Morality is not subjective

[Unveiled Artist]

i wonder how many people in the really real world do not know right from wrong?
I am not wondering how many have a different idea of what is right and wrong, but honestly have no understanding whats so ever of the right/wrong concept.

I guess it depends. What is "right" and what is "wrong"? It makes me think of a child needing to stay in the hospital all of his life because of a life threatning contagious disease. If he had no family and friends and no way to interact with people etc, what would be his definition of right and wrong other trying to survive? Then again, people with depression find their "right" is to take their lives. I wouldn't say it is healthy in the latter cause and I'd say that in and of itself, morality fluctuates. But back again, does that mean everyone has to have morals or do we feel that way because most people do?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I never thought we were not good...
Disagreement does not equate to anything other than disagreement.
at least for me.

Have you heard the expression before? (Not sarcastic. I came across some that haven't heard of a few idioms I said. Didn't end well.)

It just means "we disagree. (or came to a conclusion). Is there more to really say?"

Is there?

 

[JRMcC]

They are simply sharing what they deem is right and wrong.
since their "right and wrong" is subjective and their morals are based on what they consider right and wrong, morals are subjective.

Interesting... We are thinking about this problem in very different ways. I disagree with this. You and I can share our views on whether or not Hitler is still alive but one of us will be wrong. The fact that there are disagreements about what is not relevant. If I say eating babies is ok and you say it's wrong that's just a friendly disagreement right? Come on man that's not how it is.

What you describe is the difference between individual and universal....
Yes, people can make their morality absolute for themselves.
This leads to the problem you seem to be having.
That your self inflicted absolute morality is somehow binding on others.

Again the consequences of what you're saying would be that I should be allowed to go rape. Who are you to say it's wrong? Are you going to bind your morality on me? Give me a break.

I asked for a definition, not a list of examples.
If you define morality as "right and wrong" then morality is subjective simply because "right and wrong" is subjective.
Thus your declaration morality is objective is simply wrong.
Though I suspect you already know this and are merely attempting to avoid it.

I'm using 'right and wrong' and 'morality' interchangeably in this case I guess. I invited you to start the conversation about the definition of morality and you haven't. Leads me to believe that you just like this internet drama.

"I am... merely attempting to avoid it! I will deceive this Mestemia... I secretly know I'm wrong but I'm hiding it!"

 

[JRMcC]

I agree that to reason from history doesn't yield absolute truths about morality.
That was my point.

Not at all.

Gravity is not "true".
We have a particular understanding of it at them moment, eg, general relativity.
But we also know that it's inadequate in multiple areas....
- Reconciling the very small (quantum mechanics) with the very large (cosmology)
- Dark energy & dark matter
As George Box once said (paraphrasing here).....
All theories are wrong, but some are useful.
Useful is not "true".

I see morality as an emergent property of evolution of life.
It's neither right nor wrong.....there is only how we feel about it.
And that varies with time, place, & species.

Interesting, it looks like we have a different idea about what 'belief' is.

It is true that matter attracts other matter isn't it? I forget how we got to the subject of gravity.
I fear we may be approaching the point where we've gotten the most mileage out of this exchange as possible. Though I've really enjoyed it. Maybe you will respond to my other post and it'll reignite.

 

[Straw Dog]

That is quite true, and that is why it is such a challenge to be moral (and a fascinating field).

What it is not is an arbitrary choice.

Yes, it is fascinating to discuss and debate. I don't have a settled opinion on the matter yet to be honest.

Our choices are not typically arbitrary in that we tend to seek particular results. My criticism is that this seems to have more to do with what we WANT to happen rather than what we OUGHT to do, though. It's more about desires rather than morals. Consequentialist accounts seek a desired result and tend to avoid concern for unforeseeable after effects beyond that desired result. It's never a closed system.

Would you be interested in explaining your own consequentialist approach in greater detail?

 

[Revoltingest]

We have our conceptions of what is proper and what is not that does not perfectly match the likely or expected consequences of our actions.

How do we "calibrate" something which varies wildly from culture to culture, & person to person?

At a particularly basic level of understanding, one can realize that people tend to cooperate when frightened, and to cooperate far better when they feel accepted and understood. There is also plenty of evidence to show that while people seek and avoid some things somewhat unpredictably, there is a very clear core of things that are basically universally wanted or universally avoided. It is not really a matter of opinion whether people need shelter, food and social interaction.

Yet there are exceptions, borderline situations and subtleties that make the situation somewhat more complex. For one, communicating our preferences is not always possible or effective for various reasons. Neither is our judgment consistently lucid and trustworthy. That creates a need to maintain some foresight to the best of our abilities.

As our ability to understand the effects of our interactions grows and becomes more reliable, so does our moral agency and moral responsibility.

I don't see how any of this establishes objective premises.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting, it looks like we have a different idea about what 'belief' is.

It is true that matter attracts other matter isn't it? I forget how we got to the subject of gravity.

I wouldn't say it's "true".
Instead, I say we "observe" this.
As for the explanation, is it attraction or the shape of space?
Thus, it's a posteriori rather than a priori knowledge.

I fear we may be approaching the point where we've gotten the most mileage out of this exchange as possible. Though I've really enjoyed it. Maybe you will respond to my other post and it'll reignite.

Okey dokey!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ah, so you're saying that the objective and God are one in the same? That could be the case... Do you think that objective morality (or objective other things) could still exist in a godless universe?

.....or in a godless Earthly society?
Unless damaged, we have a built-in conscience to help guide us - Romans 2:14-15
So, peoples of the nations will do the things of the law because of conscience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

.....or in a godless Earthly society?
Unless damaged, we have a built-in conscience to help guide us - Romans 2:14-15
So, peoples of the nations will do the things of the law because of conscience.

My conscious does not have me acting in accordance to, supporting, or promoting Biblical law.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My conscious does not have me acting in accordance to, supporting, or promoting Biblical law.

There is somewhat of a difference between being conscious and have a conscience.
We could probably say animals are conscious, but they mainly operate by instinct over conscience, whereas we go mainly by conscience.
In other words, Romans 2:14-15 has to do more with the nations who have, or do Not have, biblical laws/principles still do the things of biblical law such as believing it is wrong to steal, wrong to murder, etc.

 

[Straw Dog]

Morality is any set of principles concerning the distinction between good and bad behavior. Subjective is that which is based on or influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Objective is that which considers and represents facts not based on or influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Drawing any distinction between good and bad behavior depends upon or is influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Morality is subjective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In other words, Romans 2:14-15 has to do more with the nations who have, or do Not have, biblical laws/principles still do the things of biblical law such as believing it is wrong to steal, wrong to murder, etc.

You don't need an ancient book to tell you that stealing and killing is wrong, and just because you find those things wrong does not mean you promote or support Biblical law. For instance, many find nothing wrong with having sex outside of marriage, despite it being against Biblical law.

 

[McBell]

I guess it depends. What is "right" and what is "wrong"? It makes me think of a child needing to stay in the hospital all of his life because of a life threatning contagious disease. If he had no family and friends and no way to interact with people etc, what would be his definition of right and wrong other trying to survive? Then again, people with depression find their "right" is to take their lives. I wouldn't say it is healthy in the latter cause and I'd say that in and of itself, morality fluctuates. But back again, does that mean everyone has to have morals or do we feel that way because most people do?

I say everyone has morals because I have not seen, been presented, etc. any evidence that there is a moral free human.
I am not saying that one does not exist, I am saying that I know not of any such person.

 

[McBell]

Again the consequences of what you're saying would be that I should be allowed to go rape. Who are you to say it's wrong? Are you going to bind your morality on me? Give me a break.

Except that is exactly what laws are, the enforcement of a set of morals.

I'm using 'right and wrong' and 'morality' interchangeably in this case I guess. I invited you to start the conversation about the definition of morality and you haven't. Leads me to believe that you just like this internet drama.

I have no interest in you needing a whole thread to list examples of morals.
I am interested in your DEFINITION of moral so it can be determined if morals are subjective or absolute.
Seems I am more interested in it than you.
Which is interesting seeing as YOU started this thread.

"I am... merely attempting to avoid it! I will deceive this Mestemia... I secretly know I'm wrong but I'm hiding it!"

Your ability to strawman what is said is most impressive.
Not the least bit convincing, but impressive none the less.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I say everyone has morals because I have not seen, been presented, etc. any evidence that there is a moral free human.
I am not saying that one does not exist, I am saying that I know not of any such person.

That would beg the question that only things that you have seen, been presented with, and have evidence for would exist to you?

I know there are a myraid of things I am not aware of and we, as humans, haven't found any evidence for (taking the supernatural out). Yet, I know they exist. Saying that they don't because I haven't been introduced the idea nor have evidence for it, to me, sounds limiting the life a bit.

It's not negative, just I never heard what you said from anyone before.

 

[Pudding]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd.

Why do you think it's absurd?

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

Why do you think moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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...

That's a bit reductionist. As an example: When it's proper to give aid and not give aid is the central problem dealt with by foreign aid departments. When it's good to give aid and when it's not good will depend on criteria that is subjective, if not arbitrary. If there is an 'objective good,' nobody could convincingly claim to have it or represent it.

 

[JRMcC]

Morality is any set of principles concerning the distinction between good and bad behavior. Subjective is that which is based on or influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Objective is that which considers and represents facts not based on or influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Drawing any distinction between good and bad behavior depends upon or is influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Morality is subjective.

No, my personal feelings and opinions don't draw the distinctions between right and wrong. Axe murdering doesn't become right because of my thoughts or feelings, and drinking water doesn't become wrong because of my personal thoughts or feeling. Now if you're going to bring society into it that's another story, but this isn't a matter of personal opinion and feeling.
Looking at a painting and thinking about what it means is something that I would call subjective.

 

[JRMcC]

I have no interest in you needing a whole thread to list examples of morals.
I am interested in your DEFINITION of moral so it can be determined if morals are subjective or absolute.
Seems I am more interested in it than you.

A moral is an action (or maybe a thought) that we either deem right or wrong, good or bad.

 

[JRMcC]

When it's good to give aid and when it's not good will depend on criteria that is subjective, if not arbitrary.

Maybe we should get into this criteria a little bit. What is the criteria and how is it subjective?

If there is an 'objective good,' nobody could convincingly claim to have it or represent it.

This I agree with. I think it's impossible for us to always know what is right in wrong in every situation. The most we can do is do our best and hope we did the right thing.