Why ISN'T morality subjective?

[iNtrovert]

People often collectively agree on morals, which is still subjective, but it's as close as we can get to being objective about morality.

The subtle play of individual judgement always comes into play and human beings are more likely to align with those they hold the highest value of in their own lives.

Rights are a rough way of making sure negative things don't happen to an individual, or rather yourself as the individual and so through those rights people believe they are setting a standard, I suppose if it could be adhered to strictly, there would be a rough standard, but the individual level always takes over in the heat of a moment.

Do you feel that terms like good an evil or positive and negative are also subjective?

 

[danseen]

And heres to you completely misunderstanding everything I wrote in that last post.

*facepalm*

I'm saying that morals don't exist and are a fiction. anything goes in life. And?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Everything the mind creates is subjective to some degree. Morality is one of the most subjective concepts there is. But it's a very important survival mechanism, so just because it is subjective, does not mean it isn't useful.

 

[danseen]

Everything the mind creates is subjective to some degree. Morality is one of the most subjective concepts there is. But it's a very important survival mechanism, so just because it is subjective, does not mean it isn't useful.

really? Morality is really a spent ideal, is it not?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

really? Morality is really a spent ideal, is it not?

It's a way of maintaining stability of the group through collective standards of behaviour. The group in this context generally encompasses the entire human "hive mind", but nuances exist through narrower contexts, and the more you hone in on these specifics, the more subtle the nuances (different cultures though, can differ by quite significant margins in some instances). i.e the hive mind -> culture -> region -> family -> individual (healthy), with the individual's morals being, by large, surprising impersonal. Time is a factor as well. Morals change dramatically but the majority of people of the time fit around the framework whatever they are.

 

[Cellmold]

Do you feel that terms like good an evil or positive and negative are also subjective?

No. I think they are, but I feel them differently.

What I feel and think are very different. It's part of my illogical contradictions, and maybe a narrow black and white perspective, I can see how morals are really little more than a useful aid in our own survival and beyond that is mere fragility, but this does not mean I am able to detach myself from my morality, which is ingrained.

I can rationalise that there is no more significance for a stranger dying in the street than one of my parents, as they are both...ultimately, just creatures dying by the variables they find themselves in and part of.

But for one of my parents, would I be able to stop myself from rushing to their aid? I doubt it.

Possibly this is as selfish as anything else, I would rush to them because inside I would not deem myself strong enough to deal without their presence. Or childhood fears of the invincibility of parents being made vincible.

Perhaps I might even help the man dying on the street, but the motivation would be different, as different as our relationship and so there are different sets of morals for different relationships that I hold.

It's somewhat cruel when put that way, but while we have the chemical reactions of emotion, we have valuation and that allows us to access something we cannot always rationalise, possibly because it is intrinsically part of us...the emotions, not morality.

 

[greenfairy]

Morality is opposed to Self-interest. The latter is subjective, so the former is not.

Actually morality takes self interest into account if you belief you have a moral duty to yourself.


Morality in theory is objective but in practice is subjective. That's why purely subjectivist accounts of ethics fail, because they are incoherent. What separates something which is right from something which is purely a preference is its objective component. Each person has their own understanding of ethics as it is applied to real world issues, but the concept denotes objectivity.

 

[greenfairy]

Do you feel that terms like good an evil or positive and negative are also subjective?

Good and its opposite (whether you take that to be merely bad or evil) are dichotomies, so it follows that if all sets are not identical at least one element in a person's set of good or bad will cancel out one in another person's.

I think all morality is subjective in the sense that it is human value which is attached to empirical phenomena, and so without human beings to have preferences morality and ethics would not exist (unless there are other beings which have notions of ethics). But one can derive and approximate an objective element of ethics from that which all humans would agree upon should they be in their right mind- this last bit means that anyone who has an ethical opinion is valuing the interest or preservation of another, and so if one has this interest and is moderately successful at it (preserving oneself and others) one is in the right mind for having an ethical opinion.

 

[Concur_Withall]

Actually morality takes self interest into account if you belief you have a moral duty to yourself.


Morality in theory is objective but in practice is subjective. That's why purely subjectivist accounts of ethics fail, because they are incoherent. What separates something which is right from something which is purely a preference is its objective component. Each person has their own understanding of ethics as it is applied to real world issues, but the concept denotes objectivity.

Actually, I believe your ONLY duty is towards yourself. Why? Because you only have access to yourself. Insofar as you have access to others, they become yourself.

Charity starts at home. Treat others as you would rather be treated. God, we're a selfish bunch.

 

[Cellmold]

Charity starts at home. Treat others as you would rather be treated. God, we're a selfish bunch.

But if that kind of semi-aware selfishness, through heuristic evidence, leads to a shared beneficial, then it isn't such a 'bad' thing.

Although i'm not saying you said it was bad

 

[greenfairy]

Actually, I believe your ONLY duty is towards yourself. Why? Because you only have access to yourself. Insofar as you have access to others, they become yourself.

Charity starts at home. Treat others as you would rather be treated. God, we're a selfish bunch.

This is something people don't understand; if you want to redefine self as to include others it makes the argument moot. So insofar as people (who may need to be persuaded of what is ethical) have an idea of the self that does not include others, then we need to use the same language. Interesting thought though. I agree that separation is an illusion on some level, and empathy makes us aware of this fact by broadening our sphere of what we see as ourselves.

I don't think though that we would not have ethical duties to others if it had been the case that we were not interdependent. Although the antecedent of that statement might require denying the laws of nature.

 

[SensEye]

I disagree. Morals don't exist, period. Only children/silly people need morals.

Morals are merely in the eye of the beholder.

That doesn't mean morals don't exist, it just means they are subjective. And it's a good thing the subjective standard is usually shared across a majority of the members of a given society. Otherwise, civilization would descend back to the stone age.

 

[Concur_Withall]

I would be kind to rocks, but I have no idea how!

To me, the ultimate ethics is a question of Yes or No.

You were Willed into existence, and that was good. If you want to will yourself back out of existence, you can, but that would be... BAD

I'm starting to focus more on myself and what I want for myself, hence the bias in my response.

I don't know if I am a selfish Christian or a socialised Satanist.

 

[Avocado]

I would be kind to rocks, but I have no idea how!

To me, the ultimate ethics is a question of Yes or No.

You were Willed into existence, and that was good. If you want to will yourself back out of existence, you can, but that would be... BAD

I'm starting to focus more on myself and what I want for myself, hence the bias in my response.

I don't know if I am a selfish Christian or a socialised Satanist.

Satanist?

 

[Concur_Withall]

Satanist?

I don't think there's much difference.

One is the Right Hand Path, One is the Left Hand Path.

I personally have two hands.

 

[cafe]

Morals are subjective. That does not make them of no value or invalid. We're a social species. Morals have value in allowing us to live in close proximity to each other and work together because we don't function well on our own. We have our brains and the ability to work together. We are not fast, our sense of smell is crap, we can't see well in the dark, our pelts are next to useless, our teeth and nails are a joke. We need each other. So we come up with morals so we don't kill each other quite so quickly as we otherwise might, so the species survives. Group interest and self-interest are aligned on a meta level.

You do not always have to comply with the morals/standards of the society in which you live. But it's very foolish and short-sighted to ignore them completely. It's wiser to know the rules, be very familiar with the consequences of breaking them or complying with them and decide what outcome you'd like to see, what price you are willing to pay. And not just short-term. People have long memories about some things, but not about others. Count the costs, IOW.

If you want to be able to someday tell everyone and their morals they can go to hell, you will have to be in a position to never need anyone's goodwill or kindness. One day, chances are pretty good you'll be old and frail and having a little goodwill accrued might be beneficial. Probably it will be beneficial many times before that.

I am in a position where I can tell some people and their morals to go to hell, but there are many I cannot and several I would bend over backwards to simply humor because I want them to love me back.

Reciprocity is important in human interactions. It's a subjective 'moral' but it's really close to being hard-wired into our brains. Even if individually we're selfish bastards, we recognize when someone does not reciprocate what we do for them. It's fairly logical to project that idea onto others and recognize that we have to reciprocate, too. Myself, I recognize the many benefits reciprocal behaviors bring me and I want very much to keep them coming, so I behave accordingly.

 

[Concur_Withall]

Well said, cafe.

I think morality works on a group level because the group takes on an identity of its own. Like, you can take two people and place one over the top of the other (think: Venn diagram). There will be a lot of overlap, and a good deal of non-overlapping portions. Now, take three people and do the same, and there will be a portion where all 3 overlap. Now, take 10, 20, 30, 100, 10000, 100000000 people and do the same. There will still be that overlapping portion, but now it is made up of many people and has all of their strength.

So, we have that generalised humanity to us, and we have our individualism. Different levels of morality. On the one hand you want to foster your individuality, on the other hand you want to do what is beneficial to your family unit, your close and more distant community, your country, your planet, your universe. You can call it the common denominator, which only has negative connotations when we ignore all the other facts.

I say fuck off to your morals, but I'll still help you anyway, and if you wish so, you can help me too.

 

[iNtrovert]

Good and its opposite (whether you take that to be merely bad or evil) are dichotomies, so it follows that if all sets are not identical at least one element in a person's set of good or bad will cancel out one in another person's.

I think all morality is subjective in the sense that it is human value which is attached to empirical phenomena, and so without human beings to have preferences morality and ethics would not exist (unless there are other beings which have notions of ethics). But one can derive and approximate an objective element of ethics from that which all humans would agree upon should they be in their right mind- this last bit means that anyone who has an ethical opinion is valuing the interest or preservation of another, and so if one has this interest and is moderately successful at it (preserving oneself and others) one is in the right mind for having an ethical opinion.

Yea, I was more or less just trying to get to the root of what Affirmitive Anxiety was saying in his eairlier post. But thanks for your input .

 

[rav3n]

Morality is highly subjective and is part of the social engineering framework of having a large number of human beings confined in small spaces. If everyone agrees not to eat each other, it creates a sense of safety in numbers.

 

[danseen]

OK, yes, let's have some nice people answer this thread? hahah!!

Er... if you answer me rudely, I do the same to you, and yes I saw your reputation.