Well, what do you guys think of morality? Is it objective or subjective? If morality is subjective, what does that mean for society?
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
subjective morality
- Thread starter nadroj1985
- Start date
Subjective. As a stetch--a very long stratch--God created us all in His image. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit we have the fall of man and the Devils rise. When this occured our "oneness" with God left us and we became individual thinkers, therefore, we all have different views on the worlds people and problems.
Upvote
0
But if right and wrong are truly subjective, what right does God have to tell us what to do? What right do we have to set up laws? There must be some objective morality or their is no true right and wrong.....
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight said:
I agree that at least to some extent it is objective. But in what way do you think it is objective?
Upvote
0
What right does God have to tell us what to do? He has all rights--He created us, we are His sons and daughters, he has the key to our eternity. I will lend to the fact that there is some objective morality. If someone kills someone--that is morally wrong. Perhps the 10 Commandments can account for these objectivve moralities?
Upvote
0
ncunigan85 said:
Very interesting....Murder is morally wrong and everyone seems to know this. I really think this (and other examples) mean that there is at least some sort of objective morality.
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Morals are by far subjective; they are, as Kant would say, an a posteriori concern, and are relative to societies.
Morality is very much objective, if indeed God exists, and if indeed God is love; for the end of the moral system points precisely to love -- that is, benevolence, or will-to-good.
Morality is very much objective, if indeed God exists, and if indeed God is love; for the end of the moral system points precisely to love -- that is, benevolence, or will-to-good.
Upvote
0
Janus
I smolder with generic rage
Whether the god of any of the current religions exists, morality/ethics is a subjective concept. I totally understand that the people who think there is some sort of higher being feel that they must obey whatever the being said is right, and shun what the being said is wrong. However, even if the aforementioned higher being is responsible for the universe's existence, and even if it is incomparably more intelligent than we are, its moral commandments are still just its opinion, and I see no reason to heed them. Of course, since I'm quite sure that even if there is a god, it's nothing like any human has ever imagined, I wouldn't spend too much time trying to figure out how the god wants us to behave even if I thought its opinion was more "worthy" than mine.
A good way to understand how ethics are nothing more (or less) than each person's opinion is to compare them to aesthetics. Suppose you and a friend are trying to answer the age old question: "What's more beautiful, a rose or a tulip?" You think the rose is more beautiful, while your friend thinks the tulip is. Who's right, who's wrong? Who has The Truth? The obvious answer is, neither of you does. Morals/ethics are exactly the same in this respect. The only reason so many people find this difficult to accept is that ethics are so much important to our lives than aesthetics.
Of course, that doesn't mean that some values aren't more widespread than others. For instance, most people have at least some respect for human life, which isn't surprising since few people want to die. But then the same applies to aesthetics: I'm guessing at least 95% of the world's population would agree that Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa is a wonderful work of art.
Still, there are some people who disagree with even the most widespread of opinions. For example, samurais in ancient Japan felt absolutely no remorse after having decapitated a peasant who disrespected their lord. Holy crusaders in medieval Europe slaughtered thousands of innocent muslim women and children because they thought them Satan's pawns. There are countless examples of societies throughout the ages that had values almost completely different from ours; most of them lasted much longer than American civilization.
The moral absolutist's most common argument used to counter the moral relativist's is that if no moral point of view is "right" or "wrong", then we don't have the right to say to a murderer that killing our mother is wrong, for instance, because his opinion is just as worthy as ours. This kind of argument shows that most moral absolutists don't understand what moral relativism is at all. What many of them fail to understand is that morality is about points of reference.
What do religious people mean when they say that "This, and nothing else, is the True Way to live."? In the case of Christianity, for example, they mean that "it" is the True Way because it corresponds to what they think is God's will. To figure out whether an action is right or wrong, they compare it to their concept of God's morality. Moral relativists do exactly the same thing, except that they compare their action to their own set of moral standards. The reason moral relativists believe they're generally more tolerant than moral absolutists is that they think that the latter are actually "comparing" to their own moral compass, but mistakenly believe that their ethical point of view is god's.
And neither does it mean that societies where most people acknowledge that morals are relative to the individual are bound to crumble because no laws are possible. A society is usually formed with a purpose in mind. A society whose purpose is to preserve its population's rights and freedoms, and to favor happiness would most likely become a democracy. On the other hand, a society that focuses on upholding the nation's honor, symbolized by its leaders, couldn't do much better than ancient Japan's legal and ethical system. So which of these two societies is "better"? Neither one is; they both fulfill their respective purpose admirably.
It's hard to admit that the opinions you hold so dear are not instrinsically better than everyone else's. Everyone would like to think that they've figured out The Truth through sheer force of will/reason/faith/piety/whatever. But that's just wishful thinking, like Santa Claus and geocentrism.
P.S.: To prevent some moral absolutist from posting that moral relativism is inherently flawed because we pronounce an absolute judgement on morality, please realize that moral relativism and moral absolutism are societal/philosophical stances, and are neither ethics nor aesthetics.
A good way to understand how ethics are nothing more (or less) than each person's opinion is to compare them to aesthetics. Suppose you and a friend are trying to answer the age old question: "What's more beautiful, a rose or a tulip?" You think the rose is more beautiful, while your friend thinks the tulip is. Who's right, who's wrong? Who has The Truth? The obvious answer is, neither of you does. Morals/ethics are exactly the same in this respect. The only reason so many people find this difficult to accept is that ethics are so much important to our lives than aesthetics.
Of course, that doesn't mean that some values aren't more widespread than others. For instance, most people have at least some respect for human life, which isn't surprising since few people want to die. But then the same applies to aesthetics: I'm guessing at least 95% of the world's population would agree that Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa is a wonderful work of art.
Still, there are some people who disagree with even the most widespread of opinions. For example, samurais in ancient Japan felt absolutely no remorse after having decapitated a peasant who disrespected their lord. Holy crusaders in medieval Europe slaughtered thousands of innocent muslim women and children because they thought them Satan's pawns. There are countless examples of societies throughout the ages that had values almost completely different from ours; most of them lasted much longer than American civilization.
The moral absolutist's most common argument used to counter the moral relativist's is that if no moral point of view is "right" or "wrong", then we don't have the right to say to a murderer that killing our mother is wrong, for instance, because his opinion is just as worthy as ours. This kind of argument shows that most moral absolutists don't understand what moral relativism is at all. What many of them fail to understand is that morality is about points of reference.
What do religious people mean when they say that "This, and nothing else, is the True Way to live."? In the case of Christianity, for example, they mean that "it" is the True Way because it corresponds to what they think is God's will. To figure out whether an action is right or wrong, they compare it to their concept of God's morality. Moral relativists do exactly the same thing, except that they compare their action to their own set of moral standards. The reason moral relativists believe they're generally more tolerant than moral absolutists is that they think that the latter are actually "comparing" to their own moral compass, but mistakenly believe that their ethical point of view is god's.
And neither does it mean that societies where most people acknowledge that morals are relative to the individual are bound to crumble because no laws are possible. A society is usually formed with a purpose in mind. A society whose purpose is to preserve its population's rights and freedoms, and to favor happiness would most likely become a democracy. On the other hand, a society that focuses on upholding the nation's honor, symbolized by its leaders, couldn't do much better than ancient Japan's legal and ethical system. So which of these two societies is "better"? Neither one is; they both fulfill their respective purpose admirably.
It's hard to admit that the opinions you hold so dear are not instrinsically better than everyone else's. Everyone would like to think that they've figured out The Truth through sheer force of will/reason/faith/piety/whatever. But that's just wishful thinking, like Santa Claus and geocentrism.
P.S.: To prevent some moral absolutist from posting that moral relativism is inherently flawed because we pronounce an absolute judgement on morality, please realize that moral relativism and moral absolutism are societal/philosophical stances, and are neither ethics nor aesthetics.
Upvote
0
"A good way to understand how ethics are nothing more (or less) than each person's opinion is to compare them to aesthetics. Suppose you and a friend are trying to answer the age old question: "What's more beautiful, a rose or a tulip?" You think the rose is more beautiful, while your friend thinks the tulip is. Who's right, who's wrong? Who has The Truth? The obvious answer is, neither of you does. Morals/ethics are exactly the same in this respect. The only reason so many people find this difficult to accept is that ethics are so much important to our lives than aesthetics."
Here you are making an incorrect linkage. Morals can't be linked to the idea of what color you think its "prettier". This is a different subject entirely. Morals are of judgement, and those other are not "judgement" values. They are items of choice when confronted with a nonmoral choice where values do not come into play. You cannot compare the idea of murder being wrong with the "prettiness" of the Mona Lisa anymore then you can compare the color red to someone raped.
As for moral relativism, I think Lewis confronts it quite well with the argument of Man's moral law (ie natural law).
Here you are making an incorrect linkage. Morals can't be linked to the idea of what color you think its "prettier". This is a different subject entirely. Morals are of judgement, and those other are not "judgement" values. They are items of choice when confronted with a nonmoral choice where values do not come into play. You cannot compare the idea of murder being wrong with the "prettiness" of the Mona Lisa anymore then you can compare the color red to someone raped.
As for moral relativism, I think Lewis confronts it quite well with the argument of Man's moral law (ie natural law).
Upvote
0
There is a clear right and wrong. Stealing is wrong, giving is right. It's as simple as that. The Bible clearly states that, what is left is the question of what will tempt you. In First Corinthians the Corinthians ask Paul is it ok to eat meat offered to idols. Pauls replys by telling them, if it will cause you to fall, dont eat it. But if your consious is clean while eating it then eat it. Like if you go to a friends house and they want to watch Tomb Raider II but you get tempted to lust after Lara Croft during the movie. But your friend doesnt at all. It would be fine for him to watch the movie but you shouldnt. That doesnt mean it would be wrong for you to watch the movie or to be tempted, but it would be far to easy to fall into sin. Though if you know you will be tempted dont watch the movie saying I'll fast forward at that part or I'll look away. That is wrong. Right and wrong are clear and so are what will and wont tempt you (usually) you just have to take heed and exersize self control and prayer.
Upvote
0
Is stealing a loaf of bread from a wealthy merchant so that your family can live wrong?cybermaxx12 said:
Is giving someone a blanket contaminated with smallpox right?
Upvote
0
Morality is neither objective nor subjective, it is contextual.
To take an example from the posts already here:
It is claimed that murder is morally wrong. What about murder in self defense? What about murder to protect the lives of innocents? What about soldiers who murder the soldiers of the enemy during war?
If morality were truly objective then these moral dilemmas wouldnt exist. To say murder is objectively wrong is to say it is always wrong no matter what the circumstance.
Another example:
Lying is morally wrong and telling the truth is morally right.
Go to the year 1943 and apply that rule to individuals hiding Jews from the Nazis if they are asked by the Nazis if they have knowledge of where Jews are hiding how do they respond? If they tell the truth then the Jews will be killed if they lie (which is morally wrong remember) then they save lives of innocents.
It is not just a matter of esthetics. To grasp morality you have to look at the unique situation that an ethical dilemma presents itself in. Once you do that you quickly realize that it is difficult if not impossible to devise a single set of rules that cover all possible situations.
To take an example from the posts already here:
It is claimed that murder is morally wrong. What about murder in self defense? What about murder to protect the lives of innocents? What about soldiers who murder the soldiers of the enemy during war?
If morality were truly objective then these moral dilemmas wouldnt exist. To say murder is objectively wrong is to say it is always wrong no matter what the circumstance.
Another example:
Lying is morally wrong and telling the truth is morally right.
Go to the year 1943 and apply that rule to individuals hiding Jews from the Nazis if they are asked by the Nazis if they have knowledge of where Jews are hiding how do they respond? If they tell the truth then the Jews will be killed if they lie (which is morally wrong remember) then they save lives of innocents.
It is not just a matter of esthetics. To grasp morality you have to look at the unique situation that an ethical dilemma presents itself in. Once you do that you quickly realize that it is difficult if not impossible to devise a single set of rules that cover all possible situations.
Upvote
0
Stealing from the wealthy is just as wrong as stealing from the poor even if it will save your and your families life. It is in their possesion and their choice to give.
I didnt make myself clear and you pointed that out. If someone needed a blanket, I gave it to them and they got smallpox from it was I wrong? If I knew it had small pox on it of coarse it is. If I knew and told them and they took it anyway I did nothing wrong. It is wrong to get married and to have children with your wife without telling her you have aids, you know that and I know that so we dont need to debate situations in which the morality of it is clear just to prove each other wrong. We need to discuss the tough issues in order to discover what is right.
If the Nazis ask you where the Jewish people are dont tell them but dont lie to them. you always use the same set of rules God has given us just use them correctly and in a moral dilemma pray instead of reason. Rely on God and he will show you the right way out whether it be hard or easy he will show you, in many different ways. If someone hits me turn the other cheek if someone shoots me pray for them. Did Jesus attack his attackers in self-defence. It is a hard law to fallow but it is a law. As for in war, thou shalt not kill. God orderd the Isrealites to kill that is his justice. Those people would not repent and it was Gods right to take their lives. The Isrealites was just his sword. I don't presume to know everything and I think what I'm saying is true but some could be wrong and some are right please inform me of my mistakes with verse so that I may grow in the Lord.
I didnt make myself clear and you pointed that out. If someone needed a blanket, I gave it to them and they got smallpox from it was I wrong? If I knew it had small pox on it of coarse it is. If I knew and told them and they took it anyway I did nothing wrong. It is wrong to get married and to have children with your wife without telling her you have aids, you know that and I know that so we dont need to debate situations in which the morality of it is clear just to prove each other wrong. We need to discuss the tough issues in order to discover what is right.
If the Nazis ask you where the Jewish people are dont tell them but dont lie to them. you always use the same set of rules God has given us just use them correctly and in a moral dilemma pray instead of reason. Rely on God and he will show you the right way out whether it be hard or easy he will show you, in many different ways. If someone hits me turn the other cheek if someone shoots me pray for them. Did Jesus attack his attackers in self-defence. It is a hard law to fallow but it is a law. As for in war, thou shalt not kill. God orderd the Isrealites to kill that is his justice. Those people would not repent and it was Gods right to take their lives. The Isrealites was just his sword. I don't presume to know everything and I think what I'm saying is true but some could be wrong and some are right please inform me of my mistakes with verse so that I may grow in the Lord.
Upvote
0
Taffsadar
Followerof Quincy
Well different cultures got different morals. Therefor it's hard to jude on a basis on right or wrong. A much more efficent way of deciding what's moral is by deciding morality on if it causes more suffering than joy. For example killing someone will generally cause alot of suffering so it's generally wrong. However theres sometimes when you need to kill someone to avoid more suffering (getting killed yourself).
It's a pretty nifty rule of thumb but I'm sure someone can find a situation where it doesn't work. Thats where common sense comes in
.
It's a pretty nifty rule of thumb but I'm sure someone can find a situation where it doesn't work. Thats where common sense comes in
.
Upvote
0
You can't judge what is moral by its consiquence. Thats just what benefits you more which isnt moral its selfish.Taffsadar said:Well different cultures got different morals. Therefor it's hard to jude on a basis on right or wrong. A much more efficent way of deciding what's moral is by deciding morality on if it causes more suffering than joy. For example killing someone will generally cause alot of suffering so it's generally wrong. However theres sometimes when you need to kill someone to avoid more suffering (getting killed yourself).
It's a pretty nifty rule of thumb but I'm sure someone can find a situation where it doesn't work. Thats where common sense comes in
Upvote
0
I guess for this we would need to define what is good and what is bad. How do you determine what is a good action and what is a bad action? Only consider cases in which a single individual is affected since otherwise you are getting into morality.cybermaxx12 said:
How is it selfish if she is considering the consequences on all those affected?cybermaxx12 said:
Upvote
0
Arikereba
Well-Known Member
Common sense isn't very common.Taffsadar said:Well different cultures got different morals. Therefor it's hard to jude on a basis on right or wrong. A much more efficent way of deciding what's moral is by deciding morality on if it causes more suffering than joy. For example killing someone will generally cause alot of suffering so it's generally wrong. However theres sometimes when you need to kill someone to avoid more suffering (getting killed yourself).
It's a pretty nifty rule of thumb but I'm sure someone can find a situation where it doesn't work. Thats where common sense comes in
So here's a situation where it doesn't work.
Let's say that you're a doctor in the ER. You have a guy who needs a heart transplant, a guy who needs a liver transplant, two guys who need kidneys, and a guy who needs a lung. All of them are going to die otherwise and you can't find any other donors.
A healthy man comes walking in off the street. Assuming he were a compatible donor for all these people--would it be okay to kill him for his organs? If you do, five people live and one dies. If you don't, five people die and one lives. But I think that most people would feel really icky about saying that it's okay to kill the healthy guy.
Let's say there's a woman in the hospital. She's 80 and she doesn't have any living friends or family. If you kill her in her sleep, she doesn't suffer. Nobody else suffers. And rather than continuing to pay for her treatment, that money can go to care for orphans or something. But is it right?
That's why I think utilitarianism doesn't quite work without adding on the concept of inalienable rights.
I'm a believer in contextual absolute morality. In any one situation, there is only one right thing to do (altough it may be more forgivable for certain people to do the wrong thing). But exactly what that one thing is, is highly dependent on the context: I don't want to apply a blanket 'killing is wrong' rule when wars are still inevitable, or a blanket 'lying is wrong' rule when sometimes it's necessary to preserve someone's life.
Different cultures have different moral standards, of course. But I refuse to believe that no moral standard is any more 'right' than any other, when there are places where it's considered just fine to mutilate preteen girls' bodies.
Upvote
0
You determine what is right and wrong from the bible which gives unquestionable answers to those who belive in it. I meant you cant say lying to my parents about my test is ok. You are just saying that for your own benefit. Even if many people are affected you need to do what is right. You need to be able to look back 10 years from the decision and say God is pleased about what I did and he was glorified from it. Lets say your an Iraqi civilian and your walking on the street and see an American soldier laying on the ground dying. You take the soldier in and nurse him to health, even though you know if someone radicaly opposed to the Americans find out you and your family could die. You know its right and pleasing to the God of Abraham regardless of the negative or positive consiquences. So it needs to be in our faith, that we step blindly toward God and let him hold us up. You can't base a moral standerd on the culture your in because the culture ultimatly is made up of men. Your only moral standerd should be on Gods standerd. You can't dream of living up to this perfectly or always keeping the right standerd but be sure that God will forgive you and set you on the right trackrevolutio said:
Upvote
0
Morals come from God. Human laws are based on human desires. Human desires are only moral if they agree with God's laws. If people decide that morals are subjective, then man can justify anything under the sun as being moral. Man then is deciding right and wrong which is playing God.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
