Is morality objective or subjective?

[ToddNotTodd]

Is morality objective or subjective? By that I mean, are some actions intrinsically 'good' or 'evil' , or are 'good' and 'evil' labels that we humans ascribe to them*?

*Akin to how an object's length is an objective and inherent property.
**Akin to how 'hot' and 'cold' are subjective labels that have no real physical distinction.

EDIT: Bugger, I wanted a poll, but that seems to have gone head over foot. Nevermind.

The problem with trying to argue for an objective morality is that you're faced with an infinite regression of "why's". This applies whether you're a theist or non-theist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Morality must be measured against a standard of absolute perfection and truth that never changes. Thus TRUE morality will never be subjective.

Men want it to be subjective in order to justify doing what they want to do. But the absolute Truth that is Jesus Christ demands that morality NOT be subjective.

Is something good because Jesus has stated that it is good, or does Jesus hold that it is good because it is good?
If Jesus said "Drinking water is immoral", would that mean drinking water is immoral, or that Jesus is wrong?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

some are one some are the other.

Whether morality is or isn't subjective, if the route taken is that morality is subjective, is a very frightening one- ultimately nothing is inherently right or inherently wrong, and whoever can get others to abide their beliefs, would be "correct"... whether thru manipulation, charisma, or sheer force.

That could happen if there was an objective morality as well: "Listen to me! I have the actual Objective Morality™!". And it goes without saying that the objectivity/subjectivity of morality is independent of what we believe; we could all see morality as arbitrary and subjective, and the reality could be just the opposite.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The problem with trying to argue for an objective morality is that you're faced with an infinite regression of "why's". This applies whether you're a theist or non-theist.

I've heard people say that God's morality is The morality, but I counter that with, "Why?". Why does God get to determine what is right and what is wrong? Why is he any more entitled to dictating the Law than we? Yes, he made the universe, but as the saying goes, Might does not make Right.

 

[Blackmarch]

That could happen if there was an objective morality as well: "Listen to me! I have the actual Objective Morality™!". And it goes without saying that the objectivity/subjectivity of morality is independent of what we believe; we could all see morality as arbitrary and subjective, and the reality could be just the opposite.

I agree. However I do find that the personal objective to be the lesser of two evils regardless whether reality is objective or subjective (or both).

 

[Zebra1552]

That seems rather subjective to me.

Yeah, if God changes. God's character, and thus His morality, do not change. Making any moral dictates or, more importantly, principles, objective.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Perhaps that which is intersubjective is what most men perceive as objective. It would seem that evolution of social species builds into individuals the perception of objectivity and duty as a way of preserving the species.

This evolved sense of objectivity (which is really intersubjectivity) is why theologians perceive that the "law of God" is written on our "hearts."

It is also why that those who reject religion are moral people (counter to what was said above).

If behavior is perhaps normally distributed, immoral behavior can be seen as that which deviates from the mean by x-number of standard deviations (pardon the pun).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah, if God changes. God's character, and thus His morality, do not change. Making any moral dictates or, more importantly, principles, objective.

Sticking to your guns doesn't make your opinion objective.

 

[Zaac]

Is something good because Jesus has stated that it is good, or does Jesus hold that it is good because it is good?

It is good because it meets the standard of the One Who is Good.

If Jesus said "Drinking water is immoral", would that mean drinking water is immoral, or that Jesus is wrong?

It would mean that drinking water is immoral. Absolute Truth, whci is what Jesus is, DOES NOT CHANGE.

And it is this Truth upon which true morality is measured.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Can anyone explain to me what 'intersubjectivity' is? I've never seen it before this thread :s

 

[Zebra1552]

I've heard people say that God's morality is The morality, but I counter that with, "Why?". Why does God get to determine what is right and what is wrong? Why is he any more entitled to dictating the Law than we? Yes, he made the universe, but as the saying goes, Might does not make Right.

God's morality is the morality because He's been around quite a bit longer than we have... plus He has qualities we do not. And anyway, God doesn't dictate what morality man follows, that's our choice.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I've heard people say that God's morality is The morality, but I counter that with, "Why?". Why does God get to determine what is right and what is wrong? Why is he any more entitled to dictating the Law than we? Yes, he made the universe, but as the saying goes, Might does not make Right.

The theist is left with the Euthyphro Dilemma when answering a moral question with "Because God said it's bad." Answering the additional question "Why does God think it's bad?" leads the theist down either of two roads that are both problematic.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps that which is intersubjective is what most men perceive as objective. It would seem that evolution of social species builds into individuals the perception of objectivity and duty as a way of preserving the species.

This evolved sense of objectivity (which is really intersubjectivity) is why theologians perceive that the "law of God" is written on our "hearts."

I´m not sure this last part is always correct - seeing that theologians and religious doctrines often do not present those moral stances as "objective" that are shared by the majority, but - au contraire - use the claim that they are objective to give more weight to their exotic moral ideas. ("Us believers" as opposed to the "the world", e.g.).

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Can anyone explain to me what 'intersubjectivity' is? I've never seen it before this thread :s

Subjective morality that the majority of people agree on. Just because most people believe harming children is immoral, it doesn't make it objectively immoral.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is good because it meets the standard of the One Who is Good.

Fair enough.

It would mean that drinking water is immoral. Absolute Truth, whci is what Jesus is, DOES NOT CHANGE.

Fair enough.

And it is this Truth upon which true morality is measured.

Perhaps, but how does one determine what measure to hold things up to? It's all very well and good saying that we should use Jesus as our standard, but how do we know what Jesus would do?

 

[Zaac]

I've heard people say that God's morality is The morality, but I counter that with, "Why?".

If you are not a believer in God, you are not expected to understand WHY. No one can explain that to you. It is a work of the Holy Spirit. In order to accept God's way as the Way, you have to accept Him as Lord and Savior. Otherwise, your morality and the morality of everyone who does not accept Him as Lord and Savior, will always be subject to what each person wants to be his own moral code.

Why does God get to determine what is right and what is wrong

?

Because He is God. This is only gonna be a valid reason for those who believe in God as Lord and Savior. Everyone else will ALWAYS present a reason or excuse for why His Way should not be THE WAY.

Why is he any more entitled to dictating the Law than we? Yes, he made the universe, but as the saying goes, Might does not make Right.

And this goes right back to the other thread where it was said that it's silly to expect nonChristians to gauge what is Christlike.

Likewise, it is a work of futility to try to convince nonbelievers as to why GOD gets the FIRST and FINAL say.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Subjective morality that the majority of people agree on. Just because most people believe harming children is immoral, it doesn't make it objectively immoral.

Ah, gotcha .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

?

Because He is God. This is only gonna be a valid reason for those who believe in God as Lord and Savior. Everyone else will ALWAYS present a reason or excuse for why His Way should not be THE WAY.

Not necessarily. Most non-believers I've talked to accept that, if God exists, then his morality is The Morality™.

And this goes right back to the other thread where it was said that it's silly to expect nonChristians to gauge what is Christlike.

Likewise, it is a work of futility to try to convince nonbelievers as to why GOD gets the FIRST and FINAL say.

If there is a reason, why not just state it, here and now? Logic and reason is universal, it doesn't change from person to person, regardless of their religious beliefs. I may not agree with your conclusion, but I could nonetheless understand how you got there.

 

[quatona]

Likewise, it is a work of futility to try to convince nonbelievers as to why GOD gets the FIRST and FINAL say.

I have no problem understanding that - if there were a god - god would have the first and final say. I just don´t think that having the first and final say - while surely being a token of immense power - makes an entity objective.

 

[Blackmarch]

Can anyone explain to me what 'intersubjectivity' is? I've never seen it before this thread :s

First time I've seen the word used in relation to morality..... Tryin to remember if I've seen the word used with anything else.....




lol.