Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don’t think morality can be objective because morality is the distinction between right/wrong, good/bad and I don’t believe there is an objective definition of good/bad, right/wrong, they are all subjective.
Ok, so as long time member but an infrequent poster, I want to write a little preface before this post. I don't consider myself Christian though I grew up in a culture steeped in the Christian tradition and its values. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, but I take issue with a few things that Christians sometimes advocate for. I respect a person's right to choose their faith or lack of except when that faith meets in the "public square" and those without faith (or of a different faith) are asked to make special considerations based on one particular faith alone.
This topic is about morality which hits home for most Christians. it's hard to have this discussion without inadvertently questioning the foundation of Christain faith and belief, at least for most people who identify as Christian. It isn't my goal to invalidate Christianity, though morality is so intertwined in Christian faith and for some, one of the main reasons for believing in god in the first place. Thus, this will be a sensitive topic and I'll do my best not to insult those of the Christin faith, but if you are a Christian who is easily offended, may I suggest you look at other topics.
Respectfully,
E4E1
It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.
Let me try with an analogy.
How tall are you?
Now, are you objectively that tall?
Assuming that you give your answer in a formally recognized measurement like the Imperial or Metric system (just to name 2), the answer is YES! After all, if when you stand beside a ruler that is graduated like every other ruler and you measure 6' tall, you are objectively 6' tall relative to the system of measurement.
But are these systems themselves objective? Of course not. The lines on a ruler aren't an objective standard that exists independently of us. We created it, subjectively. Further, the distances we chose to represent inches, feet, yards, and mile weren't chosen at random or arbitrarily, they were chosen to achieve real-world goals (making the point that subjectively does not mean random or arbitrary).
The point being is that it is possible for objectivity to exist within a subjective framework.
A foot is objectively a foot. If a being on the other side of the universe refers to a foot as something other than the distance we all recognize, then objectively the being is not talking about the imperial system of measurement.
I hope that makes sense. I also think this is where a lot of confusion comes from. We all know good from bad and the idea that we need to instructed what is good and bad, to me is silly.
Take the proposition, vanilla ice cream is is better than chocolate. One would struggle to find a statement more subjective than that!
But if I said, eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of broken glass. If I said Vanilla is better, is that just my opinion?
Well, that depends, if we agree that most people value their lives, within the context of that value, it is objectively true that eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of glass. I don't need to be told to know that it's true.
And so....
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.
So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.
For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.
For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.
Now, it’s possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective.
So how do we determine what is right?
First, let me say that morality is not an individual pursuit. That is, people can have ideas about what they think morality should be, but there is no such thing as "individual morality". Just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Let's use a sports analogy here. In the game of Soccer, it is considered wrong for anyone but the goalie to use their hands. What if one person picked up the ball and carried it to the other end ignoring all the rules and then proclaimed that he had his own interpretation of the rules?
What do you think would happen to that player?
Similarly, if a ran a store and you came in and asked for a 10lb roast and I handed you a 1lb roast and charged you the 10lb price, you'd rightly be pretty upset. If I said my "personal standard of measurement" was different than the commonly accepted standard, what do you think might happen?
Lastly, what would you say to a person who commits a heinous crime and then simply proclaims that their standard of right and wrong is their own and therefore you can't judge them, what do we do with these kinds of people?
So what we're left with is a framework that looks like this:
Values--->Morality--->Ethics.
Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is a social construct where people come together and share their ideas about what is right and wrong based on the values they hold.
If we have been wrong about morality in the past, and of course we have, it's because we lacked information and understanding. The things we believed were wrong and that in turn lead to ideas and beliefs that resulted in values that did not live up to the standards we create for ourselves.
For example, the Constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal", but that's not how it worked in practice is it? Why? Because our beliefs and understanding lead to ideas that weren't consistent with our values.
There is more and I suspect that some of you will point out what you see to be flaws in my thinking and I look forward to filling in the gaps in my responses to any challenges I get.
-Cheers
Right, agreed, morality is subjective. Why? Well, I've been trying to explain most of this thread, that morality is a reflection of our values. Only subjects consciously value.
So everything that subjects do is subjective?
Or things that only subjects do are subjective?
So, you are suggesting that morality is technically subjective, but within the sphere of itself objective? Sounds reflexive (which usually implies something is missing).
If we say morality is subjective, I would argue it cannot be objective. Indeed, morality is, then, a system or ideology shared among a civilization in order to perpetuate life and order.
Where did I say or imply that?
Well, I've been trying to explain most of this thread, that morality is a reflection of our values. Only subjects consciously value.
I agreed that morality is subjective. I then said that morality is a reflection of subjective conscious values, which are also subjective.
With that said, are you saying that you don't see that once we agree that there are certain values we share, like, for instance, valuing freedom from harm, are you said that there aren't actions and behaviors that, objectively, move us closer to or farther from that value?
What is missing?
It is subjective, but once a group of people agrees to share values and the morality that arises from those values, there are objectively right and wrong ways to act with respect to those values.
In the game of soccer it is a violation of the rules to touch the ball with your hand.
Are the rules of soccer subjective or objective?
And
Is it objectively wrong, playing in a game of soccer by the rules, to touch the ball with your hands (assuming you aren't the goalie)?
My answers in order
The rules of soccer are subjective.
If you are playing soccer by the rules it is objectively wrong to touch the ball with your hands.
That's not my opinion, it is correct, by definition.
Now perhaps people are getting tripped up by Kant's idea of synthetic and analytic propositions.
These are synthetic propositions, they are correct as defined.
We don't need to agree on a value, people disagree on what should be valued all the time.I would simply say that morals are meaningless without some relationship to something you value (or wish to avoid). orals are a way to achieve some shared value. So I can't really answer your question until we have a conversation about values. If we agree that theft is bad, then a moral statement might be stealing is wrong.
This isn't an objection to what I've said. Everything everyone does is motivated by a value in something. Every time you ponder whether "I should do X or I should do Y" you are weighing values. Now earlier, I used the analogy of a soccer player, specifically the goalie, and said that the goalie shouldn't go running down the field away from the goal even though it is permissible in the rules (a moral statement). You said that wasn't a moral decision, but it is. If he values winning, playing well, being a good teammate etc, then he should play using the proven strategies that a goalie should follow.Can you think of a moral statement that isn't grounded in a value? If you can, I'm probably going to question whether it's really a moral statement.
That said, let me concede that morality can be defined exactly the way you say, and indeed many people think of it that way.
Being moral alone means the same thing as being moral in the context of others, promoting values. You value your own life and comfort, so punching yourself is bad and breathing is good.But, I'd simply assert what I've already said, what does it mean to be moral outside the context of others?
I mean, going to the extreme if you were all alone in the universe, what would it mean to be moral? I mean, you might still have ideas about what is good and bad like "punching myself in the face is bad" and "breathing is good", but I fail to see how these statements don't simply resolve down to the brutally obvious and really just mean "good" and "bad".
No, this thread is a non-believer trying to make an argument that if we just agree to one subjective thing then we can build an objective morality on it.Just checking in.
Are people still trying to claim that utterly non-demonstrable moral rules revealed from a totally non-demonstrable other-realm should be called "objective"?
That's what you think 100 people would say? Seems I was giving you a little too much credit?
Thanks. Whats the one subjective thing?No, this thread is a non-believer trying to make an argument that if we just agree to one subjective thing then we can build an objective morality on it.
What if there is a game where it is proper to break the rules, or even have a gray area - like Monopoly?
In other words, our "consensus" doesn't make something objectively moral in my opinion - it categorically cannot.
Let's say 100 people call it a unicorn...or at least a pic of one.
No, this thread is a non-believer trying to make an argument that if we just agree to one subjective thing then we can build an objective morality on it.
Thats a pretty good picture of a unicorn. Except the tail is too long, obviously.If I asked 100 people what this is, what do you think most if not all of them might say??
View attachment 280471
Try to flesh out your argument and see if you can avoid those premises. Here is what you said:
There are two syllogisms at play. The first is valid and likely sound:
A1. All disciplines which are a reflection of subjective realities are subjective disciplines.
A2. Morality is a reflection of the subjective reality of values.
A3. Therefore morality is a subjective discipline.
The second syllogism must conclude with the proposition that values really are a subjective reality in order to support A2. I see two basic options:
B1. Everything that subjects do is subjective.
B2. Subjects value.
B3. Therefore values are subjective.
The other option, using the alternative categorical premise from my previous post:
C1. Everything that only subjects do is subjective.
C2. Only subjects value.
C3. Therefore values are subjective.
Is there an alternative set of syllogisms that support your claim in #41? Feel free to give them. The most obvious problem is that B1 and C1 are false. A secondary problem that I have already pointed out is that B2-B3 and C2-C3 equivocate between the verb and noun form of 'value.'
Try to use actual syllogisms to support your claims. I will try to get to your longer reply to me in time.
"Survival is good" really is more an objective than subjective matter. I mean, we dont have to agree on it. Instead its built into us as an objective fact of biology.You misunderstand. ALL MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.
I'm just pointing out that once goals have been established, let's say, for instance, we agree that survival is good.
I dont understand that. Empathy is an ability, not a moral rule. We can value empathy though, like we value intelligence or good eyesight or any other ability.My question is what would be the highest morality could anyone achieve while here on this earth?
There have been two people who answered my questions and they both have said empathy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?