• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why ISN'T morality subjective?

SensEye

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
486
MBTI Type
INTp
There's never been a single culture where murder of a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember has ever been morally acceptable.
Even the term murder implies a subjective standard. There's lots of cultures where killing a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember is acceptable. Usually, for violations of the "law" (the tribes particular moral standards). Of course, nobody calls that murder, it's justice.

Zago keeps going off track by arguing people have sense of right and wrong. That morals exist. Nobody is arguing that. It's just that the moral standard people/cultures come up with is subjective. For morality to be objective, there needs to be a force outside of humanity that defines the morals standard (i.e. a god). Religious people can argue that there is an objective morality defined by their god. I won't believe them, but their concept of an objective morality under these conditions is valid.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
Zago keeps going off track by arguing people have sense of right and wrong. That morals exist. Nobody is arguing that. It's just that the moral standard people/cultures come up with is subjective. For morality to be objective, there needs to be a force outside of humanity that defines the morals standard (i.e. a god). Religious people can argue that there is an objective morality defined by their god. I won't believe them, but their concept of an objective morality under these conditions is valid.

There is a force outside of humanity that defines moral standards, and that is reason (ok not a force, but it is indeed beyond humanity and even god).

Given what human nature IS, various statements can be made about it. Humans are creatures of preference. That fact alone is the basis for morality. Morality is what humans prefer--what they consider good. What else would it be?
 

tkae.

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
753
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Even the term murder implies a subjective standard. There's lots of cultures where killing a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember is acceptable. Usually, for violations of the "law" (the tribes particular moral standards). Of course, nobody calls that murder, it's justice.

Zago keeps going off track by arguing people have sense of right and wrong. That morals exist. Nobody is arguing that. It's just that the moral standard people/cultures come up with is subjective. For morality to be objective, there needs to be a force outside of humanity that defines the morals standard (i.e. a god). Religious people can argue that there is an objective morality defined by their god. I won't believe them, but their concept of an objective morality under these conditions is valid.

Yeah, but like you said, that's not murder. I'm talking about murder in the sense of killing someone for completely personal or emotional reasons without the consent of the group.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
My boyfriend is a moral objectivist, and we've had some rough arguments about it.

From his point of view, morality is a moot point if it's subjective. He considers the very concept of morality to be a black and white, good and evil, right or wrong system that judges a person's actions as either moral or immoral without regard for context. That morality is almost like an idealistic kind of justice where only facts matter, and that to ignore the facts in favor of emotions or extenuating circumstances is a violation of the entire purpose for a morality in the first place.

For the record, I don't agree. I believe (and was taught in my humanities classes) that morality is influenced more by culture than by any universal kind of right or wrong. That where pedophilia is immoral today, it was totally moral two hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago where you had Greek men sleeping with older boys and it being considered a moral, educational experience. And with samurai. And Chinese nobles... and so forth.

At the same time, there is a degree of objectiveness to morality. Some things are universally wrong by way of them being disruptive to humanity at the most basic, fundamental level.

For example, murder. There's never been a single culture where murder of a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember has ever been morally acceptable. Rape has never moral. And so forth. Typically they're things that are extremely traumatic and cause a major impact on a number of peoples' lives. The only time murder has ever been "moral" is in revenge murders (Hamlet and Duncan's son in Macbeth, for instance), but those are only considered moral because the initial act of murder was highly immoral, thus alleviating the revenge murderer of moral repercussions by acting as an agent of moral justice rather than an immoral infringer of morality.

So I think neither objective nor subjective morality is completely right. There's a degree of both. It's all about how you spin the argument. As far as my boyfriend's concerned, subjective morality is too busy with historical apologetics and not focused enough on what is or isn't moral, where I think we have to look at the malleability of morality to understand why we consider things now immoral that weren't immoral before.

And if you were to ask me that question I'd say it's because the Puritans were fucking lunatics. But I digress.

You have taken in the ideology of the politically correct without criticism, and without digesting it, without analysing it, without evaluating it, and without integrating it into your world view. I can understand that being meretricious is good for one's self esteem.

But where the politically correct view fails is that morality is developmental. Morality develops in the individual and morality develops in society.

And moral development can't take place unless morality is objective.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My boyfriend is a moral objectivist, and we've had some rough arguments about it.

From his point of view, morality is a moot point if it's subjective. He considers the very concept of morality to be a black and white, good and evil, right or wrong system that judges a person's actions as either moral or immoral without regard for context. That morality is almost like an idealistic kind of justice where only facts matter, and that to ignore the facts in favor of emotions or extenuating circumstances is a violation of the entire purpose for a morality in the first place.

And what purpose would that be?

For the record, I don't agree. I believe (and was taught in my humanities classes) that morality is influenced more by culture than by any universal kind of right or wrong. That where pedophilia is immoral today, it was totally moral two hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago where you had Greek men sleeping with older boys and it being considered a moral, educational experience. And with samurai. And Chinese nobles... and so forth.

At the same time, there is a degree of objectiveness to morality. Some things are universally wrong by way of them being disruptive to humanity at the most basic, fundamental level.

For example, murder. There's never been a single culture where murder of a fellow citizen/tribesman/clanmember has ever been morally acceptable. Rape has never moral. And so forth. Typically they're things that are extremely traumatic and cause a major impact on a number of peoples' lives. The only time murder has ever been "moral" is in revenge murders (Hamlet and Duncan's son in Macbeth, for instance), but those are only considered moral because the initial act of murder was highly immoral, thus alleviating the revenge murderer of moral repercussions by acting as an agent of moral justice rather than an immoral infringer of morality.

So I think neither objective nor subjective morality is completely right. There's a degree of both. It's all about how you spin the argument. As far as my boyfriend's concerned, subjective morality is too busy with historical apologetics and not focused enough on what is or isn't moral, where I think we have to look at the malleability of morality to understand why we consider things now immoral that weren't immoral before.

And if you were to ask me that question I'd say it's because the Puritans were fucking lunatics. But I digress.

Objectively or subjectively lunatics?

Yours is an historical analysis, but not a meta-moral analysis. In other words, your determination is based on how people have derived morality in the past. You don't judge one way or the other, but simply note that some morality has been subjectively derived, other morality has been objective (i.e., deemed "universally wrong" or right).

I see no reason in the above to decide that both sides (objective and subjective) have a degree of correctness. If such reason exists, can you show it to me?
 

tkae.

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
753
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yours is an historical analysis, but not a meta-moral analysis. In other words, your determination is based on how people have derived morality in the past. You don't judge one way or the other, but simply note that some morality has been subjectively derived, other morality has been objective (i.e., deemed "universally wrong" or right).

I'm actually saying that since I have a subjective view of morality, I can't actually agree that any element of morality has been objective. I'm just pointing out that there are some things that have appeared in all versions of morality, and therefor could be argued as being signs of an objective morality. I'm not saying I agree with it, since I don't think those things are universally moral or immoral by their nature.

I see no reason in the above to decide that both sides (objective and subjective) have a degree of correctness. If such reason exists, can you show it to me?

Not really. If you don't see it in what I said, nothing else I say will show it to you. I'd use the exact same thought process for any lesser examples.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I'm actually saying that since I have a subjective view of morality, I can't actually agree that any element of morality has been objective.

If your morality is subjective, how could I possible trust you?
 

TheCheeseBurgerKing

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
473
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8
I think this irks a lot of people, but to me at least (perhaps this is the "no rules" INTP part of me talking haha.) this is how I see it:

- IMO, subjectivism is meant in a cosmological sense. I don't know of any universal moral law
- I personally believe in equal rights for all, no matter who you are. But had I lived in early modern times, pre the Enlightenment, I may not have thought this.

So then, how isn't morality subjective?

IMO, I personally don't give a shit lol.. "Morals" are spent.


Not sure exactly what you are asking, but my best answer is that morals are made objective so that we are all looking at the same thing, kind of like guidelines.

What type of morals are you refering too?
Can I get a for instance?
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
Because history is the best interpretation of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
 

krypton1te

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
43
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Morality is subjective, in a sense that, when we compare it to the universe, morality only exists because of its human origin. All its considerations are subjective perspectives that have been formulated to some kind of objective.

Morality is and isn't subjective. It all depends on the way we decide to look at it. It is subjective to the universe, but it is objective to us (humans).
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
I think this irks a lot of people, but to me at least (perhaps this is the "no rules" INTP part of me talking haha.) this is how I see it:

- IMO, subjectivism is meant in a cosmological sense. I don't know of any universal moral law
- I personally believe in equal rights for all, no matter who you are. But had I lived in early modern times, pre the Enlightenment, I may not have thought this.

So then, how isn't morality subjective?

IMO, I personally don't give a shit lol.. "Morals" are spent.

Subjectivism cannot be in a cosmological sense. We are not nearly as large as the universe, therefore our arbitrary rules cannot hope to apply.

Equal rights for all? How are rights defined? By laws that enforce them? This same set of rules for all entities, universally?
In other words, imperialism?

And to what extent do these equal rights go? Are they not simply the highest-yet refined human standards for right and wrong, making them subjective human terms that cannot be spread over all?
 
Top