• 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?

danseen

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
781
MBTI Type
INTP
1. If morals exist only for humans, they still exist.

Morals don't exist.
2. You misconceive morality. Above I compared a science of morality to a science of medicinal health. Not everyone needs the same interventions and prescriptions.

Morality is made up by a given society/culture.
 

entpersonal

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
151
Morality is completely subjective and culturally dependent. People eat dogs in South Korea and that's generally frowned upon stateside.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
Morality is completely subjective and culturally dependent. People eat dogs in South Korea and that's generally frowned upon stateside.

That doesn't prove anything. Circumstances affect the most moral decision to make at any given time. That doesn't mean it is subjective.
 

entpersonal

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
151
That doesn't prove anything. Circumstances affect the most moral decision to make at any given time. That doesn't mean it is subjective.

Yeah, if the ethical classification is determined by culture, and if the cultures differ on what's acceptable, that actually makes it subjective. It's certainly not divine intercession forcing South Koreans to eat dogs and Americans to forgo said activity.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
Yeah, if the ethical classification is determined by culture, and if the cultures differ on what's acceptable, that actually makes it subjective. It's certainly not divine intercession forcing South Koreans to eat dogs and Americans to forgo said activity.

First, can we use a different example?

People in Germany in 1945 murdered Jews, and that was generally frowned upon stateside.

Ok, we're using that as the example now. Just 'cause.

Now, you say if cultures differ on what's acceptable that makes it subjective. Not really. One culture can be right and the other can be wrong. One can be better than the other at morality. Also, how you yourself act depends on what circumstances you're in. Killing in war is not the same as killing in peace. Things may depend on circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an objective right and a wrong thing to do within them.

I gotta go to bed. I don't want to, but I got to. Nighty night.
 

entpersonal

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
151
Now, you say if cultures differ on what's acceptable that makes it subjective. Not really. One culture can be right and the other can be wrong. One can be better than the other at morality.

There's no objective rubric by which to compare or call one side definitively wrong. It's just your opinion that one side was "better" than the other.
 

entpersonal

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
151
First, can we use a different example?

People in Germany in 1945 murdered Jews, and that was generally frowned upon stateside.

Ok, we're using that as the example now. Just 'cause.

The early 20th century US example of sterilizing low IQ folk actually informed part of Hitler's eugenics program.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
There's no objective rubric by which to compare or call one side definitively wrong. It's just your opinion that one side was "better" than the other.

That we haven't found an objective rubric doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Objective science has always existed in its entirety, we just figure out more about it as we go.

Let's say you're sitting next to Hitler staring at a 1-way glass wall that looks into a concentration camp's death chamber. You see about 50 emaciated, bald and naked women and children walk in and he explains to you that they think they are about to be be showered, but they are really about to be given zyclon B gas and killed. Sure enough, you watch in horror as this begins to happen and you watch these people die over the course of several minutes, many of them running around, screaming, choking, in agony, etc. It is a truly gruesome sight. Soon there are just a few twitches from the pile of corpses on the floor.

What do you do? Do you calmly look over at Hitler and say, "wow, I am not used to a sight like this because my culture is so different, but I really have a lot of respect for how you guys do things over here." But thinking then of the families and loved ones who were just torn apart, you ask, "are you sure you really have to kill people like this though?"

He replies, "hey, it's all just an opinion, remember. We are just the same as you, that is, without moral value whatsoever because it's all relative. Who would you be to say we are wrong for doing this? That would be your opinion."

*

And I'm not just trying to appeal to emotion here, but I think that story is important. There are possible rubrics that transcend culture, government, and religion. People's well-being can be measured many ways, just like their physical health can be measured many ways. There are actions that serve to increase the well-being of individuals, the community, and the world, and there are actions that make people suffer. The axiomatic foundation of objective morality is that suffering is bad and well-being is good. Those things can be measured.

The early 20th century US example of sterilizing low IQ folk actually informed part of Hitler's eugenics program.

If you're saying that Hitler and them really thought it was the best course of action based on the accepted beliefs of the time, that doesn't make it any more right. Wrong is wrong, whether or not you know you're doing it.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
my 2 cents:

Morality isn't subjective because of the capacity for understanding. If you understand something you are subject to it, if you don't fully understand, or only understand a part of something it may be followed incorrectly (due to an imprinting one has fallen under), also if understanding cannot be fully illustrated for someone else to understand then authority will be resisted or overly relied on. Of course this also exists in a negative sense, i.e. a partial understanding (or an imprint thereof) can cause one to resist illustration of a complete understanding...
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
Again, there isn't any objective benchmark by which to deem anything wrong or right. It's one person's opinion against another person's opinion.

Uhhhh... I explained that in my post. Why did you just single out one sentence?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Again, there isn't any objective benchmark by which to deem anything wrong or right. It's one person's opinion against another person's opinion.

The world-wide objective benchmark is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.

I understand your country and mine helped draw up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed it and ratified it. So we have a benchmark to which we can both refer.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Those who follow the shallow dictum, if it feels good, do it, naturally wish morality were subjective.

This is called, wish fulfillment.
 

entpersonal

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
151
The world-wide objective benchmark is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.

I understand your country and mine helped draw up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed it and ratified it. So we have a benchmark to which we can both refer.

That's already been violated nine ways to Sunday. Also, a bunch of people agreeing on something doesn't make it objectively valid. A lot of people thought the earth was flat at one point. That consensus didn't make it so.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
I agree, the consensus isn't the grounds for objectivity. But there still is one. We can use data to see how well our actions work. Do they have the desired effect of increasing well-being, productivity, organization, etc.
 

21%

You have a choice!
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
3,224
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I believe morality is subjective. However, I also believe that we can find an objective agreement that will make the majority of humans happy because we are similarly wired to seek comfort, avoid pain, spread our genes, etc. 'Right' and 'wrong' are human concepts -- we created them. There are no universal rights or wrongs, but there might be something akin to 'universal human facts' -- for example, altruism is always a good thing for the survival of our species.
 

entpersonal

New member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
151
We can use data to see how well our actions work. Do they have the desired effect of increasing well-being, productivity, organization, etc.

I don't see where this is going - heroin promotes "well-being" but is traditionally considered less than moral to use. Amphetamines increase productivity and likewise are seen as basically aberrant. Also, what promotes well-being in some may leave others indifferent. So, again, this is all inherently subjective.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't see where this is going - heroin promotes "well-being" but is traditionally considered less than moral to use. Amphetamines increase productivity and likewise are seen as basically aberrant. Also, what promotes well-being in some may leave others indifferent. So, again, this is all inherently subjective.

That is far from proving anything subjective.

First, I have stated in previous posts which you apparently didn't read (the one you only quoted a single line from) that the prescription for morality for each person may differ. A dying person in pain may be right to take heroin or opiates of some sort. Someone in good health may not. You are failing to look at this situation with any degree of nuance and just saying "well it's not the same for everyone so there is no right and wrong!"

You would not say that about the objective science of medicinal health. Just because I don't need chemotherapy right now and others do doesn't mean health is subjective.

Heroin only promotes well being in the very short term. Obviously it is wrong to take heroin (and amphetamines, etc) if you're a normal person. However, if those things didn't have side effects that more than negate the benefits, it might be right to take them. Anti-depressants help millions. Presumably we will continue to improve our drugs and in the future may be able to raise our happiness to blissful levels and continue to take care of what needs to be taken care of in life. That is when taking them could cease to be wrong and become right.

It's not hard to see. This is all very obvious, you just ignore my arguments for some reason, like creationists who ignore all the blinding evidence for evolution. My question, then, is why are you so opposed to morality being objective? I mean, you clearly want morality to be subjective. It's beyond you just thinking it is true that it is subjective.
 

zago

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,162
MBTI Type
INTP
I still want my Hitler argument addressed. You never really addressed it. Was Hitler wrong, or is it all just an opinion and Hitler was just as right as anyone has ever been?
 
Top