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

[stevevw]

No, it renders it relative.

But the person that brings up the exception still believes that lying is ultimately wrong. The fact that a person has to make an exception or justification against the moral to not lie shows that there is a moral objective that we need to make an exception for.

 

[stevevw]

So then this is a good comparison - it shows that you just assume it in one case but not the other.

It shows that our reaction speaks the truth about our moral views and everyone reacts the same. IE no one likes having their stuff stolen so they all view steaaling as wrong.

I understand that that´s what you claim they do.

I would have thought it was something a subjectivist also believes. If morals are subjective this would be no different to peoples different views on whether a particular culinary dish was good or bad tasting. How can you condemn a person for saying a dish tastes bad when you think it tastes good. In the same vienhow can you condemn a person who thinks stealing is OK when you think it is bad.

It´s the latter. Now, you are invited to come up with demonstrating an "objective morality" that isn´t a subjective view pretending to be objective.

Actually it is the other way around. Those who claim objective morality and then begin to argue among themselves about their views of morality are really just moral subjectivists. As for an objective moral what about

Killing “for the Fun of It” Is Never “OK”
“Is it ever morally acceptable to torture babies for fun?”

Te above statement takes the comprimises and justifications out of the equation. As mentioned just because a compromise is found for killing such as self defense does not mean that it denies the objectivity of the moral not to kill. The compromise shows that there is a moral truth that needs to be compromised so narrowing down the options to compromise the moral leaves us with a moral objective that I think no one could say was OK to do.

Yes, that´s what objective moralists believe. Unfortunately, they disagree on what objective morality prescribes.

That is not relevant as far as objective morality. It just has to show that there are morals that are absolute and beyond human subjectivism.

Yeah, lots of disagreements even within those groups that claim to adhere to the same "objective morality".

Which then begins to step into subjective morality. It is not becuase there is no objective morality.

Well, if society could present some demonstrably "objective morality" that might help. Until that happens, we can´t take people more seriously just because they claim their morals to be objective.

Many prominant scholars, scientists who have no religious motivation support objective morality. I think objective morality makes more sense and it is at least as valid as subjective morality if not more evident.

No, it´s an observation. All your arguments argue for the desirability of there being an objective morality (and one that agrees with you). When it comes to demonstrating the existence of such, you have been empty-handed so far.

I thought the logic of my argument stood up. I have given an example above. It is when you take out all the wiggle room that subjective morality is designed to incorporate becuase people do not want to acknowledge objective morals becuase that means people would have to also acknowledge there is an agent who gives us these morals.

What their subjective morality allows for or not depends entirely on what their subjective moral views are.

And because peoples views can vary from obscene, dangerous to very good means that there is a lot of potential bad that is let into the room to sit at the table. That tome in itself seems to show how illogical and self defeating subjective morality is.

Moral subjectivism can´t "fail". It isn´t a strategy.It´s an observation.

Actually they are more than observations. They are personal views which are what a person believes and noramlly lives by. That is why we have so much conflict and trouble. Subjective morality invites trouble becuase people live their views.

Yeah sure, a lot of people pretend or claim that their subjective views are objective once they can´t convince others of their subjective views.

The ironic thing is that a society that claims subjective morality ends up forcing people to ahere to one set of morals anyway becuase their subjective position does not work. IE the nanny state elling people what they can and cant do.

 

[durangodawood]

...How can their moralview be subjective when they still agree that the act is wrong. Just becuase they compromise the moral for that situation does not mean they have a different view of that moral. They still think it is wrong and just allow a compromise just for that one and only situation....

Yeah it seems ridiculous to think that typical people who'd steal to avoid a murder (per the hypothetical conflicting-morals situation) all of a sudden would think stealing is actually good.

The problem for discussions like this is we really require a deep study of human subjectivity to know this. Are we going to all read Crime and Punishment before continuing? Doubtful.

 

[durangodawood]

...and someone else can tell me how "stealing is good", based on objective facts....

So you say. But we havent seen it yet.

 

[Ken-1122]

Just because lying in some cases may be ok does not mean the moral of lying is subjective. Lying is wrong and will always be wrong. But compromises of that moral may be acceptable in certain situations.

My point is, if lying is OBJECTIVLY wrong, there can be no compromises, or exceptions in certain situations. The compromises and exceptions are made via personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances, which would make it subjective.

How are you defining the difference between Objective vs Subjective when applied to morality?

 

[quatona]

But the person that brings up the exception still believes that lying is ultimately wrong. The fact that a person has to make an exception or justification against the moral to not lie shows that there is a moral objective that we need to make an exception for.

If it´s not absolutely wrong (i.e. if there are exceptions to it) it´s relative.

 

[quatona]

So you say. But we havent seen it yet.

Of course we have. Just take the different takes on "property" and consequently "stealing" in e.g. capitalism, communism and anarchism.
(Of course, the whole "stealing" and "murdering" discussion is completely besides the point, because "stealing" is defined as "wrongful/illegal/immoral taking" and "murder" is defined as "wrongful/illegal/immoral killing". They have the "wrongness" inbuilt in their definition - but semantics don´t solve real life disagreements.)

 

[quatona]

It shows that our reaction speaks the truth about our moral views and everyone reacts the same.

No, it doesn´t show that. People use seemingly objective judgements all the time - in some instances you interprete it as a lapsus linguae and in some you interprete it as their "true moral view".

IE no one likes having their stuff stolen so they all view steaaling as wrong.

Well, since you now equate "not liking" and seeing it as "morally wrong" your actual point flies out the window.

I would have thought it was something a subjectivist also believes. If morals are subjective this would be no different to peoples different views on whether a particular culinary dish was good or bad tasting. How can you condemn a person for saying a dish tastes bad when you think it tastes good.

Why can´t they?

In the same vienhow can you condemn a person who thinks stealing is OK when you think it is bad.

Why couldn´t they.

Actually it is the other way around. Those who claim objective morality and then begin to argue among themselves about their views of morality are really just moral subjectivists.

So I´ll put you down as a moral subjectivist.

As for an objective moral what about

Killing “for the Fun of It” Is Never “OK”
“Is it ever morally acceptable to torture babies for fun?”

You are again confusing "objective", "absolute" and "universally agreed upon".

Come back to me when you can demonstrate the existence of "objective morality".

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Good Evening. I am Zed Aliz Zed

And this shall be a briefing on Morality. and issues with different kinds of it.


What is Morality?



The basic creed of every civilization and fundamentally the basis of "Good" and "Evil" the idea itself is probably as old as Humanity is. as even without written language, there is always an unspoken code.
or for definition
ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And the second stance the one I will be arguing for.
sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective:

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

The main argument for those of the Abrahamic religion is that God is Omnipotent and Omniscience so he decides Morality. which you would think would mean its Objective based on that argument but even then that's, not a good point.

simply because it can be taken apart simply by saying "well if Lucifer was even more powerful would you follow his creed?" most Christians would say no. but then they admit that morality cant is objective as if it comes from a higher power. then it changes depending on who holds power.

a secondary argument is God in the bible has a personality. a goal of some sorts and a large portion of what he commands us to do helps him not us. so it could be argued his morality itself is subjective and he simply pushes it objectively on us. that would also explain how it changes throughout the Bible

once wearing mixed fabric was a sin. see Leviticus for detail around the homosexuality. (which if you are going to quote don't lay with a man I best hope that shirt and pants are all cotton or of the same fabric or your a hypocrite)

but seeing as how no one seems to follow the mixed fabric rule and many argue Leviticus does not apply any longer thanks to Jesus you can see a change of law and morality.

Law itself is mostly reflected upon Morality but depends on whose in power. so really the bible does not deal in morality but in law. as the law does not claim to always reflect morality, after all, there are many law's here in the US which are seemingly [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and helps no one and yet exist for some odd reason.

Laws also directly change year to year and sometimes in opposition to the generally held morality of the time. which makes sense as if Law is reflected on morality than it goes on the morality of whoever decides the Law.
Morality varies person to person even within those of the same faith and sect.




Where does that Leave Good and Evil?




That's just it. I don't think there is any such thing as Good or Evil. while there is Illegal and Legal there is no real Good or Evil. such things require consistency and Objectivity. but if the bible changes and the general message changes and both are from the same being that he himself is not solid but liquid. and changes as well. as does every Animal we all change over time. in one way or another.

so you yourself, if you are Christian, can argue that let us use Homosexuality as an example. you can argue it against the biblical law but you can't exactly argue it immoral. especially when even within the Christian faith it is becoming more accepted and overtime if the religion still exists in the coming century will probably be treated like that mixed fabric rule. and completely ignored.

I Myself am Deist and see the only morality there is, is the law of nature. which is unbreakable. so there is no point trying to follow it. as you already do.

everything else is man-made. morality itself a construction of thought. a needed tool and one we can not exist currently without but one that should not be considered in stone. as everything changes. Law. People. Time. and so we should welcome such change and keep tweaking our codes and creeds until we find the perfect set if possible.


If you have read this far without storming off I applaud you and would love to hear your thoughts or arguments on the mater. though I probably have heard them all and countered them all at one point.

Good Night.

I think this is a refreshing take on morality. I think you make some good points.

Specifically, that morality is a man-made construction. I completely agree. Morality is categorically subjective because

1. Morality is for entities that die
2. Morality is a basis for how entities can conduct their lives (especially in relation to other people) for the purposes of survive and, ultimately, thriving as the main concern
3. Everyone has their own code and principles on how one should live one's life. There is no set standard "hardwired" by nature in the view or morality - no matter how socially imperative a standard may be.

​

For this reason, it make no sense to call any philosophy that looks beyond humanity a "morality," and it is equally foolish to try to square that philosophical circle with the boundaries of "morality." Many people take the social and peer pressure of societies as the proof of an objective system, but this isn't necessarily true. This social and peer-relation paradigm functions on a punishment system - and, very loosely at that. The very fact that one has to encourage another to behave according to a social paradigm illustrates the dynamics - and therefore subjectivity - of morality among the population.


For things like homosexuality, a "religion" may find fault with it, but the world may not. Why? Because, people who identify as homosexual have also shown that there is a fundamental threat to their existence when encountering some people who hold themselves to some other life philosophy. Some of the world has a population that would kill these people precisely because of their sexual attraction. In places that do not, and will not, it becomes a matter of living and dying - specifically, how to preserve life among a population that has shown a particular thoughtform or action to be detrimental to the lives in question.

That is where "morality," as it were, comes from - it is an agreement among entities that die that drives to preserve and prosper life the best living entities can.


Spirituality, enlightenment, etc. are categorically transcendent of morality. These are philosophies that focus on long term preservation of life - as these philosophies almost always focus on eternity as opposed to generations of 100, 1000, or even 10^6 years. I would hope it would be clearer to see why one philosophy's standards may seem asinine to a follower of pure morality: the latter is focused on (at most) the future 100 years, with a hope for betterment in the generations to come.


Something like "not wearing mixed woolens" wouldn't make sense to someone focused on a fleeting lifetime, but to one who lives for 10^34 years, their "standards" could be because they know "polyester and cotton blends will morph into a galaxy-eating monster in 40,000 years if enough humans wear them..." The focus is hyperopic.

 

[durangodawood]

Of course we have. Just take the different takes on "property" and consequently "stealing" in e.g. capitalism, communism and anarchism.
(Of course, the whole "stealing" and "murdering" discussion is completely besides the point, because "stealing" is defined as "wrongful/illegal/immoral taking" and "murder" is defined as "wrongful/illegal/immoral killing". They have the "wrongness" inbuilt in their definition - but semantics don´t solve real life disagreements.)

Interesting examples.

State-communism failed because (among other reasons) its notions of "property" were objectively unsuitable to normal human motivations. When "property" lacks any reasonable meaning, so does "stealing".

 

[Ken-1122]

I think you may have contradicted yourself. If laws are underpinned by morals and laws are objective then that would mean morals are objective.

No. Just because laws originate from moralis doesn’t mean they are the same.. That would be like saying a car and a train are the same since they are both vehicles.

Or maybe laws are the result of people or a society that gets out of control so the powers to be make a law to try and stop that bad behavour. In that sense morals may be the same where despite people saying there are different moral views everyone reacts the same when affected by a breached moral.

No because there will be disagreements on what constitutes “out of control”, and “bad behavior”

Therefore peoples reaction reflects the true status of their moral view and everyone reacts the same when they have something taken from them for example. How can their moralview be subjective when they still agree that the act is wrong.

Because they don't agree the act is wrong. When you are protecting your family from a violent intruder, that is not wrong, it is not a lesser of two wrongs, it is not a compromise for a specific situation, protecting your family is the morally RIGHT thing to do; anything less is wrong.

Just becuase they compromise the moral for that situation does not mean they have a different view of that moral. They still think it is wrong and just allow a compromise just for that one and only situation.

Obviously we disagree here, because even though you think it is wrong, I do not.
Objective means based on fact, not opinion. Facts can be demonstrated. If morality were objective, you could demonstrate why you are right and I am wrong.

I have to disagree that everyone brings their own set of morals to the table. As mentioned above they may still agree that a moral is wrong but may allow a compromise for that one off or out of the norm situation.

Again; compromise is subjective, not objective.

They still believe for example killing is wrong 99% of the time. That 1% they may allow a compromise is not a new moral they are bringing to the table when they say it is OK to kill someone in self defense. That 1% is a compromise of the same moral they believe is wrong 99% of the time. So they still agree that killing is wrong. People mistake the 1% compromise as the subjective view and a new moral when its just a rare adjustment of the original moral that remains the same. It cannot be a subjective view because they still agree that killing is wrong.

Killing is easy. How about taxes? Is it morally fair for people with higher income to pay more? Is a progressive tax system where they pay a higher percentage fair? Should the rich be required to pay the health care coverage for those who are poor so they don’t die in the streets? How about if the poor’s illness is due to unhealthy lifestyle? Is it still fair?

Are you going to tell me everybody is going to agree on moral issues like that? I think not, and I can come up with a hundred more moral questions that everybody disagrees on.

 

[durangodawood]

....Killing is easy. How about taxes? Is it morally fair for people with higher income to pay more? Is a progressive tax system where they pay a higher percentage fair? Should the rich be required to pay the health care coverage for those who are poor so they don’t die in the streets? How about if the poor’s illness is due to unhealthy lifestyle? Is it still fair?

Are you going to tell me everybody is going to agree on moral issues like that? I think not, and I can come up with a hundred more moral questions that everybody disagrees on.

Those are policy questions. Not morals. Of course we draw on our moral principles to arrive at proper solutions. But the our particular policy preference is also driven by findings of fact, personal self-interest, habits of culture, etc.

But policies are not morals. Moral principles are much more foundational.

 

[Ken-1122]

Those are policy questions. Not morals. Of course we draw on our moral principles to arrive at proper solutions. But the our particular policy preference is also driven by findings of fact, personal self-interest, habits of culture, etc.

But policies are not morals. Moral principles are much more foundational.

Don't assume that because YOU don't consider it a moral issue that nobody does.
What I listed are laws that are based on moral issues. Many people consider it immoral to allow the poor to die in the streets while the rich throw away more than they need. Many consider it immoral to charge the poor the same tax amount as the rich, These are moral issues that people have turned into laws, and there are countless others. There are other moral issues than don't steal, don't kill, and the other 8 or so mentioned in the bible; what some people consider moral is also subjective. (example) Some people consider sex before marriage a moral issue, others do not. The fact that these moral issues cannot be proven right or wrong shows they are subjective; based on personal beliefs, extenuating circumstances, and point of view, not objective; based on fact

 

[durangodawood]

Don't assume that because YOU don't consider it a moral issue that nobody does.
What I listed are laws that are based on moral issues. Many people consider it immoral to allow the poor to die in the streets while the rich throw away more than they need. Many consider it immoral to charge the poor the same tax amount as the rich, These are moral issues that people have turned into laws, and there are countless others. There are other moral issues than don't steal, don't kill, and the other 8 or so mentioned in the bible; what some people consider moral is also subjective. (example) Some people consider sex before marriage a moral issue, others do not. The fact that these moral issues cannot be proven right or wrong shows they are subjective; based on personal beliefs, extenuating circumstances, and point of view, not objective; based on fact

Of course morals are involved in complex policy matters.

But there's so many other issues flying around such topics that the strictly moral questions get confounded.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

That source is the objectively existing moral character of God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Almost all societies have certain conflicting morals as well.

Yes but there are certain morals that are common to almost all societies. Such as you shall not steal from your group, you shall not murder members of your group, you shall not steal wives from your group, you shall not lie to your group and etc.

 

[durangodawood]

That source is the objectively existing moral character of God.

Well thats a broad claim. Lets see it.

 

[Redac]

No, it renders it relative.

Edit: I misread and was mistaken in my use of terms, disregard.

 

[quatona]

Interesting examples.

State-communism failed because (among other reasons) its notions of "property" were objectively unsuitable to normal human motivations.

You said you haven´t seen any examples of disagreements about property/stealing, based on objective facts. I gave you some (and I just gave you the grossest disagreements).
That you or I do not follow their conclusions from the facts they are based on (i.e. disagree with them in the actually non-objective criteria and evaluation) is a totally nother issue - and it speaks to my point rather than yours.

 

[durangodawood]

You said you haven´t seen any examples of disagreements about property/stealing, based on objective facts. I gave you some (and I just gave you the grossest disagreements).
That you or I do not follow their conclusions from the facts they are based on (i.e. disagree with them in the actually non-objective criteria and evaluation) is a totally nother issue - and it speaks to my point rather than yours.

Well when you have to redefine the idea of "stealing" so completely to find an example, then it speaks to my point rather than yours.