Why ISN'T morality subjective?

[prplchknz]

someone doesn't like people not agreeing with him.

 

[danseen]

er.. no. People can hold any view, and if others don't agree, so be it.

lol.. I just don't take kindly to insults, does any person?

 

[Avocado]

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.

Isn't Satanism a bunch of wizards and stuff?
I don't know about you, but the path of utter selflessness seems closer to good...

 

[danseen]

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.

Is there a reason we need morals?

 

[greenfairy]

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 .

Yeah sorry, I sort of ignored the context haha. I was taking it as a general question relevant to the OP.

 

[Mole]

I don't know of any universal moral law

My guess is that your country, together with mine, wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And we signed and ratified the Declaration.

And it is called 'Universal' because it is universal.

 

[Mole]

Morality is highly subjective.

C'mon, morality is highly objective. And the object in question is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is narcissists who think morality is highly subjective.

And for narcissists with no knowledge of history, it is inevitable they think morality is subjective.

And of course the belief that morality is subjective serves the interests of narcissism.

 

[Mole]

Frankly, I think that when we talk about 'morals' here we are talking about manners and mores rather than morals.

And of course manners and mores vary across cultures, and it is fascinating to see just how they vary, but our morals have been codified since the end of WW II in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This Declaration was fought for across the world with immense sacrifice in human life.

Why would we ever go back to subjective morality?

 

[Ginkgo]

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]

 

[danseen]

Frankly, I think that when we talk about 'morals' here we are talking about manners and mores rather than morals.

And of course manners and mores vary across cultures, and it is fascinating to see just how they vary, but our morals have been codified since the end of WW II in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This Declaration was fought for across the world with immense sacrifice in human life.

Why would we ever go back to subjective morality?

Anything goes in the real world.

 

[danseen]

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]

Or perhaps that works for them. who are you to say or dictate otherwise?

 

[Oaky]

Or perhaps that works for them. who are you to say or dictate otherwise?

Or perhaps that doesn't work for them.

 

[danseen]

that's for them to determine.

However, fuck "good" and fuck "evil". They're stupid concepts.

 

[rav3n]

C'mon, morality is highly objective. And the object in question is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is narcissists who think morality is highly subjective.

And for narcissists with no knowledge of history, it is inevitable they think morality is subjective.

And of course the belief that morality is subjective serves the interests of narcissism.

The U.N. has become a joke and many member states abstained from signing the UDHR, where as time passes more continue questioning and abstaining from it.

Based on the above illogic, this must mean that all who question or abstain from it, must be narcissists because they don't share your morality. Billions of narcissists all over the world!

 

[SensEye]

Is there a reason we need morals?

Yes, if you want a civilized society.

Imagine an extreme case where you say "anything goes". This might be the case for some people but not most. If it was the case for most, we'd all have to walk around armed to the teeth, lest the next guy we come across thinks we have something he wants. Nobody would ever co-operate to much of a degree, lest someone else rob them of the fruits of their labors.

We'd end up being a bunch of tribals, banding together for some security but constantly squabbling with every other tribe in our vicinity.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

However, fuck "good" and fuck "evil". They're stupid concepts.

Well, you'd better be thankful that they exist, otherwise neither you nor anyone else would.

By 'exist', I mean within the human mind. It is true that outside of the mind it is nonexistent. But then again, everything else is somewhat fabricated by our brains. Colours, textures, sounds, forms, they don't exist objectively speaking. The way we think is a mere singular perspective. We walk through life in slow motion relative to most other systems.

So is asking about the existence of morals truly a legitimate question?

 

[Avocado]

Well, you'd better be thankful that they exist, otherwise neither you nor anyone else would.

By 'exist', I mean within the human mind. It is true that outside of the mind it is nonexistent. But then again, everything else is somewhat fabricated by our brains. Colours, textures, sounds, forms, they don't exist objectively speaking. The way we think is a mere singular perspective. We walk through life in slow motion relative to most other systems.

So is asking about the existence of morals truly a legitimate question?

Very good.

 

[animenagai]

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.

 

[Mole]

Anything goes in the real world.

These are the words of a psychopath.

 

[Mole]

The U.N. has become a joke and many member states abstained from signing the UDHR, where as time passes more continue questioning and abstaining from it.

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.

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.