Opinions on Objective Morality?

[Techno-Druid]

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?

[nextormento]

Interesting idea.
No evidence of existence for a single tenet. Usually disguises opinion.

[Shinra1]

I made a thread on morality a few days ago. And I got laughed at for even mentioning objective morality as I'm sure the detractors will remind you "there is no such thing".

I think people are loath to admit that objective morality is indeed a "thing" because it directly conflicts with their atheist agenda. Objective morality is one of the most important signs and explanations of God. When they fail to disapprove the moral argument for God the next best thing is to deny the nuances of morality altogether!

[Strangebrew]

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.

[Deleted]

Morality is a self serving construct, treasured when useful, discarded when it's not.

We're nothing but pack animals with a sophisticated group behavior.

[May90]

Morality can't be objective, or have objective parts, by its very nature: it does not describe how the world works, it describes how people want the world to work - and that "want" depends on the person's views, hence is subjective. The world doesn't know what "should" or "shouldn't" is, it only knows what "it" and what "isn't".

[oplawlz]

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. Of course, that is a different issue than whether or not any given idea is morally wrong or right, but whatever the answer, it's not subjective.

That's . . . actually the least accurate thing that could be said on the subject.

Morality is absolutely subjective. It's not individually subjective, thought - it's culturally subjective. Morality is dictated by the common views of the society you live in. If morality was objective as a species it would never change and all societies would have the same views.

[Tempguy]

No. Morality is as subjective as it gets. It literally changes depending on the culture you live in.

At some points in history, it was legit okay to sacrifice a fucker to the sun. That was morally acceptable for that culture. Playing kickball with severed heads and shit was a sport.

[Independent voter]

Moral relativism is the morality of the scientific community. Anything other than moral relativism is religious in nature.

[Arlon]

It's a human construct that takes form from whatever code of conduct a population follows. Pretty obvious that it's subjective. The universe gives no fucks about right or wrong, things simply happen in sequence due to entropy.

[Deleted]

In what unit do we measure subjectivity?

How are we suppose to quantify that?

[oplawlz]

I think people are loath to admit that objective morality is indeed a "thing" because it directly conflicts with their atheist agenda. Objective morality is one of the most important signs and explanations of God. When they fail to disapprove the moral argument for God the next best thing is to deny the nuances of morality altogether!

If you cling to objective morality as proof of God you're basically stating that religion has been disproven. A very brief study of history shows that morality has changed over the years, even within the church - just look at the rules set forth in the gospels and how churches no longer require things like women wearing hats.
The Bible explicitly states that God is unchanging, therefore either the entire establishment of Christianity is apostate or morality is an adoptive viewpoint.

[Mister Cheese]

Morality arose from an evolutionary standpoint from our species need to survive. It IS entirely subjective based on that. We wouldn't be here today if our tribal ancestors chose to just kill eachother instead of cooperate with one another.

[May90]

Absolutes in interpreting philosophical concepts should not belong to people who have any interest in philosophical discourse.

Most posters up to this point, consciously or subconsciously align with some school of ethical perception (or with more than one, depending on the situation) and then decided they were right.

"Objective" and "subjective" have a clear meaning, which does not depend on the philosophical concept used or school of ethics followed. "The Sun is a star" is an objective fact, because it does not depend on interpretation, it is just a property of the world. While, say, "It is wrong to kill innocents" is not objective, because "It is wrong to do something" has no reflection in the Universe, in the objective reality we live in.

[Deleted]

You want, Subjective opinions, on something objective, that cannot be objective, since it's subjective?

What?

[oplawlz]

So you don't think a society can be wrong about the morality of something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

I'm not saying moral opinions do not change over time or from culture to culture, but saying it is subjective means you're saying this practice is okay as long as their society deems it is okay.

The point is there are no moral absolutes. You can say that killing is wrong, but then you have to look at all the shades of grey, such as killing someone before they can kill thousands of others, such as a madman about to hit the detonator of a bomb. It's clear to us that such a thing is justified, but it still negates the absolute premise of "killing is wrong". That's why we're constantly having moral debates in places where we have the luxury to do so - morality fluxuates and must be agreed upon to be actionable as a society.

As to judging other societies, I never said such beliefs were above reproach. To those people, however, obviously they felt morally justified, which is why it went on. There is no universal standard, which is exactly my point.

[May90]

A deontologist would tell you that the sanctity of life is axiomatic. An objectivist would tell you that since survival is the original absolute, killing an innocent is objectively wrong unless that innocent is threatening your survival (And then would he still be an innocent?). A nihilist would scoff at the idea that something that is subjective exists. An irrationalist would argue that it is individually objective.

And then the absurdist would ask you where exactly your proof is that the reality we live in is objective in the first place.

Again, if you think you have solved moral philosophy once and for all and half the schools of ethics are wrong, feel free to publish.

The problem is, these people will say that these things are objectively wrong withing the context of the concept they are following. As it happens, however, the world isn't affected by concepts, it is affected by events and manifests in events. When someone kills an innocent person for whatever reason, it is just an event in the Universe: we can call it "right", "wrong", "objectively right", "objectively wrong", "subjectively right", "subjectively wrong" - but in the "eyes" of the Universe, of the only objective reality there is, it is just something that happened.

I definitely do not think I've solved anything. But I also think that the word "objective" is often used loosely. When an objectivist tells me that survival is the original absolute, hence killing an innocent that isn't threatening your life is wrong, this is only an objective truth with the assumption that survival being the original absolute is an established fact. Is it though? What is "original absolute" and how does it manifest in the world?

To be completely fair though, even "The Sun is a star" is somewhat subjective, since it is based on the assumption that our current physical models are correct - and we will never know with 100% certainty if they are, not matter how well our observations match our predictions.

Strictly speaking, perhaps, we can never ever establish that something is an objective fact outside a certain context, and each context is based on something purely subjective. So, I think, this is much deeper than one would think...

Yes, there will always be people who think say, murdering innocent people is okay so in that sense morality is subjective. I believe those people are just wrong and murdering innocent people is objectively wrong. In the same sense that the earth is round yet there are people who genuinely believe the earth is flat. Or is the fact that we can't actually prove murdering innocent people is wrong the reason it is not objective while we can prove the earth is round therefore making it objective?

I just believe it's a contradiction to say morals are subjective. That implies something is wrong and not wrong at the same time depending on the culture. You're literally saying it's okay for this culture to do this particular practice but wrong for this other culture. It makes no sense. One of the cultures is wrong.

I don't think either culture is objectively wrong, but I think a culture might be wrong in that its elements contradict its goals. For example, if Saudi Arabian culture is based on belief that everyone being free and happy is a good thing, and yet they severely restrict their women's rights - then this restriction of rights is wrong: it is a contradiction to their culture, and yet it is also a current element of its culture.

[Garnier Fructis]

For the people really bothered by morality being subjective: it being subjective doesn't mean they're all equal. It doesn't stop us from trying to determine which ones are better than others.

[Deleted]

The problem is, these people will say that these things are objectively wrong withing the context of the concept they are following. As it happens, however, the world isn't affected by concepts, it is affected by events and manifests in events. When someone kills an innocent person for whatever reason, it is just an event in the Universe: we can call it "right", "wrong", "objectively right", "objectively wrong", "subjectively right", "subjectively wrong" - but in the "eyes" of the Universe, of the only objective reality there is, it is just something that happened.

I definitely do not think I've solved anything. But I also think that the word "objective" is often used loosely. When an objectivist tells me that survival is the original absolute, hence killing an innocent that isn't threatening your life is wrong, this is only an objective truth with the assumption that survival being the original absolute is an established fact. Is it though? What is "original absolute" and how does it manifest in the world?

To be completely fair though, even "The Sun is a star" is somewhat subjective, since it is based on the assumption that our current physical models are correct - and we will never know with 100% certainty if they are, not matter how well our observations match our predictions.

Strictly speaking, perhaps, we can never ever establish that something is an objective fact outside a certain context, and each context is based on something purely subjective. So, I think, this is much deeper than one would think...

Physics are based on math and metrics, these are not subjective nor relative.

Whilst we cannot confirm theories to 100%, they are not based on subjective ideas.

1 is not 2, to you. 1 is strictly, a number.

You may feel, that 1 is 2, but you'd be objectively wrong - as 1 is 1.

Such is the way of basic logic. And as such, there ends "Subjective" and begins "Objective".

It is defined, as a fact.

[Kuntantee]

You can't measure how good a particular moral is, therefore, you can't talk about objective morality in a rigorous sense. Some set of morals are better than others, intuitively speaking. Female genital mutilation comes to mind.