The_1st_Axiom
Region: US
Thursday 01 October 2026 13:33:35 GMT
88602
8227
179
98
Music
Download
Comments
Nick :
My problem with objective morality is that it's a fine social theory for scholars in their high tower, but has no practical application. You could argue that slavery was always wrong whether any humans believed it or not. Fine, although I think this suffers from hindsight bias. Maybe a more interesting test would be the future. What if generations down the road our ancestors look at us as monsters for neutering pets, feeding them only twice a day, and keeping them locked in kennels. Does that make us evil now? Does that make us immoral now? If morality is objective, how do you apply it today if no one is capable perceiving future views on morality?
2026-10-01 14:48:59
43
user2517611825638 :
Because morality, if it is objective, would be like Mathematics: Discovered rather than invented, and then each discovery would raise new questions and complexities, but never actually violate the levels above. The sheer magnitude of Moral Law might give the impression of relativism, but the more you studied it, the more that vastness would become interlocked into something fundamentally real.
2026-10-01 21:14:37
140
gigfyhcgu568 :
it's RIDICULOUSLY easy to prove that morals are purely subjective
2026-10-09 13:54:06
0
Alderyc :
There is no evidence to suggest objective morality exists or is necessary
2026-10-02 04:33:56
19
Joe :
I think this video makes your point clearer, and clarifies why I disagree. 1) I still disagree with your definition of objective. It needlessly inserts people into the equation. The earth would orbit the sun whether there were people or not. I believe this is true of all objective facts. Obviously, there are objective facts about people, but you get my point. Objective facts exist in the world and are discoverable. You never described how a moral truth could meet this test other than "intuition", which I'll come back to. 2) I think lumping cultural subjectivism under individual subjectivism is a bit of a strawman. Almost nobody believes that each individual is entitled to their own morality. But a cultural basis for morality maps perfectly onto human history, as well as what we know about evolution and psychology. Laws, police and prisons are ways of implementing cultural morality. 3) You're glossing over the idea that moral propositions are only right or wrong with reference to some goal (I like Sam Harris' well-being). Torture is wrong because it is an unjustified imposition on someone's well being. Some believe (intuit?) that there are circumstances where it is justified. Under this view, we can claim moral progress as we learn more about what impacts well being (PTSD, for example) and as we expand our sphere of concern (to other sentient animals, for example). It's not about my standards as an individual. Many ancient cultures believed rape was wrong within the tribe, but was an acceptable part of warfare against other tribes. We've thankfully progressed beyond this tribalism. 4) in supporting your idea that intuition is a valid way of gaining knowledge of objective facts, you use the analogy of seeing a tree. You say we don't first test our visual perception for reliability, but you're wrong. We test our perception against the world almost continuously from the time we can walk. It's this repeated confirmation of acuity (along with learning the ways our perceptions can be fooled) that gives us the confidence that the tree we see objectively exists. You give no corollary mechanism by which we could test moral intuitions.
2026-10-01 16:35:39
4
Gill :
In 100 years we’ll be saying that how we think now was immoral and backwards
2026-10-04 03:17:53
4
pathtoreason :
“Lemme strawman subjectivism real quick to make it seem absurd, so that when i mention what subjectivism actually is, the strawman sits in the back of their mind and they don’t realize subjectivism makes more sense than what i want it to.”
2026-10-05 08:15:27
2
VividDark :
Here's some philosophy. If all of humanity vanished. not a single one left. Would morality still exist? ps: You cant invoke magic.
2026-10-03 06:43:28
5
michaelwright9749 :
this is a logical fallacy appeal to popularity
2026-10-02 04:42:56
6
Logic_seeker :
My uneducated take would just be that there is no objective morality. Any person who says that something is “wrong” is stating their opinion. Now they may think that they are stating a fact but they are not. Pretty much, morality is a construct that also happens to be partially built into our biology
2026-10-05 07:23:25
0
Light :
Hi again! I really strongly disagree with your expression of the whole "boo abortion" thing about non-cognitivists. I'm not massively read on non-cognitivists, so I won't be defending the entirety of their standard position, but from your TLDR it seems to align most closely with how I view morality. I think your sentence chart is a clearly unfair representation of the underlying sentiment. You could just as easily replace "boo" in any of those sentences with a word or combination of words that retain the intention of communicating personal disapproval that result in a clearly coherent sentence. "Maybe boo on abortion" sounds stupid, but "I might disagree with someone who says abortion is right" or "I am undecided on how abortion makes me feel but I have a negative internal response to it" are both totally reasonable. You could make the same argument about objective interpretations of "abortion is wrong" by writing it as "abortion true nuh uh", which also sounds incoherent. That chart chooses to use poor words, that doesn't make the intended meaning incoherent.
2026-10-07 20:29:27
0
inamorous :
moral error theory won. I donmt see how these ‘obvious’ evils as obvious. Now what? I don’t like ‘common sense’ arguments very much they miss the point
2026-10-03 06:42:32
3
erkesome :
This whole argument conflates facts with reality. If the Earth orbits the sun, and nobody knows about it, that's just reality; facts don't exist when nobody thinks them. It's the same mistake in the normative mode: it's apparently real that people have a sense of justice. Chimpanzees have it too, but they can't rationalize linguistic facts. Moral sentiments are real neurological events; some are very common and we reduce them to words. When a bunch of people tend to agree on something, they call it a fact. Moral realism traces this phenomenon in the wrong direction, believing that morality descends upon us from the real instead of being produced by us as participants in the real. In short, it is a fetish.
2026-10-05 16:01:44
0
miltonparsons :
you need to define the terms first because this is the foundational problem with this argument. what is objective morality, what is subjective morality.
2026-10-03 00:25:50
0
Oooweerick :
You cannot in any way compare the objective nature of the statement “the earth orbits the sun” and the rather metaphysical nature of “morality” objective in those two scenarios means completely different
2026-10-05 15:28:48
0
realandtruealthistory :
I think maybe it’s a definition issue. I would define morality simply as the system or framework we use to determine if a given action is good/moral, bad/evil/immoral, or neither/amoral. Following that morality can only ever be subjective because the makeup of the framework being is always dependent on the mind that created and uses it. This is evident in and demonstrated by the wide range of moral frameworks we see around the world and throughout history that have different base priorities. Now, it is worth noting that internally objective claims can be made within a given framework.
2026-10-01 17:02:02
0
Dre :
I’m new to moral philosophy and sociology but In one of my sociology classes I took we very quickly learned about mores taboos and folkways which kind of disproves the idea that morality is objective.
2026-10-03 20:51:22
2
chaddington :
Do you think it’s possible to combine subjectivism with the objective reality of our world? So basically we can say that certain actions usually lead to better or worse outcomes as a matter of subjective preference. We can run scientific studies that tell us what people prefer, objectively. What’s preventing a subjectivist from saying that moral truths are stance-dependent, but we all basically have the same stance as humans?
2026-10-01 14:24:15
1
thisisastroblaccc :
The problem with discussion of Objective vs Subjective morality is manufactured dualism. I see "either this or that" as the biggest flaw with Aristotelian logic.
2026-10-02 16:46:27
2
Mike Gee :
This sort of reminds me of Alvin Plantinga's argument that states that believing in God is properly basic. It's basically the same argument, I think, just applied to objective morality
2026-10-06 18:18:44
0
c00lman01 :
u kinda look like levy
2026-10-01 23:18:02
2
Alex:3>w< :
Appeal to consensus
2026-10-02 23:15:11
1
Chuppy :
I think too many people in the age of the internet grew up looking at debates between atheists and theists where between themselves. they agreed that moral realism equals theism and anti-realism equals subjectivism. and so a lot of people who find their way to that content. assume that's that's the lay of the land. but academic philosophy going back basically as far as you can go has all kinds of references to stance, independent moral truth makers. moral realism is held by many practicing philosophers and taught in all the introductory textbooks. but I think too many people online. just assume that morality is subjective and that's that.
2026-10-01 13:44:04
3
Art Vandelay :
one thing I've noticed is the most ardent moral subjectivists out there certainly behave as if their moral framework is objectively and inarguably correct
2026-10-09 19:02:13
2
vin_dk0 :
I guess you did make me see it differently. Though, this still seems to be a heuristic that can define how we reason about morality, not proof of objective fact as (religious) people often use it. Take the sun example. If humans did not exist, it would still be objectively true that the earth orbits the sun. But if humans did not exist in your example, the statement that you used would not be true, it would just be nonsense. These are not congruent objective claims. In the religious discussion the conversation is different than the one you are having here, is my point. I don’t think most atheists are true subjectivists as you have described here but say as much because they do not think that moral truths are baked into the fabric of reality. We could reason the same way you are here about art, but that doesn’t mean that art as a concept has the same “level” of objectivity as the law of gravity. Same exact process of intuition applies, and likely does inform our understanding of art in reality. I have most often seen objectivism presented from a point of “mind” dependence though, not “stance” dependence, so I’m not sure. Your system seems to still be mind dependent, whereas the sun example is not.
2026-10-01 15:06:03
0
To see more videos from user @the_1st_axiom, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
