Morality Subjective or objective

Meh. It's subjective, but most of the time we can agree on the basics, and thus it can appear not to be subjective. Plenty of people do reprehensible things, though, such as killing, and from the perspective of the universe it is indeed permissible. The only thing stopping human killers of humans is other humans, know what I mean?

 

The laws of physics aren't the only thing that is objective. And God if he exists really doesn't play a role in morality.

 

Physics apparently evolved and changed over time. The explanation of gravity fur instance.

- - - Updated - - -

So you think the universe is an uncaring God? No I DINT know what you mean.

 

I wouldn't describe the universe as any kind of god at all. It's our home, the existence which sustains us, but I don't consider it an object of worship or something with a human-like intelligence that has a list of rules for us to follow.

And yeah, people we might consider good and people we might consider bad all end up the same way. The universe doesn't care what we do. The universe doesn't have or enforce social rules the way we social creatures do amongst ourselves, and its our social nature that is the reason for our notions of morality, of right and wrong. It's a function of social life; we couldn't coexist in societies if we had absolutely no regard for one another, and that regard tends to be based on what we call morality. It's clearly an evolved trait and one we share with plenty of other social mammals.

 

All things we know are human constructs.

You confuse morality with code of conduct.

Black holes do.

No that would be a changing vice of ethics. If we view it as immoral to kill people because they are left handed and then we discover being left handed is something somebody cannot help than and decide it is not okay to kill them, how did morality change? All we did was discover something about humanity. It's still immoral to kill somebody for no reason. Once the reason is discovered to be unreasonable the morality dictates that it cannot continue. Hence why I still hold that morality is objective

We don't alter morality either as I demonstrated above.

This thread is strictly philosophical.

 

You said our morality has no impact on the universe, and I inferred that because you think it first have an impact on the universe that you think it's irrelevant, is my inference correct?

What relevance does the universe's stance on it hold if it isn't a god

That supports my position that it is objective. If we need it to evolve beyond lower life forms how can it be subjective

Again that supports my position

 

They are. It's still immoral to kill people for an invalid reason. The validity of reasons has changed but that isn't morality itself changing.

 

Well, yes; they were, and still are, influenced by liberal Christian traditions and its cultural and intellectual evolution.

More like 20,000 years at least. The 'Enlightenment' also brought on some bad ideas as well.

Well, 'rationalism' relies on circular reasoning, and as pointed out without knowing all there is know there is no such thing as a rational decision.

 

I don't know. I'm thinking we're not yet seeing eye to eye in how subjective vs objective should be defined. I also didn't say that our morality "has no impact on the universe," though if you mean to say by this that the universe is unfeeling and indifferent to how we behave, then I suppose we could agree there... But I really don't know about the latter part, the bit about irrelevance, unless we're again saying that the universe has no thoughts or feelings one way or another about morality.

Did we need morality in order to evolve to be what we are today? I think that's questionable, because I see no reason that intelligence, and perhaps even mutual cooperation, could not exist in some form without morality as we experience and define it. I simply view it as one way our evolutionary line happened to shape us and our closest animal cousins. It's the evolutionary strategy that emerged from that combination of genes and selection pressures.

We come to very complex questions when we consider alternative means for intelligent animals to exist socially, or simply to exist at all in a manner that will lead to success for the overall population/gene pool. I would say that social insects such as ants demonstrate the rudiments of morality when they work together and protect "their own" against "outsiders" (other ant colonies, other animals in general). It's the same thing we do as tribal animals, after all. The difference for ants is that they likely don't have our cognitive abilities to objectify their behavior and think about it symbolically, i.e. "as a thing."

Moral behavior as we recognise it is practiced widely as a survival strategy. Consider how much of our morality is still centered around how we treat our fellow humans, and how little it focuses on how we treat other lifeforms. We still butcher animals by the truckload for food, after all. Is that moral? Since morality is clearly a cognitive derivative of the old social instincts that have likely been a part of our ancestry for millions of years already, our moral thinking still automatically applies first and foremost to our own species, and even more so to our own tribes and families. It's rather alien to us to apply moral thinking to various outsider groups, especially when those groups aren't even human.

I know I'm rambling a bit here, but the point I mean to make is that morality is a human construction. It's subjective in that we decide for ourselves what is moral and what isn't, and you'll get as many different answers as there are different people to provide those answers. There is no objective standard that binds us, although we do share a common background thanks to our shared heritage that leads us to think along the same lines, and so we often agree on certain moral questions, e.g. the "basics" of rights to life and property, although even these end up being trodden on by other impulses, such as in times of war or famine.

 

No doubt, as I said, rationalism itself appeared by tradition, but that's hardly an argument for tradition over rationalism once rationalism has emerged.

Sure, don't mistake my comparison with trying to argue that the enlightenment was flawless, all I'm doing is refuting your statement that tradition works better than rationalism, and for that, I only need rationalism to outperform tradition. Your statement here does not address the issue in the discussion.

I don't see that. It seems to be a very simplistic caricature of rationalism you're attacking. A rational reasoning can be phrased in terms of "the best available course of action given the known conditions" which would avoid any issues of incomplete information.

 

I agree with a lot of what you stated in the OP. I've always tried to argue that morality at least can be objective because so many people assume it can't be. However there are some issues that we have yet to resolve. I'll start with one so the conversation doesn't get to convoluted.

Right now we are arguing whether or not morality is subjective or objective, the argument itself suggests that it isn't objective because if it was why can't we even agree on the premise?

Unlike the laws of physics morality was created by human experience. Our social behavior has been constructed over countless generations, the roots of which stretch back much farther. Can a society thrive by forcing people to do things against their will? Well we know it can, as the insensitive demotivational poster puts it, slavery gets (*)(*)(*)(*) done. Good people owned slaves, in their mind treating their slaves bad was amoral and yet they owned slaves. Is it honestly moral to treat your slave well? Sure it's better than treating them bad but it doesn't change the fact that you still own a slave.

Where I am right now in this debate is that morality is subjective, until it isn't. So it's not that morality as whole is objective but it can be.

Someone mentioned that the people of the past were perhaps not intelligent enough or knowledgeable enough to know objective morality, but they certainly thought they were. What makes us any different?

 

Not true. Gravity isn't a human construct. The word is, but not the phenomena. Concepts of right/wrong are purely human inventions. There is no underlying law or foundation other than what a group of people agree upon.

There's no difference.

How so?

It went from being moral to immoral. I don't get the question?

No we changed our mind about how we felt about killing that person.

At one time it was moral to kill people for no reason. We changed our minds and consider it immoral now. Thus it being subjective.

We do, as I refuted above.

I know, because it's dealing with the subjective nature of morality. If it was a thread instead about physics it would cease to be philosophical.

 

If morality is subjective then the discussion is pointless because morality then becomes completely meaningless.

Also the doctrine from Jesus is perfect.

 

I don't think it makes morality meaniness. The fact it's subjective doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Just that what people find moral or immoral constantly changes.

Huh?

 

Of course it's meaningless. If morality is subjective then everything is both moral and immoral. Making morality meaningless.

And the OP said there's no perfect moral code. I disagree. Jesus' moral code was perfect.

 

What's an invalid reason? Who decides what valid and invalid? Many societies leave that up to some court.

Who decided it was immoral? I'm guessing folks thought about the pain or suffering they felt when someone died. And thought killing another might have the same impact on someone.
Killing is only immoral under certain circumstances. I'd be those circumstance have changed over the millenia as well.

 

Morality is simply what society agrees is right or wrong. That doesn't make it meaningless in my opinion.

I can respect your opinion. The character of Jesus and most stories in the bible have some good moral attributes.

 

I've yet to see a math formula to explain morality though. Physics exist whether life exists or not. Morality doesn't.

I'm saying that for that 1% it's moral and for the rest it is not. The morality of the action is entirely dependent on the person judging it. People who try to say that morality transcends the human mind that created it are just trying to elevate whatever morality they have above the rest, but they cannot because they are just as human as those who might disagree with it. No human morality can be objectively more true than any other human's morality. The closest you could come is by consensus, but even if you find that 100% of the people believe something is immoral, it is still only immoral to those people. Just like humans didn't get to set the laws of physics, they cannot inject morality into an intrinsically amoral universe.

 

Put your glasses on. I commented that OP, who is a Christian, is more evolved in his faith than other Christians. Apology accepted.

 

Why does there have to be a mathematical formula?

I disagree, perception plays little role in it.

I have yet to come across anybody that says morality transcends the human mind.

I don't think morality is subjective so I don't think one human's morality it's current from the next.

Again what relevance does the universe's position have.

 

The validity of the reason is really left up to the culture. And because I don't argue that culture is subjective this really holds no relevance. As that it has no real bearing on morality.

Correct, but I didn't state that circumstance is objective. If it is only immoral under certain circumstances than it would be moral under others. So what is subjective?

Circumstances yes, but I wasn't talking about circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

The discussion is philosophical. I don't think that poster understands it.

 

That was all gravity was until Einstein formulated a theory and even then it's still a theory. And none of that really started that morality is subjective.

Yes there is. A code of conduct is a written set of guidelines that are in their nature amoral. Morality is a sense of right and wrong. Codes of conduct can be completely immoral, wars are sometimes fought over that.

They violate the understood laws of physics.

Nothing that I can think of went from being moral to immoral. The only thing that changed was that we learned that humans can't help being sinister verses dexter. It was always immoral to kill people for irrational reasons. All that happened is we discovered a reason to be irrational.

Because we could no longer morally rationalize it.

When was it moral to kill someone for no reason?

You didn't really refute anything. You conflated morality with reasoning.

Physics was philosophy prior to discovery.

 

I suggest that it is immoral to own a person as a slave in the first place. And it would be objectively so. Even though we once believed it to be. We abolished it out of objective morally.

 

Gravity is an observable force without Einstein. Morality has changed constantly throughout human history. Gravity has not.

There's no difference. A law would have been a better example for you. Code of conduct is not.

Yes you already said this. I asked how?

Owning human beings did. Hanging colored folk did. Beating your wife did.

Something went from being moral to being immoral. All morality is is an agreed upon code of conduct.

Because a majority decided it was no longer moral. Hence its subjectivity.

Throughout most of human history.

Quie clearly refuted.

no it wasn't. The laws of motion exist whether there are humans to talk about it or not. Morality is human empathy and an agreed upon Code of conduct, which is entirely subjective as it has changed consistently throughout human history.

 

The Circumstances of morality have changed but morality itself has not. It would be different from gravity because gravity is an outside force and I believe morality to be an evolutionary trait

A code of conduct requires obedience. Occasionally disobedience is the only moral thing to do. You are putting the cart before the horse here. Codes of conduct are an attempt to make morality a rule.

??? By not obeying the man made laws of physics. I figured that's what was understood when somebody says something breaks the laws of physics.

Once again that isn't morality changing that is understanding of people and in this case their gaining of equality changing, morality didn't chance which is why it became wrong to beat your wife or hang somebody because of their skin color.

No, a code of conduct is coerced obedience, and obedience is amoral

We can't really move forward in this conversation until you understand there is a difference between obedience and morality. Obedience codes are often times immoral. Hence outcry and public urging to change the obedience code to allow people to continue being moral. Sometimes morality requires absolute defiance of obedience codes.

An example?

I don't think you quite get the concept of morality. You keep insisting that it's obedience to codes of conduct, and in reality morality forces codes of conduct
To change. Codes of conduct are subject to morality. So you didn't refute anything, you conflated evolving conduct codes for morality.

Laws in general are a human construct.

I disagree with the last part, and I have substantial reason to disagree with it. And I'll explain it more in depth. Codes of conduct are rules to be obeyed. Obedience isn't morality, in many cases it it's immoral to obey such codes. Morality forces those codes to be abandoned, modified or eliminated.

I agree with the premise that codes of conduct are subjective I'd say they are subjective to morality. But disobedience is sometimes even revered as outstanding morality. Case and point the underground rail road.