Morality is not subjective

[JRMcC]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

 

[Quintessence]

May I ask why you think it matters if one is a theist or non-theist? What does "theist" mean to you?

 

[Revoltingest]

.....the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective
I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

Not this one.
How do you determine its objectively invariance from culture to culture....& species to species?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Just a thought. How about 'morality being in subjection' to what is recorded at Hebrews 13:4 that 'God will judge fornicators and adulterers......', thus the objective is Not to be independent of our Creator in thought or action.

 

[von bek]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Do you believe it exists independently of people altogether? In other words, if no people existed anywhere, would killing one still be immoral?

 

[VioletVortex]

Because we are all separate entities that house separate souls, we define morality on the individual level. This doesn't mean that people can't come to an agreement, though. Also, morals are instilled into people from birth, so most people have a certain moral point of view.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

I think morality is simply appropriate behavior and action within a group which can be objective as one tangibly interacts.

 

[McBell]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

define morality

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

Actually, no. If a person kills another person, we consider it wrong. However, if we were not brought up with morals (what is right and wrong, for example excluding religious ethics for a minute), then what is the deciding factor that makes killing another person objectively wrong?

People say stealing is immoral. Yet, animals steal from each other all the time. If we had no morals what is the deciding factor against nature (as with the killing example) that objectively decides X behavior is moral without our existence and input?

If objective morality isn't based on people, what is it based on?

 

[McBell]

If a person kills another person, we consider it wrong.

Not always.

However, if we were not brought up with morals (what is right and wrong, for example excluding religious ethics for a minute), then what is the deciding factor that makes killing another person objectively wrong?

Who doe snot have morals?
Having morals that do not line up with your morals do not make the morals go away.

People

say stealing is immoral.

To the best of my knowledge, people are the ONLY ones who do anything with/for/about morals.
It is like morality is a man made concept not shared by other species.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think there are objectively pro-social behaviors and even ideals (with margins for error based on available data). But you can't force one to accept that being pro-social is objectively good. They would have to subjectively, from their own personal interpretation, agree with that argument.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not always

Yes. My point is that we do.

Who does not have morals?

A lot of us don't. It's a generalization to say everyone has this or that. Implied or not.

Having morals that do not line up with your morals do not make the morals go away.

I never mentioned my morals.

I said "what is the deciding factor that makes killing another person objectively wrong?" if morals are not defined by humans but by the laws of nature outside our existence.

To the best of my knowledge, people are the ONLY ones who do anything with/for/about morals. It is like morality is a man made concept not shared by other species.

This is my point. Without our concept of morality and without people being the only ones who can do anything with/for/and about morals, what is the deciding factor on what is objectively immoral?

The OP is arguing that morals are objective. How?

 

[McBell]

I never mentioned my morals.

Not directly.
However, how can you determine the lack of morals in another person if you are not basing it on your own morals?

Would you be so kind as to explain how someone can have no morals?
Even sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. have morals.
That their morals do not line up with, I.E. are different from,oes not mean they have no morals. your morals, d

I said "what is the deciding factor that makes killing another person objectively wrong?" if morals are not defined by humans but by the laws of nature outside our existence.

That is a very good question and I hope the OP does not chicken out in explanation.

This is my point. Without our concept of morality and without people being the only ones who can do anything with/for/and about morals, what is the deciding factor on what is objectively immoral?

The OP is arguing that morals are objective. How?

I am awaiting for the OP to define morals.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I also think that subjective morality is absurd. ( by which I mean right and wrong are determined by either an individual or a specific society at a specific time). Just because there are differing believes about what constitutes right and wrong does not necessarily mean that morality is a man-made concept or relative. Belief does not always correlate to objectivity. For example, in the past many groups had differing views on the structure of the earth (some believed the Earth was flat, others believed the Earth was round etc), however this does not mean that the conception of Earth is subjective. The earth is objectively round. In a similar way, although societies and people at different times have had differing views on what constitutes right and wrong, it does not mean that right and wrong is subjective; one could just be wrong in his/her views about morality. Yes, it is true that people have differing moral beliefs, but that is not moral subjectivity. Moral subjectivity (or relativity) means to believe that right and wrong are itself dependent on those beliefs (which I think is absurd). e.g A moral subjectavist would claim something like "I think killing innocent children is OK, therefore it is OK" . An absolutist on the other hand, while recognizing the different moral beliefs, will always hold that there is moral system independent of individual beliefs.

The three major theories about morality (Deontology, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics) are all objective theories of morality. They all believe that certain acts are right/wrong independent of what human's think. Philosopher Kant for example saw moral laws as quite similar to the universal laws of nature (like gravity) and saw that it is only human beings who are intelligent enough to recognize and act upon these laws. Some theories say that good actions are those that promote the greatest amount of happiness (or well-being) for all sentient agents. Some theories say that good actions are those that conform to God's Will. Some theories say that good actions conform to Humanity's will. In all cases, the theories are objective.

If objective morality isn't based on people, what is it based on?

OP is arguing that Moral Objectivity isn't based on what people think or do, not necessarily that it isn't based on people themselves. Many objective theories of morality are based upon people, but they are objective that they apply to all people. Other theories of morality even apply to all living beings! Killing may simply be wrong because it violates something valuable in itself (life) in an unjustified manner. What I think OP is trying to say is that just because people think something is right or wrong for them may not mean that action in actuality is right or wrong.

 

[JRMcC]

May I ask why you think it matters if one is a theist or non-theist? What does "theist" mean to you?

Hi! The reason I brought up theism is because I know that most if not all Christians and Muslims would agree with what I said. You know, a lot of people base their morality on God. So I was kind of curious about what people like say, atheists, Taoists, or maybe resident tree huggers think about what I said.

What does theism mean to me? I guess off the top of my head I would say one is a theist if they believe the ultimate power behind the universe has certain qualities that we can identify with. Like: God is creative, willed the universe into existence, he/she loves us, especially the meek, god cares about what happens here on Earth.
That's what I would say at first thought.

 

[JRMcC]

Not this one.
How do you determine its objectively invariance from culture to culture....& species to species?

I think you've got a small typo there that's throwing me off a little, so correct me if I misunderstand you. I think what you're asking is:
"How does the moral objectivist account for the variation in behavior and perceptions of morality from culture to culture and across time?"
Well there's obviously a lot of complicated history and biology behind how cultures behave and think about morality, but what I would say is that (at least in the modern world which I am more familiar with) essentially all people and cultures believe that they are doing the right thing, or at least they are striving for it. People may disagree about what the right thing is, but as a whole people are working toward some sort of perfection.

Almost everyone (at least in reasonably 'developed' countries) thinks that slavery is wrong, and that getting rid of it was a moral improvement. Now to to say that it is an improvement is to imply that there is some kind of moral ideal, or at least that moral right and wrongness can be thought of as a 1D graph where torture is somewhere on the left and kissing babies is somewhere on the right. In either case we are saying that some things are indisputably more 'good' than other things, and thus we are acting like we live in a world where objective morality exists.

Now if we say that there is no objective grounds for saying slavery is wrong, then we're really screwing things up. I'm sure you can imagine another two paragraphs about that so I'll spare you.

Maybe there's a flaw in my thinking here though. You're a clever guy, let's hear your side.

 

[JRMcC]

Just a thought. How about 'morality being in subjection' to what is recorded at Hebrews 13:4 that 'God will judge fornicators and adulterers......', thus the objective is Not to be independent of our Creator in thought or action.

Ah, so you're saying that the objective and God are one in the same? That could be the case... Do you think that objective morality (or objective other things) could still exist in a godless universe?

 

[JRMcC]

Do you believe it exists independently of people altogether? In other words, if no people existed anywhere, would killing one still be immoral?

Good question! I suppose it would still be immoral, but it would be irrelevant. It would be like asking: "Is it wrong to throw stones at the redcoats who are patrolling the streets of Boston?".

I hope I didn't miss the point of your comment.

 

[JRMcC]

Because we are all separate entities that house separate souls, we define morality on the individual level. This doesn't mean that people can't come to an agreement, though. Also, morals are instilled into people from birth, so most people have a certain moral point of view.

Dang I have to think about that for a little bit because I haven't heard that point of view before. I'll reply to you again after I've thought about it more.

 

[JRMcC]

define morality

Oh God sorry I think that's too much for this thread. If you start a thread on that though I will definitely chime in.