EPTAnd morality is subjective, the notion of morality is a human creation.
"Is raping, torturing and murdering the innocent bad?"
Is, sadly, a similar question to
"Is this new film bad?"
Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
And morality is subjective, the notion of morality is a human creation. "Is raping, torturing and murdering the innocent bad?" Is, sadly, a similar question to "Is this new film bad?" | ||
|
Fog-of-War
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
JesusOurSaviour
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:13 Fog-of-War wrote: Subjective. Common sense answer. anyone who answers objective, i would love to see your set list of correct morals. Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you. | ||
|
PreliatorMax
Philippines37 Posts
| ||
|
Amanebak
Czech Republic528 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:16 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you. What's the point of your post then? You wrote your answer and all is now obvious. You asked about something you had known. | ||
|
Chahta
United States148 Posts
There are certain objective morals in the universe. Your decision to ignore or not live up to some/all of them is again, your decision. Calling it subjective is just a way to make you feel better about yourself. The hardest part is delving into what these morals are for most people. However, the truth is, it is not WHAT these morals are, but WHY these morals are. It is my belief that a moral code exists for the betterment of existence. If something causes "harm" then it is immoral. I believe that subjective or objective, everyone's moral code is based upon this, however not everyone considers every aspect. Take the example of the thief. If their personal moral code includes (to follow Casta's post [nothing personal, just the post above mine as I type this]) a right to steal so they can have something to eat, they are acting for their own benefit. However, they are not considering the losses incurred by the shopkeeper, i.e. harm. The "moral" solution is for the thief to a) not be a thief and b) work for wages or some other method to exchange something of equal intrinsic value for food. Of course the shopkeeper could give the food for free or a discounted price (charity), but he must deem it so because he is the net-giver. One could argue this is still a net loss for the shop-keeper but the exchange is in fact food for a feeling of do-goodery. It is my working view that there are seven aspects of morality which are overlappable. I define these as: 1) Individual: How does it affect me/the individual 2) Social: How does it affect those around me? 3) Local: How does it affect my immediate surroundings? 4) Universal: How does this affect the grand scheme of things? 5) Physical: How does it affect health/possessions/etc 6) Emotional: How does it affect feelings/psychology/etc 7) Spiritual: How does it relate to the morals set forth by my religion (even atheistic views fall under this) Now the seventh I am still toying a lot with in my head, largely because it does not factor into the WHY of morals but rather the WHAT which varies by religion. I am not sure if it should be outright removed or not. I guess if anything it is religions attempts to categorize every action as morally "good" or "bad" when my point is that morals transcend religion. I could easily better define the other categories as well, but simply put, I'm no good with words. Instead I hope you can understand my intentions. So under this criteria, an action which gives a + or - to ALL categories can safely be judged accordingly. But this is actually quite rare, as it is not every day you see someone steal candy from a baby only to put it as the target of a particle accelerator and see it vaporized (I don't care if a PA can't do that...the point is the action does no good for anyone). So, we run into a lot of the "grey area". This is currently where I am stuck. Do we consider the "net" good/bad of an action? Is that even possible? If something is partially "bad" does it spoil the whole bunch? This requires a lot of thought, and I am not prepared to make a stand. Next, in regards to the statements about there being no "enforcement" of moral code, not everything is a direct punishment. To put it in the terms of nerdfighters, to act immorally creates "worldsuck" on some level. If morality is a natural law, then it doesn't even have to receive full punishment to be valid. Consider this example: The Sun produces a metric shitton of heat. If things were "fair" the Sun would retain 100% of the heat it generates, forever getting hotter. But this doesn't happen, instead it radiates the heat away, never receiving its "full punishment". So yeah, natural laws aren't "fair", which is for my own satisfaction I do hope there is an afterlife wherein each of us is judged according to our actions to atone for our immorality, nothing is more "fair" than that. Finally, the greatest cause of struggle with morality is simply lack of education. Why does a child on the streets learn to steal? Because they never learned NOT to (or if they did subsequently rejected morality). Does not knowing morality not make them accountable? No, they are still accountable because the damage they caused to the shopkeeper (and customers, etc in a trickle-down effect) is no less severe. However, given that virtually every discovered culture attempts (at least originally) to procure some level of morality, I would argue that morality itself is innate in everyone, but society represses this sense. The street urchin doesn't steal without first seeing it done. They are simply taught wrong. | ||
|
AutomatonOmega
United States706 Posts
The reason I don't subscribe to subjective morality is simply that you'd really be surprised what people can justify to themselves given enough time. There's also a line where people commit crimes because they know what they're doing is immoral in an objective sense, it's not like they justify their actions to themselves because their own subjective moral compass has been adjusted to make what they're doing okay to themselves. Even at that, even if a criminal such as a pedophile or some other kind of predator on sentient life for the sole purpose of witnessing their suffering were to believe that what they were doing was right, it doesn't make it so. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:16 JesusOurSaviour wrote: Love God, Love Mankind - this is the True morality. Yet Humans like to play God and be their own bosses, so I agree with you that for all the non-Christians out there, you are your own Boss and only what you think is right and wrong matters to you. Religion is an excellent example of subjective morals. Many people practiced human sacrifice rituals in older religions, and that was considered good. Many people killed in the name of varying religions, even though their religion was founded on peace, and that at the time was considered good, due to the religion being used as a front to get people to be willing to go to war (for legitimate reasons or not). Religion changes it's rules all the time to fit a more modern audience, and that makes it subjective. If it was truly objective, there would be only one set of rules for all the varying religions, ever. While for an individual, a religious life could lead to an objective moral base that never changes, the organization that they're with, has subjective morals, and thus the individual is responsible for choosing their morals within the religion, which many religions can support nowadays, with multiple sects, all with their own moral code to follow that's often separate from the others. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja  *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. | ||
|
unknownseven
United Kingdom9 Posts
Morality changes with time. It never stays constant. Racism, homophobia, sexism, have thankfully gone from this world (or begun to go..!). But for thousands of years it was acceptable to imprison/kill gay individuals, treat women as second class, treat Black people as slaves. That was the norm, and 'moral'. Morality is not fixed and permanent. It changes as we as a species learn, advance, and adapt to a better (I think!) way of life. Anyone who thinks moral objectivity is fixed and static and frankly deluding themselves. | ||
|
AutomatonOmega
United States706 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? | ||
|
Chahta
United States148 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:32 XeliN wrote: I'm skeptical when people use things such as "I personally feel" or "I believe" as a justification for the existence of something. That would be my criticism of the above two posts -*apart from the one right above who posted while i was typing like some kind of ninja *- . Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. Good point, but as I stated in my post I am still looking for answers. I have actually only bothered to define morality about 3 days ago and I don't think it is a topic that could possibly be finalized in that time. My goal it to make it into a treatise (or that someone else is able to) but until that time, it is just a belief. That's all anything is, even the way we think atoms whizz around through space. | ||
|
JesusOurSaviour
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:30 goiflin wrote: Religion is an excellent example of subjective morals. Many people practiced human sacrifice rituals in older religions, and that was considered good. Many people killed in the name of varying religions, even though their religion was founded on peace, and that at the time was considered good, due to the religion being used as a front to get people to be willing to go to war (for legitimate reasons or not). Religion changes it's rules all the time to fit a more modern audience, and that makes it subjective. If it was truly objective, there would be only one set of rules for all the varying religions, ever. While for an individual, a religious life could lead to an objective moral base that never changes, the organization that they're with, has subjective morals, and thus the individual is responsible for choosing their morals within the religion, which many religions can support nowadays, with multiple sects, all with their own moral code to follow that's often separate from the others. Hmmm I guess you can say that your Father in heaven (who is looking at you this second) has subjective views because His set of right and wrongs are subjective to Him. Unfortunately though, He is the True God of the universe and He never changes. Abusing / taking his Word out of context and tricking foolish people for your own gain (in war, in indulgences etc etc etc etc) does not change God. All it does it make your judgement day a little bit more painful. God has not changed and will not. His mandate for us to Love Him, to Love each other and to look after and enjoy our time on the earth He has provided us, has not changed over time. | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
It has nothing to do with "subjective" or "objective" (two words I really dislike, as I do not think they have any meaning). | ||
|
Slumph
United Kingdom52 Posts
We all live by our own subjective morales, these are garnered from our parents, peers, and ourselves. And then theres the collective, the objective morales which are created largely from the individual morales of each member of society. Laws for example, are founded upon these morales. We obviously wont all feel the same way about everything however theres somethings we cannot change. The structure and function of society as it has developed over thousands of years has shaped this. For example the majority of us in Britain may believe that the death penalty should be reinstated (Not a fact, just an example). However due to how we feel we will be perceived by others in our society we may not make this change or possibly feel scared to even voice our opinions due to the stigma of the subject and controversy of the matter, even though it may be overall beneficial to us. This is mostly ingrained into our society from modern developments and media exposure which has swayed us into a much more "Civilised" society, this doesn't mean we can't be civilised yet still retain these laws, morales and ethics when it comes to approaching those such as criminals, its just a typical modern way of thinking that has been far contorted and shaped by what is around us, in some cases for good, in some cases for worse - but don't be afraid to think for yourself. My 2 cents, and more. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Really? the "Its true if it's true for me" argument. If that is your conception of what is true and actual then there is no debate. Although I would point out that if your criteria for truth for something like morality is that truth is what one person believes then that would make it subjective in every sense of the word as it would be subject to peoples beliefs. | ||
|
Zechs
United Kingdom321 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: Truth doesn't equal facts. In cases of something like morality, what is true is what one believes, there's no line separating the two. Would you argue that there is an absolute morality that is right and wrong and people who express their morality as though it were a belief are somehow incorrect? The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." | ||
|
mentallyafk
139 Posts
1. A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. 2. A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. More » Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary ► | ||
|
Chahta
United States148 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote: The bolded part completely defeats your own argument, surely? If an individual's beliefs affect his morals, then they can (and history has proven will) be different to the morals of another individual, ergo, they are subjective. I don't see how any non-religious person can argue for objective morals, and the only way a religious person can make that argument is the same way they make every argument: "God said so." Read my long-winded post, I believe I refute your "God said so" claim, as well as defending the ability of a non-religious person to argue for objective morals. The interpretation of morals does not change what the morals actually are. | ||
|
AutomatonOmega
United States706 Posts
On May 11 2011 20:42 XeliN wrote: Really? the "Its true if it's true for me" argument. If that is your conception of what is true and actual then there is no debate. Although I would point out that if your criteria for truth for something like morality is that truth is what one person believes then that would make it subjective in every sense of the word as it would be subject to peoples beliefs. You have yet to explain what your morals are, actually. You only joined this discussion shortly before I did and said series of incomplete sentences on the subject but never actually revealed your own feelings on the subject. Rape is bad. That's not subjective, it's bad. It's always been bad, and it'll always be bad. I understand some animals can't actually procreate in situations that seem outwardly consensual in any way, but that's sorta outside the scope of the concept of 'rape'. It's not bad cuz I think it's bad, there aren't people out there who think it's right and moral to rape, even those who do rape unanimously agree that what they're doing is immoral, and if by some delusional meter they happen to not think it's immoral, they've labeled themselves as being more animal than human by their nature. There's also the line between morals and ethics. There's times where you're forced into a gray area that's outside your own subjective view of morality (Defense attorneys being a prime example of this in motion). I dunno, I think this is more a breakdown of language. While yeah, 'morals' are wholly subjective (as you describe them) that doesn't necessarily mean that some concepts aren't somehow inherently wrong regardless of our ability to observe them as phenomena and make our own judgments as to their rightness/wrongness. | ||
| ||
