Do you think morals are objective, or do you think morals are relative?

[Fuzzzie]

I agree with this. Even our morality of murder etc is only based on humans being the most evolved species on this planet. We kill animals because they are not as evolved as we are. hence for a species which is much more evolved than us, destroying human race for their own purpose would not be wrong?

I was thinking even more basic. At the quantum level.. where does morality fit in? It doesn't..

[Fojos]

Do you even know what subjective means?

In moral it depends on peoples values and feelings. You decided that criteria based on personal values, that means it's subjective.

[Deleted]

I was thinking even more basic. At the quantum level.. where does morality fit in? It doesn't..

Oh? Consciousness is magic, is it? Supernatural?

---------- Post added 2012-02-17 at 04:33 AM ----------

In moral it depends on peoples values and feelings. You decided that criteria based on personal values, that means it's subjective.

If you're still going to say there is no objective aspect, while not addressing my points that show there are, then feel free to just say whatever you want.

[keldoen]

At stickybuds
What you are saying about Morals being both is technically right. Once you have a situation/criteria then, and only then can it become objective. But i think this in of itself makes it subjective.
Even with a criteria the morality of actions are in flux. Only people who believe in black and white morality believe otherwise. This type of thinking is dangerous though and is what causes most arguments and fights.
Using the stabbing example : In general we can agree that "stabbing" is immoral. But that is not always true. With certain criteria it becomes contested, or even moral to stab.
Say a small child of 4 years old needs to get a vaccine of dtap ( whooping cough vaccine) to the parents , the doctor and the nurses this is a moral action needed to prevent suffering and possibly death to the child. But to the child it is a immoral action of being stabbed in the arm.
Not quite a knife stab but work with me here.
The next situation is a man who has been shot, careless mistake or combat aside . He has a perforated lung and the pressure of the air building up is slowly killing him. Stabbing him in the damaged lung is extreme , but necessarily measure to release the pressure and save his life. To both the man , and most everyone this would be a moral act.
Now leaving the criteria for both of those as " stabbing" makes it look immoral. But once the criteria is fleshed out it becomes a little more clear.
I think most of us agree . It is just a matter of wording that makes us disagree.

[Fuzzzie]

Oh? Consciousness is magic, is it? Supernatural?

A product of our evolution.

[keldoen]

Q q quantum level? You mean what does morality mean in the time-space continuum on a universal scale? Then nothing i suppose... we are all bacteria on a rock for Galaxy cares.
But im pretty sure thinking like that is just pointless.

[Fuzzzie]

But im pretty sure thinking like that is just pointless.

Considering all of life's possibilities is never pointless.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

I agree with this. Even our morality of murder etc is only based on humans being the most evolved species on this planet.

Actually, a form of morality can be observed in nature...and at what lengths a species will go to preserve itself (and it's not just Darwin's idea of the strongest will survive. Animals have their own sense of morality, and even care for their ill, too).

It's how mankind came to it's "universal truths". They saw what madness could do in the animal kingdom, and adapted their own.

And thank God they did, because civilization could not exist without them.

[Borzo]

Is a banana subjective or objective?

I mean, anybody can define a "banana" as anything you want, so clearly it's subjective.

But if you're gonna think about it like that... then what's the point of even asking the question?

[keldoen]

Pointless during a discussion on sentience , consciousness and the limits to reality , no, maybe not. But when discussing human morals it sort of is. Morals arn't a thing, they are definitely human constructs. The discussion boils down to do all humans share the same construct, or is a different or open to interpretation.

Are there people out there that believe morals exist on a physical level of existence?

[Deleted]

At stickybuds
What you are saying about Morals being both is technically right. Once you have a situation/criteria then, and only then can it become objective. But i think this in of itself makes it subjective.

Again, it's an ontology and epistemology issue, it's simply both objective and subjective in different ways, there is no other way of putting it.

Yes, ethical theories are in flux, there are exceptions. There are exceptions in scientific theory too. For instance, Einstien's Relativity fails at the center of a black hole. It fails at the moment of the Big Bang, so scientific theories are also in "flux", scientists still work with it though, because it's the best we have so far, even though we know it's wrong in some ways.

Not to mention the reason people accept scientific theories are subjective, the reasons they value empiricism is subjective.

So what? Do people go around saying science is subjective? No.

There are deep rooted popular misconceptions regarding the topic of morality, and I know what I'm saying goes against what one might call common sense, but what I'm saying is true.

[Izin]

Relative how? For something to be relative it would have a dependency on something else. Such as "it's morally objectionable to murder someone, unless you're a sociopath"...an obviously absurd statement but that's sort of the idea by saying morals are relative. Or are they relative to the nature or conditions of the person and their experiences? Where stealing in an affluent society would be seen as being morally offensive, but in perhaps a "have-nots" society it's seen as survival and therefore immune to moral referendum to some.

I don't think the word "objective" is necessarily accurate as that would imply that morals are chiefly individual. But I would say that the "10 commandments" series of morals are quite universal and given to you when you are younger...usually. But that's not really an individual choice as those morals are presented to you, and those morals were presented to your parents/peers by their parents/peers.

Yeah... so I just google up an english version the the 10 commandments, there might be other ways the text are written but it is essentially the same message.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Do you seriously believe these 4 are "universal morals"? What it is saying is basically that _there IS a god_ and this god is a jealous god who don't want you to have other gods and you can't use he's name in a way he dislikes. It also says it would be immoral to work on a sunday? I mean no one in their right mind could actually 100% seriously think that this is any type of good morals.

[keldoen]

To Borzo
Because your analogy is compleatly wrong. A bananna (the object not the word) is objective. It is there or it is not. Yes the word bananna is subjective but the object is a static fact. A moral is not a static fact. Speeding down a residential area would be considered by most immoral, but speeding to the hospital to deliver a child is moral.

[Borzo]

To Borzo
Because your analogy is compleatly wrong. A bananna (the object not the word) is objective. It is there or it is not. Yes the word bananna is subjective but the object is a static fact. A moral is not a static fact. Speeding down a residential area would be considered by most immoral, but speeding to the hospital to deliver a child is moral.

Okay. So my first question is, what's the definition of "morality" that we are using in this thread? What does the word "morals" even mean?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I wouldn't really say relative, but there is definitely not an objective set of morals.

[Deleted]

Speeding down a residential area would be considered by most immoral, but speeding to the hospital to deliver a child is moral.

Yes? But so what? so speeding isn't always immoral because there are many many factors in the ways humans interact with each other. The fact remains that these are two seperate instances. There are different variables that constitute to each decision. So why is it suprising they might have different answers?

If the variables are always the same (speeded down the road with a baby, for example) the answer will always be the same. right? the answer only changes if the variables change. (no baby) This is still objective.

[ImpTaimer]

Objective.

In this subject, right or wrong are not facts, but rather, opinions.


There is no equation for right, or wrong.

Facts are glorified opinions. What you meant to say is personal opinions, not simply opinions.

I voted objective for the same basic reason you stated. Morals are simply an attempt to govern what's "right" (good) and what's "wrong" (evil). Right and wrong are subjective to opinion, as are what is good an evil. What is good to you, is evil to them, vice versa / etc.

Morals are personal opinions and objective/subjective, whereas Facts are unified opinions and relative/absolute. One person cannot sustain a fact, and multiple people cannot sustain a moral.

[Spacehobo]

Morals are obviously just an idea, they are not physical. Therefore, we can assume that morals are relative to whatever group defines them. No matter what. However, I am not saying that we shouldn't strive as a species to build an objective social structure where you have either right or wrong because for survival it is in our best interests. It is both objective and relative because it is a metaphysical idea. If something is relative then at some point it is objective, but ultimately morality is relative and has the potential to be objective, while it is already both in many cases. I hope some day for ideas like morality to become like math, then, we will live in a wonderful world.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Best way I've ever heard it was that morals are objective, while values are subjective (hopefully that makes sense).

About as good as any definition so far defined.

[Providence]

If you're still going to say there is no objective aspect, while not addressing my points that show there are, then feel free to just say whatever you want.

there is no objective aspect, simply because you can justify any action based on multiple factors despite the fact that they both might be morally reprehensible.

Killing is wrong. Not always. I can justify it. The moral of no killing is out the window.
Stealing is wrong. Not always. I can justify it. The moral of no stealing is out the window.
You can realistically justify the inverse of nearly every single moral conceivable which makes it highly subjective