Objective and Subjective Moral values

[allhart]

I have recently come across a study on subjective and objective moral values. This explains a whole lot in our discussions on these forums for me. In how I view peoples approach to conversation. I see that 95% of the popular post is on subjective morals values and not on objective morals. What do you say? or think about the definitions and the indications of one's that give advise on subjective morals?

 

[cantata]

What precisely do you mean by "subjective" and "objective" moral values?

 

[tcampen]

All morals are subjective, ultimately, so the question is somewhat moot. I say this on several points. First, morals are totally dependent on the mind in evaluating whether certain actions and intentions are right or wrong. (Some are neither and are just amoral.) Morality is an abstract concept of the mind, and does not exist independent of it. That is not to say morals do not exist. Morality is profound and important, just as beauty, love, and empathy exist. But none of these are "things" in and of themselves. Thus, the do not have an objective status.

Second, simply pointing to the willed morals of God does not make such objective in any sense for several reasons. For example, look at all the christians who point to the exact same bible as the moral justification for supporting or opposing the death penalty. Who is right? At least one side must necessarily be using their own subjective notions of morality and imputing onto the bible, but who? Add to this the multitude of other issues in controversy, from war to abortion, and this becomes all the more evident. Furthermore, the act of choosing what version God to believe in necessarily invokes one's subjective determinations. And even if you were able to strip all this away and get to God's actual morals, those morals are subjective to God, and you are just adoptiing someone else's subjectivity.

Thus, from a practical and philosophical perspective, morals are ultimately subjective. Now, that is not to say we cannot find good reasons for establishing certain codes of moral conduct. The prohibitions on murder, theft and violence against others all have many rational reasons behind them. The virtues of love, forgiveness and telling the truth are self evident. The success of societies is often directly related to their collective, institutional morals. But this only recognizes commonality of thought by convention and does not elevate the morals themselves to objective status, even though the effects of different morals can be evaluted by their objective consequences.

I mean, let's be honest, if you suddenly discovered there were no god, would you run out and kill, rape, steal and lie as much as possible? Of course not. The fact that non-christians are just as moral as christians by any measurement is powerful evidence that abiding by a particular religious principle is not the only true source of morality. Otherwise, those who have no idea of Jesus could not be moral. But they are. And the idea that God imputes a sense of morality in all people, known as a concience, to get around this quandry is absurd. If this were the case, sociopaths would not logically exist.

So when people give advice on morals, it is always subjective, ultimately.

 

[allhart]

What precisely do you mean by "subjective" and "objective" moral values?

Subjective morals
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. 6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essentia

As to or compared to objective morals

something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive. 2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles. b. a word in that case. 3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera. –adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions. 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. 7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ). 8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality

What precisely do you mean by "subjective" and "objective" moral values?

<br /> <br />

 

[cantata]

I think the important thing to note is that most human beings have shared goals. We all want to be happy and safe and we want the same things for our loved ones.

We are therefore in a position to talk about how to achieve these goals. It is these latter discussions which usually get termed "ethical" or "moral" discussions. But actually they are often discussions about the most efficient or prudent way to achieve our common goals. Or, if you are more cynical, they are discussions in which we each try to further our own happiness at the expense of others', under the guise of appearing diplomatic and magnanimous.

 

[cantata]

Subjective morals
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. 6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essentia

As to or compared to objective morals

something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive. 2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles. b. a word in that case. 3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera. –adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions. 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. 7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ). 8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality
<br /> <br />

Clearly by "objective morals" you don't mean "the morals of a lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera".

Therefore, could you please choose which parts of the definitions above you wish us to refer to?

 

[truthshift]

All morals are subjective, ultimately, so the question is somewhat moot. I say this on several points. First, morals are totally dependent on the mind in evaluating whether certain actions and intentions are right or wrong. (Some are neither and are just amoral.) Morality is an abstract concept of the mind, and does not exist independent of it. That is not to say morals do not exist. Morality is profound and important, just as beauty, love, and empathy exist. But none of these are "things" in and of themselves. Thus, the do not have an objective status.

Second, simply pointing to the willed morals of God does not make such objective in any sense for several reasons. For example, look at all the christians who point to the exact same bible as the moral justification for supporting or opposing the death penalty. Who is right? At least one side must necessarily be using their own subjective notions of morality and imputing onto the bible, but who? Add to this the multitude of other issues in controversy, from war to abortion, and this becomes all the more evident. Furthermore, the act of choosing what version God to believe in necessarily invokes one's subjective determinations. And even if you were able to strip all this away and get to God's actual morals, those morals are subjective to God, and you are just adoptiing someone else's subjectivity.

Thus, from a practical and philosophical perspective, morals are ultimately subjective. Now, that is not to say we cannot find good reasons for establishing certain codes of moral conduct. The prohibitions on murder, theft and violence against others all have many rational reasons behind them. The virtues of love, forgiveness and telling the truth are self evident. The success of societies is often directly related to their collective, institutional morals. But this only recognizes commonality of thought by convention and does not elevate the morals themselves to objective status, even though the effects of different morals can be evaluted by their objective consequences.

I mean, let's be honest, if you suddenly discovered there were no god, would you run out and kill, rape, steal and lie as much as possible? Of course not. The fact that non-christians are just as moral as christians by any measurement is powerful evidence that abiding by a particular religious principle is not the only true source of morality. Otherwise, those who have no idea of Jesus could not be moral. But they are. And the idea that God imputes a sense of morality in all people, known as a concience, to get around this quandry is absurd. If this were the case, sociopaths would not logically exist.

So when people give advice on morals, it is always subjective, ultimately.

I could not have said it better myself. I just want to add that there are no objective morals because there can be no objectivity without omniscience. So long as there is a limited perspective that is not inclusive of every perspective, no knowledge or understanding can be objective.

Note: I think omniscience is a bad word to use because I think we are capable of having complete understanding and knowledge of a particular subject and can be objective when dealing with said subject. However, I think that's impossible to do with emotions and morals because that is all arbitrary.
------------
I've heard some argue that there is not even any objectivity outside of mathematical equations. I disagree with that because I believe it is possible to be academically objective in regards to scientific experiments and studies.

 

[allhart]

All morals are subjective, ultimately, so the question is somewhat moot. I say this on several points. First, morals are totally dependent on the mind in evaluating whether certain actions and intentions are right or wrong. (Some are neither and are just amoral.) Morality is an abstract concept of the mind, and does not exist independent of it. That is not to say morals do not exist. Morality is profound and important, just as beauty, love, and empathy exist. But none of these are "things" in and of themselves. Thus, the do not have an objective status.

Second, simply pointing to the willed morals of God does not make such objective in any sense for several reasons. For example, look at all the christians who point to the exact same bible as the moral justification for supporting or opposing the death penalty. Who is right? At least one side must necessarily be using their own subjective notions of morality and imputing onto the bible, but who? Add to this the multitude of other issues in controversy, from war to abortion, and this becomes all the more evident. Furthermore, the act of choosing what version God to believe in necessarily invokes one's subjective determinations. And even if you were able to strip all this away and get to God's actual morals, those morals are subjective to God, and you are just adoptiing someone else's subjectivity.

Thus, from a practical and philosophical perspective, morals are ultimately subjective. Now, that is not to say we cannot find good reasons for establishing certain codes of moral conduct. The prohibitions on murder, theft and violence against others all have many rational reasons behind them. The virtues of love, forgiveness and telling the truth are self evident. The success of societies is often directly related to their collective, institutional morals. But this only recognizes commonality of thought by convention and does not elevate the morals themselves to objective status, even though the effects of different morals can be evaluted by their objective consequences.

I mean, let's be honest, if you suddenly discovered there were no god, would you run out and kill, rape, steal and lie as much as possible? Of course not. The fact that non-christians are just as moral as christians by any measurement is powerful evidence that abiding by a particular religious principle is not the only true source of morality. Otherwise, those who have no idea of Jesus could not be moral. But they are. And the idea that God imputes a sense of morality in all people, known as a concience, to get around this quandry is absurd. If this were the case, sociopaths would not logically exist.

So when people give advice on morals, it is always subjective, ultimately.

Well if there is no God life would be vain and I would be unduly egocentric. Society can't revolve around complete subjective morals for people are self centered some more than others and the Question would be what is Evil? You can see it in corporate America ,Judge Judy, Jerry Springer and Government Ect. We can't live in community under those pretenses. We have to live in Objective morals for harmony and equality.

 

[cantata]

there are no objective morals because there can be no objectivity without omniscience.

That's nonsense.

The fact that we can't know something doesn't mean that there isn't an objective fact of the matter.

What I think you mean (just in the context of this remark, disregarding other arguments against their existence) is that there could be objective moral values, but we have no way of knowing for sure what they are.

 

[tcampen]

Well if there is no God life would be vain and I would be unduly egocentric. Society can't revolve around complete subjective morals for people are self centered some more than others. You can see it in corporate America ,Judge Judy, Jerry Springer and Government Ect. We can't live in community under those pretenses. We have to live in Objective morals for harmony and equality.

I've already established that by the very nature of what morality is, it cannot be objective, so your point is moot. Furthermore, by your analysis, non-Christian societies could not have morality, yet they do. And even if you could get around the condratictory concpets of "objective" and "morality" and establish such a thing could logically exist, the examples you gave show that it still doesn't in reality.

I think you are confusing "objective" with "authoritative". It may well be that we must follow God's determination of morality in order to achieve harmony and quality, but even accepting such a God's authority does not give that morality objective status.

All you've argued is we need objective morals to have a desirable community. But you have failed to make any case whatsoever that objective morality can exist logically or does exist in actuality. Just because you want a certain reality does not in any sense provide evidence or argument for it being so.

 

[allhart]

That's nonsense.

The fact that we can't know something doesn't mean that there isn't an objective fact of the matter.

What I think you mean (just in the context of this remark, disregarding other arguments against their existence) is that there could be objective moral values, but we have no way of knowing for sure what they are.

The common good of the people is a start!! Ask the question in a objective and unbiased pretense of community as a whole not as an individual,also what is evil is a good question?

 

[truthshift]

That's nonsense.

The fact that we can't know something doesn't mean that there isn't an objective fact of the matter.

What I think you mean (just in the context of this remark, disregarding other arguments against their existence) is that there could be objective moral values, but we have no way of knowing for sure what they are.

How so? If we can't know everything about something, we can't know the standard by which it is measured. All that we have to communicate to others about our emotions and morality is a crude system of symbols that we call language. What we understand of these things is not the other persons understanding, but our own understanding. Yes, people often come to agreement on what these things are, but the fact remains that we only understand what we have experienced with the subject.

We can safely say that, if there is no omniscient creator then there are no objective morals. What we understand of morals comes from what we have created as individuals with individual perspectives. It is all arbitrary. The point is strengthened even more so if there were extraterrestrials that exhibited a sense of morality (no matter what it is) or if animals display any sense of morality such as cases of hypos saving impalas from a crocodile attack. We can't say for sure that such an act by the hypo is an act of morality, but it exhibits a moral value that we as humans hold dear. We recognize it, but we do not know for sure.

So, I can safely say that there is no objective morality because there is also no absolute truth. In respect to common and practical knowledge, there is no objective morality. You are right though, we can't know for sure if there is or not.

 

[allhart]

I've already established that by the very nature of what morality is, it cannot be objective, so your point is moot. Furthermore, by your analysis, non-Christian societies could not have morality, yet they do. And even if you could get around the condratictory concpets of "objective" and "morality" and establish such a thing could logically exist, the examples you gave show that it still doesn't in reality.

I think you are confusing "objective" with "authoritative". It may well be that we must follow God's determination of morality in order to achieve harmony and quality, but even accepting such a God's authority does not give that morality objective status.

All you've argued is we need objective morals to have a desirable community. But you have failed to make any case whatsoever that objective morality can exist logically or does exist in actuality. Just because you want a certain reality does not in any sense provide evidence or argument for it being so.

I didn't say people can't learn or be moral,but that isn't to say one's subjective morals values wouldn't conflict with say Communists. In none free society or community. Like freedom of speech or religion Ect. There is clearly difference to morals. Just like in ones advise on abortion. Depending on your presupposition to your moral stand in subjective morals. The advise you would give would be of the subjective mood or attitude in your opinion and would sway your morals for it or against it. For is surly doesn't reflect the good of the people in objective morals or are we going to be like China and say that abortions are mandatory for more than one,also they have to even ask to get pregnant.

 

[cantata]

So, I can safely say that there is no objective morality because there is also no absolute truth.

Of course there's absolute truth!

How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died? I don't know. You don't know. In fact, there's no way anyone can know. Does that mean that there's no fact of the matter regarding the number of hairs on his head when he died? Of course not. There is one and only one correct answer to the question "How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died?" and the answer is "out there", so to speak, even though we can never know what it is.

In respect to common and practical knowledge, there is no objective morality.

I agree that we don't have access to an objective morality, but...

You are right though, we can't know for sure if there is or not.

Yes, exactly. Maybe there are absolute moral values knitted into the fabric of the universe. The fact that we can't know whether there are is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the statement that there are objective moral values.

(This is not to suggest that I believe that there are objective moral values. I think there are other philosophical difficulties with the existence of such entities which have nothing to do with our epistemological discussion above.)

 

[truthshift]

Of course there's absolute truth!

Blah, you've caught me. I'm aware that absolute truth exists in numbers and factual information but, because we cannot measure morals or emotions, there is no absolute truth. The exclusion of an omniscient being necessitates moral relativism because there is no standard and no one with knowledge of a standard.

 

[allhart]

Of course there's absolute truth!

How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died? I don't know. You don't know. In fact, there's no way anyone can know. Does that mean that there's no fact of the matter regarding the number of hairs on his head when he died? Of course not. There is one and only one correct answer to the question "How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died?" and the answer is "out there", so to speak, even though we can never know what it is.



I agree that we don't have access to an objective morality, but...



Yes, exactly. Maybe there are absolute moral values knitted into the fabric of the universe. The fact that we can't know whether there are is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the statement that there are objective moral values.

(This is not to suggest that I believe that there are objective moral values. I think there are other philosophical difficulties with the existence of such entities which have nothing to do with our epistemological discussion above.)

We can attain more of objective moral value in putting others in love above our subjective morals. This means looking at your self with sober judgment and having humility. For the common good of the people. These are the things of God. In like working, Yes, I work for substance; however, I work as an electrician for the good of those that live in my community as well. Your motives and attitudes make the the difference in what is evils . Just in like in manifesting love with your spouse you have sex in which come children, in return comes family ;therefore, produce community's. It can be good and righteous things,but in subjective morals it can and will be turned to evil desires in a determination to do ill will and is self serving. Subjective morals are in placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes and opinions.

 

[Veyrlian]

Of course there's absolute truth!

How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died? I don't know. You don't know. In fact, there's no way anyone can know. Does that mean that there's no fact of the matter regarding the number of hairs on his head when he died? Of course not. There is one and only one correct answer to the question "How many hairs were there on Isaac Newton's head when he died?" and the answer is "out there", so to speak, even though we can never know what it is.

I think the number of hairs on Isaac Newtons head would be an absolute fact, not a truth. A truth is something that people ascribe value to: facts are there to be observed but truths are believed in. This is mainly just semantics, but I rarely see people proclaiming truths about everyday occurrences like rain, number of peanuts in a bowl or the time of day. These are facts, which of course could be disputed unfruitfully. Truths however, are always somehow ideologically colored. Truth is a loaded word, and it can be claimed (and observed) that most people have an individual truth, which somehow, many times is strangely not in accordance with other people's truths. Also, Truth is vague metaterm that many people use when referring to something that cannot yet be known, or maybe never, but is somehow still believed to be 'out there'. There is nothing absolute about truth, except maybe that it is paradoxically unabsolute.

I agree that we don't have access to an objective morality, but...


Yes, exactly. Maybe there are absolute moral values knitted into the fabric of the universe. The fact that we can't know whether there are is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the statement that there are objective moral values.

(This is not to suggest that I believe that there are objective moral values. I think there are other philosophical difficulties with the existence of such entities which have nothing to do with our epistemological discussion above.)

Mainly I agree, except on your use of the word truth. Which is always subjective in my opinion.

 

[Beanieboy]

Well if there is no God life would be vain and I would be unduly egocentric. Society can't revolve around complete subjective morals for people are self centered some more than others and the Question would be what is Evil? You can see it in corporate America ,Judge Judy, Jerry Springer and Government Ect. We can't live in community under those pretenses. We have to live in Objective morals for harmony and equality.

If the only reason that you aren't egocentric is because there is a God, I question if you aren't already. You have the desire, apparently, and if you have the desire, how do you know you aren't? If you only love your neighbor because God tells you to, are you really loving your neighbor, or just going through the motions, appearing to love your neighbor?

 

[allhart]

I think the number of hairs on Isaac Newtons head would be an absolute fact, not a truth. A truth is something that people ascribe value to: facts are there to be observed but truths are believed in. This is mainly just semantics, but I rarely see people proclaiming truths about everyday occurrences like rain, number of peanuts in a bowl or the time of day. These are facts, which of course could be disputed unfruitfully. Truths however, are always somehow ideologically colored. Truth is a loaded word, and it can be claimed (and observed) that most people have an individual truth, which somehow, many times is strangely not in accordance with other people's truths. Also, Truth is vague metaterm that many people use when referring to something that cannot yet be known, or maybe never, but is somehow still believed to be 'out there'. There is nothing absolute about truth, except maybe that it is paradoxically unabsolute.




Mainly I agree, except on your use of the word truth. Which is always subjective in my opinion.

There is absolute truth in like its cold and hot, but you can have a subjective view of how cold it is in your opinion.
It is always true to be cold in Antarctica if I am there or in Mojave desert. That's absolute truth. Just like you can't breath in outer space. I believe you can know absolute truth

 

[allhart]

If the only reason that you aren't egocentric is because there is a God, I question if you aren't already. You have the desire, apparently, and if you have the desire, how do you know you aren't? If you only love your neighbor because God tells you to, are you really loving your neighbor, or just going through the motions, appearing to love your neighbor?

I come to see my self as evil. I love on my neighbors. That doesn't mean I don't see myself with sober judgment. Your responce is In like, Church family asking me what issues I have? I tell them i have issues with everything, maybe the issue they have today will be mine tomorrow. Vise verse a. ,but that doesn't mean I ain't worth anything. lol I have stated this before beanieboy. In the spectrum of right and wrong in which people like to live in the middle. they haven't perfected any virtue in how morality is lived in God's domain. In which is the question where do we live in life after death( Heaven or Hell ) Most tend to chose poorly for they aren't living under God's graces or do they strive to and there lays their problem. They chose to finish the race for themselves and not for God. This is at a great cost for some, but God in giving them the choice said count the cost in which means to follow me. It isn't easy for anyone ,so do we pick up our cross or lay it down? That is for you to deside.