Is morality subjective or objective?

[warpus]

Since nothing is beyond God to make things right, I'd have to go with "things are right because God commands them".

What does God base his reasons on? Some sort of divine wisdom surely. You dont' think this could be explained to us in terms we'd understand? If not, why not?

 

[bhsup]

I don't know. If you have questions about what he bases it on, ask him. Maybe he'll answer you.

 

[Fifty]

Since nothing is beyond God to make things right, I'd have to go with "things are right because God commands them".

Well that's no good! It means that God is arbitrary and furthermore that child torture could have been just as easily chosen as a morally good action as, say, donating to charity. It also means that God's only good because God commands that he's Good, which jibes sharply with the common theistic notion of his presumed benevolence.

@warpus: what exactly do you mean when you use the word objective? I'm not challenging your definition or anything, just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

[warpus]

@warpus: what exactly do you mean when you use the word objective? I'm not challenging your definition or anything, just trying to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Objective - something that is an inherent truth.. for example.. 2+2=4 is objective for that particular definition of +

Subjective - Describing how good a meal tastes is subjective.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

I would probably agree with some of your views on cultural relativism, but I don't think that should affect my/your views on the legitimacy of moral relativism.

If morality is inherent in human nature, then morals aren't objective. You could easily imagine another sentient species with different morals.

We are human.. we see the world in a very specific way. That's why some things just seen natural to us.. We share DNA. THat's why some people think morality is objective.

Different species.. totally different view on the world.. totally different morals.

if moral relativism is truly legitimate, just because the majority doesn't agree on something, and the minority isn't 'wrong' in any objective sense, why should we condemn acts that the majority of people wouldnt approve of? so most people think we shouldnt steal when we can get away with it, but to the person who does, there's nothing wrong with that, and objectively its not right or wrong it just is, just like certain groups killing off or dehumanizing other groups, its not right or wrong it just is, along with any consequences...
if the consequences of killing off the jews were only that a lot of people would be dead, but germany would prosper culturally, in morale, production, finanicially, etc, why shouldn't all those jews be killed? subjective morality says they ought to be, especially for germany's benefit... its not right or wrong, it just is... do you agree with that?


no, if morals are inherent in humans, is it because we're humans? animals have certain morals, codes, packs, etc. what is inherent in humans is the basic fact that we know we're alive and have impulses and needs and thus we are about fullfilling these needs, and morals is about staying alive and cooperating so that we could fullfill these needs. how would that be different for another species?

totally different morals for a different world? well if it had no life, but if an organism had to live and was sentient and self-aware as much as humans are of even more, the underlying morals would most likely be the same... survival of the species... otherwise there would be no species....

 

[Fifty]

Objective - something that is an inherent truth.. for example.. 2+2=4 is objective for that particular definition of +

By inherent truth do you mean necessary truth? Your citation of 2+2=4 as an example suggests that. If by objective you mean necessary truth then I would say that for me the jury is still out whether morality is objective or subjective. Keep in mind though that under such a definition of objectivity, even the laws of physics aren't objective.

Subjective - Describing how good a meal tastes is subjective.

That's an example not a definition! Using that example am I supposed to infer that by subjective you mean based entirely on preference? As in, murder happens to be wrong for warpus because warpus happens to prefer murder being considered wrong? There may be something to that (depending on how we view it)... I'll elaborate tomorrow.

For now bed time for fiftyson.

 

[ummmm........]

Everything is subjective.

 

[warpus]

if moral relativism is truly legitimate, just because the majority doesn't agree on something, and the minority isn't 'wrong' in any objective sense, why should we condemn acts that the majority of people wouldnt approve of? so most people think we shouldnt steal when we can get away with it, but to the person who does, there's nothing wrong with that, and objectively its not right or wrong it just is, just like certain groups killing off or dehumanizing other groups, its not right or wrong it just is, along with any consequences...
if the consequences of killing off the jews were only that a lot of people would be dead, but germany would prosper culturally, in morale, production, finanicially, etc, why shouldn't all those jews be killed? subjective morality says they ought to be, especially for germany's benefit... its not right or wrong, it just is... do you agree with that?

I don't think you understand the concepts behind moral relativism. Just because the killing of the Jews might have benefitted the Germans doesn't mean that genocide would be moral under moral relativism

It's not who can benefit the most. It's who can make the most compelling argument, that is accepted by most, about what should and what shouldn't be moral.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

No moral relativism means morals are different for different people, cultures, etc...

if most people accepted that wiping the jews out would be morally right then by your definition it would be right....

and slavery is neither right nor wrong... it was right back in the day, its wrong today.... and a few years down when we decide to make it right again and most people accept it, it will be right...

you see moral relativism says if the GERMANS said killing the jews was right, then FOR THEM it is morally right, even if most of the other nations thought it was wrong: its all relative.

You claiming that the one with the best argument takes all subjectivity out of the matter, because what is that argument based on? why will it be accepted by most? what are the reasons?

the reason might be reason itself. Its wrong to kill the jews because there is no good reason for it...

this then makes the objectivity of morals based in reason... meaning morals cant be all over the place if they were subjective, such as killing jews would be right for the germans because they BELIEVE it to be.... therefore, as morals are subjective, the act is neither really right or wrong, it just IS, whatever the MAJORITY agrees upon still has no real substance, its just major opinion, not an actual fact.

Therefore killing off the jews as a fact is neither right nor wrong. And indeed, to a seperate entity that has no empathy for humans, it doesnt matter either way anyways. people die, theres disease, etc. there is nothing 'good' or 'evil' things just are. and even if people say genocide is wrong, that is merely a statement of opinion, as what is right and wrong are determined by people in the first place.

 

[Old Spice]

Moral relativism and the lack of morals was why I was able to win a debate at my old high school justifying genocide.

Both exist is what I think I'm saying

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

If you're serious old spice, would you mind giving the main points of your argument here to see if anyone can pick it apart and try to claim genocide is, objectively, wrong?

Indeed both can exist... lack of morals is merely relative to the others who have morals, as in just becasue you dont have morals, doesnt mean your more wrong or right than the moral guys. the concepts of right and wrong are nothing but subjective perceptions usually able to be agreed upon by the majority because.. the majority of people will use reason to see that they are more reasonable...

but does this then make reason the objective basis for morality?

 

[Stylesjl]

Saying morals doesn't exist is different than saying god doesn't exist. Morals is some entity that might be 'out there' like aliens or god.
Morals is what you live with everyday going deciding to go along with society, following the few rules you still follow that mom taught you about not to generally lie, cheat, steal, trying to avoid doing things that'd you'd feel bad for doing, even if you feel bad only as a result of upbringing, environment, etc...
Your claim is such as saying feelings dont exist.
Why gees anger isn't anything but simply what you feel and you get angry about what society at large would get angry about as well.
Like you said, morals usually come from pragmatic consideration, and then the ones from superstition or emotions therefore, can be superceded by the pragmatic ones as to be more, morally justified, reasonable, right....


...and what of the questions i asked about pragmatism and reason? any thoughts on the matters in the OP, though I do admit its rather long and laboress...

Well I don't think god exists, so there!

And it's just what said: Morals are simply feelings. Murderers and theives don't feel bad about what they do (usually). Why should people judge their actions? Well simply because people have a vested interest in judging their actions. Stealing is quite a subjective moral, especially when you don't beleive in property rights.

Murder on the other hand is also subjective. It is simply emotion (people don't like murderers) and pragmatic reasons (I don't want to die, and that murder doesn't keep the species going, instead it is detrimental)

 

[Old Spice]

I never said it wasn't easy to pick apart I just said the no morals to put down the students at my school. The point is I forgot which is which, right and wrong are absolute where reason is relative. I there for must have been able to affect the students reasoning. The point is morality changes based on what point of view you take, morality is no what is right or wrong but what the people think is allowable. I will let you decided what this is as I have gotten subjective and objective confused.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Well I don't think god exists, so there!

And it's just what said: Morals are simply feelings. Murderers and theives don't feel bad about what they do (usually). Why should people judge their actions? Well simply because people have a vested interest in judging their actions. Stealing is quite a subjective moral, especially when you don't beleive in property rights.

Murder on the other hand is also subjective. It is simply emotion (people don't like murderers) and pragmatic reasons (I don't want to die, and that murder doesn't keep the species going, instead it is detrimental)

you missed my point, you dont think god exists i said was DIFFERENT than not thinking moral exists. As in, you dont believe in god, aw well, theres no reason to anyways? but to state morals dont exist is like saying anger doesnt, even if they are simply feelings. its there, it exists, to say otherwise is ignorance.

And now the question is what is the VESTED INTEREST of which you speak?
THe thing is if you break it all down it all comes down to one thing, and that, reason, and the reason for these reasons, is pretty objective.

And if you say most morals are about pragmatics, and even emotions have their reasons (think about WHY you dont like murderers, lying, cheating, etc.) and it boils down to one thing, it all comes down to the same thing, and thats where the argument for objectivity comes in.

I never said it wasn't easy to pick apart I just said the no morals to put down the students at my school. The point is I forgot which is which, right and wrong are absolute where reason is relative. I there for must have been able to affect the students reasoning. The point is morality changes based on what point of view you take, morality is no what is right or wrong but what the people think is allowable. I will let you decided what this is as I have gotten subjective and objective confused.

Confused indeed! how can right and wrong be absolute and yet morality not? People can have morals that are wrong, but then that means there are RIGHT morals... all this still doesn't discount that morality is objective. And then, what people think is allowable is all based on something!!!

 

[Stylesjl]

you missed my point, you dont think god exists i said was DIFFERENT than not thinking moral exists. As in, you dont believe in god, aw well, theres no reason to anyways? but to state morals dont exist is like saying anger doesnt, even if they are simply feelings. its there, it exists, to say otherwise is ignorance.

And now the question is what is the VESTED INTEREST of which you speak?
THe thing is if you break it all down it all comes down to one thing, and that, reason, and the reason for these reasons, is pretty objective.

And if you say most morals are about pragmatics, and even emotions have their reasons (think about WHY you dont like murderers, lying, cheating, etc.) and it boils down to one thing, it all comes down to the same thing, and thats where the argument for objectivity comes in.

But morals are simply what people beleive. A nation doesn't exist just because people beleive it exists, a nation is simply an artificial human construct just like morality. I mean sure it exists as a concept, but it doesn't actually exist outside of that.

When people proclaim morality is absolute what they really mean, is that they are right and everyone else's views on the matter are worthless

Anger is a human emotion marked with chemical processes, but it is also a mostly a subjective construct

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

But morals are simply what people beleive. A nation doesn't exist just because people beleive it exists, a nation is simply an artificial human construct just like morality. I mean sure it exists as a concept, but it doesn't actually exist outside of that.

When people proclaim morality is absolute what they really mean, is that they are right and everyone else's views on the matter are worthless

Anger is a human emotion marked with chemical processes, but it is also a mostly a subjective construct

K lets not think of arrogant people with ignorant views to rule out the matter.

Anger is subjective in what we get angry about, but it is an emotion that is triggered due to certain influences... the chemical process behind it doesn't create anger for no reason...

and therin is the principle word here: reason. love does not actually exist outside of being a concept, you can say its an emotion and a feeling as well, also grounded in reason. we love people close to us, who we admire for something, who we feel intimately close to and comfortable with, etc.
morality is the direction we take in regards to our actions - why we dont murder and lie occasionally and so forth - for the most part we are all inclined to live 'morally' therefore in cooperation, and morality guides our actions and resolves conflict within a group... in other words our moral actions are usually just plain logical actions, and logic is basically what would be better for certain reasons, and in the end all those reasons boil down to self-preservation, which means societal-preservation, which therefore is the root of the reasons for morality. so therefore the RIGHT thing to do would always, ALWAYS, objectively be that which benefits humanity as a whole and increases the chances of the root reason or allowing society and thus humanity and thus the individual to flourish.

So in the end, no matter how much we have our own interpretations here or there or certain actions this way and that, the absolute moral, right thing to do, would be the most reasonable, and the underlying reason would look to that big picture. that which is destructive for the species would always be 'immoral' as the end result of it is that there would be no species, and the 'reason' something has life is to live.

This paints an objective picture on the whole, merely saying RIGHT is reason and rationality and WRONG is unreasonable and irrational, two objective concepts in themselves. Walking erractically on a busy highway cannot be said to be reasonable or rational and cannot be brought down into 'subjectivity' unless the reason for it is death. flying a kite in a thunderstorm just to have fun can not be said to be rational no matter how you try to bring it into subjectivity.

Therefore morality and right and wrong, if you look at it closely, will always boil down to reason and rationality.


What people believe is just that, it doesn't make it the absolute or right or moral, even if they call it and think and believe it to be moral. Because by definition morals has to do with the 'right' conduct, and right needs grounds in something, it has to be 'right' for a reason. what people believe is right doesnt make it right. such as believing that god exists and made the world and everything in the bible is right.

 

[Brighteye]

I happen to posess the virtue not common in young people interested in philosophical questions. That is, I acknowledge that there are and have been a lot of incredible thinkers that I should consult before I pronounce that I know the truth.

If logical steps from premisses you don't doubt lead to a conclusion then you believe it to be true. You don't reserve judgement until everyone else also agrees.

Cultural relativism is a completely moronic and hole-ridden moral theory and almost exclusively the love of anthropologists, sociologists, teenage wannabe deep-thinkers, and professors of disciplines that end in the word "studies".

It suxors.

But not moral relativism, which is undeniable: an undeniable truth, in fact!

But morals are simply what people beleive. A nation doesn't exist just because people beleive it exists, a nation is simply an artificial human construct just like morality. I mean sure it exists as a concept, but it doesn't actually exist outside of that.

When people proclaim morality is absolute what they really mean, is that they are right and everyone else's views on the matter are worthless

Anger is a human emotion marked with chemical processes, but it is also a mostly a subjective construct

Exactly. Morals are subjective opinions: there can be no other way for rules by which to live one's life apply to people than for those people to adopt those rules.
Morals are subject to logical reasoning: a moral system which proscribes an action but elsewhere prescribes it is flawed, and its followers will be doing wrong.
However, the initial assumptions that underlie morals can only be subjective. You talk about survival of the race, but that's a subjective ideal. Why should I help the race survive? What if my ideal is to get the highest deathcount I can?

Morality works because people agree to it.

 

[bigfatron]

I suspect morals are both genetically fixed and learning based.

Genetically we are (mostly) born with the capacity to empathise, and the intellect to apply that empathy to say "I wouldn't like that done to me so I won't do it"

We are also trained by our parents and society to behave in a 'moral' way - this normally reinforces the restraining effect of empathy, but on occasions may encourage people to overcome natural empathy and behave 'abnormally'.

I'd support this by saying that you can observe people who are brought up in a moral way but behave completely amorally - we generally refer to them as psychopaths, a condition which is predicated on an inability to empathise.

Equally we have examples of ordinary people who can be brought by 'training' to behave in amoral ways, such as concentration camp guards, or abused children who go on to abuse their own kids.

On that basis I would say the basic building blocks of our morality - that, in general the 'tribe' prospers by adherence to rules and through cooperation - are objective, being genetically coded, but the details - whether you can eat pork, or whether homosexuality is wrong - are subjective since they are learnt.

If thatmakes any sense at all.....
BFR

 

[Masquerouge]

Morals are not absolute, and they're subjective.
It doesn't mean they're useless. We need them. It just means that you would be deluding yourself if you really believe your morals are going to be eternal and worldwide. Your morals are good for your local area and your particular era.
Morals are CONSTANTLY evolving.

 

[MobBoss]

Morality is both subjective and objective.