Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #51

Post by bluegreenearth »

2ndRateMind wrote: [Replying to post 46 by bluegreenearth]

Hmmm. Subjective: subsisting only within the mind. Objective: subsisting both internally and externally to the mind, and capable of empirical validation.

Best wishes, 2RM.
When you state that the objective thing subsists both internally and externally to the mind, can you give an example?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #52

Post by 2ndRateMind »

[Replying to post 51 by bluegreenearth]

Sure. I have already suggested one, in respect of fascist anti-semitism. But in more recent times, the Uyghur population detention by China in 're-education' camps is an example of a morality with objective effects. As is the Myanmar treatment of the Rohingya minority.

Further, it seems to me that unless a morality has at least some objective component, then it is pretty close to useless, anyway.

Best wishes, 2RM
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #53

Post by bluegreenearth »

2ndRateMind wrote: [Replying to post 51 by bluegreenearth]

Sure. I have already suggested one, in respect of fascist anti-semitism. But in more recent times, the Uyghur population detention by China in 're-education' camps is an example of a morality with objective effects. As is the Myanmar treatment of the Rohingya minority.

Further, it seems to me that unless a morality has at least some objective component, then it is pretty close to useless, anyway.

Best wishes, 2RM
While there are certainly objective consequences for moral actions, does that necessarily make morality objective?

User avatar
Mikronman
Student
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #54

Post by Mikronman »

[Replying to post 53 by bluegreenearth]

I would propose splitting the word "objective" into two categories:

Absolutely objective - empirical, axiomatic
Functionally objective - practical (objective "enough")

What do you think?

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #55

Post by 2ndRateMind »

bluegreenearth wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: [Replying to post 51 by bluegreenearth]

Sure. I have already suggested one, in respect of fascist anti-semitism. But in more recent times, the Uyghur population detention by China in 're-education' camps is an example of a morality with objective effects. As is the Myanmar treatment of the Rohingya minority.

Further, it seems to me that unless a morality has at least some objective component, then it is pretty close to useless, anyway.

Best wishes, 2RM
While there are certainly objective consequences for moral actions, does that necessarily make morality objective?
I think so. But I will readily admit that moral codes have subtle ontologies, and there is scope for disagreement with my position.

The reason I think that is this; some moral codes are indubitably better than others, in that their consequences are better for all concerned. And if that is so, it implies that there is some moral code that is best of all, in that it's consequences for all concerned are best of all, even if humanity has yet to discover what it is. Whatever; if there is a best of all moral codes, it must be an objective moral code, objectively the best. And all the inferior moral codes are inferior because they involve, to varying degrees, subjective opinion.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8674
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #56

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 41 by Mikronman]

Let me ask you a question, are food tastes and aesthetics tastes subjective or objective? I ask because these things have the same features as morality in that they must necessarily exist and be practiced by all animal species in order to drastically increase their ability to survive and thrive, perhaps even more so for non-social species; yet these things are typically considered subjective.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #57

Post by bluegreenearth »

Mikronman wrote: [Replying to post 53 by bluegreenearth]

I would propose splitting the word "objective" into two categories:

Absolutely objective - empirical, axiomatic
Functionally objective - practical (objective "enough")

What do you think?
I don't know... splitting the word "objective" into two categories seems to defeat the intent of having a word like "objective." Of course, if having two categories of "objective" more accurately describes the reality we observe, then maybe it should be considered. I'll have to think about this concept some more before deciding if I agree with it or not. Let's see if anyone else can identify a reasoning error contained within the concept.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1059
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

Post #58

Post by bluegreenearth »

2ndRateMind wrote: I think so. But I will readily admit that moral codes have subtle ontologies, and there is scope for disagreement with my position.

The reason I think that is this; some moral codes are indubitably better than others, in that their consequences are better for all concerned. And if that is so, it implies that there is some moral code that is best of all, in that it's consequences for all concerned are best of all, even if humanity has yet to discover what it is. Whatever; if there is a best of all moral codes, it must be an objective moral code, objectively the best. And all the inferior moral codes are inferior because they involve, to varying degrees, subjective opinion.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Within the context of human well-being, your reasoning seems to work. However, I anticipate someone might ask why it is objectively good for humans to flourish in the context of the entire universe. In other words, what difference does it make to the universe if humans flourish or not? In that sense, a single best moral code would still be subjective despite its objective consequences being most favorable for humanity because the preference for humanity to flourish is only objective from the perspective of humanity. I don't necessarily have a problem with this concept of morality because I am a human but wouldn't agree that it is universally objective.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #59

Post by The Tanager »

In my understanding, the idea of "functionally objective" refers to certain moral principles that are necessary for societies to function or survive. A society that lauds murder would not survive. But a society that has many murders every year survives all throughout history. So, why would that make it so that I should not murder someone?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #60

Post by Divine Insight »

When talking about murder arguments about morality are ridiculous.

Murder is a human-defined term that is defined as "wrongful killing".

Humans don't even consider killing in general to necessarily be wrong. It's only considered to be "murder" if it's wrong.

Whether or not a killing should be considered to be murder is a human subjective opinion, usually left up to the opinion of 12 jurors.

If come into my home and kills my wife and children, and I arrive on the scene just in time to see the perpetrator jumping in a car and driving off. If I chase him down and kill him then I can be charged with "murder".

Strangely if I had made it home in time to catch him still inside the house committing his last murder, and I killed him in the act I'd probably be given a pat on the back and no one would dream of charging me with murder.

Also, in the same situation, suppose the man gets away. If I catch him later and kill him, again I can be charged with murder. But if the police catch him and a jury convicts him he could be sentenced to death by the legal system in which case killing him would not be considered to be "murder".

It's all subjective human opinion. That's all that exists.

To try to lay claim to some "higher objective moral system" would be no different from claiming that we cannot even say what might be moral or immoral.

How could we know whether someone was justified in killing someone or not?

It all comes down to human opinions.

That's all that exists folks.

And this even holds true for religions people. Even they can't talk about any objective morality because if their God actually existed then he would be the one who makes the subjective opinions on who he decides is moral or immoral.

So even religion can't lay claim to any objective morality. Even their moral values would be totally dependent on the subjective opinion of their God. An opinion that they most certainly couldn't claim to even know.

So even if there was such a thing as a God who delves out final moral judgements on people, no one could even know how he might choose to decide. Christians especially couldn't never say anything on the concept of morality since their Jesus offers free forgiveness crime anyway.

If Jesus forgive someone what then? Do immoral people go to heaven because Jesus subjectively chose to forgive them of their immoral deeds?

Christianity in particular isn't even about morality. Christianity has Jesus tossing morality right out the window. Morality isn't important in Christianity. All that's important in Christianity is Jesus' subjective opinion.

Christianity relies entirely upon morality being nothing more than a subjective opinion.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply