Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Mormolyce]

Well to an outside observer, one of the two are wrong or you contradict yourself.

The outside observer either belongs to culture A or B. Or possibly C, which has its own subjective moralities.

Yes yes, people have different opinions. That doesn't make everyone's opinion correct.

Okay well how are you going to assess who is objectively correct devoid of your personal ideology or culture?

Not always. You can derive morality from biology, which is an outcome of math. Not very subjective there.

That is complete nonsense, biology is amoral.

[Deleted]

If you know all the details of some given circumstance, I don't see how you can't make an objective decision on the morality of the actions of those involved.

You can give two different people the complete details of the circumstance in question and they might still draw two different conclusions.

[Mormolyce]

Dude, get off that kick. No one cares to be thought of as a robot.
Unlike you apparently, most of us here have humanity.

Our humanity (some of us) has grown throughout ages, and morality has grown with it. I should hope that it's because the majority of humanity has learned from prior mistakes.

Or maybe we just think we're morally superior to our ancestors because every society thinks it's morally superior because everyone is completely engrossed in the morality of the culture they grew up in and can't imagine that they might be mistaken.

The Victorians thought they'd invented the perfect moral code...

[Shadowferal]

Or maybe we just think we're morally superior to our ancestors because every society thinks it's morally superior because everyone is completely engrossed in the morality of the culture they grew up in and can't imagine that they might be mistaken.

The Victorians thought they'd invented the perfect moral code...

Slavery and human sacrifice were thought of as morally upright.
That we no longer think that...just the opposite, show us that we have indeed grown.

[s_bushido]

If your group believes the other group is wrong then your group, and you yourself, believe your view is objectively true.

Why? A group of people doesn't have to believe that their opinions are objectively true to believe that they're valid/useful/moral. You're accusing him of "assuming subjectivity" when you seem to just be assuming objectivity.

[Mormolyce]

Slavery and human sacrifice were thought of as morally upright.
That we no longer think that...just the opposite, show us that we have indeed grown.

Unless slavery and human sacrifice are right and we're the ones that are wrong.

[Shadowferal]

Unless slavery and human sacrifice are right and we're the ones that are wrong.

A child's point of view versus a grown-up's...

[Slant]

Is there any part of morality that is objective? Some people think abortion is wrong, many people don't. Same could be said with genital mutilation or body piercings. Hundreds of years ago there were individuals that thought it was morally justifiable to enslave other human beings.

What is your stance on how subjective or objective morality is?

There is no objective morality. The mere essence of it is subjective.

[Shiny212]

No, morality is completely subjective.
Some will adhere to the governments standards and morales, some will not.

Just don't try to force your morality onto me, that's where it will become an issue.
Milder drugs in this country is an huge example of that.

Aren't you cool. You do realize the entire legal system of every western country is built upon a wholesome idea of morality and conscience, which in turn means a morality, perhaps different from your own will and is forced upon you.

[Strangebrew]

Aren't you cool. You do realize the entire legal system of every western country is built upon a wholesome idea of morality and conscience, which in turn means a morality, perhaps different from your own will and is forced upon you.

And you do realize people's morality vary a ton outside of the laws put in place, right?
Religion? Sex? Alcohol/drugs?

I mean jesus fuck, look at how many people who try to judge and decide what other people do in their own bedrooms, when it have nothing to do with any law put in place by the government.
Religion also.

I get you want to ignore the first part of my post, you know, this part.

Some will adhere to the governments standards and morales, some will not.

But give me a break.

[Mormolyce]

A child's point of view versus a grown-up's...

Says you. People from the slavery and human sacrifice culture would think you a child.

- - - Updated - - -

Aren't you cool. You do realize the entire legal system of every western country is built upon a wholesome idea of morality and conscience, which in turn means a morality, perhaps different from your own will and is forced upon you.

Western legal jurisprudence is the heir to millennia of development stretching back from the Enlightenment to the Justinian Code all the way to the Twelve Tablets of ancient Rome. Mostly concerned with practical civil regulation rather than morality. There was certainly no common morality held all that time, in fact if you go back more than a century or two our progenitors seem like savages to us.

[Rafoel]

Why are you even discussing this? The answer is obvious. If objective morality would exist, it would have to have a source. That source obviously wouldn't be humans, as every human has different views. The only source could be something superior to humans, God.

So, if you think God doesn't exist, then objective morality also doesn't exist, /thread.

But, if you think God exists, then objective morality also exists, as its the one of God, /thread

[Shadowferal]

Says you. People from the slavery and human sacrifice culture would think you a child.

And where are they today?
Do you see the point?
Most of those cultures grew up...or died, in the face of others that did grow.

Western legal jurisprudence is the heir to millennia of development stretching back from the Enlightenment to the Justinian Code all the way to the Twelve Tablets of ancient Rome. Mostly concerned with practical civil regulation rather than morality. There was certainly no common morality held all that time, in fact if you go back more than a century or two our progenitors seem like savages to us.

His point reinforces the fact that humanity did indeed grow up...and continues to grow today.

It's probably best to say that Morality evolves with humanity. And that as close to objective that we can get is what we recognize today as moral.

[Aleksej89]

Morals are purely subjective.
For example, consider the following:

In our society ANYONE can make children, regardless of their "genetic quality" and dispositions for genetical defects.
That is a part of human freedom, but we do lose on the potentially incredibly useful opportunity to mix and match genes so only the best and the smartest have children.

On the other hand, a society where only the best and the smartest have children will over time produce humans with higher overall capabilities.
Due to a sufficient number of relatively smart people (about 40% of the smartest people in the population) inbreeding would never be an issue.
That is the general concept of evolution in nature (just the weak ones die instead of not being born).
Similar concept was used in many nations such as Sparta, where the weak ones were not allowed to live.
Such a (cruel) society would over time produce stronger, smarter or overall more capable humans.
Also such a society would view OUR society as weak and short-sighted for sacrificing genetical advancement in favor for fleeting human freedoms.

There you go...
Our society views the "cruel society" as barbarous and vile, while their society would view ours as weak and short-sighted.
Both views are accurate and both sides have very valid arguments.
But there is no wright or wrong here - it is a matter of PRIORITIES.
In that example our society priorities personal freedom, while the "cruel society" prioritizes maximized progress which undoubtedly would yield faster progress in sciences and evolution of both our bodies and our societies (things such as religion rapidly vanish in modern intellectual societies).

[Shadowferal]

There you go...

And there you went...almost arguing in favor of eugenics.

[Fencers]

What is your stance on how subjective or objective morality is?

It is totally subjective. The concept of an object morality has yet to be proven or stated in any manner that annexes what is essentially a leap of faith. Almost all arguments of such have failed to offer a rational, impartial basis for morality being an object truth independent of custom and/or an appeal to divinity.

Even Kant couldn't do it.

Most of modern philosophy views the concept of object morality as quaint at best, incomplete fantasy at worse.

We, humanity, make it all up. There is no sacred mountaintop, divine law, noble instinct or any such nonsense. We are biological engines that seek the means that promote self safety and propagation through custom and behavior- both of which are influx constantly.

[Aleksej89]

And there you went...almost arguing in favor of eugenics.

You are exactly proving the point in moral subjectivity.

Eugenics is a belief, and like any other it has very bad and interestingly good applications.
It can be used to greatly speed up our evolution, and it can also be used for horrible things.
Hitler (and others) used it for extremely evil things.
If we as a society could responsibly use such methods ("positive eugenics"), we could greatly enhance our lifespan, intellect and other capabilities (over a looong period of time).

Even something as despised as eugenics has incredible potential, and depending on our behavior and decisions can be used in extremely varying ways.
Same goes for something like stem-cells research, which while having potential inhuman consequences also has the potential to revolutionize medicine and our lives.

Objectivity is a matter of science, something factually measurable - something that is NOT up to our subjective choices.
You can not wake up one morning and refuse to obey the laws of gravity, and go flying off your window into the sky.

Morality (like honor) is born in our minds - it does not exist in nature, if we humans vanished then the concept of morality on earth would vanish as well.
Morality/honor is something some of us care about and some of us don't... and exactly what it is depends entirely on how each of us perceives it.

[Underverse]

Why are you even discussing this? The answer is obvious. If objective morality would exist, it would have to have a source. That source obviously wouldn't be humans, as every human has different views. The only source could be something superior to humans, God.

So, if you think God doesn't exist, then objective morality also doesn't exist, /thread.

But, if you think God exists, then objective morality also exists, as its the one of God, /thread

The source is nature. It doesn't have to be some fictional god.

- - - Updated - - -

Morals are purely subjective.
For example, consider the following:

In our society ANYONE can make children, regardless of their "genetic quality" and dispositions for genetical defects.
That is a part of human freedom, but we do lose on the potentially incredibly useful opportunity to mix and match genes so only the best and the smartest have children.

On the other hand, a society where only the best and the smartest have children will over time produce humans with higher overall capabilities.
Due to a sufficient number of relatively smart people (about 40% of the smartest people in the population) inbreeding would never be an issue.
That is the general concept of evolution in nature (just the weak ones die instead of not being born).
Similar concept was used in many nations such as Sparta, where the weak ones were not allowed to live.
Such a (cruel) society would over time produce stronger, smarter or overall more capable humans.
Also such a society would view OUR society as weak and short-sighted for sacrificing genetical advancement in favor for fleeting human freedoms.

There you go...
Our society views the "cruel society" as barbarous and vile, while their society would view ours as weak and short-sighted.
Both views are accurate and both sides have very valid arguments.
But there is no wright or wrong here - it is a matter of PRIORITIES.
In that example our society priorities personal freedom, while the "cruel society" prioritizes maximized progress which undoubtedly would yield faster progress in sciences and evolution of both our bodies and our societies (things such as religion rapidly vanish in modern intellectual societies).

How different societies choose to apply an objective standard based on the information that they have is not evidence for subjective morality. It's evidence for some people being wrong, or not having as much information.

- - - Updated - - -

It is totally subjective. The concept of an object morality has yet to be proven or stated in any manner that annexes what is essentially a leap of faith. Almost all arguments of such have failed to offer a rational, impartial basis for morality being an object truth independent of custom and/or an appeal to divinity.

Even Kant couldn't do it.

Most of modern philosophy views the concept of object morality as quaint at best, incomplete fantasy at worse.

We, humanity, make it all up. There is no sacred mountaintop, divine law, noble instinct or any such nonsense. We are biological engines that seek the means that promote self safety and propagation through custom and behavior- both of which are influx constantly.

Yes, biological engines. Not just random conglomerations of matter. Morality can be derived from nature - similar to utilitarianism (which is vague in its definition and source of utility).

- - - Updated - - -

You are exactly proving the point in moral subjectivity.

Eugenics is a belief, and like any other it has very bad and interestingly good applications.
It can be used to greatly speed up our evolution, and it can also be used for horrible things.
Hitler (and others) used it for extremely evil things.
If we as a society could responsibly use such methods ("positive eugenics"), we could greatly enhance our lifespan, intellect and other capabilities (over a looong period of time).

Even something as despised as eugenics has incredible potential, and depending on our behavior and decisions can be used in extremely varying ways.
Same goes for something like stem-cells research, which while having potential inhuman consequences also has the potential to revolutionize medicine and our lives.

Objectivity is a matter of science, something factually measurable - something that is NOT up to our subjective choices.
You can not wake up one morning and refuse to obey the laws of gravity, and go flying off your window into the sky.

Morality (like honor) is born in our minds - it does not exist in nature, if we humans vanished then the concept of morality on earth would vanish as well.
Morality/honor is something some of us care about and some of us don't... and exactly what it is depends entirely on how each of us perceives it.

Whether or not some people conform to an objective moral standard is irrelevant to whether or not that standard exists.

- - - Updated - - -

And where are they today?
Do you see the point?
Most of those cultures grew up...or died, in the face of others that did grow.

His point reinforces the fact that humanity did indeed grow up...and continues to grow today.

It's probably best to say that Morality evolves with humanity. And that as close to objective that we can get is what we recognize today as moral.

How we make moral decisions changes as we acquire more information. The objective standard we are trying to approximate does not.

- - - Updated - - -

Western legal jurisprudence is the heir to millennia of development stretching back from the Enlightenment to the Justinian Code all the way to the Twelve Tablets of ancient Rome. Mostly concerned with practical civil regulation rather than morality. There was certainly no common morality held all that time, in fact if you go back more than a century or two our progenitors seem like savages to us.

'Practical' is the key word there. What is practical? You need an ethic in order to answer that question.

[Dreknar20]

. It's evidence for some people being wrong, or not having as much information.

You cant be wrong about a moral question any more than you can be wrong about the best tasting pie.

All nations/cultures on this planet have the same information. Yet different values, cause morals and values derive from nothing but peoples tastes and desires.
You keep saying this as if there is some calculation you could input to see what is more 'moral', which does not exist.
Whether owning a gun is immoral or not is not the result of research, its from people 'feeling' it to be immoral or not.

[Underverse]

Came back to check one more time before bed. Decided to post just to go ahead and show you the fault of your entire argument.

You say that having these two viewpoints as viable assumes moral subjectivity. I say that it PROVES it.

Here's how:
My group believes that killing a goat is morally acceptable.

Your group believes that killing a goat is morally wrong as they are creatures for love making.

My group believes your group to be wrong.

Your group believes mine to be wrong.

These moral decisions are based on opinions. Objectivity can't be based on opinions. Therefor morality is subjective. GG no re.

This isn't a proof against objective morality. It's a proof that some people are wrong - we just don't know who (with the information given in the proof). With any objective standard there will be deviants and those who have different opinions based on the information that they have. The reason for the former is immorality. The reason for the latter is that we don't have all of the information necessary to make a perfect moral decision, so we have to approximate. We use culture and our emotions for most of this. These approximations can be correct, or they can be incorrect. Whether or not they are correct depends on whether or not they are successful in approximating an objective moral standard.

A good example of this is regret. A man does something, and then later gathers more information, only to find that the outcome of his action hurt more people than it helped. Regret is a recalibration towards a moral standard. But in order for this recalibration to occur, the standard must exist.