Morality: Objective or Relative?

[LuisDantas]

How many murders happen each day world wide?
How many rapes?
How many children abused?

To claim all people think them immoral is clearly not in evidence.

Simply because a large number of people agree that they are immoral does not make them objectively immoral.

Not all people agree that 2+2=4 either, so I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[McBell]

Not all people agree that 2+2=4 either, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Now you have lost me...

 

[LuisDantas]

Now you have lost me...

Agreement is not a very useful indicator of objectivity. People can be convinced of the most absurd things.

 

[Willamena]

It's not about agreeance, just about reality.

 

[Skwim]

If by "No matter what" you mean that circunstances do not matter, then by that measure morality is either self-contradictory, empty, or impossible to delimit. Circunstances are a necessary part of moral decisions, because they shape the consequences (both actual and expected).

Actually, morality isn't all that complicated. Here's a "definition from Wikipedia that pretty well sums it up

"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good or right and those that are bad or wrong."
​

A body of standards or principles that differentiates good and right from bad and wrong. And how this is done may be either objectively or subjectively.

That, I feel, is something of a misunderstanding. Circunstances are simply necessary for moral evaluations.

Not with objective morality. Maybe this will help.

"Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.

Most of the objective morals promoted today in the West are grounded in Christianity. Among Christians, it follows from the ideas of inherent human sinfulness and original sin that one's subjective moral instincts must be categorically classed as evil. Thus, say the Christians, one needs an external, objective source for morality. And — speak of the devil — there is such an external, objective source to be found at a nonspecific location in the sky, sitting on a throne."
Source: Wikipedia​

Morality must be informed by available data, which is to say by circunstances, and it is limited by physical and cognitive resources, but it is not subjective. At least not by my understanding of the word.

In other words, the differentiation of good or right and bad or wrong should not be decreed as in objective morality. And I agree.

As for God, well, I just don't see how it could possibly be a source of any useful morality.

Christians, of course, will take issue with you.

With the proviso that they are useless and meaningless for that purpose or any other, you mean?

Nah. My answer is made without judgement.

​

As I hope to have made clear, I think you are mistaken here, by holding morality to an unreasonably restrictive standard of what "objectivity" would be.

*sigh* All I'm recognizing here is that objective morality, as faulty as it is, is a legitimate (in that it's actually professed by some--principally Christians) alternative.

Except that decrees are useless for any kind of functional morality?

Oh, I disagree. Like it or not (and I don't), they've functioned quite prominently in guiding Christian thought and action.

__________________________________________________

Making a claim does not make the claim objective.

Of course not.

Your answer to objective morality does not hold water.

The question was: Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?
And the answer is No. Morality is not a "strictly relative concept." Objective morality also exists, pathetic as it may be.

Making a claim does not make the claim objective.

Of course not.

 

[McBell]

Agreement is not a very useful indicator of objectivity.

That is my point.
Therefore objective morality does not exist beyond the individual level.

People can be convinced of the most absurd things.

Agreed.

 

[McBell]

It's not about agreeance, just about reality.

Sad that not even reality can be objectively agreed upon...

 

[LuisDantas]

That is my point.
Therefore objective morality does not exist beyond the individual level.

I beg to differ. Objective morality may be difficult to agree on and to delimit, but it seems to me that it must in fact be possible, and oriented by considerations about resources and their uses, among other parameters.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As an example of "objective morality", Mr. Spock, in Star Trek, was fond of saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

And as Amanda pointed out to her son, sometimes it is viewed that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Morality is relative.

 

[Straw Dog]

I accept a skeptical pluralism within an implicit reality. Morality is relative to the objective context, and so both opinions and facts are involved. The context establishes the parameters for deliberation, but does not determine any absolute moral judgment.

 

[Mycroft]

How many murders happen each day world wide?
How many rapes?
How many children abused?

To claim all people think them immoral is clearly not in evidence.

Simply because a large number of people agree that they are immoral does not make them objectively immoral.

But on the societal level, all our countries have laws against them. Hence, they are objectively moral at the societal level.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

First, definitions, beginning with the definition of "objective":

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

As an example of "objective morality", Mr. Spock, in Star Trek, was fond of saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

With that definition in play: Is there, or can there be, an objective standard of morality?

Second, "relativism":

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.

As an example, Captain Kirk responded to Spock on more than one occasion to the tune of, "I will not reduce right and wrong to a function of numbers!"; and at the end of the third movie, he told Spock, "Sometimes, the needs of the few, or the one outweigh the needs of the many".

With that definition in play: Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?

And with both of those definitions in play:

If you were to stipulate an objective standard of morality, what would it look like?

You present a false dichotomy, relative morality is also objective, it is just not universal.

In situation X, Y is in fact good, as distinct from Y is in fact good in any situation.

The real distinction between objective and subjective morality is that objective morality is arrived at by measurement, and subjective morality is arrived at by choosing. Stating what is moral as fact is a logical fallacy.

 

[McBell]

I beg to differ. Objective morality may be difficult to agree on and to delimit, but it seems to me that it must in fact be possible, and oriented by considerations about resources and their uses, among other parameters.

Present an objective moral please.

 

[LuisDantas]

Present an objective moral please.

Sexual behavior should be accepted without criticism as long as the people directly involved are in full possession of their faculties, willing and respectful of each other.

 

[Straw Dog]

To clarify my thinking further:

The objective context only establishes real parameters, hence making a process of ethical deliberation the most practical course of action. The outcome of any particular deliberation is a relative opinion. Our ethical opinions may be more or less informed by facts. A well-informed opinion is justifiably more persuasive than one that is ill-informed and arbitrary.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Present an objective moral please.

It is immoral to do to another that which if done to you, would cause you harm or pain.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is immoral to do to another that which if done to you, would cause you harm or pain.

Is that really immoral? Or only immoral because people have claimed it is? Is it immoral in all situations?

 

[Deidre]

Is that really immoral? Or only immoral because people have claimed it is? Is it immoral in all situations?

Well, moral or immoral, it's wrong to intentionally harm others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, moral or immoral, it's wrong to intentionally harm others.

There is still the question of context. Self-defense, for example, is generally not regarded as immoral, but in most cases you are causing intentional harm to another.

 

[Deidre]

There is still the question of context. Self-defense, for example, is generally not regarded as immoral, but in most cases you are causing intentional harm to another.

True, and after I posted my reply...a few scenarios crossed my mind to this effect. lol Good point.