Is morality subjective or objective?

[Prince_Imrahil]

First off, before you say morals and right and wrong is subjective and different for many people, consider first the fact that the underlying values behind different actions are usually the same or similar - to say muslims and christians and atheists have different morals isn't quite right - for the most part all their morals work for one purpose - the perpetuation of community, society, common cooperation, anything that allows the success of the group, which means success for the individual. But then you say well women are treated differently in some viewpoints - is that morally right, wrong, or neither and just whichever we choose to make of it?

If morals are merely subjective and what we make of it depending on the consequences of actions, does this means that say, slavery, genocide of a people to purify your own community of people, and all that is neither objectively right or wrong, just different based on personal perceptions?

Or if morals are objective based on Reason, logic and pragmatism, what is the objective reason for morality? The perpetuation of the species? That seems to be the main reason for all logic and reason, for not mudering, not lying to allow communication, society building, etc. etc.

If so, then the thing is, why would it be morally wrong to enslave a certain 'people' of that could help advance the rest of the people if the objective reason is self-perpetuation?

And what about the individual? Is the moral, reasonable thing to do always about what is most reasonable for humanity in general? What about self-interest, say, that trumped the greater good of humanity?
For instance, the greater good of ALL humanity would deny slavery, but the greater good of the slaving nations would be better off with their slaves, so why is all humanity, or is it, more important than this portion? Or why should this portion care about the rest of humanity and not just itself?

Please note I am looking as this academically, and therefore playing devil's advocate and am not suggesting viewpoints, this is meant for academic consideration for those of you who might take it the wrong way...

In the long run, how would slavery be detrimental to those in power?

Or for a modern example, is intervention to save a foreign people morally right? and if so, why? because it helps humanity and the perpetuation of the species as a whole? why not let those who wipe themselves out do so and take over the available resources for the perpetuation of the groups that have the power to intervene?

And if there is no objectivity, only consequences, then obviously all negative consequences to the individual and group are objectively bad, wrong, immoral, so then can you really claim there is no objectivity to morals?

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

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Objective: Your post contains 15 question marks.

Subjective: Way too many questions.

 

[Fifty]

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.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

damn, I missed the question mark in the title

 

[warpus]

There are a couple assumptions western civilization has made that might as well be objective truths.. They of course aren't, but they just make so much sense that we assume that they are.

A lot of morals are subjective, but a lot of the basic stuff most of us can agree on.

I don't really see a big dilema here.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

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.

Indeed, but I was not even advocating it... I asked the question, is morallity subjective? for those who thought it might be and cited examples of what would be subjective and not objectively right or wrong in that viewpoint...

but then just because you might say, its not subjective, its objective, that doesn't end all questioning, as there are the questions I posed on objectivity, not to argument it, but to examine it so we can have a better understanding of it unstead of just saying just because the other is wrong the exact opposite is right....


so the question is fifty, since you seem to agree that right and wrong is not subjective, what makes what is right right and what is wrong wrong?

There are a couple assumptions western civilization has made that might as well be objective truths.. They of course aren't, but they just make so much sense that we assume that they are.

A lot of morals are subjective, but a lot of the basic stuff most of us can agree on.

I don't really see a big dilema here.

what's not an objective truth that we assume is? That people have a right to life, liberty and freedom? True it makes sense, but how is that a truth? How do you have a right to any of that? you have the ability for all that being born, to call it a right is a matter of semantics....

the basic stuff, lying, cheating, murder, most of us can agree on, but does that make them objective?
just because most people can agree to them and accept them?

And for the morals that are subjective, can you say then that some are better than others?
are some right while others are wrong? or if you say they are subjective, then calling them right and wrong is subjective too....

 

[Fifty]

so the question is fifty, since you seem to agree that right and wrong is not subjective, what makes what is right right and what is wrong wrong?

I dont at this point subscribe to any particular moral theory. I have a few ruled out (e.g. divine command theory, classical utilitarianism), but I haven't found a good fit yet. Ask me around July when I've finish all my ethics courses.

 

[warpus]

I dont at this point subscribe to any particular moral theory. I have a few ruled out (e.g. divine command theory, classical utilitarianism), but I haven't found a good fit yet. Ask me around July when I've finish all my ethics courses.

If morals are objective, where do they originate?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

If morals are objective, where do they originate?

The reasonable answer is from reason and rationality, that is said to be the basis or morality, for those who dont subscribe to the god idea.

If morals were subjective, why does most people follow, as you said, certain basic morals?


And fifty, its not about subscribing to any theories or models, its about pondering about the questions and seeing if you can make any sense out it!

 

[Stylesjl]

Morals don't exist. They are simply what people beleive and what people are told to beleive by society at large. These morals usually form from pragmatic considerations (murdering people isn't terribly productive) and some from superstition or emotions (sexual ethics for example)

 

[Old Spice]

Morality is just doing less then what society allows and more then what it expects.

 

[Fifty]

If morals are objective, where do they originate?

Some theories suggest that it is something about human nature, others suggest that moral facts are necessary facts, others suggest that they are empirical facts pertaining to shared moral beliefs of moral agents. Again, I'm not sure at this point what theory I subscribe to, I just know that cultural relativism is crappy.

And fifty, its not about subscribing to any theories or models, its about pondering about the questions and seeing if you can make any sense out it!

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. You wouldn't learn much about physics if all you did was try and "figure it all out yourself" without reading any established physical theories would you? It's no different for philosophy. The problem is that philosophy has a closer place to everyday thought then concrete physical theories, and many philosophical questions have been debated for such a long time, that philosophy lends itself to pronouncements by overconfident people that they know the truth about [insert philosophical question].

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Morals don't exist. They are simply what people beleive and what people are told to beleive by society at large. These morals usually form from pragmatic considerations (murdering people isn't terribly productive) and some from superstition or emotions (sexual ethics for example)

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...

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. You wouldn't learn much about physics if all you did was try and "figure it all out yourself" without reading any established physical theories would you? It's no different for philosophy. The problem is that philosophy has a closer place to everyday thought then concrete physical theories, and many philosophical questions have been debated for such a long time, that philosophy lends itself to pronouncements by overconfident people that they know the truth about [insert philosophical question].

if you assume that thinking about questions is somehow declaring you know the truths, rest assured its not... stating your thoughts on the matter or forming thoughts on matters doesnt mean you're not acknowledging that you have much to learn and others have well-thought out ideas already... you're not trying to come up with truths here, you looking at and consering questions and your answers are not supposed to be pronoucnements of truths, but products of your own reasoning, to be tinkered with, questioned, debated, altered, corrected, added-to, etc. etc.

by trying to set yourself apart from most 'young people' your doing the same you accuse them of doing, trying to set yourself at a certain standard different from certain standards....

 

[bhsup]

What is and is not moral is absolute and eternal. We humans just seem to never quite get it right, that's all.

 

[Fifty]

What is and is not moral is absolute and eternal.

What's your personal normative theory? what makes good things good and right actions right and wrong actions wrong and bad things bad?

 

[warpus]

the basic stuff, lying, cheating, murder, most of us can agree on, but does that make them objective?
just because most people can agree to them and accept them?

It's subjective, but the morality of something like murder 99.999999999% of people can agree on, so it isn't an issue... ie. we treat it as though it were objective. It makes things simplier.

 

[bhsup]

What's your personal normative theory? what makes good things good and right actions right and wrong actions wrong and bad things bad?

God. . . . . .

 

[Fifty]

God. . . . . .

Are things right because god commands them or does god command them because they are right?

 

[bhsup]

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

 

[warpus]

Some theories suggest that it is something about human nature, others suggest that moral facts are necessary facts, others suggest that they are empirical facts pertaining to shared moral beliefs of moral agents. Again, I'm not sure at this point what theory I subscribe to, I just know that cultural relativism is crappy.

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.