Is morality subjective or objective?

[Sidhe]

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

Logic is a means for discussion not a means to an end, we live in the real world and if logic can encompass that, then it's no logic I recognise. Philosophical arguments stand up in one moment or one time, but morallity is progressive, if philosophy isn't then it is dying or dead.

 

[angeleyes]

Logic is a means for discussion not a means to an end,.........

the function of deductive logic is to clarify language, that's all i think.

 

[Sidhe]

the function of deductive logic is to clarify language, that's all i think.

I think in modern terms sadly that's all it has. Philosophy though is not logic alone, thankfully.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think in modern terms sadly that's all it has. Philosophy though is not logic alone, thankfully.

Then what is philosophy, if it's not logical? How can it be coherent without being logical? Are you... A SOPHIST?

 

[Azash]

If by objective moral you want to represent divinely inspired rules, then no, it isn't so. However, morality is subjectively objective in the sense that morale is always in accordance with advancing the domination of the human race. We view it from different points of view, but it all ends in the same goal.

 

[Azash]

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

No need, since there was already an "almost" in his post.

 

[Brighteye]

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

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


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

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?

If a question can't be answered with logic then it can only be answered with opinion, which is worthless, or data, which is meaningless without logic to use it to support an idea.
There is no justification for a moral rule to be considered correct other than your opinion. Any justification that relies on anything other than your opinion already makes a moral assumption, which you can't do when we are trying to establish the basis of morality: for example, utilitarianism assumes that it is a moral good to act for the greatest good of everyone, even if the action harms you.
There is no possible way to justify your moral opinion as having any more moral weight than anyone else's. Thus all opinions are equal and none trumps another.

Morality is a concept/idea. It was invented by humans: it can have no existence without a mind which can conceive it. There can be no absolute morality that exists without humans and for which we are searching, just like there is no such thing as fundamental human rights.
Any other system of morality assumes a purpose and then builds morals around it, but to assume a purpose is an unwarranted assumption. Morals can be about any purpose.
Thus we conclude that morality is subjective. What did I miss that confuses people? There must be something, but I don't see it.

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.

There's a difference between moral relativism and cultural relativism. Cultural, as you say, seems to expect us to leave alone things that differ. Moral simply says that they do not have to conform to our ideas, just as we do not feel an imperative to conform to theirs. We may choose forcibly to impose our ideas, but moral relativism does not command or forbid this.

Logic is a means for discussion not a means to an end, we live in the real world and if logic can encompass that, then it's no logic I recognise. Philosophical arguments stand up in one moment or one time, but morallity is progressive, if philosophy isn't then it is dying or dead.

If a conclusion is reached that isn't logical, how can you justify it? What other means of discussion are there except logic? Arguments, be they philosophical or not, must be logical, or else no good as arguments.

 

[puglover]

I believe in an Absolute Good personified.

 

[mdwh]

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

Yep, it's only true *given* we accept a set of axioms. But given a set of definitions on what is right or wrong (e.g., something is right if it doesn't harm anyone), we can also make objective decisions on whether things are right or wrong.

Subjective - Describing how good a meal tastes is subjective.

I think taste is a good example - it's subjective, but note how many people like the taste of a juicy steak, versus how many people like the taste of dogshit? Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it is totally arbitrary or meaningless. Far from it, people often compare and rate foods on how tasty they are.

There seems to be this idea that if morality is subjective, it means I can say rape and murder are okay, but that makes about as much sense as claiming that poo is a tasty delicacy - nobody is going to agree with me.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

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.

Thank you Fifty, for speaking the truth. Having taken a sociology class in high school, I can say with full confidence that:

A) Most sociology/anthropology/psychology teachers preach cultural relativism constantly.
B) Students swallow the stuff.

Pisses me off to no end, casuing me to frequently role my eyes at the teachers.

I think Mobboss made a fairly true statement, about morality being both objective and subjective.

 

[angeleyes]

Moral relativism isn't a moral theory but a sociological theory.
Saying your moral position is relative moralism is nonsense.
Relative moralism only denies an objective moral standard.
The position that 'all cultures (morals) are equal' is crap cause it presumes an objective standard.

 

[Ayatollah So]

We may choose forcibly to impose our ideas, but moral relativism does not command or forbid this.

That's a good point. In which case, who cares about moral relativism? Doesn't it just, in effect, tell us to go on exactly as we had been going before (making moral arguments, intervening or not intervening in other societies as our moral views dictate, etc etc)?

Or if morals are objective based on Reason, logic and pragmatism, what is the objective reason for morality? The perpetuation of the species?

It's not about perpetuation of the species per se. It's about justifying our behavior to each other. Of course, if you propose something incompatible with perpetuation of the species, you'll quickly find that the public cannot rationally accept your proposals.

 

[Sidhe]

Moral relativism isn't a moral theory but a sociological theory.
Saying your moral position is relative moralism is nonsense.
Relative moralism only denies an objective moral standard.
The position that 'all cultures (morals) are equal' is crap cause it presumes an objective standard.

So the theory has no impact on moral decisions? Don't be so silly you can't have relativism without weighing up the relative merits of it against say religous morals, and to do that you need to make some sort of ethical stand.

 

[angeleyes]

So the theory has no impact on moral decisions? Don't be so silly you can't have relativism without weighing up the relative merits of it against say religous morals, and to do that you need to make some sort of ethical stand.

I have only drawn the conclusion for myself that there is no such thing as an objective, independent, superhuman moral standard. And that's not because i think this is a better position than believing in a objective standard, on the contrary, probably we should regret that there's no such thing.
Just like someone who loses his believe in God and regrets this.

 

[Brighteye]

That's a good point. In which case, who cares about moral relativism? Doesn't it just, in effect, tell us to go on exactly as we had been going before (making moral arguments, intervening or not intervening in other societies as our moral views dictate, etc etc)?

It governs what sort of moral arguments we can make (and expect to be convincing).

 

[Ayatollah So]

It governs what sort of moral arguments we can make (and expect to be convincing).

Given the complexity and the high emotional importance of ethics, you have to be a wild optimist to think that any arguments will be convincing. Regardless of objectivism or subjectivism. After all, look how hard it is to convince some people that they are descended from nonhuman animals (which is surely a matter of objective fact, if anything is).

Putting that aside - I suspect you're right. However, philosophers Simon Blackburn and Allan Gibbard argue otherwise. I'm interested to hear your take on what sort of moral arguments can or can't be made, given subjectivism.

 

[Brighteye]

Well, I couldn't see the whole article from this computer, but I'd say that Hare was closest. Moral reasoning can be faulty, just as any reasoning can be faulty. A subjective opinion is untenable if it is inconsistent even though it's subjective.

Moral relativism simply says that morals need our agreement before we are governed by them. So in a way the two of them are right: within a group of people operating under one legal system, morals are objective: we are all operating under the one legal system, and we can refer to that as our guide.

However, the legal system is based simply on what we will agree to, and is not objective otherwise.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Well, I couldn't see the whole article from this computer, but I'd say that Hare was closest. Moral reasoning can be faulty, just as any reasoning can be faulty. A subjective opinion is untenable if it is inconsistent even though it's subjective.

Moral relativism simply says that morals need our agreement before we are governed by them. So in a way the two of them are right: within a group of people operating under one legal system, morals are objective: we are all operating under the one legal system, and we can refer to that as our guide.

However, the legal system is based simply on what we will agree to, and is not objective otherwise.

But the question is, is what we agree to guided by basic objective principles such as that the logic and reason that would allow humanity to survive as a species? And you can't say this is subjective - to survive we must not kill eachother off, so its objectively logical and right to make rules that makes killing minimal, right?

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

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.

Euthypro's dilemma is seen as a false one by much of traditional Christianity. You can look at Thomas Aquinas's response in particular for more information but simply speaking it is a false dilemma because it incorrectly understands God's nature, much like most of the apparent contradictions in the Abrahamic God.

 

[Perfection]

the function of deductive logic is to clarify language, that's all i think.

Deductive logic sucks for large philosophical issues, but it's really great for stuff like computing and math and the like!