Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Sliske]

That is a false statement because other people may not like cooked ham. So, you can't use that as an analogy. If you say something is ALWAYS bad, then you believe it is a fact. If you believe it is bad for you and maybe not others, that is an opinion. If you disagree with the opinion of others (as in they're wrong to believe that), then it must always be bad, making it a fact.

You seem to not know what anything means.

Setting aside the fact that you're totally insane, lets run through what you just wrote.

1. If I say something is always bad, i believe that to be a fact
2. If I say something is bad for me and not others, thats an opinion
3. If I disagree with someone elses opinion, it is a fact

so, following that logic

1. You are an octopus
2. I disagree with you when you say you are not an octopus
3. Meaning it is now a fact that you are an octopus

Step right up folks, i've just discovered my new found power: If I disagree with someones opinion, my opinion on the same matter becomes fact.

Seriously? Run your head under some cold water.

[Dreknar20]

saying there is a right answer to morals is saying there is a right answer to which car brand is the best

[Soeroah]

Morality is one of the most subjective concepts humanity's given a name to.

Different cultures have different morals, and they change over time and in relation to different factors. That's just about the definition of "subjective". It's not something that is 100% certain, it's not something that there is a "right" way to go about it, there's not a universally agreed upon rule, or even a scientific theory.

Morality is fluid, depending on the overall want and opinions of the population. That makes it subjective. Just because we think we have the "right" morals these days doesn't mean they wont change in the next hundred or so years. If morality were objective, there'd be a right way of treating it. Since it's all based off individual's thoughts, memories, empathy and brain chemistry, we can't say that.

Look at politics and you'll get dozens of conflicting views on moral decisions such as supporting the poor/forcing them to get work/leaving them in the gutter for being "lazy". Subjective viewpoints based off subjective opinions, leading to a subjective decision on what's "moral".

[Coombs]

saying there is a right answer to morals is saying there is a right answer to which car brand is the best

Well Tesla obviously.

[Underverse]

Good and bad are nothing more than biological signals. If something as easy as removing parts of the brain or introducing a drug to block the signals negates your entire point it isn't a sound one.

Stimuli are associated with moral outcomes but are not causative. The good/bad judgement is being attributed to the outcome of the act, not the stimulus.

Unless you're a hedonist.

- - - Updated - - -

Moral truths are nothing more than a different magic system. One says god, you say moral laws, same thing.

'Science is just another religion'.

- - - Updated - - -

saying there is a right answer to morals is saying there is a right answer to which car brand is the best

You just need to increase the resolution of your question.

- - - Updated - - -

Morality is one of the most subjective concepts humanity's given a name to.

Different cultures have different morals, and they change over time and in relation to different factors. That's just about the definition of "subjective". It's not something that is 100% certain, it's not something that there is a "right" way to go about it, there's not a universally agreed upon rule, or even a scientific theory.

Morality is fluid, depending on the overall want and opinions of the population. That makes it subjective. Just because we think we have the "right" morals these days doesn't mean they wont change in the next hundred or so years. If morality were objective, there'd be a right way of treating it. Since it's all based off individual's thoughts, memories, empathy and brain chemistry, we can't say that.

Look at politics and you'll get dozens of conflicting views on moral decisions such as supporting the poor/forcing them to get work/leaving them in the gutter for being "lazy". Subjective viewpoints based off subjective opinions, leading to a subjective decision on what's "moral".

Science also changes. It's not subjective.

Morality evolves as we gain information. As science does. I think it's important to remember that the existence of conflicting views is not evidence for many truths.

[Sliske]

I'm not sure what you fail to understand about my argument. Just because people have opposing views does not mean there isn't a correct view. If you argue, "they can't be wrong because moral are defined by society". Then you're assuming what you're trying to prove because that directly implies morals are subjective. I'm arguing one particular society does not decide what is morally acceptable or not.

1. There COULD be a correct view
2. Even if there was, the people who it didn't suit wouldn't give a shit about it.

You wake up tomorrow. The moral truth comes to you: women are evil: You walk out into the street and inform some women they are evil. Do they now believe you, or even care?

No. They carry on as they were.

Moral truth / objective morality is the pursuit of an almost certainly non existant idea, that when discovered, will be thrown in the trash by everyone who it doesn't suit (which will be probably at least half the world)

[Daymanmb]

It has to be pointed out, because it's been claimed here earlier to derive from Biology.

Thats the argument. That were biologically wired as a species through reason and judgement to know right from wrong. It doesnt necessarily mean people abide by it however.

[Dreknar20]

Morality evolves as we gain information. As science does.

cept morals are based off feelings/emotion instead of logic or research

[Underverse]

1. There COULD be a correct view
2. Even if there was, the people who it didn't suit wouldn't give a shit about it.

You wake up tomorrow. The moral truth comes to you: women are evil: You walk out into the street and inform some women they are evil. Do they now believe you, or even care?

No. They carry on as they were.

Moral truth / objective morality is the pursuit of an almost certainly non existant idea, that when discovered, will be thrown in the trash by everyone who it doesn't suit (which will be probably at least half the world)

Whether or not people conform to a moral truth is irrelevant to the existence of the moral truth.

We've seen this many times with landmark scientific discoveries. Interestingly, the truth wins - even if it takes some time.

[zephid]

Many people believe it is a result of evolution to help the species work together and survive. That would make it not a man made concept.

But the fact that different people/cultures now and throughout history have had different moral codes proves that morals are subjective. If morals were objective everyone would share the same morals, but we don't. Morals are something we as humans have "invented" as a way of making sure we can create a functioning society. It's a man-made concept.

[Daymanmb]

You wake up tomorrow. The moral truth comes to you: women are evil: You walk out into the street and inform some women they are evil. Do they now believe you, or even care?

This example is a poor one and inherently contradicts what "moral truth" is: Moral Truth -- The Correspondence Theory of Truth
A statement is true when it corresponds with reality. In other words, a statement is true if it matches up with the way the world really is. This is the common definition of truth that we all know. It is only when we come to moral truth that people change the definition.

[Underverse]

cept morals are based off feelings/emotion instead of logic or research

Are they?

It depends on who you ask. But it might be useful to understand that emotions evolved to approximate what we call moral decisions. So using emotions as a proxy isn't too far off. They won't always be right, but they will be right more often than not. For those cases where emotions don't suffice, I think it would be useful if all of us could appeal to our higher functions on a more regular basis.

- - - Updated - - -

But the fact that different people/cultures now and throughout history have had different moral codes proves that morals are subjective. If morals were objective everyone would share the same morals, but we don't.

No, it doesn't. It proves that people have different opinions. But that doesn't mean these opinions have equal value.

Morality is objective, but that doesn't mean it's easy to determine. In fact it's pretty hard to determine, given the sheer volume of information we need in order to make an informed moral decision.

[Daymanmb]

But the fact that different people/cultures now and throughout history have had different moral codes proves that morals are subjective. If morals were objective everyone would share the same morals, but we don't.

It proves people are people and can be fooled, tricked and coerced into doing pretty much anything, thats all.

[Dreknar20]

But that doesn't mean these opinions have equal value.

and who or what has the authority to judge that value?

[breadisfunny]

that's it's mostly used by overly narcissistic people to justify their overly selfish principles and attitudes.

[Underverse]

and who or what has the authority to judge that value?

It's not about authority. Judgement can come from anyone with sufficient information. In many cases, those with the most information are those involved in the moral decision.

[Mormolyce]

There is no such thing as objective morality because morality is a code of behaviour internal to a human culture. Makes no sense outside of that context.

Morals can't be subjective. It doesn't make any sense for something to be morally wrong in one culture but morally okay in another culture.

The people in culture A believe X is wrong in their culture. People in culture B believe X isn't wrong. To the people in A it's wrong, to the people in B it's not.

The universe doesn't care about X, because the universe is just a sea of quarks and energy.

[Underverse]

that's it's mostly used by overly narcissistic people to justify their overly selfish principles and attitudes.

Yes, subjective morality is often used as an excuse for terrible behavior.

We're talking about the same thing, right?

[Daymanmb]

and who or what has the authority to judge that value?

The possible inherent and universal understanding of natural law, governed by reason and judgement.

[Mormolyce]

Morality is objective, but that doesn't mean it's easy to determine. In fact it's pretty hard to determine, given the sheer volume of information we need in order to make an informed moral decision.

Tautological. "Moral decisions" are made on moral axioms and principles which are themselves subjective.