Is morality Objective?

[AimlessEMF]

Is morality Objective?
Is there a standard for right and wrong?

Or is it Subjective?
Do we determine our own rights and wrongs for ourselves?

 

[Spinrad]

It's subjective based on social and biological forces.

 

[Spyr]

Morality is necessarily subjective since it depends on the person, society and culture of the person. Morality attempts to answer if something is right or wrong in a given situation but obviously the answer might be different in various places.

The problem with objective morality is that there is no real way to prove that a code of ethics is necessarily the standard. What I mean to say is that an objective morality can only exist if we had proof that the source of this morality was outside any being. So if there is an objective morality it cannot be known so in my opinion it doesn't matter.

 

[Allister]

man can never be objective when his own interests are involved

 

[Zaac]

Is morality Objective?
Is there a standard for right and wrong?

Yep. The Word that is Jesus Christ. Outside of Him there are no morals, just people's opinions.

Or is it Subjective?
Do we determine our own rights and wrongs for ourselves?

Nope, though lots will disagree. Thing is even though they disagree, it is God's Word by which ALL will still be judged.

 

[MuAndNu]

I'll admit I don't quite get these objective vs subjective morality debates. If by "objective" "absolute" is meant, I think it's a misuse of terms. By my thinking, a moral standard can be "objective" by virtue of the fact that it's held by the overwhelming preponderance of the race. (Perhaps, for no more profound reason that we're all so much alike.) That wouldn't require it to derive from something trancendentally absolute.

 

[mepalmer3]

I'll admit I don't quite get these objective vs subjective morality debates. If by "objective" "absolute" is meant, I think it's a misuse of terms. By my thinking, a moral standard can be "objective" by virtue of the fact that it's held by the overwhelming preponderance of the race. (Perhaps, for no more profound reason that we're all so much alike.) That wouldn't require it to derive from something trancendentally absolute.

It is a little difficult to discuss it without some definitions.

Basically...

Objective morality means that there is an absolute morality. It means that some acts are truly wrong and some acts are truly right. An example of something we believe is objectively right and wrong is mathematics. 1+1=2. It's an absolute rule.

The alternative is subjective morality. Subjective morality is not absolute. So there is no objective standard to compare to acts to see which one is "better" or "worse". In fact better or worse, right and wrong are simply meaningless in any objective sense.

The point many philosophers have pointed out is that if morality is "made-up", then it is arbitrary. It's foolish if I say I think fishing is wrong, therefore it truly is wrong for everyone.

As far as "the majority makes up morality"... it still is a made-up morality, which means it is arbitrary. But even pretending like my personal opinion could really be absolute moral law, then it would mean that if a majority thinks slavery is right, then slavery is right.

 

[:æ:]

Objective morality means that there is an absolute morality.

Violently disgree. "Objective" <> "Absolute." I, for one, subjectively hold many absolute moral beliefs in counterexample to your claim.

The dichotomy between "objective" and "subjective" categorizes beliefs about morality's ontology, whereas the dichotomy between "absolute" and "relative" categorizes the scope of a given moral statement. For example, I believe that it is always wrong to toture a person solely for fun, no matter who you are. Since the moral statement allows no exceptions, it is absolute, but that doesn't affect the fact that it is something I believe subjectively.

<snip>

The point many philosophers have pointed out is that if morality is "made-up", then it is arbitrary.

Disagree again. Morality is based on personal values, which are necessarily subjective. Personal values are not "arbitrary" however, nor are they "made up," as you say, unless you are willing to describe your love for your friends and family (personal values) as "made up" and "arbitrary."

<snip>

:æ:

 

[HouseApe]

Yep. The Word that is Jesus Christ. Outside of Him there are no morals, just people's opinions.

In your personal, subjective opinion.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Morality is necessarily subjective since it depends on the person, society and culture of the person. Morality attempts to answer if something is right or wrong in a given situation but obviously the answer might be different in various places.

None of this necessarily suggests subjectivity. I might say air in one situation, and error in another and heir in yet another. The sound, of course, is the same in all cases. But the meaning depends on the context of the situation. That doesn't meant that the meaning of words is entirely up to the people who use them or the people who hear them.

You are equivocating situational ethics with subjective ethics, but it is fairly easy to have an objective system of ethics that is also situational.

The problem with objective morality is that there is no real way to prove that a code of ethics is necessarily the standard. What I mean to say is that an objective morality can only exist if we had proof that the source of this morality was outside any being. So if there is an objective morality it cannot be known so in my opinion it doesn't matter.

Ethics can proceed somewhat like mathematics in that with certain definitions of what a "moral" action consists, it is possible to logically say some things about what would be moral and what wouldn't be moral. But the term "moral" is really poorly defined, many people use it thinking they are speaking of the same thing, when in fact they are not. This is why it is better to examine whether each system of morality makes sense, and whether what it holds as moral is in fact valuble, rather than just looking at the word moral and trying to figure out what fits it.

 

[mepalmer3]

Violently disgree. "Objective" <> "Absolute." I, for one, subjectively hold many absolute moral beliefs in counterexample to your claim.

The dichotomy between "objective" and "subjective" categorizes beliefs about morality's ontology, whereas the dichotomy between "absolute" and "relative" categorizes the scope of a given moral statement. For example, I believe that it is always wrong to toture a person solely for fun, no matter who you are. Since the moral statement allows no exceptions, it is absolute, but that doesn't affect the fact that it is something I believe subjectively.

Whoa there! no reason to get violent!

We could get into a semantics game here. Most discussions I have with people and most arguments I come across break up morality like this:

Morality is either objective or subjective... meaning that either morality exists in the same way mathematics does, or it is subjective and exists as people's personal preferences.

Objective morality is further broken down into 2 types:

Categorical imperatives (see Kant) - This says that act X is always right or always wrong under every situation (special circumstances don't change this). An example is killing is always wrong. So someone who holds to a categorical imperative will say that even in self-defense, killing is truly morally wrong.

um... I'm not sure what this branch of objective morality would be called. But it simply says that there are special circumstances that allow something which would otherwise normally be wrong. Back to killing... killing is morally the right thing to do in certain circumstances, whereas generally it is wrong in almost all other circumstances.

Disagree again. Morality is based on personal values, which are necessarily subjective. Personal values are not "arbitrary" however, nor are they "made up," as you say, unless you are willing to describe your love for your friends and family (personal values) as "made up" and "arbitrary."

Arbitrary in the sense that nobody's personal opinion is considered to be "right" for everyone else. Nor is there any objective standard to compare someone's personal opinion against someone elses. So if I like grape juice and think everyone should drink grape juice, then under subjective/relative morality, I will base my morality on my personal preference for grape juice. Further, I could just as easily change my mind and decide orange juice is the "new juice" and now I want to support laws making orange juice the only legal morning beverage. This is based upon my personal "values"/opinions/preferences, but it is arbitrary in the sense that it could change at any moment. "The idea that drinking grape juice is morally right" is arbitrary in this sense.

 

[Socrastein]

In fact better or worse, right and wrong are simply meaningless in any objective sense.

Of course it is. Just as big, small, hot, cold, smart, stupid, light, dark, fast, slow, and any other myriad of spectrums are all "meaningless in any objective sense". They all glean meaning from relations. We can't look at any object and objectively determine if it's big or small, for we would get a thousand different interpretations from a thousand different perspectives. However, if you compare a mouse to an elephant and ask "Which one is big?" anyone in their right mind would say the elephant is big, compared to the mouse. Same with hot and cold, nothing is objectively hot in itself, but compare a fire to an ice cube and ask which one is hot, and the distinction becomes very clear, and very objective within the relational context.

It is no different with morality. When we ask whether something is right or wrong, nothing is right or wrong in itself, it is only right or wrong in a relational context. Does a specific act realize ends that we desire? This is the only litmus test for whether or not an act is right or wrong. If a society desires the safety of its citizens, murder is wrong because it does not realize this end, it is harmful to the end. However, if a society was overpopulating at a dangerous pace and was in threat of running out of resources and everyone dying, and thus they desired a drastically smaller population lest they all die, then murder would become appropriate, as a means to decreasing the population perhpas by killing everyone over a certain age. Who are we to say that is wrong? We are only people with differing desires and ends in mind, that is all.

Whenever you say that "X is wrong" or "X is right" you are really exposing those ends that you desire, and you are labeling things conducive or not to said ends. To try and tell people there are absolute morals is to try and tell people there are absolute desires, that everyone does or should desire in the same manner and same degree. This is utterly ridiculous, and thus appealing to absolute notions of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous.

All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we ‘ought’ to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire.
-Bertrand Russell

 

[mepalmer3]

Socrastien. It's been awhile since we've debated. I haven't seen you around in awhile.

We can't morally compare two acts unless we have an objective standard with which to compare. You have said that there is no objective standard. So does Bertrand Russell when he says his ideas of right and wrong are based upon his own personal feelings.

One thing can be compared relative to another, but it cannot be compared without an objective standard. So if you say yes this mouse is smaller than the elephant, I can't turn around and say no the mouse is bigger than the elephant unless there is a real objective standard of comparing sizes that exists.

So the next thing a person can do is to make a statement about the desire they want. I want everyone to be rich. Then they evaluate an act, "does this help me get closer to that desire?" And then the relativist can say "yes, this helps everyone become richer" or "no, this does not help people become richer". Either way, it would be foolish for this person to say that anyone else should follow his personal idea of "morality". He cannot say that his idea is "better" than anyone elses idea, because better necessarily appeals to a real objective standard. At the very best he can say, my idea will make people richer, and his idea will make people more famous. But we're comparing apples and oranges. There is no real sense of one code of morality being any better than any other one.

Whenever you say that "X is wrong" or "X is right" you are really exposing those ends that you desire, and you are labeling things conducive or not to said ends. To try and tell people there are absolute morals is to try and tell people there are absolute desires, that everyone does or should desire in the same manner and same degree. This is utterly ridiculous, and thus appealing to absolute notions of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous.

All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we ‘ought’ to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire.
-Bertrand Russell

Well put. From the relative perspective, objective morality MUST inherently be utterly ridiculous. The idea that rape is somehow objectively "better" than telling your kid you love him is as nonsensical a statement as saying "grape juice only should be drinken as the morning beverage instead of orange juice." It's all people's personal opinions and no opinion is more right than anothers.

And that is why I utterly reject anything less than objective morality. Through introspection I think people have a very strong understanding that some things truly are wrong. It's a drastically different thing than our subjective opinions. I don't go around telling people to drink Dr Pepper because it is right. I know very well that I prefer it, but it's my own preference. I also know I prefer soccer and basketball to other sports. But it's pure foolishness to think that my personal opinion is somehow "right" for other people. But every person I know makes a significant distinction between those sorts of personal opinions and moral opinions. Everyone appeals to an objective morality when they tell someone that what they did is wrong or right.

Without an objective morality, there is no moral difference between hitler and mother theresa as they both pursued their desires to great lengths. There is no moral difference between eating children and caring for them. Morality simply doesn't exist.

I believe that's observably false. I believe everyone observes that morality does in fact exist and that some behaviors are in fact better or worse than others. We also observe people everyday in conversation who believe that others also appeal to that objective standard when they argue with one another about what was "right" or "wrong" in that situation.

 

[MuAndNu]

As far as "the majority makes up morality"... it still is a made-up morality, which means it is arbitrary. But even pretending like my personal opinion could really be absolute moral law, then it would mean that if a majority thinks slavery is right, then slavery is right.

And for centuries, many Christians believed slavery was right. Others did not. Which side's morality was "made up"?

I think your "made up" is supposed to invoke a gut revulsion. I still don't think the wording is justified. Because of our common "design" (nothing to do with ID), similiar environments, and our common needs, we're naturally going to have much morality in common. I don't see anything "made up" in that. (Not to suggest there might not, in fact, be such a thing as "made up" morality.)

 

[SnowBear]

Is morality Objective?
Is there a standard for right and wrong?

Or is it Subjective?
Do we determine our own rights and wrongs for ourselves?

You seem to have set up a false dilemma. There is an equally plausible third path in saying that morality is contextual.

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

Of course it is. Just as big, small, hot, cold, smart, stupid, light, dark, fast, slow, and any other myriad of spectrums are all "meaningless in any objective sense". They all glean meaning from relations. We can't look at any object and objectively determine if it's big or small, for we would get a thousand different interpretations from a thousand different perspectives. However, if you compare a mouse to an elephant and ask "Which one is big?" anyone in their right mind would say the elephant is big, compared to the mouse. Same with hot and cold, nothing is objectively hot in itself, but compare a fire to an ice cube and ask which one is hot, and the distinction becomes very clear, and very objective within the relational context.

It is no different with morality. When we ask whether something is right or wrong, nothing is right or wrong in itself, it is only right or wrong in a relational context. Does a specific act realize ends that we desire? This is the only litmus test for whether or not an act is right or wrong. If a society desires the safety of its citizens, murder is wrong because it does not realize this end, it is harmful to the end. However, if a society was overpopulating at a dangerous pace and was in threat of running out of resources and everyone dying, and thus they desired a drastically smaller population lest they all die, then murder would become appropriate, as a means to decreasing the population perhpas by killing everyone over a certain age. Who are we to say that is wrong? We are only people with differing desires and ends in mind, that is all.

Whenever you say that "X is wrong" or "X is right" you are really exposing those ends that you desire, and you are labeling things conducive or not to said ends. To try and tell people there are absolute morals is to try and tell people there are absolute desires, that everyone does or should desire in the same manner and same degree. This is utterly ridiculous, and thus appealing to absolute notions of right and wrong is utterly ridiculous.

All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire. I say ends that we desire, not ends that we ought to desire. What we ‘ought’ to desire is merely what someone else wishes us to desire.
-Bertrand Russell

So, if rape is genetically advantageous to a given individual (since evolution works with individuals not groups) in a specific situation, it is not immoral for him to go out and rape? And yes, I've heard all the reasons why rape would not be evolutionary advantageous, but you know what...if it wasn't, the trait would have died out long ago.

Frankly, if I was an atheist, i would use Kant's position, for all it's imperfections. It's less absolutist than Christianity, but more absolutist than cultural relativism. Make it the new secular absolute.

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

Morality is necessarily subjective since it depends on the person, society and culture of the person. Morality attempts to answer if something is right or wrong in a given situation but obviously the answer might be different in various places.

The problem with objective morality is that there is no real way to prove that a code of ethics is necessarily the standard. What I mean to say is that an objective morality can only exist if we had proof that the source of this morality was outside any being. So if there is an objective morality it cannot be known so in my opinion it doesn't matter.

So, if I can't prove the sun exists...it has no objective reality?

 

[mepalmer3]

And for centuries, many Christians believed slavery was right. Others did not. Which side's morality was "made up"?

I think your "made up" is supposed to invoke a gut revulsion. I still don't think the wording is justified. Because of our common "design" (nothing to do with ID), similiar environments, and our common needs, we're naturally going to have much morality in common. I don't see anything "made up" in that. (Not to suggest there might not, in fact, be such a thing as "made up" morality.)

Well... under the idea that there is no objective morality, then those christians would not have been wrong in condoning slavery... and the christians who fought to free slaves would not have been right in doing so. It would just be what they did, there own personal opinion.

There is no objective tolerance for any group of people under relative morality. It's just not a "right" thing. Some people may like the idea, but it's not a morally "right" thing to do any more than intolerance is.

 

[:æ:]

Morality is either objective or subjective... meaning that either morality exists in the same way mathematics does, or it is subjective and exists as people's personal preferences.

I don't think that mathematics are really "objective" either. Mathematics is a language, and languages are mental constructs. Objects are objective. Things that exist out in the world of communal experience are properly described as "objective."

Objective morality is further broken down into 2 types:

The idea of "objective morality" is incoherent, therefore there aren't any coherent types of it. Morality is not something one can experience outside his mind in the world of tactile experience. Morals are always experienced in reaction to the external world, inside one's mind. Morality makes as little sense without a moral perceiver as pain does without someone to feel it. Things don't hurt unless someone is there to feel it, and things are not wrong unless someone is there to call it such.

Arbitrary in the sense that nobody's personal opinion is considered to be "right" for everyone else.

I think that is a highly unusual definition for arbitrary. In fact, we already have a word to represent the situation you described: subjective.

So if I like grape juice and think everyone should drink grape juice, then under subjective/relative morality, I will base my morality on my personal preference for grape juice. Further, I could just as easily change my mind and decide orange juice is the "new juice" and now I want to support laws making orange juice the only legal morning beverage.

This is precisely where your distortion occurs. You grossly over-state the fluidity with which personal values change. I'll admit that I might be easily convinced that one baseball team is better than another, but that doesn't mean I could be just as easily convinced that killing old ladies is a noble endeavor, or that I could just whimsically decide that it would be okay to rob my neighborhood bank. I doubt you could decide that dog poop is suddenly delicious as easily as you make it seem above with grape and orange juice. So it is with the values that actually make up my moral system. They're subjective, that's true, but they don't just change with the weather.

Bottom line -- I don't think my distaste for dog poop, while obviously subjective, would be described appropriately as "arbitrary," so it must not follow from the idea that morals are subjective that they are as "arbitrary" as you contend that they are.

:æ:

 

[kedaman]

Frankly, if I was an atheist, i would use Kant's position, for all it's imperfections. It's less absolutist than Christianity, but more absolutist than cultural relativism. Make it the new secular absolute.

Why is that any "less" absolutist?