Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 11

On May 11 2011 22:46 Umpteen wrote:


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.

On May 11 2011 22:18 adun12345 wrote:
or you have to believe that it was wrong solely on the basis that you personally believe that it was wrong.

On May 11 2011 23:09 Acrofales wrote:


No. There is a third option without reverting to an "objective" morality: the predominant belief in your society is that it is wrong. In this case "your society" refers to the majority of the world. This is how we have an International Court of Justice and the Geneva Conventions, because the majority of the world population came together and set down a list of rules that should not be broken. However, if the majority view of the world population changes, there is a good chance we will readdress issues in International Law and other such treaties, just as countries update their internal laws as the time goes on (and individuals adjust their behaviour as they go through life: as a teenager I might have thought it acceptable to not pay a metro ticket, whereas now I frown on this behaviour).

On May 11 2011 22:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote:


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.
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?

On May 11 2011 23:00 TrainFX wrote:
completely and utterly subjective, how could one even argue that morals are objective?

On May 11 2011 23:18 adun12345 wrote:


This is admittedly an option, but it fails to explain why I, as a rational individual, ought to behave according to the rules of society. Suppose I and my compatriots want to butcher 800,000 unarmed people with machetes. We're concerned that, as the civil war in our country tips against us, that we need to strike first to ensure our security. In this scenario, I care more about my immediate needs than what the rest of the world thinks about my action. Can pure ethics provide any rationale for why I shouldn't do this? By what authority can the global community judge me?

More sympathetically, what if the majority decides for something with which you personally disagree? Suppose the majority of the world decided that slavery was an acceptable institution - would you be wrong for disagreeing with them? Individually-centric pure ethics would say of course not - you generate your own ethics, and damn anyone who says otherwise. However, community-centric ethics would say of course - you are magically beholden to conform your own personal behavior to the whims of the majority.

In short, although you are right that there is a third option, I fail to see how this option is more consistent, or more appealing.

On May 11 2011 23:35 Uhh Negative wrote:

Inherent morality. If it's built into us when we are born.

There's no way to know though. Objectivity itself is just an idea we understand. There is nothing completely objective in this world.

On May 11 2011 23:42 Acrofales wrote:


I think my earlier post makes sense of that. Your personal code of ethics can obviously differ significantly from the majority view (for instance, fundamental moslims in -lets say- china), although human evolution has hardcoded some ways of thinking into us and it would be extreme to break a rule given by this way of thinking.

Even so, there is nothing "wrong" with that, unless you break some code of ethics which has been turned into legal code, in which case you will suffer the consequences (if caught). The same for your example: if you decide it is ethically okay to slaughter 800,000 unarmed people with machetes (or jews with a gas chamber, tutsis with machine guns or kurds with mustard gas, to name some real examples) then you are welcome to do so, but don't be surprised when the large majority of people who don't share your code of ethics cry out in rage and subject you to a fitting punishment (try you for crimes against humanity most likely).

As for your other example: if the majority population decides to revert back to the idea that slavery is ethical you are welcome to disagree with it (just as Thomas More did, except as a form of punishment for criminals, in the 15th century), just don't expect to achieve anything or even be judged to have the moral highground (except perhaps in the eyes of a future civilization when slavery has been abolished once again).

Community-centered ethics are what rules and laws are built around. Person-centered ethics are subsequent rules you personally decide to live your life by. If these conflict significantly with community-centered ethics there is a large chance you will be a social outcast, or tried as a criminal. However there is no ethical system which is inherently right or wrong, which is what an objective morality states. The universe at large does not impose some set of morals which must be adhered to, however the underlying laws of the universe do impose some restrictions on what sets of morals lead to a viable society (if wholesale slaughter is seen as ethical, the society runs a large risk of extinguishing itself).

On May 11 2011 23:44 TrainFX wrote:


but we're not, we're not born with ANY inherent morality, it's all socilization.

On May 12 2011 00:07 adun12345 wrote:


I understand the fact that societies form laws that accord with their ethical principles (and, I would hope, also reflect fundamental moral principles) to judge others. I also understand the utilitarian argument that one should do right in order to avoid punishment. Taken by itself, this argument inevitably leads to the position that there is no right or wrong, only what one can and cannot do.

All of that is besides my real question, though: by what right does society impose its ethical norms upon the individual? The very difference between a law and an ethical standard is that a law only has a negative aspect - obey or be punished - while an ethical standard also has a positive aspect ("it is good to act ethically"). If one seeks to depend entirely on the negative aspect, then one is no longer actually discussing pure ethics - rather, one has moved over into the realm of "legalism," in which the law is the ultimate and final arbiter of all.

The difficulty I still have with pure ethics is from whence the positive aspect of communal ethics emerges (it is good to act ethically). From an objective morality standpoint, I support the statement "it is good to act ethically" in so far as the ethics in question adhere to my understanding of the general objective moral principles, because it is good to act morally (and thus, ethically). From a pure ethics standpoint, I cannot see how one can say "it is good to act ethically." Why is this the case? What positive argument is there to be made for this position (distinct from the negative argument of, "because otherwise you will be punished")?

If punishment is the only reason for me to act ethically, then my incentive is not actually to act ethically, but to find ways to do what I want without being punished. Is anyone actually ready to say that murdering 800,000 people would not be wrong as long as I escaped punishment?