Is morality subjective or objective?

[angeleyes]

Objectivity is in fact intersubjectivity.
I'm a moral relativist, but i don't believe in multi-culturalism, cause one country needs one moral (this seems clear to me, expressed in one law) and moral is embedded in culture.

 

[Masquerouge]

Objectivity is in fact intersubjectivity.
I'm a moral relativist, but i don't believe in multi-culturalism, cause one country needs one moral (this seems clear to me, expressed in one law) and moral is embedded in culture.

Seems fair, and I agree with you. Now for the money question:
if a place far away from your culture, with thus a completely different culture, finds that excision (the act of cutting a girl's clitoris) is moral, should we let them do what they want, or should we try to stop them in the name of our morals?

 

[angeleyes]

.......if a place far away from your culture, with thus a completely different culture, finds that excision (the act of cutting a girl's clitoris) is moral, should we let them do what they want, or should we try to stop them in the name of our morals?

Depends on your morals

 

[Masquerouge]

Depends on your morals

That's really good. So if you think it is moral to force your morality on others, then go for it...

 

[Brighteye]

You can't force morals on anyone: merely control their actions. Morality is a system which only has any relevance to those under it.
Our morality has nothing to say about women not governed by our morality; morality is a self-contained system.

 

[Masquerouge]

You can't force morals on anyone: merely control their actions. Morality is a system which only has any relevance to those under it.
Our morality has nothing to say about women not governed by our morality; morality is a self-contained system.

So that means you will let these girls be excised, correct?

 

[Perfection]

Morality is both subjective and objective.

That's probably the truest thing said so far (with Fifty's discounting of certain ethical systems being a close second).

I tend to let philosophers worry about it, as I'm not heavily involved in the finer details of moral systems (like philosophers and legal folks), I don't see the need to have a completely coherant moral system.

 

[Stapel]

In almost any field of morality, religious or non-religious, there are 3 things universally considered immoral:
-murder
-theft
-leaving your family, that depends on your care (read: money)

 

[Brighteye]

So that means you will let these girls be excised, correct?

There's no moral decision: there's not a compunction to interfere, but equally there's no rule forbidding it.
Morality does not have to have an opinion on everything. In this case it's a free choice.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

That's probably the truest thing said so far (with Fifty's discounting of certain ethical systems being a close second).

I tend to let philosophers worry about it, as I'm not heavily involved in the finer details of moral systems (like philosophers and legal folks), I don't see the need to have a completely coherant moral system.

the thing is not looking for a completely coherant moral system but understanding what the main 'reason' and 'purpose' of morals are in the first place, to see if certain ones can be said to be 'objectively' better than others.

Not to make a 'list' or a moral system but to see if morality actually has an objective purpose, thereofre making it objective, and whatever you say is subjective (like women wearing burkas) then has nothing to do with true morality, merely cultural, or personal beliefs.

To say morals are both objective and subjective is not even touching the subject without givning an explanation.... sure everyone thinks murder is wrong so thats objective, but excision of young girls is morally right for some people so thats subjective.... thats stating something without trying understand the inner workings of the statement...

...and then its subjective to whether one group should stop another group from excision, but is it really or is there any fundamental logical, reasonable, moral basis that should make the non-excising group step in?

 

[Sidhe]

Both, but nothing can be truly objective, essentially morals are either or, and ethics trys to pick an unusual number of sides, done properly. Essentially ethics trys to create the myth of a good moral code, but never gives us an absolute, nor should it, nor would I want it to. Absolutes are pointless in moral theory.

 

[rysingsun]

And by that I do not mean a God, or some superstious entity.

then you will not find your answer.

 

[Fifty]

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.

You should read this. There really aren't any interesting philosophical questions that can be answered with deductive logic.

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

Really!? You should type up your proof and mail it to Philosophical Studies for peer review. You'll be very very famous.

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.

The correctness of rules has nothing to do with their being followed. Does my denying that molecules exist mean that chemistry is subjective?

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?

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If my ideal of physics is to "concoct a theory involving lots of leprauchans" does that mean that physics is just as subjective as morality?

 

[Phlegmak]

Morality is subjective.

 

[Sidhe]

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.

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

I'm afraid moral relativism is only one view, taken to an extreme, i.e we cannot judge other cultures because we do not know them it's moribund as a philosophy. If culture a condones the first born child being scarificed, moral realtivism would say, why should we judge? But we have a perfect right to judge such abhorent acts.

Let's take a real world example, if Sharia says that women should be subjugated, is it ethically ok to accept Sharia as a good system? Moral relativism is something I tend to follow, but not to extremes, you need to look furhter than one moral code.

 

[El_Machinae]

Morals are subjective!
In any engagement, the 'good' and 'evil' is a function of the perceptions of the two participants and the amount of information each participant has.

There's no 'greater good', just things that most people will agree on.

 

[MobBoss]

In almost any field of morality, religious or non-religious, there are 3 things universally considered immoral:
-murder
-theft
-leaving your family, that depends on your care (read: money)

I can give you arguements in which all three of those could be moral actions.

 

[angeleyes]

........ If culture a condones the first born child being scarificed, moral realtivism would say, why should we judge? But we have a perfect right to judge such abhorent acts. .......

My moral relativism doesn't forbid me to judge, it only says my judgement isn't an objective truth. I could be willing to destroy such a culture and still know that my judgement is subjective.

 

[Masquerouge]

My moral relativism doesn't forbid me to judge, it only says my judgement isn't an objective truth. I could be willing to destroy such a culture and still know that my judgement is subjective.

A nice answer... again

 

[angeleyes]

........ There really aren't any interesting philosophical questions that can be answered with deductive logic.......

I concur, deductive logic brings you nowhere, the conclusion is always already in the premisse.