Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 24

On May 12 2011 11:15 QuestSeekers wrote:


I think part of what the above post is pointing out is that you really do think it is wrong for people to steal from you (or murder you, etc) and your worldview does not account for that. I think people find it very hard to say that the evils in the world aren't 'wrong' in some cosmic sense. When we say it is wrong for a child to be tortured, we are not saying it is inconvenient to use, or simply that we don't like it, we are saying 'that ought not be!'. We all have this tendency as people, and the question is, how does your worldview explain that?

On May 12 2011 11:30 Fyodor wrote:

I thought they did. It's called Paradigms.

On May 12 2011 11:33 neohero9 wrote:


Yes.

But no matter how much you say "What you're doing is wrong," you will be incorrect, in his eyes. He will have no reason to even consider what you say with any kind of force.

The issue is taken down from a moral issue to a simple disagreement. You don't like it, he likes it, them's the breaks cuz he's the one with the gun.

Yes, you could lie to him, attack him, and even survive and kill him, retaining your wallet and your life.

But that's outside the scope of the question.

On May 12 2011 11:23 Traveler wrote:
Actually, people think subjective morality exists because that is what the evidence points to... sure objective morality would be all nice and easy, but so far we have yet to see justification and evidence for it.

On May 12 2011 11:05 neohero9 wrote:


The topic is about Morality being subjective or objective. That is to what I was responding.
Law and morality, as much as they are supposed to be informed, are not always bedfellows.

Basically, your comment is unrelated to the content of my post.

But to respond: You could easily locate this situation in the mugger's nation/region, and assume that said region had no laws against this act. Therefore, you could not have him arrested. Then you are left in exactly the position outlined above.

On May 12 2011 11:40 j2choe wrote:


Objective morality isn't undermined by the degree to which it is practiced in real-life any more than the multiplication table is undermined by the fact that people often get their calculations wrong. Objective morality exists independently of people's perceptions and adherence to it. That is the essence of objectivity is it not?

I completely agree that we see a moral deficit in society all around us. That is not to say, however, that those who deviate from objective morality are unaware of it. I would venture that even the most savage person on Earth has an idea of how he or she "ought" to behave, unless he or she is suffering from a mental deficiency or lives in an alternate reality.

On May 12 2011 11:15 QuestSeekers wrote:


I think part of what the above post is pointing out is that you really do think it is wrong for people to steal from you (or murder you, etc) and your worldview does not account for that. I think people find it very hard to say that the evils in the world aren't 'wrong' in some cosmic sense. When we say it is wrong for a child to be tortured, we are not saying it is inconvenient to use, or simply that we don't like it, we are saying 'that ought not be!'. We all have this tendency as people, and the question is, how does your worldview explain that?

On May 12 2011 11:40 Traveler wrote:


Are you referring to the OP's question?

Because in that case, I was explaining how your professor's case against subjective morality was incorrect, since it seems like he is arguing that the absence of an objective morality disallows you certain actions.

Sure the robber doesn't at all have to accept what you are saying, but maybe he does, either way that system of morals is yours and obviously not universal and objective since the robber certainly isn't following the same system as you.

I think there is a language problem here in that you are trying to elevate the problem of morals above the realm of what we can observe. Because subjective morals can disagree, and there being a disagreement does not disallow them.

On May 12 2011 11:59 neohero9 wrote:
Yes, I meant the OP's question.

Absence of objective morality does not disallow certain actions. I never said that, she never said that. It's not even implied. You can do what you want, however in or out of line with your own moral code those actions happen to be-- it doesn't change the thrust of the example.

[we enter the scene after you have demanded to know how the mugger could justify mugging you]:
"But it's my wallet, you don't have a right to it."
"No, no no. Morality is subjective, mate. My moral code says I have a right to what I want so long as I can take it. So I have a right to your wallet, because I have this gun and I want it."
"No, you don't! It's mine!"
"Says who?"
"Says me!"
(This is the part where he kills you.)

Now you're dead, and he takes your wallet.

And he has still done NOTHING WRONG.

That is the point.

On May 12 2011 12:03 Nakama wrote:
To VIB:

the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..

U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ?
And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution

On May 12 2011 11:59 neohero9 wrote:
And he has still done NOTHING WRONG.

That is the point.

On May 12 2011 11:48 Traveler wrote:
Actually in order for objective morality to exist; it must enforce itself in reality somehow. Multiplication tables are subjective to people because our system of numbers is subjective, but in reality if you take 2 rocks and another 2 rocks, you have 4 rocks no matter what. Now our language can differ upon what we call them, but it there are still 4 rocks, because they enforce their constancy in their state of matter.
(Be careful in picking analogies for things, because they may seem similar, but you might miss a key difference.)
Since we don't see a system of morality that imposes itself on everyone no matter what...

People that have conceptions of how they "ought" to behave are only picking up cues from society, independent of society, totally alone, I doubt that person would have any problem at all with their actions. People are mistaking objective morality with the system of worth evolution has programmed into our minds, and that system of worth often makes us favor majority opinions because when people like us, we are more likely to survive.

On May 12 2011 12:03 Nakama wrote:
To VIB:

the fundamental mistake u make is that u replace the word moral with other words but u mean the same..

U say laws are made to protect the society and at the same time u say there is no such thing as right or wrong. so why is protecting ur society a good thing? where do u take that judgement from if there is no Moral ?
And pls dont answer me with sth that has to do with Evolution

On May 12 2011 10:44 neohero9 wrote:
My Ethics prof had a wonderful illustration of the incoherence of the idea that morality is subjective.

Assume you subscribe to the view that morality is subjective. You're walking down the street, and a man stops you, points a gun at you, and says, "Stand and deliver: your money or your life!" (hint: he's mugging you).
As you reach for your wallet (slowly), you raise the (ethically) obvious question: "How can you possibly do this to another human being? This isn't right!"
The mugger, who happens to be of a philosophical bent, responds with an explanation-- in his culture, taking from those who cannot stop you isn't immoral, it's just how life works. So to him, his robbing you is not immoral. It is actually perfectly in line with his ethics.

This leaves you, the moral subjectivist, with no course other than than to say "okay", hand him your wallet, and part ways. After all, he's not being immoral. You are having a disagreement over who has rights to the wallet, but it is not a moral one, and therefore you CANNOT CONDEMN HIM FOR STEALING YOUR WALLET. At least not with the force of morality.

It's something like that. It's been like 8 months since that lecture.

On May 12 2011 12:09 VIB wrote:
Proof this is truth is abundant: just look at our thousands of years of human history. Morals have always changed to adapt to our current needs.

On May 12 2011 12:12 j2choe wrote:


What you are really saying, then, is that there is no such thing as morality at all. You're saying that what we call "morality" is really just a code of conduct created by ourselves and predicated on survival. You're pulling from Hobbes.

If that is truly your position, then I can't argue with you. But at the same time, you would have no basis by which to say that a Nazi mentality is good or bad. You would have no basis to condemn anybody's actions, no matter how cruel or inhumane they might be. You would have no basis by which to evaluate your own actions at all, except to the extent that they improve your own well-being. Because the moment you actually do attempt to evaluate them...you will be unwittingly bending towards objective morality. Evaluation presupposes something to evaluate against.

I think it's dangerous to look to everyday practice in order to ascertain whether objective morality exists. People will always fall short of the standard, and that is the state of affairs today. However, you do have intimate knowledge of YOURSELF, and if you were to evaluate your own thoughts and actions with honesty, you would find that they were at least compelled to some degree by a nagging feeling inside that what you were doing was right or wrong, independent of what herd mentality might dictate.

On May 12 2011 12:20 Nakama wrote:
"The fundamental mistake you are making is assuming you need "good" in order to protect our society, we need no justification greater than our wants to create laws. "

U don´t even get the point...


aha and u want sth because of what ?? mb cause u think its good ? now u replaced the word "good" with "want" and still u cant tell me why u think its good without reffering to some objektive value. This is philosophy fresh out of the 16th century =)

On May 12 2011 12:20 Noak3 wrote:
Well it really depends on whether you're religious or not, I think. What kind of objective morality can exist besides one based on the idea of a deity? Personally I don't believe in any kind of god so I chose subjective, but it really depends on beliefs.