On Subjective and Objective Morality

[73109]

So, here we go. We finally have a thread for it. It is the ultimate meta-ethical question, and one that has been debated about for centuries.

On the surface, this seems like an easy question. "How can morality be objective? Ha!" However, when you examine it more closely, it is most certainly not as easy as any one might think it is. In thinking that morality is subjective, it really means we have no concrete moral base and all of our actions are merely a by product of what-have-you that leads us to our decisions that make no sense really. If morality is subjective, we can't call people like Hitler evil. We can't want to punish child rapists. We must understand that with subjective morality, all anyone has is there own moral code, and if someone does something that you feel goes against your own moral code, you have no right to be upset. After all, it is there own morality.

That being said, I still vote for a subjective morality and I'm currently in the process of trying to track down Meta-ethicist J.L Mackie's Inventing Right and Wrong.

[Scheavo]

Morality is perspective. That's not quite the same as subjectivity, but it's certainly not objectivity.

[Perpetual Change]

There is an objective morality. We humans are not able to completely understand it, though.

[zxlkho]

I totally voted the wrong one.

Definitely subjective.

[Super Dude]

Morality doesn't exist in nature, the universe, whatever. We made it up.

[Orthogonal]

There is an objective morality. We humans are not able to completely understand it, though.

If all life were to become extinct, would morality still exist? Objectivity would demand that it is present, even if we are not.

[Scheavo]

There is an objective morality. We humans are not able to completely understand it, though.

If all life were to become extinct, would morality still exist? Objectivity would demand that it is present, even if we are not.

Life is an objective thing; if all life were to become extinct life, life would not be present - yet that doesn't make it subjective. Objectivity demands no such thing as eternal life or eternal presence. There are compounds we can create in the lab, which are artificial, which would not exist without life, yet pointing to those compounds is objective.

Morality doesn't exist in nature, the universe, whatever. We made it up.

We're natural, and part of the universe.

[GuineaPig]

It boggles the mind that one could consider morality objective.  We're only 46 years from segregation, people.

[73109]

It boggles the mind that one could consider morality objective.  We're only 46 years from segregation, people.

But a moral absolutist would state that those that believed in racial inequality were just plain wrong.

[j]

It boggles the mind that one could consider morality objective.  We're only 46 years from segregation, people.

Such specific objections are irrelevant though.  The existence of an objective morality doesn't necessitate that we discern it, let alone abide by it.

Strict moral relativism is logically self-refuting; I find it strange how many otherwise intelligent people cling so strongly to it nonetheless.

But pragmatically, I see no way to determine whether or not objective morality exists, or if so, what it entails, so moral absolutism can't be put into practice either.  It's definitely a fascinating question as the OP points out.  I do think a lot of confusion arises from the various ways people define "morality."

-J

[Ħ]

Objective morality because God

[Sigz]

I guess I'd consider myself an "agnostic" relativist. It's impossible to truly prove that there's no objective morality, however until someone can establish a logical basis for it I see no reason to believe that it exists.

[BlobVanDam]

I believe in subjective morality, because I don't believe in a higher power or any purpose to define objectivity. Our morals are defined generally as a society and a culture, and then within that we have our own morals, but it's all shaped by the people and world around us, which is why they generally evolve relatively slowly as a world.

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

I think some people (not accusing anyone here, but people I've known) like to believe in the comfort of objective morality, because it's black and white, and doesn't allow for our own human flaws to get in the way of our own moral judgement. Perhaps the idea of immovable right and wrong eliminates some temptation and the ability to justify wrongdoing in our own minds, but I trust in my own ability to define my own morals that will allow me to benefit myself and others. And I don't believe subjective morality devalues the importance of it at all.

Did that make any sense? I don't come here often.

[slycordinator]

I might be simplifying the OP too much here, but I think saying "You can't be mad at a rapist for raping because he's entitled to his own subjective morality" ignores the fact that society as a whole has already agreed that raping is not allowed, whether the decision to disallow it was made subjectively or not.

[zxlkho]

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

Thisthisthisthisthisthisthis. Great post Blob.

[Ħ]

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

Thisthisthisthisthisthisthis. Great post Blob.

Females are ripe at age 13.  We need to work on lowering the age of consent so we can get those babies pumping.


EDIT: In case anyone misses what I'm saying, if survival were the only thing that morality was based off of, that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.


I'll get an online petition set up shortly.

[obscure]

yes and no... my thoughts on this one are a tad too complicated to mention....

[Sigz]

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

Thisthisthisthisthisthisthis. Great post Blob.

Females are ripe at age 13.  We need to work on lowering the age of consent so we can get those babies pumping.


EDIT: In case anyone misses what I'm saying, if survival were the only thing that morality was based off of, that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.


I'll get an online petition set up shortly.

Eh, not really. In general women are capable of becoming pregnant before their bodies are capable of safely bearing that child.

[BlobVanDam]

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

Thisthisthisthisthisthisthis. Great post Blob.

Females are ripe at age 13.  We need to work on lowering the age of consent so we can get those babies pumping.


EDIT: In case anyone misses what I'm saying, if survival were the only thing that morality was based off of, that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.


I'll get an online petition set up shortly.

Eh, not really. In general women are capable of becoming pregnant before their bodies are capable of safely bearing that child.

And also our society has subjectively deemed people that young not able to fully take care of the resulting child, and possibly not ready to make a decision with such big implications, so it's not really beneficial to the mother or the child. This is why society places these somewhat arbitrary age cutoffs of what is deemed acceptable for people of certain ages to do. Beneficial to the species is not just about the raw number of people, it's also about the quality of the lives of all people involved.

[jsem]

I believe there is an objective right and wrong, but everyone has a differing opinion on what is right and wrong. How do I answer?

Ah well, this goes all the way back to Kant...

[Super Dude]

And also, whether they're right or wrong, the fact remains that different cultures do differ on their moral stances on certain issues, even if they agree on others. So there is prescription of moral subjectivity, but it need not be seen as normative.

[rumborak]

BTW, I also don't necessarily see how the religious decree of morality is objective. There is no God's Court you can file a suit with over the dispute with your neighbor, so all you're stuck with is still the subjective interpretation of everything.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

Thisthisthisthisthisthisthis. Great post Blob.

Females are ripe at age 13.  We need to work on lowering the age of consent so we can get those babies pumping.


EDIT: In case anyone misses what I'm saying, if survival were the only thing that morality was based off of, that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.


I'll get an online petition set up shortly.

Outside the U.S., 14 is the pretty common age of consent.

[yorost]

Any subjective morality is a projection of an objective morality along with claims of ignorance of complexity.

[kirksnosehair]

I believe in subjective morality, because I don't believe in a higher power or any purpose to define objectivity. Our morals are defined generally as a society and a culture, and then within that we have our own morals, but it's all shaped by the people and world around us, which is why they generally evolve relatively slowly as a world.

I think that any morals that are considered absolute and objective are only so because they are almost universal, and they're only largely universal because they're considered beneficial to our survival.

I think some people (not accusing anyone here, but people I've known) like to believe in the comfort of objective morality, because it's black and white, and doesn't allow for our own human flaws to get in the way of our own moral judgement. Perhaps the idea of immovable right and wrong eliminates some temptation and the ability to justify wrongdoing in our own minds, but I trust in my own ability to define my own morals that will allow me to benefit myself and others. And I don't believe subjective morality devalues the importance of it at all.

Did that make any sense? I don't come here often.

Excellent Post

[Liberation]

I don't like either idea and can't vote for either.

Some things are objective and there is no logical way to prove it is not. The most obvious example is harming someone else without any reason - you cannot justify that no matter how hard you try. In some extreme cases you can see the reason, but you cannot say the action is not evil. And sorry, but I think claiming everything is subjective in such cases is simply a nice way of dealing with your own conscience when there is nothing to justify you.

However, there's a lot of issues where "black and white" doesn't exist. I think suicide is a strong example; there are many different views on it, and deciding if it's "right" or "wrong" is basically impossible in any case ever.

There are many matters where I dislike both extreme options and I put myself right in the middle because it feels by far the most rational to me, and this is one of them.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I don't like either idea and can't vote for either.

Some things are objective and there is no logical way to prove it is not. The most obvious example is harming someone else without any reason - you cannot justify that no matter how hard you try. In some extreme cases you can see the reason, but you cannot say the action is not evil. And sorry, but I think claiming everything is subjective in such cases is simply a nice way of dealing with your own conscience when there is nothing to justify you.

I consider something along the lines of "don't harm others" as you said to be more of a social norm that humans have developed  than an objective moral.  Sure, most people are going to back you on the sentiment that it is wrong to do so, but if it's going to be called objective, there needs to be a stronger proof than that it is simply "evil."  "Evil" is a human term and a human concept that doesn't exist in the natural world without us to define it, and as it can change with our perception of what evil is something being "evil" doesn't make it objectively wrong.  Objectivity can't simply apply to a certain way that humans have agreed to behave. 

[Liberation]

Well I think this is a very simple case:
- someone is harmed
- you gain nothing, or have no reason of any kind, even a poor one (revenge/self-defence/whatever)
...yet you do it on purpose. I think this is a situation where it's always 100% wrong and evil, and you cannot justify it or claim it's subjective. Even if you don't take any emotional aspects into account and look in a purely cold, rational way, there is no possible way you can find this acceptable.

I'd find just a handful of additional cases where I believe there is no question they're wrong and unacceptable, but I think this one is by far the simplest and impossible to justify.

[Scheavo]

Well I think this is a very simple case:
- someone is harmed
- you gain nothing, or have no reason of any kind, even a poor one (revenge/self-defence/whatever)
...yet you do it on purpose. I think this is a situation where it's always 100% wrong and evil, and you cannot justify it or claim it's subjective. Even if you don't take any emotional aspects into account and look in a purely cold, rational way, there is no possible way you can find this acceptable.

I'd find just a handful of additional cases where I believe there is no question they're wrong and unacceptable, but I think this one is by far the simplest and impossible to justify.

Pretend the devil is God, and God is the devil. Perhaps killing people for no reason is the reason why we're here, and so killing people for no reason is the moral / deontological reason we're here.

[Liberation]

Err... This could be my brain working at 50% at the moment, but can you explain? I'm a bit confused.

[Omega]

If we lived in a society that deemed child rape and murder acceptable, would child rape and murder still be immoral or "unacceptable"?

[Liberation]

There wouldn't be such problem because we would have ceased to exist centuries ago.

[Omega]

There wouldn't be such problem because we would have ceased to exist centuries ago.

Fine. Disregard "murder" and re-asses the query.

[GuineaPig]

There have been many cultures where child murder was acceptable. 

[Omega]

There have been many cultures where child murder was acceptable.

That's not the question I asked.

I'll relay it correctly once more to avoid confusion:

If we lived in a society that deemed child rape acceptable, would child rape still be immoral or "unacceptable"?