|
On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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."
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
|
It's objective and consists of one Rule:
- Do not - under any circumstances - harm, hurt or betray other beings nor let them suffer.
Think "Asimovs 3 Laws of Robotics" in Human form.
We break this Law often and in some cases it's hard to define on which side of the rule we are (For example the famous abortion or euthanasia), but the rule still holds true, we might just be too stupid to fully understand the implications.
It is often not possible or viable to make the moral decision, for example the woman that decides for an abortion because she can't afford a child - that doesn't make her a bad person. As long as a person knows that he breaks the rule and tries his best not to, the person is "good", eventhough the action is immoral.
PS: Eating other animals is immoral, too, as it harms other beings... but they are still tasty, so i don't stop... but i'm a bad person anyways :p
|
On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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." They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective. If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong. I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
I love you, and to expand on your point.
It could be that in your experience the earth IS flat. For me it very well could be, I've never been around it or near far enough to really perceive curvature. I actually take it on faith that the Earth is round, but as far as I know, the "round" Earth could be nothing more than an elaborate conspiracy. It is more than just "saying" the Earth is round or flat, it is about experiencing it. The same is applied to what people experience as morals, except there is a definitive answer. The world IS round, despite what my experiences may tell me to the contrary.
|
On May 11 2011 20:16 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What do you mean by "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." ?
Where do your beliefs come from ? What constitues them ? What are they built of ? What purpose do they serve ? How do you know that you are right ? How do you know that what you believe is true ?
|
On May 11 2011 16:47 Rucky wrote:
.Moral Subjectivity in itself is contradictory. The main idea of it is that everyone has their own moral values which may differ from others. If by morals we mean in the case of ethics, what is right and what is wrong, then how can it be something personal? If one holds a view that one believes is right and someone else holds a widely different view that they believe is also right, then we'll want to ask who the hell is right? If you were one of the two, is it reasonable to think "i believe in subjectivism so we're both right."
I'm believe in the objectivity of morality.
When it comes down to it, like some have said, everything we do may only be for survival and evolution. And if so, whatever is morally right is just everything consistent with that train of thought
I think you (and few others) are getting mixed up between Morality and Ethics. They often can go hand in hand, but are completely separate concepts.
A high school teacher having a relationship with his student (over legal age). This is unethical in the western society (and most other developed country as well I believe) in the field of education. However, there is nothing immoral about it in most of our eyes. Note here, moral is subjective.
Now likes look at another example. A lawyer defending a child rapist whom has already admitted to the crime. In this case, in most of our eyes, it is immoral to be helping out someone like that. However, the lawyer isn't being unethical, because as per our constitution, it is required to have a defending lawyer even for cases where the criminal have admitted to the crime. Therefore, someone has to do it, and the lawyer that took up the job must do his best to reduce the punishment for the criminal as much as possible.
From those two examples, you can see that things can be both moral but unethical (or vice versa) at the same time. So no, moral is not ethics.
Ethics is objective within its own governing field or industry, while morals is subjective.
|
On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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." They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective. If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong. I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
This is the same proverbial firetruck that I keep trying to avoid stepping out in front of. I'm so atheist as to be to the point of anti-theism altogether, but I still believe that, even if 'morals' being subjective is taken out of the equation, you still have 'laws' and crimes against those 'laws', even if there's no system to recognize those laws and crimes.
It's kinda funny, I actually see less of a moral dilemma in cases of cannibalism than I do for things like non-consensual sexual relations.
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
|
On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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.
Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
|
I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs 
But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions.
The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is.
I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism.
|
On May 11 2011 20:37 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:30 goiflin wrote:On May 11 2011 20:16 JesusOurSaviour wrote: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. 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.
So all the crusaders and inquisitors are burning in hell right now? All the people who fought in wars? Because if they aren't, and they're in paradise, then killing and torture is fine, which according to the new testament, isn't supposed to be part of the christian morality. You're supposed to love your enemy like a friend. Turn the other cheek when you are wronged. Christians are supposed to be, according to the texts that they say they follow, pacifists. Which either means god changes his morals, or humans change religious morals. In either case, religion is a subjective moral system.
|
On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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." They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective. If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong. I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
|
On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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." They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective. If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong. I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
If you read the post Zechs was referring to you would understand his point better, it's the same one I made. He was not saying that because people believe different things Therefore morality is subjective.
He was responding to someone who was arguing for objective morality, and yet contradicted this notion by saying truth, for something such as morality, is based on individual belief.
|
On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist.
Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
|
objective
there is no such thing as moral right or wrong since the whole concept is artificially created by human beings.
|
On May 11 2011 21:00 XeliN wrote:I prefer to critique others without having to commit myself to stating and defending my own beliefs But as you've asked I think there is no such thing as "inherently good" or vice versa. Say quite a horrific example of a grown man raping torturing and murdering a small child. He does not break some objective moral law or contravene some universally existing standard for our actions. The only form of morality we have is fluid, there is no logical criteria by which we can say, This form of morality is 'better' because to do so presupposes what better is. I think my "belief" - although in the same way atheists often prefer, i would consider it more aptly described as a lack of belief in objective morality - is called Moral Nihilism.
Eh, that's kinda what I was getting at.
Here, you present a case like that of a serial pedophile rapist/murderer. To you, my view that that person has committed a crime against the fabric of sapience seems subjective. To me, the law of the fabric of the preservation and wellness of sapient life that such a person committed a crime against is absolute regardless of subjective feelings or even capacity for observation.
Just like the true nature of black holes is somewhat absolute regardless of our subjective feelings or capacity for observation.
Therein lies the weird language or philosophy barrier I mentioned before. In this case, the very subjectivity or objectivity of the subject matter has its own subjectivity applied to it. It's doomed to always be in a state of cyclicle repetition.
|
On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
More in reference to your earlier post, but I think you are going about this the wrong way. Instead of assuming there must be an existing moral law that defines good and bad, right and wrong, and, whilst believing this, cannot yet fully explain, argue or understand it.
Instead don't ever assume something to be true unless you can prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that it is so.
|
On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote:
They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective.
If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong.
I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain.
Bad analogy, we're only talking about morals here, not something in a physical sense. It's like saying "I'm taller than you" when cleary I am shorter than you by at least a foot. I would be wrong.
Morals have no physical attribute itself, only actions that are derived from them.
|
On May 11 2011 21:05 Chahta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 21:00 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:48 Chahta wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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. Your example of the thief doesn't really help. In the thief's moral code, what if he genuinely believes that it's okay to steal? (for what it's worth, i think most thieves know what they're doing is wrong but their selfish need/want outweighs their guilt, but lets assume that isn't the case for this example). Who is to say that his moral is wrong and that the 'stealing is bad' moral that 99% of us hold is correct? Again, even this truth that appears to be absolute is not actually so. The only person who could possibly decide an absolute moral does not exist. Morality does not bend to beliefs. It does not matter how okay the thief believed his own actions to be, they still caused harm and therefore the action of stealing was immoral. Was it the most convenient option for their own survival? Possibly, but that does not mean it was the only option and certainly does not mean it was right. Also realize I used "personal moral code" loosely, because it doesn't exist...it is only a perception. The truth is the greater moral code derived by reason (do "good", whatever "good" is)
That's a nice, romantic notion, but where does this absolute moral code come from? Again, if it is 'common sense' or 'reason', that doesn't help the argument either; people reason differently. If an absolute moral code existed, why would anyone break it? Surely we would live in a eutopia where nobody needed to harm anyone else. The thief wouldn't need to steal in the first place. The only immoral people would be ones with birth defects because everyone else has the same in-built morals, no? And yet there are perfectly sane, functional people who perform immoral acts.
Actually, that last sentence is a whole other can of worms...
|
Another misconception is that just because a lot of people agree or have the same view to something, that doesn't necessarily make it objective. Just because everyone thinks Mr.Beans is ugly or Megan Fox is hot (i know i know) do not make these statements objective, you can only say that everyone's opinion on them agrees subjectively.
Objectivity always has a base of a sort, or something to fall back on, to deem its objectivity. The statement of "Killing is illegal" is an objective statement because by law, it is stated just as that. No one can come up and argue that this statement is false regardless of how much they not agree with this law. However, the statement "Killing is wrong" is a subjective statement, because one can always argue for this clause. For example, if I must throw a bomb into a room of five people in order to save one of my loved person, I would.
The fact that one can argue whether this is moral or immoral simply proves that morality is subjective. However, no one can argue that what I did is illegal, which is an objective matter.
|
On May 11 2011 21:02 Zechs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 20:54 Deadlyfish wrote:On May 11 2011 20:43 Zechs wrote:On May 11 2011 20:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: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? 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." They are not subjective just because someone else believes something different. This seems to be the main argument that moral is subjective. If i say the earth is round, and you say the earth is flat. Is the shape of the earth subjective? No. There is still a right and a wrong. I'm not religious, and i still believe that moral is objective, although way too complicated for me to properly explain. The earth is demonstrably round - it can and has been proven. Morals are social constructs and cannot be proven in any way. If i say stealing is right, you can't prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say that the majority is on your side.
It doesnt matter if i can be proven or not, there is still an answer. I dont know what the right or wrong answer is, but i know there is one.
I get your argument, but you cant prove anything 100%.
If i say god exists, you cant prove that i'm wrong, you can simply say the majority is on your side. But this doesnt matter. Either god exists or he doesnt. It is therefore objective. (if this wasnt the case then everything in the world would be subjective, no?)
Idk, maybe i'm just being stupid. Always hated philosophy - we can never actually prove anything, which is annoying.
Edit: It all depends on how you define morality. And by that i mean the answer depends on it, not whether it is objective or subjective.
Edit #2: 1337 posts woo! :D
|
C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the fundamental objective relationship between what we call reality and morality.
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21)
Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
To call morality subjective is to misunderstand and misrepresent its nature on a very fundamental level, often with potentially terrible consequences for both the individual and those the individual interacts with, directly or indirectly. Arguing that morality is subjective, then, shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of objective reality and our subjective view of that objective reality. Although our perceptions of morality are never perfect, its firmly rooted in the former (reality, as opposed to our perception).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
