of affairs) cannot be morally valuable in some respect and morally disvaluable in the same respect. That seems clear to the reason of most, I think. Well, that implies that moral values are the values of a single subject, then. — Bartricks
I think moral values are demonstrably subjective. Here is my simple argument:
2. Only a subject can value something — Bartricks
I didn't say 'God', but 'a god'. Big difference. It's the difference between saying "someone killed Janet" and "Mr Someone killed Janet".
Anyway, I do not see why you do not see it. For the arguments I gave were valid and the premises true beyond reasonable dispute. So either you do not see that the arguments are valid, or you do not agree with a premise. But which one do you dispute? — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.