EPTNietzsche 101.
Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Nietzsche 101. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On May 11 2011 18:15 Kickboxer wrote: These topics are pointless to discuss in a large group environment because everyone's view invariably depends on their religion. Atheism is just another religion where god is replaced by science. This is completely incorrect. Science is a methodology for helping you decide what to believe, not a focus for belief in and of itself. It's perfectly possible for the scientific method to detect the existence of a god or corroborate religious texts - the fact it doesn't is why I'm an atheist. Those who believe in science will drone about relativity and argue against anything that can't be measured or proven as if science offered definitive answers to anything. To them morals are subjective and if you don't agree you are a deluded zombie and an ignorant midget. I'm a scientist and an atheist and I think morality is objective - in fact, I think morality is more objective than those who believe morality is handed down from on high by a deity. Members of both groups will state their views as "facts" and bombard one another with condescending remarks and snide comments. Notice irony much?  | ||
|
101toss
3232 Posts
Objectivism: this allows people to impose their views on others, which can be oppressive Subjectivity: allows people to impose their own rules, possibly hurting others around them | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
so i believe in objective morals although most of whats referred to as morals is highly subjective, since it differs from culture to culture and from time to time, eg sex before marriage, homosexuality but stealing, lying, killing? those things are frowned upon in all cultures and at all times by all sane individuals, so i would argue they are objectively bad | ||
|
Chahta
United States148 Posts
On May 11 2011 21:48 101toss wrote: Single key issues for each view: Objectivism: this allows people to impose their views on others, which can be oppressive Subjectivity: allows people to impose their own rules, possibly hurting others around them Note quite. While true about subjectivity, with real objectivity there cannot be an imposition of one's view because their validity does not come from the one who views them. Also, an objective morality would be enabling rather than oppressive, so that doesn't really hold. Refer back to my page 7 post, it is not about what the rules are (because mankind is notoriously bad at deducing what they are) but rather WHY the rules are there. Or rather, morality is reason, not rules. | ||
|
TehForce
1072 Posts
Once a life form becomes conscious with the basic formula: - Will to live - Can experience Empathy - Can follow basic logic There is an automatic set of objective Morals which can be seen universal: - Do not end lifes, because i don't want to get mine ended - Do not harm others, because i don't want to get mines harmed which can be found in every culture on earth. All other morals are inhereted from this two basic objective morals and can differ very much when compared about different cultures/persons. So the implementation of this rules are very subjective and are heavily influenced by environmental causes. Examples: - Slavery: Some people are looked down as animals or lower people, so the objective Morals don't apply to them - Death Penalty: If you are allowed to kill somebody who disobied the basic principle ist just an implementation issue, heavily influenced by things like religion. People who actively disobey the basic objective principles are probably mentally ill [they are not following the basic formula of will to live + empathy + logic) and can't be incluced into the judgement of which morals are objective or not. Thats the same as if i wanted to calculate something on a broken calculator and try to interprete the results, it just doesnt work. So i hope you get what i wanted to express | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
Obviously morality is distorted by culture and religion. But if morality is subjective then so are human rights. It's dangerous relativism that is today only supported by anti science post-modernists, ignorant people and apologists for immoral behavior and violation of human and animal rights. It is not an easy thing to figure out what this objective morality exactly is, because it is distorted and veiled, it still is objective. It doesn't matter what culture or religion you are from, humans are genetically extremely similar and have values hard wired into them. No one likes to suffer and no one likes to be a victim. So obviously morality has to me objective. That morality is objective is also the majority view in science today. You have both genetics and neurology. And different cultures having similar moral laws is also a pretty obvious clue. Murder and theft are viewed by all cultures as immoral. Why is that if morality is subjective? It can't be explained. Torture is also considered immoral by all cultures. Of course there are many people still willing to do immoral things. But that's a different issue. Morality being objective being hard wired into human brains also explain the need for ingroup and outgroup that we share with great apes. Outgroups aren't human and therefore objective morality doesn't apply to them. That's the trick to get around it. And this trick was also needed throughout our evolutionary history. | ||
|
looknohands119
United States815 Posts
On May 11 2011 21:48 101toss wrote: Single key issues for each view: Objectivism: this allows people to impose their views on others, which can be oppressive Subjectivity: allows people to impose their own rules, possibly hurting others around them Both of these ideas are not only misconceptions but are a bit concerning. | ||
|
anatem
Romania1369 Posts
as for societies being different to the point where one is apparently almost the opposite of the other, the discussion is to be had on the level of civilization, which includes some arguments of, but is not limited to, moral codes. conflict is however inevitable between individuals and opposing cultures, and while the former type of conflict is easily resolved, the second forms one of the basic reasons for there being governments to represent a people. and from here, we take this dicussion on and on to anything and everything basically. | ||
|
couches
618 Posts
I think it is immoral for people to be lazy slobs and not contribute to the community that they leech off of. You know, people capable of working or doing something productive or creative but don't. I think imposing religious beliefs upon others or shunning others because of their different (or lack of) beliefs is very immoral. Those are subjective. Somebody else with a different opinion might say that simply the fact that I think that way is immoral. Objective ones are simply ones that more people can agree on. It doesn't seem right to call it morality. I think common sense would be a better label. Something like it's immoral to fart in a strangers face in public. Or take a dump in the street. | ||
|
Gheizen64
Italy2077 Posts
On the other hand, nihilistic or solipsist negate the society and the benefit of the whole at the start, so for them even the "objective" moral are subjective. Being nihlistic and/or solipsist or something else however, is more often than not a false phylosophy, since you "negate" the benefit of society only with words while you continue to live in it. In other words, as long as you live in the sistem, moral is objective and killing/hurting people is wrong. When you live as a wild beast, moral won't be objective for you, but you won't be "alive" either since you have no rights (no identity = no rights). Well, it's far more than that, but the basic point is that moral has roots in something deeper than simply "education" or "background culture", it's something that was born as soon as society and intelligence was. Negating the objectivity of basic moral is just hypocritical and show you don't have the basic understanding of why we live in a society instead of living in caves. Also, emphaty is an important evolutionary trait. Empathy was selected as a strong positive trait that improved society, you can argue all you want, but evolution don't lie. | ||
|
gosublade
632 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:05 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Your point is valid - indeed, each person's morality is his own. My morality is based off of what God has shown me so far from reading his Word, the bible. Yet - had I not read his Word, my set of morality would be significantly different. Each person's morality is dependent and formed according to his experiences. So my point is that: God is real and he is the ultimate judge. His morality should be ours as well, but if you choose to reject him, then your morality will be of your own genesis and you become your own Boss. But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god. The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture. | ||
|
TheSubtleArt
Canada2527 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:02 Gheizen64 wrote: Moral is born from society. Society is born to maximize the security/benefit/etc of each individual. So, moral is for large parts "objective" (don't kill, don't steal if private property exist, etc...) while other, deeper question, are often gray and subjective. That's because the benefit aren't as clear for society, so debate is necessary, and society will "evolve" in the sense that they will include those new "morals" in their code. On the other hand, nihilistic or solipsist negate the society and the benefit of the whole at the start, so for them even the "objective" moral are subjective. Being nihlistic and/or solipsist or something else however, is more often than not a false phylosophy, since you "negate" the benefit of society only with words while you continue to live in it. In other words, as long as you live in the sistem, moral is objective and killing/hurting people is wrong. When you live as a wild beast, moral won't be objective for you, but you won't be "alive" either since you have no rights (no identity = no rights). Well, it's far more than that, but the basic point is that moral has roots in something deeper than simply "education" or "background culture", it's something that was born as soon as society and intelligence was. That's a pretty cool way to view it. I've always thought along this line but you expressed it pretty well lol. My view of this is half and half. I believe morals for the most part are subjective as they can differ between cultures, societies, and even individual members of a society. Still. I feel like as humans we are all obligated to uphold the same basic moral code. Don't kill, don't steal, don't conduct actions with prejudice, etc I feel should be objective moral standards we should all abide by. | ||
|
adun12345
United States198 Posts
The entire point of morality is that certain actions or thoughts can be right or wrong in and of themselves. If one accepts "subjective morality," then one loses the ability to really define any action or thought as right or wrong in and of itself; rather, one believes that the appropriateness of an action or thought is self-created, either by the individual or by the society. Standards of right and wrong created by humans actually already have a name - ethics - and they are distinct from the concept of morality, which is, by its very nature, objective. Thus, those who reject objective morality can at best claim that an action is inappropriate given the context, but they can never really say that an action is wrong. That is ultimately why I cannot accept that there is not an objective morality, no matter how imperfect our understanding of it might be. I know that certain actions are wrong, not just contextually, but intrinsically. Even if the society in which I lived suddenly decided that it was ethically appropriate for me to cheat on my fiancee, it would still be wrong. Even if another society decided that it was ethically appropriate to butcher 800,000 unarmed civilians with machetes, it would still be wrong. Interestingly enough, those who defend a "subjective" morality - or, as I would have it, purely ethical - worldview can actually end up being more imperious than those who defend objective morality. Take, for example, the question: Why was the Rwandan genocide wrong? If you believe in objective morality, then you believe that it was wrong because all humans, regardless of their race or background, deserve to be held to the same basic standards of behavior. If you believe in pure ethics, then you either have to accept that the genocide wasn't wrong (because it was endorsed by a society of individual human beings who have every right to develop their own ethical system and act in accordance with it), or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. Pure ethics ends up either having to reserve judgment on any action, no matter how horrible, taken by another, or judge another on the basis of ethics that one makes for oneself. Thus, I can see no way out except to accept that there is an objective morality (in addition to many sets of subjective ethics). The alternative is utter moral chaos. | ||
|
sambour
Canada62 Posts
So my answer is both. As is usually the case with these kinds of questions :/ | ||
|
tyCe
Australia2542 Posts
| ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
And yes, looking through all the posts people must be confusing ethics and morals. I was shocked assuming they all didn't confuse the two. But people probably did. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote: Interestingly enough, those who defend a "subjective" morality - or, as I would have it, purely ethical - worldview can actually end up being more imperious than those who defend objective morality. Take, for example, the question: Why was the Rwandan genocide wrong? If you believe in objective morality, then you believe that it was wrong because all humans, regardless of their race or background, deserve to be held to the same basic standards of behavior. If you believe in pure ethics, then you either have to accept that the genocide wasn't wrong (because it was endorsed by a society of individual human beings who have every right to develop their own ethical system and act in accordance with it), or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong. Pure ethics ends up either having to reserve judgment on any action, no matter how horrible, taken by another, or judge another on the basis of ethics that one makes for oneself. Thus, I can see no way out except to accept that there is an objective morality (in addition to many sets of subjective ethics). The alternative is utter moral chaos. You can't distinguish objective and subjective morality in this way. The bits I've bolded are exactly equivalent. In your example, the only difference between the moral objectivist and the moral subjectivist is that the objectivist is imagining the existence of some kind of external, 'official' standard to a) make themselves feel good for agreeing with it, and b) to dodge the burden of responsibility-for-consequences they would feel for urging their own morals upon others. For instance, the historical Catholic stance on birth control. Catholic officials generally don't feel responsible for the health and overpopulation problems their evangelism has exacerbated because they believe their stance to reflect an external standard for which they have no responsibility. They're just the messengers. There is a distinction between objective and subjective morality, but the one you describe is not it. And by the way, I agree there is such a thing as objective morality. | ||
|
JesusOurSaviour
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:09 Umpteen wrote: But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god. The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture. On May 11 2011 22:09 Umpteen wrote: But that's exactly what you're doing, too. You're forming your own moral code based on your understanding of the bible, which you have chosen from a large menu of alternatives. I assume you're filtering it substantially, too, unless you still think slavery is acceptable. Just like the authors of the New Testament rejigged morality when they bolted it onto the Old Testament in the first known example of root-kitting an OS. In other words, you've picked a moral code that appeals to you - that feels right to you. Just like everyone else. You can't spin that around by first believing in a god who agrees with you, and then saying it's actually you agreeing with god. The moral differences between the old and new testaments prove my earlier point perfectly: if a god can change his mind about the moral codes we should follow, then those codes are not objective, merely imposed upon us by threat of torture. So Summarising what you've said: 1. I believed in a God which I liked, especially his morality which somehow I've filtered to suit my own 2. that the God of the Old and New Testaments are different Gods. With regards to #1, My understanding of the bible is obviously dependent on how much I have read of the bible and my motivation for reading the bible. Motivation may be to satisfy my own desires, of affirming what I believe to be right, or it may be that I am reading to better understand the God whom I worship. The term Exegesis comes to mind hehe. I am going to honestly tell you that I read the bible to learn about God, to hear him speak to me. His Word is true living water that tastes so beautiful, and it teaches me so much. And God's word is challenging as you have mentioned - there are topics which seem to bamboozle me at first - why a virgin is told to marry her rapist in the case that she was raped in the wild but there was no witness? Slavery? etc etc the list goes on. So then, how have I dealt with these seemingly contradictory issues? By ignoring them? By no means!! I have seeked to understand why God said what he said. Why God acted in the way he acted. God needs no excuses - he's happy for people to read his word and try to judge him to condemn him, although it's kind of futile to judge someone who is perfect, especially since we as humans are corrupt and foolish. Next is #2. I thought the same and it rocked my faith to it's core for a while. This is something a very high % of Christians avoid talking about simply because they don't get it. Well I guess you've bumped into one who is willing to chat about it, so you are blessed. Fire away questions at me by PM-ing me if you think you know your bible and wish to ask questions regarding it, I am happy to answer your questions in PM. Now to the point: Has God changed his moral codes? Short answer: No. Why? Because he's the same God. But what about all this violence and genocide vs Jesus' "Love your neighbour"? But I say, is not God the creator of the universe? Is He not the judge, the one and only God who is able to judge justly? For He is not corrupted by sin as we are (read Genesis if you don't get it. Or similarly you can just check google news for how fallen we are). So then, if God in His Wrath, wished to judge the nations before the End, could He not? If God wishing to show the Israelites the consequences of disobedience, had destroyed sinful nations by using the Israelites, who are you to judge God? The problem with most people is that they don't have a God-centric view of the world. They have never understood that the world is centred around God. He created this world For himself. He created us so that we may have a relationship with Him. Does He sound selfish? No - because not only did He breathe life into us, but He loves us though we rebel against him all the time, and has even provided this wonderful earth for us. If you read the bible with an attitude of "This is all Bull sh*t. I just need to find something that is absurd in my own worldview, to show Christians that they are delusional and irrational", then I guess you will "be ever seeing but never perceiving, be ever hearing but never understanding" | ||
| ||
