The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ken-1122]

The problem with objective morality is that people will disagree on what and where that objective morality comes from. A case has to be made for a particular set of morals and that is another issue.

That is not another issue, that is the main issue. If you cannot provide a source that all of morality is based on, your entire argument for objective morality fails.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Well, I actually do think that enduring morality is objective in that its based on the tried and true real-world facts of what makes for good human living and social continuity.

But as for divinely revealed or absolute morality, thats strictly a matter of faith.

Actually there is evidence for absolute morality. Almost all societies have certain shared morals, this is evidence for universal absolute morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you consider dinosaur fossils empirical evidence for dinosaurs? Dinosaur fossils are the empirical effects of dinosaurs having lived and died, so the universe is the empirical effect of having a transcendent personal Cause.

So because you say it, that makes it true huh? No. If you want to make the case that the Universe has a transcendent personal cause, you need to provide evidence to make your case.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually there is evidence for absolute morality. Almost all societies have certain shared morals, this is evidence for universal absolute morality.

Almost all societies have certain conflicting morals as well.

 

[stevevw]

To believe your moral position is the only correct one does ‘t make morality objective. Subjective morality means you recognize thee are others whom you disagree with that believe their moral position is the only correct one

Then how can you say to anyone with confidence that they are wrong and what you say is right. Why even tell them they are wrong. You would have to go around and tell everyone you disagreed with "yeah you are right according to you and I cannot really say you are wrong so we will have to agree that we see things differently".

No it doesn’t mean that; Subjective morality means there are other views that exist.

Accept is probably the wrong word. You have to acknowledge their point of view is right for them and therefore acknowledge they have as much right to express that even if it seems wrong to you, just as you do with yours.

No, it means you recognize they might incorrectly believe they are right

How do you recognise they might be inccorrect if there is no objective morality.

The fact that evil men do justify anything; even killing, should tell you that either objective morality allows this as well, old that morality is subjective.

Objective morality does not allow anything and in fact it would be more the case that it disallowed things. But because we recognise evil means we are qualifying evil with something. What is that something. If it is objective then who knows. So really it is subjective morality that allows evil deeds and objective morality sets the standard of what is evil and what is good so that everyone is on the same page and has a standard to go by. That does not mean evil will not happen but we can at least all know exactly what that evil is and who is doing it.

No, subjective morality doesn’t mean different views are allowed, it means different views EXIST

. It does mean different views are allowed. If they exist that means people aspire to them and will want to practcie them. Especially with morals which are not always illegal. It is silly tosay that a person has a different moral view and they are not going to use that. This is the very nature of people that they live their views unless it is illegal.

Our society may have some laws that link up with some of peoples morals but there are a lot that don't. If we take all the different laws and moral views world wide we willfind that there will be morla laws that are different in each country and even more non lawful morals which are different. So on a world wide scale this is inviting a vast difference is what is regarded as good and evil hense that is part of our problem. When one country decides another is morally wrong and tries to force their views it can lead to conflict. Even within the same country some will have particular views like say white supremist or those who believe in sexual freedom and those who don't.

Do you think that those who have these views are not going to also live their life this way if it is legal. Otherwise they will be censoring themselves which I doubt will happen as we have also promote freedom of rights to live how we want if it does not affect others.

Everybody has a different view of what constitutes injustice. that is subjective

Exactly and that is the problem. How can be know what is unjust and then apply that. Today we even see injustice committed by the very people who are suppose to look after us.

The UN is based on laws, not morality. Laws are objective, morality is not.

The laws the UN supports are underpinned by morals. As someone has stated on this thread not all laws are moral but some are. This applies to the UN laws if you look at them such as the UN Declarations and Conventions ie equal rights, against torture ect.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It doesn’t matter what ISIS believes is justified; if what they do is against UN law, the UN is supposed to come down on them.

The point is the UN is forcing others to conform to their views. I thought you said that what one person sees as a lie or stealing or even killing another will see it differently so we cannot so that they are wrong. In that sense the UN is declaring a form of objective morality that the whole world should abide by. The UN has a traack record of injustice and bad behavior and have been wrong before as they are only human.

Morals have not evolved? Then how do you explain what was seen as good, years ago (like human sacrifice to a God) is seen as evil today; and visa versa?

Who said it was good. To the people it may have been justified or rationalised as good but to objective morality it was bad. Just because someone has a different practcie and says that it is good does not mean it is good. The same for things bad, just becuase some say it is bad does not mean it is bad in the overall scheme of objective morality.

Society is not ruled by objective or subjective morality, society is ruled by laws.

There are laws and there are morals that influence the way people live. Laws are not always moral but they are there to keep society in order. It is because of subjectivity that the law is there becuase some disagree with the law. But morals can have more influence on society because they influence what laws we have and they also influence our day to day lives that is not under the law which is probably a larger percentage. How we conduct ourselves in our day to day lives. The way we treat others, in our relationships from friendships to lovers, how we go about business, treat our family, bring up kids, schooling, etc.

The way a person treats another for example in a relationship such as cheating on them is influenced by our morals and it is not against the law. The other issue is that not everyone and probably the majority of people ddo not get caught when breaking the law but they may face some moral delimma later. So morality can be there all the time no matter what and influences our lives.

We tried that already, it doesn't work because people disagree on what is good or bad through the consequences of actions. Thats why they make laws where everybody has to compromise a little for a greater good.

What I mean is you can have 10 people sitting in a room and there may be different views on stealing where some may have a subjective view and say in some cases stealing is OK because it is relative. But when each and every person has their posessions stolen they will automatically reacteas though the act of stealing for them is wrong which shows that we all see things the same way when it happens to us which is the true indication of how we see things depite what we say.

How about paying taxes? Are you suggesting nobody believes paying taxes is a good thing? I bet I could come up with a lot more scenarios where taking from someone is often considered good.

It may be considered good but that does not mean it is good objectively. That is the problem certain justifications and rationalisations are made for doing something which is wrong and it is turned into being something that is good. Then this is called subjective morality.

Outside human views? How did you make THAT leap??? Why does the standard have to be outside human views?

Because humans are incapable and untrustworthy to get it right. Our track record proves it. We have to find that moral standard outside our own judgemnets if it is going to be good all the time we are just not capable enough. I do not know about you but if I wanted to have a standard that was going to guide me I would want something that was the best and was not going to end up causing me problems.

No; that’s your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that I am, along with countless others; more than qualified to determine what is good and evil. As a matter of fact, I believe mankind is more qualified than any being in existence; in such matters.

It is not just my opinion the evidence for this is in our history. The 20th century has been the bloodiest century including the 19 centuries before it. We have been constantly in conflict, we kill our fellow humans for nothing or justify wars based on greed and power and try to pretend it was a moral right to kill others. We are corrupted by money and our leaders cannot be trusted as we have seen in the past and now in the present. We have seen many injustices such as race rights and will continue to see more. Our judicial system corrupts the truth and money can buy your freedom. We are destroying our planet and killing other species by the thousands for the sake of our greed for more things. That is just a small example but that is enough to say that humans do not get it right a lot of the time and therefore are fallible and it is not denying that we also get things right a lot of the time. For me I want the best and would prefer someone who can be infallible and get it right all the time.

There is nothing that we know of in existence that is more moral than mankind. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

God help us then. That is a hard one. There may be some indirect evidence from studies which show those who follow God can have better lives. Those who follow Jesus example should have good lives and have a good set of living standards. But this is hard because it is difficult to sort the biases out in these studies, ie those who claim to be followers of God but are hypocrites. Whether the influence comes from a psychological factor or a spiritual one etc. Anyway here are a couple that seem to show that following God can have good outcomes.

Without God there can be no good
Without God there can be no good – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

 

[Strathos]

The 20th century has been the bloodiest century including the 19 centuries before it.

I'd just like to point out that that's because we had access to far deadlier weapons and means of killing than we did in the past.

 

[quatona]

I have always found it hard to understand the argument for subjective morality. The very nature of subjective morality is self defeating. As soon as someone says that they disagree with someone who supports objective morality and is giving their argument for subjectivity they are taking an objective position that they have the only correct answer.

This argument doesn´t get better when you repeat it every now and then.
"Morals are objective/morals are subjective" aren´t moral statements (at worst, they are meta-moral statements) - so nothing self-defeating here.

Subjective morality means that you have to acknowledge and accept other peoples views even if you disagree with them even if you think they are morally wrong.

No, it doesn´t mean that. Even under subjective morality I can simply shoot you when I disagree with you.

That means someone can take your possessions and justify it as something they believe in as right and you cannot say that they are wrong in their actions. Therefore anything can be justified as being OK including killing.

How do you get from "stealing is justifiable, therefore nothing is justifiable"?

This would be a horrible world and is in fact the world we live in.

Well, that´s an argument from consequence fallacy, to boot.
Secondly, I don´t care much if the person who steals my money or shoots my friend does that because they think it´s objectively right or think it´s subjectively right. The result is the same.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually there is evidence for absolute morality. Almost all societies have certain shared morals, this is evidence for universal absolute morality.

Uh no.

That could just as well be evidence for a morality that works based on the natural facts of being human.

This does not point to your explanation any more than it points to mine.

 

[Belk]

Actually there is evidence for absolute morality. Almost all societies have certain shared morals, this is evidence for universal absolute morality.

"Almost all" can not be evidence for "absolute". It would be evidence for the opposite.

 

[Ken-1122]

Then how can you say to anyone with confidence that they are wrong and what you say is right. Why even tell them they are wrong. You would have to go around and tell everyone you disagreed with "yeah you are right according to you and I cannot really say you are wrong so we will have to agree that we see things differently".

I understand my view on the issue, and I understand theirs so we have a conversation about whose view is better, right, or wrong. Its as simple as that.

Accept is probably the wrong word. You have to acknowledge their point of view is right for them and therefore acknowledge they have as much right to express that even if it seems wrong to you, just as you do with yours.

The first Amendment of the Constitution (Freedom of speech) allows them to express their opinion; not subjective morality.

How do you recognise they might be inccorrect if there is no objective morality.

I know their view, and I know mine. Because I decide if I believe something is right or wrong, it is a matter of my subjective opinion if conclude they are wrong or not.

Objective morality does not allow anything and in fact it would be more the case that it disallowed things. But because we recognise evil means we are qualifying evil with something. What is that something. If it is objective then who knows. So really it is subjective morality that allows evil deeds and objective morality sets the standard of what is evil and what is good so that everyone is on the same page and has a standard to go by. That does not mean evil will not happen but we can at least all know exactly what that evil is and who is doing it.

Okay; you said Subjective morality allows “X” with X being a lot of terrible stuff that happens, Yet you believe morality to be objective, not subjective. Do you not see the contradiction in what you just said vs what you believe?

Exactly and that is the problem. How can be know what is unjust and then apply that. Today we even see injustice committed by the very people who are suppose to look after us.

Justice/Injustice is impossible to enforce because it is subjective; thats why we have laws. Though laws are based on justice, laws are objective and are able to be enforced.

laws the UN supports are underpinned by morals. As someone has stated on this thread not all laws are moral but some are. This applies to the UN laws if you look at them such as the UN Declarations and Conventions ie equal rights, against torture ect.

All laws are underpinned by morals; but unless you have a dictatorship, they consist of compromised morals because thats the only way you can get people to agree.

The point is the UN is forcing others to conform to their views. I thought you said that what one person sees as a lie or stealing or even killing another will see it differently so we cannot so that they are wrong.

No; I never said that. You must be confusing me with someone else.

In that sense the UN is declaring a form of objective morality that the whole world should abide by. The UN has a traack record of injustice and bad behavior and have been wrong before as they are only human.

Again; the UN does not enforce morality, they enforce laws.

Who said it was good. To the people it may have been justified or rationalised as good but to objective morality it was bad. Just because someone has a different practcie and says that it is good does not mean it is good. The same for things bad, just becuase some say it is bad does not mean it is bad in the overall scheme of objective morality.

Really? Try saying that to some of the Christians around here; their entire religion is built around Human Sacrifice. They call it “The plan of salvation”.

Because humans are incapable and untrustworthy to get it right. Our track record proves it. We have to find that moral standard outside our own judgemnets if it is going to be good all the time we are just not capable enough. I do not know about you but if I wanted to have a standard that was going to guide me I would want something that was the best and was not going to end up causing me problems.

Welcome to the real world my friend! The reality is, humans are the most qualified to make judgmental decisions concerning our actions. Are we perfect? Not by a long shot! But its the best we’ve got. Wishing, wanting, or pretending, that some perfect leader is going to lead us around on a lease like an obedient dog so we don’t do any wrong is not going to accomplish anything.

It is not just my opinion the evidence for this is in our history. The 20th century has been the bloodiest century including the 19 centuries before it. We have been constantly in conflict, we kill our fellow humans for nothing or justify wars based on greed and power and try to pretend it was a moral right to kill others. We are corrupted by money and our leaders cannot be trusted as we have seen in the past and now in the present. We have seen many injustices such as race rights and will continue to see more. Our judicial system corrupts the truth and money can buy your freedom. We are destroying our planet and killing other species by the thousands for the sake of our greed for more things. That is just a small example but that is enough to say that humans do not get it right a lot of the time and therefore are fallible and it is not denying that we also get things right a lot of the time. For me I want the best and would prefer someone who can be infallible and get it right all the time.

Yes! Mankind has made lots of mistakes. But until your infallible friend comes out of hiding and gives us a reason to believe he has better ideas than we do, I’m going to stick with mankind.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about the function of feeling, like emotions helping encode memories which help us navigate reality. Would that make ones capacity for emotions like an adaptation such as a hand or a leg, and therefore neither true nor false?

 

[stevevw]

I understand my view on the issue, and I understand theirs so we have a conversation about whose view is better, right, or wrong. Its as simple as that.

What or how do you measure whose view is better, right or wrong if it is all subjective. You can only discuss each person view just like you would be discussing personal views on ice-cream flavours.

I know their view, and I know mine. Because I decide if I believe something is right or wrong, it is a matter of my subjective opinion if conclude they are wrong or not.

Yes and that does not mean ultimately that the other person is right or wrong just because you believe it so even if their view is offensive to you.

But this is all hypothetical and life does not work out this way. It's OK to say that you can know others moral views and discuss whose view is better but most of the time situations happen where people often clash with their views where one is saying that the other is wrong because they are offended or react to a situation. They will often say the other person is wrong and dismiss their views. I think if you look at these threads you will find this is the case. Like I said the truth is in the way people react.

Okay; you said Subjective morality allows “X” with X being a lot of terrible stuff that happens, Yet you believe morality to be objective, not subjective. Do you not see the contradiction in what you just said vs what you believe?

No, I do not understand. Subjective morality allows all views as you said. People often live their views and this can allow bad views as well as good views because there is no determination about what is ultimately good or bad. Objective morality will identify the bad and therefore this can be identified and dealt with if needed. The reason why bad flourishes are because people who have the bad moral views are getting the message that it is OK for them to have them. Moral relativism invites bad moral ideas as well as good ones.

Justice/Injustice is impossible to enforce because it is subjective; that's why we have laws. Though laws are based on justice, laws are objective and are able to be enforced.

Then you have just acknowledged that morals are also objective because at least some of the laws are based on morals such as killing and stealing.

All laws are underpinned by morals; but unless you have a dictatorship, they consist of compromised morals because of that's the only way you can get people to agree.

A moral can have special circumstances that allow people to breach that moral without compromising its objectivity. For example, do not kill is moral. But if a person kills someone to protect themselves or their family this is allowed because there is a greater moral issue involved in life being precious and there is a personal obligation to protect others. Otherwise, they would be guilty of causing their death.

Again; the UN does not enforce morality, they enforce laws.

The UN is not just about laws. They have conventions and treaties and these are based on ideas that they want nations to live by. Some Nations do not uphold them but they are not breaking the law such as the convention for the rights of Indigenous peoples. Some Nations still do not give all the rights to indigenous people the way the UN wants them to. So the UN is setting the agenda for all Nations to live by a certain standard for which they think is best. Now, these may be very good ideals but the point is they are still trying to dictate to others what is best.

Really? Try saying that to some of the Christians around here; their entire religion is built around Human Sacrifice. They call it “The plan of salvation”.

I do not know of any Christian belief that allows human sacrifice. I know of pagan religions that have human sacrifice.

Welcome to the real world, my friend! The reality is, humans are the most qualified to make judgmental decisions concerning our actions. Are we perfect? Not by a long shot! But it's the best we’ve got. Wishing, wanting, or pretending, that some perfect leader is going to lead us around on a leash like an obedient dog so we don’t do any wrong is not going to accomplish anything.

Like I said I believe that God through Jesus can offer a better example and moral life. It is not a case of being led around on a leash and forced. It is something that makes a lot of sense and those who have accepted Christ are happy to follow his way. But as I mentioned before no one can be forced and a person needs to come to their own conclusion and point of following God. It will not work as a theocracy.

Yes! Mankind has made lots of mistakes. But until your infallible friend comes out of hiding and gives us a reason to believe he has better ideas than we do, I’m going to stick with mankind.

He already has come out of hiding and shown us a better way. It is unfortunate as I think though we have made a lot of progress and done a lot of good ultimately those in power do not have our best interest and they are looking after themselves. Money and power corrupt and many are suffering. In the end, I believe everyone will be forced to follow a world type government where we will lose a lot of our freedoms anyway.

 

[quatona]

What or how do you measure whose view is better, right or wrong if it is all subjective. You can only discuss each person view just like you would be discussing personal views on ice-cream flavours.

...and that´s exactly how it is in reality. People disagreeing, and often unable to convince each other.
Fallacies from consequence are a problem, but they are even more of a problem when the consequence is exactly what we observe.

But this is all hypothetical and life does not work out this way. It's OK to say that you can know others moral views and discuss whose view is better but most of the time situations happen where people often clash with their views where one is saying that the other is wrong because they are offended or react to a situation. They will often say the other person is wrong and dismiss their views. I think if you look at these threads you will find this is the case. Like I said the truth is in the way people react.

So you agree with me that people disagree all the time, without being able to convince each other. The status quo is exactly the one you say would exist if morals were subjective.

Subjective morality allows all views as you said. People often live their views and this can allow bad views as well as good views because there is no determination about what is ultimately good or bad.

This sentence contains a contradiction. I´m sure you can spot it.

Moral relativism invites bad moral ideas as well as good ones.

You have to decide whether you want to tackle moral subjectivism or moral relativism. They are not the same.

 

[Ken-1122]

What or how do you measure whose view is better, right or wrong if it is all subjective. You can only discuss each person view just like you would be discussing personal views on ice-cream flavors.

True! And thats why legal issues (objective) get solved, but moral issues (subjective) never get solved.

Yes and that does not mean ultimately that the other person is right or wrong just because you believe it so even if their view is offensive to you.

But this is all hypothetical and life does not work out this way. It's OK to say that you can know others moral views and discuss whose view is better but most of the time situations happen where people often clash with their views where one is saying that the other is wrong because they are offended or react to a situation. They will often say the other person is wrong and dismiss their views. I think if you look at these threads you will find this is the case. Like I said the truth is in the way people react.

Thats why moral issues never get solved, because each person brings his own moral base to the table; and this moral base will vary from person to person.

No, I do not understand. Subjective morality allows all views as you said.

Whether it be subjective or objective, morality doesn’t allow or prevent anybody from doing anything. As long as people have freedom of thought, all views will be allowed. Laws may prevent people from expressing those views, but nothing can prevent people from having them.

People often live their views and this can allow bad views as well as good views because there is no determination about what is ultimately good or bad.

Yes there is! The law.

Objective morality will identify the bad and therefore this can be identified and dealt with if needed.

If that were true, all bad ideas would have been identified by now, and everybody would agree on what is good or bad.

The reason why bad flourishes are because people who have the bad moral views are getting the message that it is OK for them to have them. Moral relativism invites bad moral ideas as well as good ones.

The reason bad flourishes is because what you might call bad, some else will call good and visa versa. How does this happen? Because your moral base is different than theirs and your moral base is what determines what is good vs bad

Then you have just acknowledged that morals are also objective because at least some of the laws are based on morals such as killing and stealing.

No; just because laws are based in moral beliefs doesn’t mean they are the same. There is a big difference between laws and moral beliefs.

A moral can have special circumstances that allow people to breach that moral without compromising its objectivity. For example, do not kill is moral. But if a person kills someone to protect themselves or their family this is allowed because there is a greater moral issue involved in life being precious and there is a personal obligation to protect others. Otherwise, they would be guilty of causing their death.

You have just described subjective morality.

Objective: based on fact, not influenced by personal biases, beliefs, or extenuating circumstances.
Subjective: influenced by personal biases, beliefs, or extenuating circumstances.

If morality can be breached due to extenuating circumstances that is the meaning of subjective morality. You are making my point

I will respond to the rest of your post later

 

[Ken-1122]

The UN is not just about laws. They have conventions and treaties and these are based on ideas that they want nations to live by. Some Nations do not uphold them but they are not breaking the law such as the convention for the rights of Indigenous peoples. Some Nations still do not give all the rights to indigenous people the way the UN wants them to. So the UN is setting the agenda for all Nations to live by a certain standard for which they think is best. Now, these may be very good ideals but the point is they are still trying to dictate to others what is best.

All you’ve done is describe laws, how they are implemented, and how people react to them. My point is, the UN does not claim to enforce moral ideas, they enforce laws.

I do not know of any Christian belief that allows human sacrifice. I know of pagan religions that have human sacrifice.

According to the “Plan of Salvation” Jesus (half human half God) died for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice for sin.
Plan Of Salvation

Like I said I believe that God through Jesus can offer a better example and moral life. It is not a case of being led around on a leash and forced. It is something that makes a lot of sense and those who have accepted Christ are happy to follow his way. But as I mentioned before no one can be forced and a person needs to come to their own conclusion and point of following God. It will not work as a theocracy.

I have no doubt you are happy following the examples set by Christ. But you must also realize there are those of other religions who are just as happy following examples set by their religion, and those of no religion at all who are able to live moral lives as well. Christianity has not cornered the market on morality.

He already has come out of hiding and shown us a better way. It is unfortunate as I think though we have made a lot of progress and done a lot of good ultimately those in power do not have our best interest and they are looking after themselves. Money and power corrupt and many are suffering. In the end, I believe everyone will be forced to follow a world type government where we will lose a lot of our freedoms anyway.

Not to sound like a cheerleader or anything; but I suspect I have a little more faith in mankind than you do.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is what he appeared to be saying and that there is no empirical evidence for God. But in fact there is. The existence and characteristics of the universe.

If I believe in Santa and I define Santa as one who makes toys in the North Pole, the existence of toys will look like evidence of Santa to me, but it will not to you.

If you believe in God and you define God as the one who created the Universe, the existence of the Universe will look like evidence of God to you but it will not to me.

Ken

 

[stevevw]

...and that´s exactly how it is in reality. People disagreeing, and often unable to convince each other.
Fallacies from consequence are a problem, but they are even more of a problem when the consequence is exactly what we observe.

Not really, quite often in reality people insist that they are right and the other persons view is wrong as though they are viewing their morality as objectively right. Despite a person saying or even arguing that they have a particular subjective position on their moral view they react differently when they are affected by another action on that moral which shows the true position they have. As I mentioned earlier someone was arguing that stealing can be ok in some situations but when someone steals from them when they are in that situation they will react like that act of stealing was wrong. Everyone will and I cannot believe anyone who says that having something taken from them is OK.

So you agree with me that people disagree all the time, without being able to convince each other. The status quo is exactly the one you say would exist if morals were subjective.

I agree that people disagree but they disagree because there is no objective morality for them to follow. Therefore that invites disagreement. They are dictated by the society they live in promotes. That could anything from anarchy and extreme radical beliefs to new age alternative lifestyles and everything in between. Why do you think extremist like ISIS can recruit and cultivate their followers right in the very societies they want to destroy. Because we allow all views and do not have a clear position on what should be allowed or not because of subjective morality and equal rights for all. The funny thing is even the secular leaders are standing up and saying we are a Christian Nation and these extreme religious views are wrong. Thats because we have to clearly identify ourselves when it gets to the point of it affecting our welfare or lives.

This sentence contains a contradiction. I´m sure you can spot it.

First off where it says "people often live their views and this can allow bad views as well as good views" it should say "people often live their views and this can allow bad actions as well as good actions" as I was responding to Ken-1122 who was saying subjective morals were only views and I was saying people live their view because that is what they believe and therefore they will often act on their views. If you go back through the conversation you will see the context.

If you are referring to the use of bad views or actions that is not a contradiction for me because as I have an objective understanding of morality. But for subjective morality you cannot qualify what is bad or good because there is no gauge. But because there is good and bad as everyone acknowledges regardless of what position you take, subjective morality will inherently allow bad. Apart from that I cannot see a contradiction.

You have to decide whether you want to tackle moral subjectivism or moral relativism. They are not the same.

I include both as they are closely related and interlinked. Both say that morals are not aboslute. Though moral subjectivity applies to individual views and moral relativtism is the way a society shapes their morals through that societies beliefs it is often those individual views that shape socities morals and it is often that societies morals that shape individual views. One feeds the other.

Moral relativism is the idea that morals are not absolute but are shaped by social customs and beliefs.

 

[quatona]

Not really, quite often in reality people insist that they are right and the other persons view is wrong as though they are viewing their morality as objectively right. Despite a person saying or even arguing that they have a particular subjective position on their moral view they react differently when they are affected by another action on that moral which shows the true position they have.

Yes. People also say "this tastes good" and insist they won´t eat it - even though they don´t intend to make an objective statement. It´s just the way these words are used.

As I mentioned earlier someone was arguing that stealing can be ok in some situations but when someone steals from them when they are in that situation they will react like that act of stealing was wrong. Everyone will and I cannot believe anyone who says that having something taken from them is OK.

Sure people don´t like it when something is taken away from them.

I agree that people disagree but they disagree because there is no objective morality for them to follow.

Exactly.
And make no mistake: Even people who believe that there´s an objective morality for them to follow disagree with each other.

Why do you think extremist like ISIS can recruit and cultivate their followers right in the very societies they want to destroy.

Because ISIS are moral objectivists? Sounds like you are shooting your own foot here.

If you are referring to the use of bad views or actions that is not a contradiction for me because as I have an objective understanding of morality.

No, you don´t. You just claim you have.

Moral relativism

is the idea that morals are not absolute but are shaped by social customs and beliefs.

And that´s exactly what we observe.
Btw. even Christianity has undergone major changes in its moral views, and even Biblegod commands different strokes for different folks.

I can demonstrate that there exist subjective moral views, and that morality is relative.
As soon as you can demonstrate that, on top of that, there´s some objective and/or absolute morality out there, we can get talking about it.

 

[stevevw]

All you’ve done is describe laws, how they are implemented, and how people react to them. My point is, the UN does not claim to enforce moral ideas, they enforce laws.

Yes but the UN laws like other laws is underpinned by moral values. How else could they determine what was right or wrong when it comes to determining the actions of Nations on how they treat their citizens. For example, the values of respect, equal opportunity, allowing people to have a fair share of the good things in life and to treat people kindly and not hurt them which are common principles throughout the Human rights conventions are based on the moral to value human life and to not be selfish and greedy.

The United Nations, the Evolution of Global Values and International Law
This study has examined how moral values determined the founding of the United Nations Organization in 1945, andthe evolution of its purposes, principles and policies since then. A detailed examination of the travaux préparatoires of the United Nations Conference on International
Organization has shown that the drafting of the United Nations Charter was significantly influenced by global moral values, i.e. globally shared beliefs distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad, the current from a preferable state of the world.
http://media.leidenuniv.nl/legacy/otto-spijkers-english-summary.pdf

According to the “Plan of Salvation” Jesus (half human half God) died for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice for sin.
Plan Of Salvation

https://www.allaboutgod.com/plan-of-salvation.htm
You are equating Christ willingly dying on the cross as a sacrifice like the pagans did when sacrificing babies. Big difference in that Christ willingly went to his death because it was for a greater cause being it would save the world from sin. Not too different from a soldier who willingly sacrifices his life for saving his country or from other Christians who have died for their faith in their line of work that may have risks of death. Christ spent his time on earth as a man, not God. He felt pain and did not use his Godly power to save himself. He was tried and convicted to death and though innocent he was obedient to his father and went willingly to save mankind and break the power that sin and death had over us all.

I have no doubt you are happy following the examples set by Christ. But you must also realize there are those of other religions who are just as happy following examples set by their religion and those of no religion at all who are able to live moral lives as well. Christianity has not cornered the market on morality.

I understand the idea of subjective morality and that one set of morals will never be accepted by a worldview. Christianity or perhaps any other religion that wants to claim exclusive rights to the truth would never succeed in forcing people to follow them. Christianity is not designed that way. It is based on a person having a free will and choosing to seek and then coming to their own decision to accept Christ.

Not to sound like a cheerleader or anything; but I suspect I have a little more faith in mankind than you do.

I also have faith in many things we have achieved. I guess it comes down to what qualities and values you determine as being good for life.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes but the UN laws like other laws is underpinned by moral values. How else could they determine what was right or wrong when it comes to determining the actions of Nations on how they treat their citizens. For example, the values of respect, equal opportunity, allowing people to have a fair share of the good things in life and to treat people kindly and not hurt them which are common principles throughout the Human rights conventions are based on the moral to value human life and to not be selfish and greedy.

Yes laws are based on morals, but people have to compromise on their morals because nobody agrees on the details of morality because they are subjective; but with laws, everybody has to agree on the details of laws so laws must be objective in order to get everybody to agree.

You are equating Christ willingly dying on the cross as a sacrifice like the pagans did when sacrificing babies. Big difference in that Christ willingly went to his death because it was for a greater cause being it would save the world from sin. Not too different from a soldier who willingly sacrifices his life for saving his country or from other Christians who have died for their faith in their line of work that may have risks of death. Christ spent his time on earth as a man, not God. He felt pain and did not use his Godly power to save himself. He was tried and convicted to death and though innocent he was obedient to his father and went willingly to save mankind and break the power that sin and death had over us all.

The virgin willingly allowed herself to be thrown into the volcano too. Look all I’m saying is they are both human sacrifice; whether all of such sacrificing is equal is another debate. Now if morality were objective, you wouldn’t have the option of allowing extenuating circumstances to say its okay when my guy does it, its only wrong when the other guy does that stuff. Thats subjective.

I understand the idea of subjective morality and that one set of morals will never be accepted by a worldview. Christianity or perhaps any other religion that wants to claim exclusive rights to the truth would never succeed in forcing people to follow them. Christianity is not designed that way. It is based on a person having a free will and choosing to seek and then coming to their own decision to accept Christ.

So why do you claim morality as objective if that means everybody agrees on the same God’s rules?