Morality is not subjective

[Revoltingest]

Morality is objective in the sense that it is determined by parameters that are very much independent of the judge.

How does one determine which parameters are "true", & which are false.

 

[McBell]

A definition would be useful.
Is it based upon being an emergent property of evolution?
Is it religiously based?
Is it something else?

Seems to me the fact he does not want a debate over the definition of morals reveals morals are subjective......

 

[Revoltingest]

Seems to me the fact he does not want a debate over the definition of morals reveals morals are subjective......

Then it's up to us to inspire him to wade in deeper.

 

[McBell]

Then it's up to us to inspire him to wade in deeper.

I cannot help but wonder that Straw Dog hit the nail on the head

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Claiming someone has no morals is nothing more than saying their morals are different than yours.

This is an assumption (implied or not) rather than a fact. We can't say "everyone has this or everyone has that." Who is in the position to know about everyone so we can say it is a fact that everyone does have morals?

How you are concluding it, it seems like having morals is inherited.

Now if morals are different from person to person, how can they be objective?

I never said it was or wasn't. My morals are different than yours. However, I'm just saying that not everyone has morals like we do. If I didn't have morals and someone else said I do, that would just mean we differ. That doesn't change that I wouldn't have morals. I'd just be that one percent who doesn't have them.

Because morals are subjective, they aren't inherited or embedded in us since birth. I would highly assume 99 percent of people do have morals; but, I wouldn't put people in a box because one number is greater than another.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Clearly, most other animals do not live in accordance to what we consider to be "proper morality," and yet a few could be said to be even more moral than us humans. It really only exist within social animals though, and there is great variance, especially with humans who often change what they think is moral and proper, proving we are just making up "morality" as we go along, but also suggesting that as social animals we evolved to feel this sense of "morality" because it helps establish and maintain group bonding, and without our "pack" we tend to not do quiet so well.

Just a thought. How about 'morality being in subjection' to what is recorded at Hebrews 13:4 that 'God will judge fornicators and adulterers......', thus the objective is Not to be independent of our Creator in thought or action.

That only applies to your religion though. It defines morality according to your religion, but not morality for a Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, or Satanist.

Because we are all separate entities that house separate souls, we define morality on the individual level.

Most people just go with what society gives them, and even people who go against society's morals still have a personal code of morality that is shaped and molded by their society. You cannot have morality or taboo without culture.

If a person kills another person, we consider it wrong.

We would sometimes say this, and indeed we have found a myriad of exceptions to that over the ages.

People say stealing is immoral.

They say that, but in practice we tend to look at the circumstances, such as an impoverished single mother stealing food from a grocery store versus someone stealing an iPod from a store. If stealing were objectively wrong, we could say it is always wrong and we would always put that moral into action, but in practice stealing is something we do sometimes consider the circumstances regarding an instance of theft and pass judgement based on those circumstances.

If we had no morals what is the deciding factor against nature (as with the killing example) that objectively decides X behavior is moral without our existence and input?

It's probably our very nature as social animals. Social animals do display varying degrees of morality, and it is because they have to get along because their survival generally depends on well being of the group, so over time we evolved a sense of seemingly innate conduct that dictates group behavior. We even see it in dolphins, elephants, bonobos, wolves, and other social animals. The only thing that is really "objective" about morality is that we evolved to have a sense of it, but there are no cosmic laws or divine forces reinforcing, mandating, or defining it.

Just because there are differing believes about what constitutes right and wrong does not necessarily mean that morality is a man-made concept or relative.

Except that is the very definition of relative. It's same reason Einstein's theories of Relativity are called "Relativity," because the laws of space/time are relative to an objects location and other factors such as the gravitational exertion in the location at that time and the speeds at which an object travels. "Morality" too depends on location, time, and also culture, making it relative. This also makes it subjective, because there is no "concrete" or consistent definition, laws, or formulas to prove it is an objective thing. Without a social group, it simply does not exist.

by and large us humans know intuitively that killing (in a general sense) is wrong

Except we've come up with so many exceptions to that. War, religion, political control, defense, resources..."thou shalt not kill" has always been subject to change and filled with people that rule doesn't cover or apply to.

I would say that humans are different from animals, and have more moral responsibility than they do.

I find animals such as most other primates (pretty much excluding us and chimpanzees) and elephants are for more "moral" and noble than us humans.

And I say that the fact that action Y is wrong is something we discover about the universe.

We didn't discover anything about the universe other than it's expanding outwards, it's filled with trillions and trillions of galaxies, nebula, stars, black holes, and other bodies, and it's governed by the laws of gravity. We've not discovered anything the proves or even suggests that morality is objective and intrinsic.

I think it's not unlike logic or engineering.

With logic and engineering, something either works or doesn't. Logically an argument is sound or it is illogical. An electrical circuit is either complete and energy flows, or the circuit is not complete and there is no flow. Gears are timed and sized to fit a certain ratio so a machine will work properly, or the ratio is off and the machine is put at risk of being damaged. Morality does not have such concrete laws or rules to follow. There is no "pass/fail" with it like there is with logic, science, and engineering.

If humans didn't exist, would that still be the best way to build a tall structure?

There would be no buildings, thus no "best way" to build them.

 

[McBell]

This is an assumption (implied or not) rather than a fact. We can't say "everyone has this or everyone has that." Who is in the position to know about everyone so we can say it is a fact that everyone does have morals?

Actually, this is the very reason morals needs to be defined.
I fail to see how anyone can be completely moral free.
You seem to think that one can be.

How you are concluding it, it seems like having morals is inherited.

I do not see morals as a medical condition.
Do you?
If not, how did you come to the above conclusion?

I never said it was or wasn't. My morals are different than yours. However, I'm just saying that not everyone has morals like we do. If I didn't have morals and someone else said I do, that would just mean we differ. That doesn't change that I wouldn't have morals. I'd just be that one percent who doesn't have them.

Here again you mention someone without morals.
Yet you do not offer a real world example.
Thus you seem to be reinforcing the idea that every one does in fact have morals.
They just differ from person to person.
Yet you declare the idea an assumption.
Why is that?

Because morals are subjective, they aren't inherited or embedded in us since birth.

I never made any claim morals are inherited or embedded.
YOU went down that rabbit hole, not me.

I would highly assume 99 percent of people do have morals; but, I wouldn't put people in a box because one number is greater than another.

yet again you mention someone without morals but offer up no real world example....

Thus reinforcing my points that

1. Moral needs to be defined
2. everyone has morals
3. claiming someone does not have morals is merely saying their morals are different
4. morality in general is subjective

 

[LuisDantas]

How does one determine which parameters are "true", & which are false.

By calibrating the consequences predicted with observable facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

By calibrating the consequences predicted with observable facts.

I don't see how "calibration" would even apply.
Could you give an example of deducing a moral truth from objective premises?

 

[Shad]

Actually, no. If a person kills another person, we consider it wrong.

You are conflating killing with murder. The military has legal grounds for killing in war. Nation with self-defense laws have legal grounds for killing.

If objective morality isn't based on people, what is it based on?

Inter-subjectivity and society. Hence why people thought it was fine to kill witches, heretic, blasphemers, etc.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello Luis,

By calibrating the consequences predicted with observable facts.

I would argue that there are far too many variables in play to predict all possible consequences for most actions. In fact, most consequences would be unintended or unpredictable via the butterfly effect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, this is the very reason morals needs to be defined.
I fail to see how anyone can be completely moral free.
You seem to think that one can be.

I know we can't see how someone can be moral free. My point is, I personally don't like putting people in a box. If I were moral free and the 99 percent was not, I would be singled out because we generalize everyone should think as we do. I get that a lot here in a Christian environment. I try to get out of that without polarizing everything.

I do not see morals as a medical condition. Do you?

Medical condition???

Your view sounds like you're saying morals are inherited (we are born with morals). Is that true?

If not, how did you come to the above conclusion?

Since I don't see the connection between what I said and medical conditions, I can't answer that.

How did you come up with medical conditions from saying you may be talking about our morals being inherited (since everyone must have them)?

Here again you mention someone without morals.
Yet you do not offer a real world example.
Thus you seem to be reinforcing the idea that every one does in fact have morals.
They just differ from person to person.
Yet you declare the idea an assumption.
Why is that?

I don't put people in a box. I don't know every single last person on this earth; and, I don't care for generalizations. "I have morals so everyone must have morals." How can either of us come up with an example unless we know each person to judge whether that 1 percent exist or not?

I never made any claim morals are inherited or embedded.
YOU went down that rabbit hole, not me.

How you are concluding it, it seems like having morals is inherited.
​

You can correct me or disagree with me; but, you don't have to bring emotions in your text please.

 

[JRMcC]

My apologies. I was under the impression that you were making an argument, but I see now that you're just sharing an opinion with others that already agree. Carry on!

Aww man I feel bad about myself now.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are conflating killing with murder. The military has legal grounds for killing in war. Nation with self-defense laws have legal grounds for killing.

I meant killing. Murder involves people. What decides that killing is wrong without our involvement?

Inter-subjectivity and society. Hence why people thought it was fine to kill witches, heretic, blasphemers, etc.

This involves people.

If objective morality (OP claim) does not involve people, what would it be based on?

 

[JRMcC]

Dang, my wording was terrible!
Anyway, the fact that slavery is so popular among cultures throughout history is one way
to defeat the claim that it's objectively wrong because so many cultures believe so.
But even the subjective belief that slavery is wrong is a powerful one.

I don't find anything about morality & ethics indisputable. While things might appear clear
to us, & seem overwhelmingly "true", I've seen no rational basis to claim this is objectively
"true". What are the objective premises from which we can deduce true beliefs?

This is the reason I asked how he defines morality.
If he defines it using subjective terms like "good", "bad", "right", "wrong" then it is not objective outside the individual or group.
But alas, he refuses to define anything.

Hi guys, so 'goodness' isn't objective in the same way that gravity is subjective. You can't prove it with some kind of mathematical theorem. By the way Mestemia, I actually don't think we need to define morals in order to have this conversation. I think you can bring it down to just a few examples.

Ok maybe I can concede that in some lofty and bizarre way it's possible that morality is subjective underneath all the layers. I just don't really believe that. Here's another way to put it, and maybe this actually different from what I originally said but whatever:
Those who say morality is subjective and then go around telling people what's right and wrong are exhibiting bizarre behavior. They are saying one thing and then acting as if another thing is true. It makes me suspicious of the whole thing.

"Morality is subjective but killing babies is wrong." What? That's nonsense, anyone can see that. "Hmm when I solve this equation I get undefined for answer. Anyway the answer is 5." Ridiculous. At the very least subjectivists are acting and thinking irrationally, even if their philosophy is technically true.

How is not defining morality (which is a huge subject that would derail this conversation) inhibiting our ability to have this conversation? You guys know what I mean by morality, is it right to murder this guy for no reason or is it wrong? Come on, you guys know what I'm talking about.

But if you really insist, why don't you start by telling me what you think morality is and we'll see if I agree with you.

 

[JRMcC]

Dang, my wording was terrible!
Anyway, the fact that slavery is so popular among cultures throughout history is one way
to defeat the claim that it's objectively wrong because so many cultures believe so.
But even the subjective belief that slavery is wrong is a powerful one.

I don't find anything about morality & ethics indisputable. While things might appear clear
to us, & seem overwhelmingly "true", I've seen no rational basis to claim this is objectively
"true". What are the objective premises from which we can deduce true beliefs?

About the slavery through history thing, with all due respect I don't think this is valid. The fact that people have thought the earth rested on a turtle in the past has nothing to do with the way things actually are.
And don't you think "subjective belief" is a contradiction in terms?

I agree that this stuff is strange and confusing and I don't think that human kind will ever fully grasp it.
And your last question I find strange (though i know you think what I'm saying is strange). How do we know what's true? Can you elaborate? Are you talking about complex systems of human beliefs? We know that gravity is true right? We deduce that from logic. I dunno maybe just explain what you mean a little more.

 

[Shad]

I meant killing. Murder involves people. What decides that killing is wrong without our involvement?

You said person hence people. Read the post again.

Again my answer to this is that same. However

This involves people.

Which you included as a parameter

If objective morality (OP claim) does not involve people, what would it be based on?

I put forward inter-subjectivity since I do not think the OP's claim is valid.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Except that is the very definition of relative. It's same reason Einstein's theories of Relativity are called "Relativity," because the laws of space/time are relative to an objects location and other factors such as the gravitational exertion in the location at that time and the speeds at which an object travels. "Morality" too depends on location, time, and also culture, making it relative. This also makes it subjective, because there is no "concrete" or consistent definition, laws, or formulas to prove it is an objective thing. Without a social group, it simply does not exist.

Of course there are consistent definitions/theories for what may make an action moral or not. It constitutes a huge branch of philosophy, and many academics have written greatly on this. I would be more than happy to give you a definition of morality. One would the famous Divine Command Theory (an action is right if it is commanded by God). If you are really claiming that morality (i.e what makes an action right and wrong) is simply dependent on culture then you should have no problem with actions like genital mutilation which are considered acceptable in certain cultures. Furthermore, if we do accept the claim that morality should be culture based, then it is also incorrect to speak of something called "social progress" as by default all social reformers are wrong. We see difference in conceptions of morality (and also similiarities mind you) in cultures...but the problem is, that it does not translate to morality itself. Moral beliefs /= moral laws.

 

[JRMcC]

Morality is objective in the sense that it is determined by parameters that are very much independent of the judge.

It is also subjective, but only in the sense that it is limited by the possibilities of action and prediction of the agents.

I would never call morality subjective without a lot of qualification. But we should keep in mind that morality is far more and far more complex than simply finding out rules to follow.

Morality is a dynamic and permanent challenge that imposes itself on sentient beings simply because they have attained sentience.

Dang that's so well put it's hard to respond to. It sounds like you're sort of saying it's objective, but not in quite the same way I'm saying it is. Is that right? Or do feel like this conversation is sort of dumbing down the problem of morality?

Sorry if this isn't a great response, I'm just trying to get more out of you because you have good insight.

 

[JRMcC]

Seems to me the fact he does not want a debate over the definition of morals reveals morals are subjective......

Explain what you mean by this.