Morality is not subjective

[URAVIP2ME]

As a Christian, I have certain views about morality, but still, it's pretty subjective. Our perceptions, experiences, and religious views (or non religious views) all come into play when we think about morality might mean to us, and for society.

As a Christian wouldn't morality mean what Jesus meant it to be ? _______

For example: both fornication ( porneia ) and adultery are immoral - Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9

 

[Deidre]

As a Christian wouldn't morality mean what Jesus meant it to be ? _______

Yes.

For example: both fornication ( porneia ) and adultery are immoral - Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9

I think anything that has the potential to harm our relationship with God or others, could be considered sinful. Do I sin, though? Unfortunately, but I try to repent and do better.

 

[MountainPine]

Let's say, for example, if I think it's okay to beat women, and I kidnap, beat, rape and kill your mother. You would have no right to hate me for it, but have to respect my "subjective morality." See the problem? How can morality be subjective?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's say, for example, if I think it's okay to beat women, and I kidnap, beat, rape and kill your mother. You would have no right to hate me for it, but have to respect my "subjective morality." See the problem? How can morality be subjective?

It requires someone having enough assertiveness to say "this is better." In the case of beating, kidnapping, raping, and killing, it is better than we respect the rights and bodily autonomy of others. Why? Because it maximizes the freedoms of all. This is better because it creates a healthier individuals which creates a healthier society. That is better because we are social animals.

 

[MountainPine]

That is better because we are social animals.

Speak for yourself. I'm not an animal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Speak for yourself. I'm not an animal.

Actually, you are. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Desert Snake]

As a Christian, I have certain views about morality, but still, it's pretty subjective. Our perceptions, experiences, and religious views (or non religious views) all come into play when we think about morality might mean to us, and for society.

''subjective'' and ''objective'', aren't the correct words for this argument.

 

[McBell]

Let's say, for example, if I think it's okay to beat women, and I kidnap, beat, rape and kill your mother. You would have no right to hate me for it, but have to respect my "subjective morality." See the problem? How can morality be subjective?

No, I do nto see a problem.
But then, I disagree that all morals have to be "respected".
In fact, I suspect that not even you think all morals have to be respected.
But then, I also suspect your idea of what morals are differes from mine.

 

[McBell]

Speak for yourself. I'm not an animal.

Then what are you?
Plants and rocks are all that's left to choose from.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Well, moral goodness (whatever that is) is a concept. The concept changes with differing people, cultures, governments, and the passage of time. So how can it be objective? I can agree that once a group of people agree on a specific set of rules dictating what they deem constitutes morality, then it becomes objective to them based upon those specific rules. Otherwise, it seems situational to me. Even in the Bible, it is situational and what is seen as moral in one passage, is condemned in another. Thou shalt not kill is in sharp contrast to the same God instructing "his people" to commit genocide. Do unto others is in sharp contrast to giving specific instructions about owning another human being as personal property.

 

[MountainPine]

To those of you who think morality is subjective:

No worries, it's nothing graphic.

 

[McBell]

To those of you who think morality is subjective:

No worries, it's nothing graphic.

You do understand that you have just evidenced that morality is subjective, right?

 

[MountainPine]

You do understand that you have just evidenced that morality is subjective, right?

You really have to have be messed up if you think that's not immoral. Those people obviously lack morals, and even a conscience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You really have to have be messed up if you think that's not immoral. Those people obviously lack morals, and even a conscience.

And the thing is, we do things they would consider seriously messed up and very immoral. An easy one is that if you're Western, even if you try to reduce your carbon footprint you'd be chastised for being gluttonous, careless, and wasteful. And of course if you rely on combustible engines, at all, your killing life with tons of carbon emissions every time the key is turned on. Our life styles make people sick. But you're a "far" or "radical" Leftist if you mention those, because they are so accepted by society that no one cares, because morality is subjective.

 

[YmirGF]

Speak for yourself. I'm not an animal.

Human animals are such vain little creatures.



In regards to the OP, if anything so-called morality would be more like a variable that is in a constant state of flux that is governed by a consensus of individual opinions that change over time.

 

[McBell]

You really have to have be messed up if you think that's not immoral. Those people obviously lack morals, and even a conscience.

Actually, you would have to be a rather large egomaniac to think that your morality is binding on the whole of existence.
Is that not what you are claiming here?
That any one whose morals do not line up with yours is immoral?
you then confuse the matter by claiming they do not even have morals.
One wonders if you have even read anything in this thread?

 

[YmirGF]

Actually, you would have to be a rather large egomaniac to think that your morality is binding on the whole of existence.
Is that not what you are claiming here?
That any one whose morals do not line up with yours is immoral?
you then confuse the matter by claiming they do not even have morals.
One wonders if you have even read anything in this thread?

I'd rather suggest that so-called morality does not exist outside of the mind of the beholder. As a species, we have this peculiar notion that the universe revolves around us but the reality is we and our ideas are simply not that important. In some ways it is our perverse sense of morality that was originally designed to combat the animal within us - to divorce ourselves from our own natures because, in our delusion, we didn't trust that wild beast or its primal impulses.

 

[MountainPine]

Really now, how would the world progress if everybody's morals were different and contradicting? Morality should have a standard, and that's where religion comes in, that is religious principles. My morality is founded on the Bible and is not my own. Any action that causes or leads to privation or iniquity is immoral. That's not what I think, it's what God thinks. His Torah reflects the natural laws of the universe.

It should be common sense to anyone with a sense of decency that those native peoples are engaging in barbaric and disgusting acts. Anyone who tolerates those kind of people are just as immoral as the people doing the acts. Subjective morality = no morality.

[Romans 1:28-32] ...and even as they did not think it worth-while to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper, having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoring, wickedness, greed, evil; filled with envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits; whisperers,slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evils, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless; who, though they know the righteousness of Elohim, that those who practise such deserve death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practise them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really now, how would the world progress if everybody's morals were different and contradicting?

Except when you look you clearly see that people's moral do often differ and even contradict among different cultures and time periods.

Morality should have a standard, and that's where religion comes in, that is religious principles.

Which religion? Christianity engages in many immoral practices according to many religions.

Subjective morality = no morality.

No morality is called amorality, not subjective morality.

My morality is founded on the Bible and is not my own.

My morality is based on having to weigh the consequences of my actions. It requires more thinking than what most people like to do, and leads to startling revelations that most people do not want to be aware of.

 

[Nous]

Except when you look you clearly see that people's moral do often differ and even contradict among different cultures and time periods.

People of different cultures and periods also have had differing beliefs concerning physics, chemistry and biology. For 2,000 years people in the West and India believed that human biology was a matter of the four humors; few people seem to believe that "theory" now. The fact that people's beliefs on biology vary across cultures or between particular individuals does not mean that there are no objective biological facts. The same is true for morality: cross-cultural variations in moral codes does not mean there are no objective moral facts.

And, in fact, people's moral codes in different periods and cultures, as exemplified by their legal codes, are and have been extraordinarily similar. Every nation in the world criminalizes murder, not because there is something fun about prosecuting murderers but because people believe it is morally wrong to kill another person out of malice.