Morality is not subjective

[Sees]

In general, I view morality as having goals and principles which are objective for reasonably intelligent, sensible, sane, healthy folks - but the details of implementation get subjective. Goals and principles themselves often go out the window with the socially inept, damaged outcasts, etc.

 

[McBell]

Oh God sorry I think that's too much for this thread. If you start a thread on that though I will definitely chime in.

Interesting.
How can you declare what is and is not moral is you cannot even define the word?
If you cannot determine what is and is not moral, how can you determine if morals are subjective or objective?

Seems perhaps you should have started with the thread that defines the subject matter of this thread?

 

[Straw Dog]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

Please define all your terms (morality) and share the premises that lead to your conclusion. Thanks!

 

[JRMcC]

Actually, no. If a person kills another person, we consider it wrong. However, if we were not brought up with morals (what is right and wrong, for example excluding religious ethics for a minute), then what is the deciding factor that makes killing another person objectively wrong?

People say stealing is immoral. Yet, animals steal from each other all the time. 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?

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

I forget how to quote snippets correctly so -

Killing paragraph: First of all I don't really think the idea of modern humans being brought up without morality is really conceivable or relevant. I'm not being jerky there, that's just kind of off the top of my head but maybe we could go more into that.
I know this isn't like coming up with a scientific theory, but I think this is important - While there are psychopaths and other outliers like that, by and large us humans know intuitively that killing (in a general sense) is wrong. And this isn't much unlike the way we know that certain things are logical and certain things are not. To doubt that killing is wrong is pretty much nonsense unless you are saying something like "killing is not wrong, but we prohibit it because it is bad for the human species if we don't". That's a whole other argument to make which I hope to get into with somebody because people have often made that argument to me in person.


Stealing paragraph: Yes that is a good point and things like this are confusing. I would say that humans are different from animals, and have more moral responsibility than they do. Just like an adult has more moral responsibility than a 5 year old. I would also say the wrongness of stealing (or maybe any other act) is more in the results of your action than the action itself. So it is wrong to steal food from a starving family because it hurts them. And this would be more wrong than stealing from a rich person because less harm is being done. I hope I'm not getting off track here...

Last thing: You ask what makes action X wrong or right over action Y? And I say that the fact that action Y is wrong is something we discover about the universe. I think it's not unlike logic or engineering. We know what the best way to make a tall structure is because we've discovered those engineering principles that make a tall structure possible. If humans didn't exist, would that still be the best way to build a tall structure?

Man, I haven't even got to my main reasons for this belief yet... You make good points btw Carlita.

 

[JRMcC]

Interesting.
How can you declare what is and is not moral is you cannot even define the word?
If you cannot determine what is and is not moral, how can you determine if morals are subjective or objective?

Seems perhaps you should have started with the thread that defines the subject matter of this thread?

If you wanna have that conversation start the thread.

 

[JRMcC]

Please define all your terms (morality) and share the premises that lead to your conclusion. Thanks!

Hey you and mestima! Start a thread.

 

[JRMcC]

I think there are objectively pro-social behaviors and even ideals (with margins for error based on available data). But you can't force one to accept that being pro-social is objectively good. They would have to subjectively, from their own personal interpretation, agree with that argument.

I'm not totally sure what you mean. I don't think anyone needs to force people to accept that helping those in need is objectively good. If it's objectively good, it doesn't matter if everyone believes it. It's good independent of what people think, and whether or not they do it doesn't affect its objective goodness.

I hope that made some sense...

 

[JRMcC]

I also think that subjective morality is absurd. ( by which I mean right and wrong are determined by either an individual or a specific society at a specific time). 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. Belief does not always correlate to objectivity. For example, in the past many groups had differing views on the structure of the earth (some believed the Earth was flat, others believed the Earth was round etc), however this does not mean that the conception of Earth is subjective. The earth is objectively round. In a similar way, although societies and people at different times have had differing views on what constitutes right and wrong, it does not mean that right and wrong is subjective; one could just be wrong in his/her views about morality. Yes, it is true that people have differing moral beliefs, but that is not moral subjectivity. Moral subjectivity (or relativity) means to believe that right and wrong are itself dependent on those beliefs (which I think is absurd). e.g A moral subjectavist would claim something like "I think killing innocent children is OK, therefore it is OK" . An absolutist on the other hand, while recognizing the different moral beliefs, will always hold that there is moral system independent of individual beliefs.

The three major theories about morality (Deontology, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics) are all objective theories of morality. They all believe that certain acts are right/wrong independent of what human's think. Philosopher Kant for example saw moral laws as quite similar to the universal laws of nature (like gravity) and saw that it is only human beings who are intelligent enough to recognize and act upon these laws. Some theories say that good actions are those that promote the greatest amount of happiness (or well-being) for all sentient agents. Some theories say that good actions are those that conform to God's Will. Some theories say that good actions conform to Humanity's will. In all cases, the theories are objective.



OP is arguing that Moral Objectivity isn't based on what people think or do, not necessarily that it isn't based on people themselves. Many objective theories of morality are based upon people, but they are objective that they apply to all people. Other theories of morality even apply to all living beings! Killing may simply be wrong because it violates something valuable in itself (life) in an unjustified manner. What I think OP is trying to say is that just because people think something is right or wrong for them may not mean that action in actuality is right or wrong.

Yes! I couldn't agree more, some of those are my thoughts exactly and you've made it even more clear than I ever could have.
The main reason for me coming to this conclusion hasn't quite come up in conversation yet, but you sort of hinted at it when you reaffirmed my use of the word 'absurd'. When you actually closely examine what it would mean in you were a true moral subjectivist you see the absurdity of it and all the contradictions that come with it. And you're left presuming that morality is objective.

I like the Kant example btw

 

[JRMcC]

Interesting.
How can you declare what is and is not moral is you cannot even define the word?
If you cannot determine what is and is not moral, how can you determine if morals are subjective or objective?

Seems perhaps you should have started with the thread that defines the subject matter of this thread?

Sorry, I'm saying this because most people here aren't having an issue with the terminology and I'd rather not risk derailing the whole conversation for the sake of the few. What you bring up is VERY important, but so is staying focused I think.

 

[JRMcC]

In general, I view morality as having goals and principles which are objective for reasonably intelligent, sensible, sane, healthy folks - but the details of implementation get subjective. Goals and principles themselves often go out the window with the socially inept, damaged outcasts, etc.

Right, like the sane and intelligent can see moral truth to some degree, but some people can't. So it is still objective but some people are oblivious. That doesn't make it subjective though, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you've got a small typo there that's throwing me off a little, so correct me if I misunderstand you. I think what you're asking is:
"How does the moral objectivist account for the variation in behavior and perceptions of morality from culture to culture and across time?"
Well there's obviously a lot of complicated history and biology behind how cultures behave and think about morality, but what I would say is that (at least in the modern world which I am more familiar with) essentially all people and cultures believe that they are doing the right thing, or at least they are striving for it. People may disagree about what the right thing is, but as a whole people are working toward some sort of perfection.

Almost everyone (at least in reasonably 'developed' countries) thinks that slavery is wrong, and that getting rid of it was a moral improvement. Now to to say that it is an improvement is to imply that there is some kind of moral ideal, or at least that moral right and wrongness can be thought of as a 1D graph where torture is somewhere on the left and kissing babies is somewhere on the right. In either case we are saying that some things are indisputably more 'good' than other things, and thus we are acting like we live in a world where objective morality exists.

Now if we say that there is no objective grounds for saying slavery is wrong, then we're really screwing things up. I'm sure you can imagine another two paragraphs about that so I'll spare you.

Maybe there's a flaw in my thinking here though. You're a clever guy, let's hear your side.

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?

 

[McBell]

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Maybe he's working on defining it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Everything else I agree with. Just for clarification:

However, how can you determine the lack of morals in another person if you are not basing it on your own morals?

Would you be so kind as to explain how someone can have no morals?

I just don't like putting people in a box. 99% people could believe killing is wrong and that 1% doesn't care about killing-it's neither bad or good. It's just not part of his morals whatsoever. Since I know not everyone thinks like me, you, and Joe Smoe down the block, I always think about "what if I were that 1%".

Political correctness.

What I personally believe is that everyone does have morals. However, since this isn't about me (it's not subjective) but it's an objective situation-no one is subject to my moral view-I won't impose my belief on others. Not everyone thinks the way I do. Not everyone has morals. Right/wrong isn't more than point than just saying that it's not an 100 percent one way position just because we believe it is.

 

[McBell]

Maybe he's working on defining it.

He flat out said he is not going to in this thread.
Which makes no sense.

I can understand he does not want to side track this thread with a debate on the definition of morals, but to leave the definition subjectively hanging in the air in a thread where he claims morals are objective seems extremely counter productive.

 

[LuisDantas]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, like the sane and intelligent can see moral truth to some degree, but some people can't. So it is still objective but some people are oblivious. That doesn't make it subjective though, right?

Is it that we not so sane/intelligent people are missing something which is there,
or are the more gifted folk seeing something which isn't there?
The need to believe in absolutely true morality is a strong one.

 

[McBell]

Everything else I agree with. Just for clarification:


I just don't like putting people in a box. 99% people could believe killing is wrong and that 1% doesn't care about killing-it's neither bad or good. It's just not part of his morals whatsoever. Since I know not everyone thinks like me, you, and Joe Smoe down the block, I always think about "what if I were that 1%".

Political correctness.

What I personally believe is that everyone does have morals. However, since this isn't about me (it's not subjective) but it's an objective situation-no one is subject to my moral view-I won't impose my belief on others. Not everyone things the way I do. Not everyone has morals. Right/wrong isn't more than point than just saying that it's not an 100 percent situation just because we believe to to be so.

What I am getting at is that everyone does have morals.
Claiming someone has no morals is nothing more than saying their morals are different than yours.

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

 

[Revoltingest]

He flat out said he is not going to in this thread.
Which makes no sense.

I can understand he does not want to side track this thread with a debate on the definition of morals, but to leave the definition subjectively hanging in the air in a thread where he claims morals are objective seems extremely counter productive.

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

 

[Straw Dog]

Hey you and mestima! Start a thread.

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!