Morality is not subjective

[Shadow Wolf]

but because people believe it is morally wrong to kill another person out of malice.

Clearly, many people, throughout history and today, feel it's just fine and dandy to bend and brake that law. Even entire nations and cultures have not only felt it ok to murder, in total mass, but they felt it their moral obligation to do so.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Shame nobody told the Nazis.

 

[Mickdrew]

No morality is called amorality, not subjective morality.

lol

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.

If morality is objective outside of the mind similarly to physics, then show me somewhere else in this universe apart from Earth where these "moral facts" exist.
There is no such case, because morality is a set of rules that living things use to flourish and prosper. It does not exist externally in the universe unless there are other minds who use morality to live with each other.

In this way, they are "quasi-objective" - in that some rules objectively let us live better in society. Allowing murder to be moral would kill off any species or culture stupid enough to endorse it. Nonetheless, these rules not independent of minds, they are the result of them.

Think of morality as a result of the evolutionary process - a set of guidelines we develop over time to better adapt and survive in our environment.

 

[psychoslice]

All I can say is that so called morality, is nothing but a human concept, it really means nothing to the universe, what we add to it is from our own imaginations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In this way, they are "quasi-objective" - in that some rules objectively let us live better in society. Allowing murder to be moral would kill off any species or culture stupid enough to endorse it. Nonetheless, these rules not independent of minds, they are the result of them.
Think of morality as a result of the evolutionary process - a set of guidelines we develop over time to better adapt and survive in our environment.

I think that describes it very well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If morality is objective outside of the mind similarly to physics

I never claimed morality is objective.

In this way, they are "quasi-objective" - in that some rules objectively let us live better in society.

They do not "objectively" or inherently allow anyone to live better. The Spartans, for example, made it a regular practice of killing slaves to keep their numbers down. It was considered moral, even necessary, by the Spartans, but this obviously did not make life easier for their slaves. Many Christians believe it is their religious moral right to discriminate against certain groups of people, and it isn't making life easier for those groups.

Allowing murder to be moral would kill off any species or culture stupid enough to endorse it.

The American state of Missouri used to have a law that made it legal to kill Mormons and drive them out of the state. There was also the treatment of the native Americans, which did include, among other things, rape and murder.

Think of morality as a result of the evolutionary process

I stated such earlier in the thread.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

Would you feel that way if had been raised in that culture?

 

[Thanda]

Morality ceases to be subjective as soon as we establish an objective.
For example, if staying alive is an objective, then it is immoral not to eat food. But without an objective then against what shall an action be judged?

 

[McBell]

Morality ceases to be subjective as soon as we establish an objective.
For example, if staying alive is an objective, then it is immoral not to eat food. But without an objective then against what shall an action be judged?

Morality can be objective for an individual or even a small group of individuals.

Bible says we each will be judged by our own standards, thus the warning "judge not lest ye be judged".....

 

[Thanda]

Morality can be objective for an individual or even a small group of individuals.

Bible says we each will be judged by our own standards, thus the warning "judge not lest ye be judged".....

By definition, if your morality is objective only to you or to some small set of people then it is in fact subjective.

What I am saying is that if a group of people (any group of any number - even billions) agree on a very specific objective(s), then they can come up with a set of dos and don'ts which can (at least in theory) be independently (i.e. objectively) verified. In such a case that set of dos and don't, if it is considered a moral code, is in fact an objective moral code.

 

[McBell]

By definition, if your morality is objective only to you or to some small set of people then it is in fact subjective.

What I am saying is that if a group of people (any group of any number - even billions) agree on a very specific objective(s), then they can come up with a set of dos and don'ts which can (at least in theory) be independently (i.e. objectively) verified. In such a case that set of dos and don't, if it is considered a moral code, is in fact an objective moral code.

Perhaps you would so kind as to reveal the magic number?

 

[Augustus]

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.

Or that they realise homicides and blood feuds are socially disastrous.

The killing of other humans has been and is still socially acceptable given the correct circumstances. The correct circumstances have proved remarkably flexible.

Everyday people frequently beat suspected criminals to death in many developing countries. The Philippines have declared open season on 'drug addicts'. Duelling was long a noble way to protect ones honour. And that's before we get to warfare, genocide, conquest, and 'property rights' over slaves.

The 'right to life' is not something that has been a major feature of human society.

 

[Thanda]

Perhaps you would so kind as to reveal the magic number?

Number of what?

 

[Mickdrew]

I never claimed morality is objective.

They do not "objectively" or inherently allow anyone to live better. The Spartans, for example, made it a regular practice of killing slaves to keep their numbers down. It was considered moral, even necessary, by the Spartans, but this obviously did not make life easier for their slaves. Many Christians believe it is their religious moral right to discriminate against certain groups of people, and it isn't making life easier for those groups.

The American state of Missouri used to have a law that made it legal to kill Mormons and drive them out of the state. There was also the treatment of the native Americans, which did include, among other things, rape and murder.

I stated such earlier in the thread.

o.o

Err...

Apologies, but I wasn't disagreeing with you, but with Nous xD
I agree with most of what you've posted here - hence why I quoted you originally. What you said made me chuckle because it is true.

I will say that no system of morality in any society is perfect (obviously). You can find cases where tribalism or poor treatment of the "other" can be found such as the Spartans, etc. That doesn't disprove my point; it just shows how petty and primitive humans can be. Of course scapegoating of one subset of society can be found, but murder as a whole can never be seen as something normal amongst the "in group".

 

[Augustus]

but murder as a whole can never be seen as something normal amongst the "in group".

How do you define the 'in group'?

 

[Mickdrew]

How do you define the 'in group'?

The citizens? The ruling class?

You've picked out the wrong part of my sentence to focus on. "In-group" is not the important piece, it's "normal"

 

[Nietzsche]

By definition, if your morality is objective only to you or to some small set of people then it is in fact subjective.

What I am saying is that if a group of people (any group of any number - even billions) agree on a very specific objective(s), then they can come up with a set of dos and don'ts which can (at least in theory) be independently (i.e. objectively) verified. In such a case that set of dos and don't, if it is considered a moral code, is in fact an objective moral code.

The argument from might, then?

 

[Thanda]

The argument from might, then?

Nope - I see you cannot understand what I'm trying to say so I will give an example:

Suppose a group of people (of any number) decides they want to construct a square. This is their objective. If one of them builds a polygon with unequal sides, he would be objectively committing an immoral act (sounds melodramatic I know, but work with me here). This is because actions (almost all) have consequences (or reactions) that can be measured and documented if sufficient information is available. Therefore if there is a specific goal or objective, one can derive exactly the kind of actions that are required to reach that objective and one can also determine the kind of actions that will keep one from reaching the objective - the former being the moral actions and the latter being the immoral actions.

The morality problem in the real world therefore stems from two fronts. Firstly, people have different goals and objectives. Secondly, people do not have enough information to know what exact actions will help them reach their stated goals and objectives.

 

[MountainPine]

Bible says we each will be judged by our own standards, thus the warning "judge not lest ye be judged".....

The Bible also has it's own standard. God set the standard through Moses, and Christ gave the example of the standard.

 

[McBell]

Number of what?

The number of individuals it takes for your dismissal of "individual absolute morality" becomes non-dismiss-able.

And while you are at it, please be so kind as to explain the "WHY" at this magic number it is no longer dis-miss-able.