Why ISN'T morality subjective?

[Mole]

I've recently been trying to go with my gut in terms of how I make decisions, knowing that my gut reacts dynamically according to the context of my personal preferences and the environment. If you try to iron out your ethics with too much logic, you just wind up being a stupid extremist who often cannot act according to real circumstances - circumstances that may necessitate the choosing of a lesser evil.

Just an experiment, really though.

That said, it should be obvious that decision making faculties are subjective and that even if you follow an article like The Declaration of Human Rights to the letter, your subconscious with throw unknown variables into your biases about how to apply them. If you tried to devote all of your mental energy into just The Declaration of Human Rights, then you would wind up creating a stringent "Us-Them" divide, thereby undoing the entire point...

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

Well, you are right. Quite a few choices we are required to make are a choice between two evils, and we try to choose the lesser of the two evils.

And the reality is there is an us and them divide on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So 136 civilized nations have accepted and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while 57 Islamic nations of the OIC have rejected the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights.

The 57 Islamic nations have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of Sharia so they can continue to violate the human rights of women, the human rights of children, the human rights of gays and lesbians, and the human rights of Jews, Christians, Hindus and infidels.

And these same Islamic nations have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to carry our their religious duty of Jihad.

And as the Jihad against the West has failed, we now find Sunni and Shia Islamists fighting Jihad against each other.

 

[SensEye]

I love metaethics. Would've written a PH on it if I stayed in philosophy. If we accept the existence of morality, then it really makes no sense for it to be subjective, because then it loses out on its moral force. When someone tells a Neo-Nazi that racism is wrong, they're not just saying 'according to my society, racism is wrong'. Why would the Neo-Nazi care? Couldn't he/she just respond by saying 'but according to my Neo-Nazi community, racism is justified'? If there's no objective grounding in morality, ethics as we know it, do not truly exist.

That's exactly what the Neo-Nazi says, and that's why in his community racism is justified. It's because there's no objective grounding in morality that this happens. Ethics still exist in both communties though. They're just different. If you are a non-racist in a neo-nazi community, I would not be surprised if you would eventually be ostracized.

The instinctively attractive explanation is that morality exists, but only as a set of rules for us all to get along. An evolutionary social lubricant if you will. However, once again, it's hard to justify the moral force of ethics given this explanation. If you could kill a homeless person without any social consequences, isn't it still wrong to kill him? If it's not because of practical outcomes, then why is it important for us to all get along? Is it morally important for us to all get along? That just brings us back to square one.

There's nothing you have said here that supports the assertion that "it's not because of practical outcomes". IMO morality exists solely due to practical outcomes. So it is not morally important for us to get along, it's practically important. Moral standards (subjective as they might be), help society achieve these practical outcomes.

To me, there is no logical reason that can justify the existence morality -- a somehow external and objective idea of right and wrong. Pretty hard to accept instinctively and emotionally though.

A "somehow external and objective of right and wrong" I agree, no evidence for it. A subjective morality on the other hand, is inevitable in any sort of social society.

 

[rav3n]

Gosh, we know precisely who have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And they are 57 Islamic nations of the, "Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, OIC". And they have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of Sharia, so these 57 Islamic nations can continue to violate the human rights of women, the human rights of chidren, the human rights of lesbians, gays, transgenders and intersexed, and the human rights of Jews, Christians, Hindus and infidels.

And these 57 Islamic nations have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights so they can practice their religious duty of Jihad.

The Jihad against the West has failed so the Islamists have turned on each other, and Sunni are now fighting Jihad against Shia.

Shocking that there are other subjective moral frameworks in the world!!!! All narcissists, I tell ya'.

I can tell you Australia puts her blood and treasure behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as do other civilized nations informed by the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Considering Australia's history of being one of the most racist and genocidal countries in the world, that's pretty ironical.

 

[animenagai]

That's exactly what the Neo-Nazi says, and that's why in his community racism is justified. It's because there's no objective grounding in morality that this happens. Ethics still exist in both communties though. They're just different. If you are a non-racist in a neo-nazi community, I would not be surprised if you would eventually be ostracized.

There's nothing you have said here that supports the assertion that "it's not because of practical outcomes". IMO morality exists solely due to practical outcomes. So it is not morally important for us to get along, it's practically important. Moral standards (subjective as they might be), help society achieve these practical outcomes.

A "somehow external and objective of right and wrong" I agree, no evidence for it. A subjective morality on the other hand, is inevitable in any sort of social society.

I don't think you understood my key point. The nature of ethics is an institution dependent judgement. The Neo-Nazi would not just somehow point to cultural differences or whatever, rather, they would believe that their racism somehow makes the world better. In the same way, when we look back at our history with slavery, we don't just think that the culture's changed. Rather, we think that social morality has improved. If we really didn't believe that there was some objctive good or bad, we would never argue over ethical issues like abortion or gay marriage. Saying that abortion is immoral would be as frivilous as claiming that chocolate is the best flavor for ice cream. No, people believe that there is some form of objective good, it just happens that we all disagree about what that objective good is. If we didn't even believe in this basic premise, none of our moral claims would have any motivating force.

 

[Mole]

Shocking that there are other subjective moral frameworks in the world!!!! All narcissists, I tell ya'.

Considering Australia's history of being one of the most racist and genocidal countries in the world, that's pretty ironical.

Universal human rights are not a subjective moral framework, human rights are an objective moral framework, for which many have sacrificed their lives.

And Australia is a successful multicultural society, a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and we take in many thousands of refugees every year and successfully settle them.

And indeed we now know it was the Communist Party of Australia, and fellow travelling historians, who fabricated aboriginal history.

Should you wish to inform yourself, I direct you to, "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", in three volumes, by Keith Windschuttle.

 

[rav3n]

Universal human rights are not a subjective moral framework, human rights are an objective moral framework, for which many have sacrificed their lives.

Restating your failed argument doesn't make it any more true than it was previously. Approximately 30% of countries dispute it, so it's not universal or objective. It's subjective.

And Australia is a successful multicultural society, a signatory to the Refugee Convention, and we take in many thousands of refugees every year and successfully settle them.

And indeed we now know it was the Communist Party of Australia, and fellow travelling historians, who fabricated aboriginal history.

Should you wish to inform yourself, I direct you to, "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", in three volumes, by Keith Windschuttle.

More denial and on top of that, conspiracy theory beliefs. Carry on with your subjective morality and fictitious history.

 

[Mole]

Restating your failed argument doesn't make it any more true than it was previously. Approximately 30% of countries dispute it, so it's not universal or objective. It's subjective.

More denial and on top of that, conspiracy theory beliefs. Carry on with your subjective morality and fictitious history.

The 57 countries of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Co-operation) don't dispute the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they reject human rights in favour of Sharia so they can continue to violate the human rights of women, children, homosexuals, Jews, Christians and infidels.

And thank heavens we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and objective history in Australia.

It is though becoming obvious you want to argue for the sake of arguing, you want an argument and a fight, you come here with ill-will.

 

[rav3n]

The 57 countries of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Co-operation) don't dispute the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they reject human rights in favour of Sharia so they can continue to violate the human rights of women, children, homosexuals, Jews, Christians and infidels.

This entire line of 'reasoning' conflates subjectivity of morality with desire of what should be. If 30% of countries don't share the same moral framework, this means that morals are subjective since not everyone believes or adheres to the same moral framework. As it stands, the UDHR violates the right to religious freedom for Islamists since Sharia law is comparative to the ten commandments in Christianity.

To address your conflation, I don't agree with the tenets of any form of organized religion, particularly Islam. But that doesn't stop me from comprehending that morality is subjective. It also doesn't stop me from considering all the tenets of the UDHR, where it doesn't address every possibility. Of the possibilities that it's silent on, there will be subjective moral/cultural/tribal/societal/familial/individual frameworks that address them, once again pointing to the subjectivity of morality.

It is though becoming obvious you want to argue for the sake of arguing, you want an argument and a fight, you come here with ill-will.

Inaccurate, irrelevant and an unnecessary ad hom. TypeC is not a debate forum, as blatantly displayed by fallacies.

 

[Mal12345]

You can create a thread like this and argue successfully for the subjectivity or morality; or you could argue successfully for the objectivity of morality. That's because morality bridges the subjective/objective gap.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I thought the same! We all agreed to follow rules and schedules, that we call "moral" , but who can really know what moral is?

 

[Mole]

I thought the same! We all agreed to follow rules and schedules, that we call "moral" , but who can really know what moral is?

As you read this we have a Royal Commission into child abuse to determine what moral is.

 

[Ginkgo]

You can create a thread like this and argue successfully for the subjectivity or morality; or you could argue successfully for the objectivity of morality. That's because morality bridges the subjective/objective gap.

This is true. Even if you're a fan of categorical imperatives, it's inevitable that one determines certain objective phenomena to be either subjectively good or subjectively bad. The object isn't just for fans of teleology. So no matter which way you look at it, the super-ego functions the same way for most people, though perhaps to varying degrees.

 

[Avocado]

I love metaethics. Would've written a PH on it if I stayed in philosophy. If we accept the existence of morality, then it really makes no sense for it to be subjective, because then it loses out on its moral force. When someone tells a Neo-Nazi that racism is wrong, they're not just saying 'according to my society, racism is wrong'. Why would the Neo-Nazi care? Couldn't he/she just respond by saying 'but according to my Neo-Nazi community, racism is justified'? If there's no objective grounding in morality, ethics as we know it, do not truly exist.

The instinctively attractive explanation is that morality exists, but only as a set of rules for us all to get along. An evolutionary social lubricant if you will. However, once again, it's hard to justify the moral force of ethics given this explanation. If you could kill a homeless person without any social consequences, isn't it still wrong to kill him? If it's not because of practical outcomes, then why is it important for us to all get along? Is it morally important for us to all get along? That just brings us back to square one.

To me, there is no logical reason that can justify the existence morality -- a somehow external and objective idea of right and wrong. Pretty hard to accept instinctively and emotionally though.

Pretty much the argument that goes on in my head.

 

[Concur_Withall]

You know, seeing as how this is a Typology forum...

There are both objective and subjective approaches to morality. Some tend towards one rather than the other, but both play a fundamental part in the psyche.

 

[Mole]

You know, seeing as how this is a Typology forum...

There are both objective and subjective approaches to morality. Some tend towards one rather than the other, but both play a fundamental part in the psyche.

Manners and mores vary from culture to culture and so are subjective.

But morality is universal, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and so morality is objective.

 

[Concur_Withall]

Manners and mores vary from culture to culture and so are subjective.

But morality is universal, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and so morality is objective.

No two are the same, yet all are one.

 

[Mole]

No two are the same, yet all are one.

Well, manners and mores vary across a wide field, but morality is confined to human rights.

 

[Concur_Withall]

Well, manners and mores vary across a wide field, but morality is confined to human rights.

I personally think morality is confined to MY rights.

And my dog.

My cat doesn't give a shit.

 

[Mole]

I personally think morality is confined to MY rights.

And my dog.

My cat doesn't give a shit.

If your morality was confined to your rights, then human rights would not be universal but would be subjective.

And it is nice to think your best friend agrees with you, but I worry about the cat - it might be catching.

So I tie my cat to a chair and torture them until they see reason - it is amazing how reasonable a cat can be.

 

[Concur_Withall]

If your morality was confined to your rights, then human rights would not be universal but would be subjective.

What a twist!

And it is nice to think your best friend agrees with you, but I worry about the cat - it might be catching.

Yes, it's nice to have a best friend.

So I tie my cat to a chair and torture them until they see reason - it is amazing how reasonable a cat can be.

...

That ain't cool.

Best yes, it really is quite amazing.