• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moral relativism and moral subjectivists

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Independent of individual subjectivity is not indifferent to individual subjectivity. Truthes of morality stand true on their own as a service to individual subjectivity that is aligned with such truthes. Moral truth is not dependent on subjectivity. We can act truthfully vs acting in falsehood.
Well you have as yet to mention anything other than what prattles around intellectually in a primate brain so when you make some conmection to that which exists independent of the brain. At that point trees are smarter than us.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?

If there are no universals how do we draw common with all human beings?

Moral relativism in my sense of it is that all morality is dependent on individual preferences, and all of morality is circumstantial; relative to the situation. Perhaps all things are permissible given the situation and preference and benefit in my view of it.

Moral subjectivity is that morality is all based on personal feelings and there are no objective standards that evidence themselves as being truth.

To me moral relativism, and moral subjectivity are pitfalls whereas certain evils can seem necessary to the individual.

Moral objectivity and universality of morals is where all humans can hold common grounds and a fair sense of justice.
I see morals as an expression of values. Humans tend to have many common values: all else being equal, we prefer life to death and we prefer to happiness to suffering, etc. Because of our shared values, most of our morality is common to virtually all people.

OTOH, what moral tenets could be universal? "Don't rape?" If "rape" means "committing a sexual act without the consent of the other party," then bees rape flowers. Are bees immoral for doing this? I don't think so.

What about "don't kill?" Obligate carnivores have to kill or die. Are they immoral for killing?

... so before you argue that a universal morality exists, I suggest you throw out some moral tenets or precepts that you think might be part of this universal morality so we can see how universal theh really are.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?

If there are no universals how do we draw common with all human beings?

Moral relativism in my sense of it is that all morality is dependent on individual preferences, and all of morality is circumstantial; relative to the situation. Perhaps all things are permissible given the situation and preference and benefit in my view of it.

Moral subjectivity is that morality is all based on personal feelings and there are no objective standards that evidence themselves as being truth.

To me moral relativism, and moral subjectivity are pitfalls whereas certain evils can seem necessary to the individual.

Moral objectivity and universality of morals is where all humans can hold common grounds and a fair sense of justice.
I believe that we can observe an "objective" set of moral edicts the moment we agree on what the term "moral" means. Nail down a definition, and you have defined the parameters within which one can guage "moral" vs. "immoral." So then, by virtue of the fact that we have a definition/meaning to go by, we have a standard by which to judge a given thing in that context.

So, if a "moral" action/item is defined as something that has benefit for the parties involved, is not purposefully harmful or injurious with malicious intent, etc. then within that framework, specific things are either moral, amoral, or immoral - objectively. For example, if that were the definition we went with, someone could not argue that murder was "moral" - since it defies the definition set forth.

However, it is all too easy to see that there is no universal, or "transcendent" morality. For one - what defines "morality?" Humans? Let's say there is a pack of wolves starving to death, and they gang up on a human and eat him/her. Have those wolves just committed an "immoral" act? Not according to the wolves, I am sure. They did what was in the best interest of their kind, and injury did not come to them with malicious intent from another wolf. Isn't that how we humans go about things? We don't consider it immoral to destroy the lives of other creatures if it is in our best interest. For instance if you are starving and need to eat - do you refuse to hunt on moral grounds? No. An ant colony has setup shop on your property and keeps invading your food stores. Do you not go about the business of eradicating them? We only consider an act "immoral" if we hurt one another with such intent. For example, killing another human and eating them if we were starving would still be considered immoral by most. Killing a human for stealing your food (like the ants did) would also be considered immoral.

From a universal perspective, no one creature, life-form or being gets to have ultimate authority over what is "moral." Therefore there can be no "objective" morality on that scale. Only when there are moral agents at play who have decided on the abstract meaning of "moral" can there be anything "objective" about it - and it is something that still "exists" only between those particular moral agents.
 
Last edited:

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I think there are moral absolutes, based on the view I adopted. Someone who starts from a different view wouldn't agree with them.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?

If there are no universals how do we draw common with all human beings?

Moral relativism in my sense of it is that all morality is dependent on individual preferences, and all of morality is circumstantial; relative to the situation. Perhaps all things are permissible given the situation and preference and benefit in my view of it.

Moral subjectivity is that morality is all based on personal feelings and there are no objective standards that evidence themselves as being truth.

To me moral relativism, and moral subjectivity are pitfalls whereas certain evils can seem necessary to the individual.

Moral objectivity and universality of morals is where all humans can hold common grounds and a fair sense of justice.
I agree.
So objective based on universal principal.
That's what I see when Bible standards are applied. There is common ground and a fair sense of justice. :sunglasses:
 

Intel

New Member
Objective standards of morality about personal feelings exist.

I may have acceptable or rejectable personal feelings about morality, but there are standards of objective moral truth regardless of anyone's personal feelings.

Peer-reviewed citation please?
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
In a free thinking country must every thought come into peer review citation by science in order to be valid? Sounds like a groupthink religion this allmighty science of yours.

Are not scientists primates too? Scientists must use objectivity to study morality i would say?

Your not much for independent thought i would say, and people being responsible for their own morality themselves.

Since when has science studied objective morality, and not have skewed results or limited information?

I dare say they dont even reason the factors properly. And they do not talk of morality with the right conceptualization of it yet?
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?
As with all ideas, they are not "true", but merely ideas. Morality exists in the realm of ideas, in the spiritual realm. We all have a sense of this realm, and thus we are all moralists. But we don't agree on the contents of our morals.

But I think it's wrong to say that "anything goes". But there is no way to determine were to draw the line.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
To me moral relativism, and moral subjectivity are pitfalls whereas certain evils can seem necessary to the individual.
Yes, I think we can violate our innate sense of right and wrong if we are not careful. But some people don't seem to possess this sense. Scary.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Yes, I think we can violate our innate sense of right and wrong if we are not careful. But some people don't seem to possess this sense. Scary.

Scary indeed! I have met boatloads of indifferent, haters, and mockers. I have plenty of adjectives for those kinds of people.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?
No.
If there are no universals how do we draw common with all human beings?
We know that certain moral tendencies are found in all societies, and can be observed even in pre-language infants. These are the mammalian instincts of infant nurture and protection; dislike of the person who harms; fairness and reciprocity; respect for authority; loyalty to the group; and a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial. These basics have evolved as suitable for us as a gregarious species employing group cooperation.

The rest is upbringing, culture and education. May you spit, or fart, and if so when? At a wedding, is there a brideprice, a dowry, or neither? What conduct (manners) is proper in society and what not? And so on.The answers will vary with time and place.
Moral relativism in my sense of it is that all morality is dependent on individual preferences, and all of morality is circumstantial; relative to the situation.
Indeed. Perhaps the most moral act dolphins could perform for their species would be the destruction of humankind.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?

If there are no universals how do we draw common with all human beings?

Moral relativism in my sense of it is that all morality is dependent on individual preferences, and all of morality is circumstantial; relative to the situation. Perhaps all things are permissible given the situation and preference and benefit in my view of it.

Moral subjectivity is that morality is all based on personal feelings and there are no objective standards that evidence themselves as being truth.

To me moral relativism, and moral subjectivity are pitfalls whereas certain evils can seem necessary to the individual.

Moral objectivity and universality of morals is where all humans can hold common grounds and a fair sense of justice.
We are in the process of selecting how our Universe is working, to increase morality or not.
 
Top