[karajorma]

No. If you believe that you're objectively right, there's always a chance that you're wrong in your belief. This makes you more likely to listen to other viewpoints, because you want to approximate objective morality as closely as possible - and your approximation may be a poor one.

Nope gotta disagree with that. Because it is quite clear that people who believe they are close to objective morality only listen to people who are saying something similar to them. Basically it's an enormous loop of confirmation biases. No one ever believes that their morality is completely wrong. So since they believe that their morality is mostly correct, they're only going to listen to people who say things that are similar to what they already believe. After all, if they are correct, why take advice from someone so obviously further away from objectivity?

Reread the last line. To them, tactical failing on this magnitude is moral failing. When your cause is taken up solely because it is just, because it is the only correct, moral course of action, what is it when you set it back? Injuring good is, pretty much by definition, evil. (To say nothing of the personal loyalties this action would ultimately betray even in the attempt to serve them.)

It's absolutely morally relevant if you advance the cause of evil and harm the cause of good.

Except that you're missing something. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's roots are in the teachings of Sayyed Qutb who espoused using acts of terror to shock the masses into becoming what they viewed as good Muslims again. In that respect the 9/11 was actually their greatest triumph because it did shock people all over the world. They literally did exactly what their morality said they needed to do to stop the corruption of Muslims by the West. The fact that this was (as you have explained) an extraordinarily self-destructive belief doesn't mean that they were betraying their own morals by following it.

[GhylTarvoke]

Now you're just getting into determinism. If you believe you are right subjectively you also have to accept that everyone else is right subjectively. If you believe in subjective morality you're then using your own guidelines and your own reasoning instead of deluding yourself into following a system you don't really believe in.

In the end, you're still bound by your own beliefs, the difference only comes whether you accept that or not. Those beliefs can always be changed and it's easier to change them if you don't try to force yourself into following an 'objective' standard you don't believe in.

I don't see your point. I agree that everyone is subjectively right, which is exactly why the concept of "subjectively right" is useless. It also removes all motivation to examine your morality, because it's not even possible to be wrong. Why should you ever change your mind?

This is also how science works, by the way. Scientists are unusually open-minded because they believe they are objectively right. They believe that their theories approximate reality, which motivates them to update their theories over time.

Nope gotta disagree with that. Because it is quite clear that people who believe they are close to objective morality only listen to people who are saying something similar to them. Basically it's an enormous loop of confirmation biases. No one ever believes that their morality is completely wrong. So since they believe that their morality is mostly correct, they're only going to listen to people who say things that are similar to what they already believe. After all, if they are correct, why take advice from someone so obviously further away from objectivity?

You're talking about people who not only believe that they are objectively right, but believe it so strongly that they have no doubt at all.

[FrikgFeek]

Because science is empirical. Morality isn't.
Following things you honestly believe in means you're following your subjective morality. Following things you've forced yourself to accept due to outside input(but don't honestly believe in) is just self-delusion. While the latter might lead to more 'good' actions as defined by society, the former is close to actually moral actions, things you honestly believe to be good.

[GhylTarvoke]

Of course morality isn't science. My point is that belief in an objective truth gives you a reason to change your mind. Again: if it's not even possible to be wrong, why should you change your mind?

I still don't see your point about "accepting things I don't believe in". I've accepted things because other people convinced me. I believed they were objectively right.

[FrikgFeek]

It's very simple. If you believe in it, then it's subjectively right for you. The only case where what you believe is 'objectively' right and what you believe is 'subjectively' right don't overlap is when you're deluding yourself.

If you changed your mind then what you previously believed was subjectively right is no longer subjectively right for you.
And you should never need a reason to change your mind. You changed your beliefs because outside input or introspection forced you to change them. It comes down to your core axioms. If someone points out that your conclusions don't lead from your premises then you either have to change your premises or fix your logic, which is objectively wrong.

[GhylTarvoke]

What I believe is "subjectively right for me" is also what I believe is "objectively right". The concept of subjective rightness is utterly useless, because everyone's subjectively right.

Why should outside input change my morality, if my morality cannot possibly be wrong? Why should I listen to outside input at all?

[FrikgFeek]

Because you believe outside input has value. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't listen to it. And while your set of core axioms can't be objectively wrong, your logic definitely can. Logic is an idea and therefore can be objectively right or wrong.

[Aesaar]

Why should outside input change my morality, if my morality cannot possibly be wrong? Why should I listen to outside input at all?

You're kidding, right?

[karajorma]

You're talking about people who not only believe that they are objectively right, but believe it so strongly that they have no doubt at all.

No. I'm talking about anyone who believes that there is an objective good and that they are somewhat close to it. The closer you believe you are, the less likely you are to listen to anyone else but I think it's pretty obvious that more people than not believe that they are close and that they don't need to listen to the other side. You can see that in pretty much every argument on the internet.

[GhylTarvoke]

Why should outside input change my morality, if my morality cannot possibly be wrong? Why should I listen to outside input at all?

You're kidding, right?

Have you been paying attention? That's my whole point. If it's not even possible to be wrong, you reach the (hopefully) absurd conclusion that there's no reason to change your mind.

Because you believe outside input has value. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't listen to it. And while your set of core axioms can't be objectively wrong, your logic definitely can. Logic is an idea and therefore can be objectively right or wrong.

If it's not even possible to be wrong, outside input has no value. And let's not return to the whole logical consistency angle; as you rightly noted earlier, "if it's not me, then kill it" is logically consistent.

No. I'm talking about anyone who believes that there is an objective good and that they are somewhat close to it. The closer you believe you are, the less likely you are to listen to anyone else but I think it's pretty obvious that more people than not believe that they are close and that they don't need to listen to the other side. You can see that in pretty much every argument on the internet.

Those people are closed-minded. I completely agree.

[Scotty]

ITT: GhylTarvoke repeatedly fails to understand how subjective morality functions as a concept.

"If it's not even possible to be wrong" is a pretty ****ing huge assumption that is also pretty wrong for a whole lot (most?) people and an even greater proportion of societies.

[FrikgFeek]

No, you don't reach that conclusion if you hold "outside input and introspection has value" as one of your core axioms. And as I explained, it is possible to be objectively wrong if your logic isn't consistent with your core axioms.
If you truly believe the previously mentioned "If it is alive and it is not me, kill it" then you should act according to it. Following your core axioms as closely and as rationally as possible is the point of morality.

[GhylTarvoke]

ITT: GhylTarvoke repeatedly fails to understand how subjective morality functions as a concept.

"If it's not even possible to be wrong" is a pretty ****ing huge assumption that is also pretty wrong for a whole lot (most?) people and an even greater proportion of societies.

You're saying that a person's subjective morality can be wrong?

No, you don't reach that conclusion if you hold "outside input and introspection has value" as one of your core axioms. And as I explained, it is possible to be objectively wrong if your logic isn't consistent with your core axioms.
If you truly believe the previously mentioned "If it is alive and it is not me, kill it" then you should act according to it. Following your core axioms as closely and as rationally as possible is the point of morality.

If you simultaneously have "outside input [regarding my subjective morality] has value" and "[barring logical inconsistency,] my subjective morality cannot be wrong" as core axioms, you've reached a contradiction. (If your subjective morality is consistent, then it cannot be wrong, so outside input should have no effect on it.)

[FrikgFeek]

That's the point. If it's consistent then you shouldn't change it. You should act according to your core axioms.
But most people don't hold the belief that it's impossible they've made a mistake and that their logic is perfectly consistent.

And even if you did, you're still not contradicting yourself. You can believe things to have inherent value, even if it's not possible that your core axioms are ever 'wrong'.

[GhylTarvoke]

You can believe things to have inherent value, even if it's not possible that your core axioms are ever 'wrong'.

Let's be clear here: by "things", you specifically mean other moralities, which brings us right back to where we started. Why would you value one morality over another (again, barring logical inconsistency)? What reason would you have to change your axioms?

If the description "subjectively right" can be applied to any consistent morality (even one as repugnant as "if it is alive and it is not me, kill it"), the description is useless. We might as well refer to everything in strictly mathematical terms.

EDIT:

If it's consistent then you shouldn't change it.

So no argument would convince you to change it, unless the argument addressed logical consistency. If this isn't closed-minded, I don't know what is.

[FrikgFeek]

So no argument would convince you to change it, unless the argument addressed logical consistency. If this isn't closed-minded, I don't know what is.

Yes, that's the point. Anything else is self-delusion. Your core axioms aren't something you arrive at through reason and aren't something that can be changed through reason. That's why they're your CORE axioms.

[GhylTarvoke]

Yes, that's the point. Anything else is self-delusion. Your core axioms aren't something you arrive at through reason and aren't something that can be changed through reason. That's why they're your CORE axioms.

OK, now I understand your position. In addition to making moral debate impossible, it implies that the worldview "only my mind exists" is subjectively right, which suggests that your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are too rigorous.

[Bobboau]

ok, just looking over the last few posts.

You can believe that there is an objective basis for your position but that it has a high sample variance, large error rate, hard to account for confounding variables, what you are talking about is more qualitative than quantitative, or that there was a misreading when you took your measurements, so believing you are objectively right does not mean you are stuck and cannot have your position changed, and it doesn't mean that you can't be convinced out of the belief that you are objectively correct.

Personal and societal morals can change over time while there is still an objective base to it by there being low level objective morals informed by beliefs or perspective. Think of it like a sense of fairness, which are informed by the individual's model of reality. If you feed into an innate morality your belief that there is an immortal soul that will exist forever and judged by loyalty to a ruler in life, that innate morality might produce a different response than if you feed in a belief that everyone only has one very short life. People objectively have legs (even if you can find a few counter examples) but they can be used to walk, crawl, or run depending on how you use them. From this perspective you can assume everyone's morality is basically the same but that the major differences lay in the models of reality that they are feeding into it, and THAT is where the true differences exist. In the case of abortion it's not that pro-life people believe it's OK to kill babies, that that they don't think that pea sized lumps of undifferentiated cells are babies. I suppose this comes down to an argument of semantics of what is meant by objective vs subjective morality.

objective morality is something completely different than absolute morality, I'm going to assume this has been tackled already.