Morality: Objective or subjective?

[Skyler]

Questions for debate:

Is morality objective or subjective? Can we know either way?

Definition of terms:

morality: Differentiation between right and wrong

objective: An entity is objective when it exists independent of whether or not someone believes it.

subjective: An entity is subjective when it only exists if someone believes in it.

[msmcneal]

Why do you insist on making this transition? It doesn't logically follow. It's a non-sequitur, and an appeal to emotion, and who knows what else. I FEEL a certain way about these behaviors because society AT THIS POINT in time molded my SENSE of morality this way. If you agree with the expression "sense of morality" you agree with the subjectivity of morality. Don't presume to tell me I would feel this way or that way about a certain behavior if morality was subjective. You can't possibly know how people feel about certain behaviors. You can make educated guesses based on where they live and based on the standards of their community. You cannot KNOW, and that's what makes "morality" subjective. Only I know how I feel about a behavior.

That's the same point I was trying to make to olavisjo. However, he seems unable to answer the question I posed about polygamy, he keeps dodging the question. So I answered his, in hopes that mine would in turn be answered.

[Beto]

That's the same point I was trying to make to olavisjo. However, he seems unable to answer the question I posed about polygamy, he keeps dodging the question. So I answered his, in hopes that mine would in turn be answered.

He basically answered "it's immoral if YOU think it's immoral" and presumes this demonstrates "objectivity".

[olavisjo]

He basically answered "it's immoral if YOU think it's immoral" and presumes this demonstrates "objectivity".

No, I basically tried to say "you will think it is right or wrong because you expect there to be an objective answer".
I am not an expert in human relationships so I will let them decide in these matters. I just know that polygamy and polyandry are not anything I would want to be involved with and I presume that most people feel the same way.
I am not opposed to this sort of behavior, in others, and my religion does not forbid it, but my government does forbid it. The government does not forbid it because it is immoral but because the government is left to clean up the mess if things go wrong and they can just barely cope with cleaning up 'normal' family problems.
If morality was subjective, you would not even try to figure out what moral obligations people, involved in any relationship, have towards each other, because no moral obligations would even exist.

I don't believe anything goes. I believe we have to look at each situation, and judge what is the proper response, and that might change from situation to situation.

Thank you, that is all that I am saying, we have to look at each situation and judge what is right and wrong (proper) and that will change from situation to situation. If morality was subjective we would not even have to worry about what is right and wrong. When called for jury duty you could just decide that she is innocent because she is good looking or he is guilty because his clothes are wrinkled. Right and wrong, good and evil, guilty and innocent would all be meaningless.

Which is why I believe in subjective morality and moral relativity and situational ethics.

Here you contradict yourself, in situational ethics, objective morals are assigned values and compared to each other. For example it is good to steal a car to take a person having a heart attack to the hospital, but you are still responsible for the theft and the prosecution can still charge you with it. You will need to show that it was the proper course of action to save that persons life. (and return the car undamaged and with a full tank of gas)

You cannot KNOW, and that's what makes "morality" subjective. Only I know how I feel about a behavior.

It does not matter how you feel, but as long as you judge behavior you are accepting that morality is objective because it does not make sense to judge morals subjectively. You can judge pies at the fair subjectively but there is no reason to expect others to feel the same about the pie you like the most. But you do expect others to feel the same as you about murder because it is objectively wrong. If you feel that murder is subjectively wrong you would not have any reason to expect others to hold that murder is wrong.

I think the moral relativist goes wrong when they make the assumption 'since we can't always know the right answer in a moral dilemma, there is no right answer'.

[Goat]

He basically answered "it's immoral if YOU think it's immoral" and presumes this demonstrates "objectivity".

No, I basically tried to say "you will think it is right or wrong because you expect there to be an objective answer".
I am not an expert in human relationships so I will let them decide in these matters. I just know that polygamy and polyandry are not anything I would want to be involved with and I presume that most people feel the same way.
I am not opposed to this sort of behavior, in others, and my religion does not forbid it, but my government does forbid it. The government does not forbid it because it is immoral but because the government is left to clean up the mess if things go wrong and they can just barely cope with cleaning up 'normal' family problems.
If morality was subjective, you would not even try to figure out what moral obligations people, involved in any relationship, have towards each other, because no moral obligations would even exist.

I don't believe anything goes. I believe we have to look at each situation, and judge what is the proper response, and that might change from situation to situation.

Thank you, that is all that I am saying, we have to look at each situation and judge what is right and wrong (proper) and that will change from situation to situation. If morality was subjective we would not even have to worry about what is right and wrong. When called for jury duty you could just decide that she is innocent because she is good looking or he is guilty because his clothes are wrinkled. Right and wrong, good and evil, guilty and innocent would all be meaningless.

Which is why I believe in subjective morality and moral relativity and situational ethics.

Here you contradict yourself, in situational ethics, objective morals are assigned values and compared to each other. For example it is good to steal a car to take a person having a heart attack to the hospital, but you are still responsible for the theft and the prosecution can still charge you with it. You will need to show that it was the proper course of action to save that persons life. (and return the car undamaged and with a full tank of gas)

You cannot KNOW, and that's what makes "morality" subjective. Only I know how I feel about a behavior.

It does not matter how you feel, but as long as you judge behavior you are accepting that morality is objective because it does not make sense to judge morals subjectively. You can judge pies at the fair subjectively but there is no reason to expect others to feel the same about the pie you like the most. But you do expect others to feel the same as you about murder because it is objectively wrong. If you feel that murder is subjectively wrong you would not have any reason to expect others to hold that murder is wrong.

I think the moral relativist goes wrong when they make the assumption 'since we can't always know the right answer in a moral dilemma, there is no right answer'.

I find the fact that your claims that 'If you disagree with me about objective morality' you must believe' xxx' a highly dishonest and a highly insulting method of debate, as well as using the logical fallacy of 'false dichotomy.'

You do not have the qualifications to tell other people what they really believe if they happen to disagree with your premise.

Indeed, your method of debating shows a certain relativity in morality, and therefore falsifies your premise

[olavisjo]

I find the fact that your claims that 'If you disagree with me about objective morality' you must believe' xxx' a highly dishonest and a highly insulting method of debate, as well as using the logical fallacy of 'false dichotomy.'

You do not have the qualifications to tell other people what they really believe if they happen to disagree with your premise.

Indeed, your method of debating shows a certain relativity in morality, and therefore falsifies your premise

You can always tell when you are winning an argument, I mean debate, when they attack your style rather than content.
I can only see two sides to this debate, moral values exist or they do not exist, if you can see some other possibility, I am all ears.
As far as dishonest goes, I find it hard to understand how a person can say "morals are subjective but if you don't agree with me I am justified to punish you for going against my subjective opinion". Why the need to feel justified, why not just be honest and say "I am strong enough to force my will, right or wrong does not matter"?
It may be possible that I am misunderstanding your position, but to me when you say morals are subjective I hear that they are illusory, if this is not what you are saying please explain to me what your position really is.

Indeed, your method of debating shows a certain relativity in morality, and therefore falsifies your premise.

This is interesting, I feel the same about you, when you talk about my "highly dishonest and highly insulting method of debate" I don't get the feeling that you are expressing a subjective opinion but rather an objective fact which you expect me to see as well.
If you want me to stop tormenting you, all you have to say is that there is no right or wrong, a child molester is not any more guilty about what he does than a tornado is guilty for killing the same child.
Subjective morality contradicts the notion of right and wrong. You have to give up one or the other. (this is not a Sophie's choice dilemma or is it?)

[Goat]

I find the fact that your claims that 'If you disagree with me about objective morality' you must believe' xxx' a highly dishonest and a highly insulting method of debate, as well as using the logical fallacy of 'false dichotomy.'

You do not have the qualifications to tell other people what they really believe if they happen to disagree with your premise.

Indeed, your method of debating shows a certain relativity in morality, and therefore falsifies your premise

You can always tell when you are winning an argument, I mean debate, when they attack your style rather than content.
I can only see two sides to this debate, moral values exist or they do not exist, if you can see some other possibility, I am all ears.
As far as dishonest goes, I find it hard to understand how a person can say "morals are subjective but if you don't agree with me I am justified to punish you for going against my subjective opinion". Why the need to feel justified, why not just be honest and say "I am strong enough to force my will, right or wrong does not matter"?
It may be possible that I am misunderstanding your position, but to me when you say morals are subjective I hear that they are illusory, if this is not what you are saying please explain to me what your position really is.

Indeed, your method of debating shows a certain relativity in morality, and therefore falsifies your premise.

This is interesting, I feel the same about you, when you talk about my "highly dishonest and highly insulting method of debate" I don't get the feeling that you are expressing a subjective opinion but rather an objective fact which you expect me to see as well.
If you want me to stop tormenting you, all you have to say is that there is no right or wrong, a child molester is not any more guilty about what he does than a tornado is guilty for killing the same child.
Subjective morality contradicts the notion of right and wrong. You have to give up one or the other. (this is not a Sophie's choice dilemma or is it?)

Except, of course, I am disagreeing with your content. You are telling EVERYONE what they believe, even when they tell you differently.

Why do you tell me what i believe, even when I tell you differently? Do you call that 'style'?

I call the purposeful misrepresenting of your opponents position so you can attack that misrepresention not a style, but rather the logcial fallacy of
a 'straw man attack'

[msmcneal]

If morality was subjective, you would not even try to figure out what moral obligations people, involved in any relationship, have towards each other, because no moral obligations would even exist

Thank you, that is all that I am saying, we have to look at each situation and judge what is right and wrong (proper) and that will change from situation to situation. If morality was subjective we would not even have to worry about what is right and wrong.

It does not matter how you feel, but as long as you judge behavior you are accepting that morality is objective because it does not make sense to judge morals subjectively

I think you have misunderstood the difference between "subjective" and "objective" morality. Everything that I and Beto have just said, everything we believe morality to be, is subjective. You have either misunderstood the meaning between the two, or are trying somehow to twist what we are saying to somehow "prove" we actually believe that morality is objective, even though we've both made it clear we don't.

[JoeyKnothead]

If morality is objective, then which is of these two scenarios are right, and why?

Don't ask the Muslim or Christian but rather ask yourself. How would you feel if your wife went out and brought home three more husbands for your household.

If I went into the marriage accepting that my wife may take other husbands, then I'd deal with it.

[Vanguard]

If morality was subjective, you would not even try to figure out what moral obligations people, involved in any relationship, have towards each other, because no moral obligations would even exist

Thank you, that is all that I am saying, we have to look at each situation and judge what is right and wrong (proper) and that will change from situation to situation. If morality was subjective we would not even have to worry about what is right and wrong.

It does not matter how you feel, but as long as you judge behavior you are accepting that morality is objective because it does not make sense to judge morals subjectively

I think you have misunderstood the difference between "subjective" and "objective" morality. Everything that I and Beto have just said, everything we believe morality to be, is subjective. You have either misunderstood the meaning between the two, or are trying somehow to twist what we are saying to somehow "prove" we actually believe that morality is objective, even though we've both made it clear we don't.

Have the terms "subjective" and "objective" already been defined? As defined by Random House Unabridged Dictionary (see http://Dictionary.com) we find the first two definitions listed as;

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Is there an important difference between the two definitions or for our purposes are they essentially to be considered one in the same? If not essentially the same, which definiton are we using?

Apologies if this has already been hashed out on an earlier exchange.

[msmcneal]

Have the terms "subjective" and "objective" already been defined? As defined by Random House Unabridged Dictionary (see http://Dictionary.com) we find the first two definitions listed as;

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Is there an important difference between the two definitions or for our purposes are they essentially to be considered one in the same? If not essentially the same, which definiton are we using?

From Dictionary.com:

Objective:

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


Subjective:

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.