Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

[Sunstone]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

 

[Kemosloby]

People would probably get so confused they would throw morality away altogether.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ayn Rand long ago almost had me convinced of objective morals.
As attractive as the argument was, what it wasn't was cromulent.
So about all we can do is thoroughly consider our morals, & get
them to make as much sense as possible in the real world.

 

[fantome profane]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

I don't accept the concept of an objective morality. I think that people have tried to create the illusion of an objective morality precisely for the purpose of getting people to comply with it. So yes, I think it would be more effective in controlling people if you could convince them of an objective morality rather than trying to appeal to a subjective feeling that they may or may not share. But this is why I think the concept of an objective morality is dangerous.

 

[निताइ dasa]

The existence of certain types of moral standards (whether objective or subjective) doesn't necessarily correlate with the willingness of people to comply with said morals.

That being said, one can make an argument for the superiority of an objective (absolute) standard over the subjective (relative) standard because an objective standard applies equally to all people, and hence appeals of our sense of Justice and Equality (which is seemingly a good thing, pardon the pun, to have). Subjective moral standards give rise to hypocrisy ('Why it is okay for me, but not them?'), which in turns leads to inconsistency and finally rejection of said moral standards. For example, there are certain moral principles which are perceived as absolute (unjustified killing of humans is wrong etc) and since they apply universally, it would make people more willing to follow them out of the need for consistency.

PS. I am someone who believes in a absolute/objective moral standard, and I am willing to bet a lot of people are. I've found that a lot of people who say they are moral relativists or nihilists do not understand the implications that such a belief system holds. They prob just want to be edgy (nihilism is a pretty young philosophy).

 

[Skwim]

Off the top of my head I think objective morality would be too stringent, benefiting some at the expense of others. Better to let subjective morals flex around the context of issues.


.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

Absolutely, yes.
Dealing with black and white is simpler, and allows society to very simply apply peer pressure without the need to contextualise.

So you'd end up with clear and consistent morality (more commonly).

The world would be 'more moral' based on that objective standard, and far less moral against my admittedly subjective beliefs.

For a pop/parody version of this, consider the movie Pleasantville.

 

[Skwim]

Absolutely, yes.
Dealing with black and white is simpler, and allows society to very simply apply peer pressure without the need to contextualise.

So you'd end up with clear and consistent morality (more commonly).

The world would be 'more moral' based on that objective standard, and far less moral against my admittedly subjective beliefs.

For a pop/parody version of this, consider the movie Pleasantville.

Ah Pleasentville. One of my favorites.

.........

.........

Bud (Tobey Maguire) ......Mary Sue (Reese Witherspoon).................................... The momentous Town Hall meeting with . . . . . .​

. . . . . . .The autocratic Mayor (J.T. Walsh)


.​

 

[Augustus]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

Even if there were objective standards for morality, then they would still often be at odds with each other.

The Syrian uprising is a good example of how some people exercising one moral right can lead to many others having other fundamental rights violated.

How do you resolve a conflict between 2 contradictory but 'objective' moral principles?

Also anything like morality deemed 'objective' is a breeding ground for fanaticism. If there is one thing that is certain from history it is that there will never be a set of universally agreed upon principles for our diverse societies.

If one group suddenly discovered they were 'objectively' correct, and others were objectively wrong, then that is likely to lead to 'righteous' violence (See religious fanaticism, Soviet Communism, etc.).

Personally, I would prefer people to have a little doubt or nuance in their mind.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually,I am surprised that the Christian Theists have avoided this, because it the their argument based first on Thomas Aquinas, and later apologists and theologians for an 'objective morality.'

In reality 'morals and ethics' are human social and cultural constructs, and neither objective nor subjective. There are objective and subjective attributes of morality and ethics as they evolved in human history.

 

[ArtieE]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

We evolved a survival instinct. An objectively moral act is an act that is beneficial for the well-being and survival of our society and the individuals in it. An objectively immoral act is an act that is detrimental for the well-being and survival of our society and the individuals in it. How do you make immoral people act morally? You can invent things like a justice system and religions like Christianity providing incentive to act morally and punishment for those who don't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah Pleasentville. One of my favorites.

.........

.........

Bud (Tobey Maguire) ......Mary Sue (Reese Witherspoon).................................... The momentous Town Hall meeting with . . . . . .​

. . . . . . .The autocratic Mayor (J.T. Walsh)


.​

You left off Ozzie and Harriet , Little Beaver, and Mayberry RFD

 

[Logikal]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

You already show a bias with the question and YOUR personal view included in your first post.
Perhaps you are CONFUSING things such as practical reality and theoretical concepts. The correct definition of Morality is that it is a form of NORMATIVE ETHICS which is SPECIFICALLY OBJECTIVE. You already blow the possibility that you know the correct definition of your thread. You clearly let me know you already think the PUBLIC VIEW of morality which is that it is opinion and subjective. This is usual for people who like to kiss up to authorities who claims expertise like psychologist, ethicists, anthropologist, social workers, etc. This confusion comes because there is another form of ethics which is WRONGLY associated with MORALITY: that is descriptive ethics or Applied ethics. These are NOT OBJECTIVE bases. Look up NORMATIVE ETHIICS and you will see this is the only ethics that is objectivity based.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Objective morality would be absolutely terrible and horrendous. This would mean morality is set in stone, and there is no room for improvement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You clearly let me know you already think the PUBLIC VIEW of morality which is that it is opinion and subjective. This is usual for people who like to kiss up to authorities who claims expertise like psychologist, ethicists, anthropologist, social workers, etc.

Do you seriously not see the problem with this argument? "I don't agree with their view, thus they are confused sycophants."
And on what authority do Christians call those trained and schooled in sciences confused and wrong? You're not the only to ever do that, yet it's really only Conservative Christians doing this.
And, no, there is no "correct" definition of morality that includes the wording "specifically objective."
And, BTW, it's not "normative ethics which is specifically...," which is grammatically incorrect, and should be "norative ethics that are specifically..."

 

[Logikal]

Do you seriously not see the problem with this argument? "I don't agree with their view, thus they are confused sycophants."
And on what authority do Christians call those trained and schooled in sciences confused and wrong? You're not the only to ever do that, yet it's really only Conservative Christians doing this.
And, no, there is no "correct" definition of morality that includes the wording "specifically objective."
And, BTW, it's not "normative ethics which is specifically...," which is grammatically incorrect, and should be "norative ethics that are specifically..."

If you know know so much then prove me wrong please. Show me what field does morality fall under. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality is possible without a GOD. The academic field for morality is philosophy. Show me otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you know know so much then prove me wrong please. Show me what field does morality fall under. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality is possible without a GOD. The academic field for morality is philosophy. Show me otherwise.

The question of what is the nature of morality and ethics is also a question in anthropology, and sociology.

 

[Nous]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

I assume that the Golden Rule is the only "objective standard for morality." I know of nothing "problematic" about it. I think the Golden Rule is effective in persuading people to treat others a little more nicely than they might otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

Standards, by definition, are objective.

 

[Nous]

I've found that a lot of people who say they are moral relativists or nihilists do not understand the implications that such a belief system holds.

I've notice that too. Especially those professing relativism will happily say utterly nonsensical things such as "Rape is not really immoral, but I believe it is." The sun is not really spherical, but I believe it is.