Artie wrote:
I was just wondering if morality was based on subjective opinion what's that subjective opinion based on in the first place? Other personal opinions? Otherwise it would have to be based on something non-subjective...
Well this is what people constantly argue about anyway.
I've heard many people make what they believe to be "
objective" arguments against gays.
They argue that gay relationships objectively ago against nature and evolution.
The only problem with that argument is that becoming a celibate priest or a nun accomplishes the same thing.
Or even someone like myself who simply chose to never father any children. Is that an objectively immoral choice?
It instantly becomes highly problematic when we try to start arguing objective reasons to brand something as being "
immoral".
And in the end, there will always be other people who will disagree with those arguments.
So it can be really difficult to try to make a case for any objective moral rules.
You suggest using the criteria of asking what's beneficial for the well-being of a society. But the answer to that question ends up being nothing more than human opinions. Let's not forget that Adolf Hitler was claiming to do everything he did for the well-being of German society. He believed that the Germans were a "superior race" and that other races should either be exterminated or forced into slave labor.
Let's not forget that similar arguments were being made against people of color in the USA prior to the Civil War. In fact there still exist White Supremacist groups that continue to make those kinds of arguments to this very day.
So deciding who's opinions should be viewed as being based on "
objective facts" and who's should not, is not a clear-cut or unambiguous means of determining objective "
truth".
Almost everything that humans argue for can necessarily be reduced to subjective opinions.
I don't see this as a bad thing. I just see it as a fact of reality. I mean if you want to talk about an objective fact of reality I would say that it's an objective fact of reality that all that exists when it comes to ideas of morality and how humans should live are human subjective opinions.
This doesn't need to be a bad thing. We need to work together to come to a consensus on how we as humans want to live.
That's clearly not an easy thing to do since different people hold strongly different opinions on precisely what this should entail. But recognizing that these concepts are open to human subjective views and opinions should be taken into consideration and we should work together to try to find common ground based on that foundation.
Otherwise, what is there?
No one can point to the "
Stone of Absolute Morality" where all the absolute moral laws are carved in rock. So without that absolute objective source for moral rules, all that's left is for humans to decide for themselves what they will accept as being moral or immoral.
As far as I can see, that's just the way things are. I'm certainly not arguing for this because I want it to be true. If we could find a dependable "
Stone of Absolute Morality" to tell us what the absolute objective moral laws should be that would be great.
But thus far no one has been able to produce such a thing. And "
God Forbid" (
pun intended) that they would point to the Hebrew Bible. I personally have serious problems with the so-called moral principles decreed within that collection of fables.
