Like the title asks, "Is morality subjective or objective?"
A couple definition for the nubs
Subjective morals: Each person determines his/her own morals based on their experiences. For example, a priest would believe it is moral to help others, a murder would think it is moral to end another's life. There is no set moral code which we all live by. We make this moral code through our experiences.
Objective morals: What is considered "right" and "wrong" are universal and will always be such. For example, it is moral for a priest to help others, it is immoral for a murder to end another's life.
Personally, I believe in subjective morals, based on my existential worldview. I believe that there is not inherent meaning to life, in that we go through our life and create our own meaning. This world view would be consistant with subjective morals.
I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values.
I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Pleiades wrote: I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values.
Nihilism huh? I'm sorry to hear that...or wait...am I happy to hear that? Nihilism always confuses me
Morality has to be clearly defined before it can be categorized as objective or subjective. For example, codes of behavior that promote a successful society (one that survives and grows) can be objectively determined... are they 'morality'?
Unless we plan to say that 'morality' is subjective because we don't agree on a definition of 'morality'... but that would be, like, vacuously subjective.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Pleiades wrote: I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values.
100% agree. Morals are an illusion created by people to feel better to themselves. Same as god.
People are just afraid that without these pre-set unquestionable rules. The world would collapse. So they make stuff up.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
I always viewed it in such a way that he acted that way through a "lack of knowledge" In the same way I don't ask my English teacher for lessons on Global climate change I wouldn't look at Gacey to be the model for human morals because he didn't know a damn thing about it.
So knowing what I know yes I would consider them immoral. In his position? I dont think anyone could figure that guy out.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
not true
just because someone doesn't consider their actions to be immoral doesn't mean they aren't immoral
that's what the moral objectivist position is
as for what I personally believe, who knows which is right. it's not really a question that can be answered with certainty, we can only speculate guess and argue
At the end of the day. Morals are not an absolute truth. They are a consequence of economy and politics. And change through history as the need for new morals arise.
A few centuries ago. Slavery was moral. Because there were economical-political reasons for it. As the economy changed, nowadays slavery is immoral. Likewise, nowadays assigning monopoly property laws to intellectual material is moral, because theres economic interest. As that economic interest is changing. In the future, copyright laws that forbid sharing of creative work will be immoral. Morals will always change to adjust to economics and politics.
Objective truths are alluring, but I'm not certain if it is even possible to prove the existence of any non-tautological objective truth much less enough to constitute a moral code. Perhaps there are some guiding principals that could be argued to be universal, but for the most part everything is subjective.
edit: Actually, I have thought about this a lot and feel that the real question becomes: if we accept that things are subjective, than it makes it seem as though we should have no morals or change our morals constantly to fit what is convenient at the moment. However, most any viable set of morals will have within it the principal that it is immoral to change your moral system (at least too often or too lightly). With this is mind, does the issue of subject vs object morals become moot, or perhaps does this mean we should be actively working to rid ourselves of that disinclination to change our morals?
Here's an interesting thing to think about. If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other? At the same time, if morals are objective, what is it that made some things wrong and some things right? Why did the universe decide that something is more moral than another thing? Some people say God decides it so, but there are reasons why that probably isn't true. I won't go into that though, unless someone actually wants to know.
On May 11 2011 15:35 Jayme wrote: I think that gacey had awful morals and frankly wrong ones. I don't really care if his childhood was awful and "caused" his insanity. His morals were plain wrong.
Going with objective. Some people just have bad morals
That is a good point. If you were in his position though, would you consider your actions to be immoral? Just want to make sure, because that is what the moral objectivist position commits one to.
Unless you believe in a God who handed these rules, it's surely impossible to believe in an objective morality? Morality is a product of your upbringing, life experiences, and social norms. Subjective.
Similar moralities crop up in completely different societies because those societies have the same basic aims i.e survival, prosperity, justice etc
On May 11 2011 15:55 jeeneeus wrote: If morals are subjective, how is it that certain things that are considered moral or immoral have been universally reached by different groups of people who have never been in contact with each other?
You really cannot think of one single hypothesis for that? You need to work on your creativity
Different groups come to similar problems and finds similar solutions.... that's all.
An interesting somewhat related talk I saw a couple of days ago:
If you choose to link morality to suffering and well being then I think you can say that some societies are "better" than others. If we define Evil as a society that maximizes suffering and Good as a society on the other side of the spectrum then I would say that that is an objective way of viewing morality.
My largest complaint with saying that morality is completely subjective is that we then fall into the trap of Moral relativism where we would have to agree that any set of moral codes is no worse or better than any other. Who are we then to complain about other societies torturing their children etc?
EPT
