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

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Objective.

They are based on thousands of years of testing on human nature. It's so universal -- "the golden rules" -- that it's even incorporated in many religions around the world that don't even have cultural ties.

Cause and effect, and the consequences, are great teachers.

[Ishu]

Morals are entirely subjective. If they weren't, we wouldn't have such things as wars.

[CJack14dt]

Natural morals are objective. Learned morals are subjective.

Natural morals: Morals based on adverse and/or fearful reactions to occurrences that a child or savant with no higher level knowledge or understanding of social constructs would experience (example death, theft, blackmail, rape, etc.)

Learned Morals: What other people teach you is right and wrong based upon how they would like to modify their environment to suit their own comfort level.

[Deleted]

Typrax,

You need to deal with semantics when handling this sort of topic. Personally, I would suggest not using terms like "subjective" or "objective" at all. I've already seen people use the term in what seems like totally opposite ways.

Beliefs in morality are "objective" in many ways and "relative" in many ways. Even belief in empiricism is both "objective" and "relative" in many ways. So what use is saying this without defining exactly what we mean?

Untill we have a better idea of what it is we are actually talking about, here's something to think about:

One might say "good" and "bad" don't actually exist.

Well, if you are unfortunate enough to hurt yourself, how would you describe that feeling? Was it good, or was it bad? Could you really say it was good?

Let's be honest here, pain is universally bad. We feel pain because something has happened that is in most cases not good for us. Not only for humans, for all animals that experience pain too. This is something we have evolved, and it serves a practical, beneficial purpose. The only difference is that we have named it bad, as we are the only creatures that name things.

Good and bad often describe the experiences of conscious creatures, experiences that exist. The same way the word "Earth" describes our planet. Would anyone here really argue that the "Earth" doesn't actually exist?

[redsunrising15]

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's third law of physics has a lot to say about morality.

If you behave wrongly, people will treat you the same way, and vice versa.

[Deleted]

Terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all. Rather, they describe societal conventions and personal preference. Given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Morals are entirely subjective. If they weren't, we wouldn't have such things as wars.

Wars are caused by mad men usually seeking power.

They throw morals out the window when convienant to their lust for power (then bring them back to enforce it).

[Ishu]

Wars are caused by mad men usually seeking power.

They throw morals out the window when convienant to their lust for power (then bring them back to enforce it).

Perhaps, but there are cultures where they consider other things morally right than we do. There are people who genuinely believe that getting rid of their enemies is morally right because "it will make the world a better place". These people might be mad men, but it still means that morality is not objective.

[Fuzzzie]

I know who is my hater, now.

hehe. I don't hate anyone!

[Deleted]

Terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all.

If one sets up criteria for these words, they automatically stand subject to truth conditions.

Moreover, if I start referring to "up" as "down", and begin referring to "down" as "up", does this mean the words "up" and "down" no longer stand subject to universal truth conditions?

[Archangel Tyrael]

hehe. I don't hate anyone!

You don't hate, you despise me with the fury of the burning hells.

But i know why. :X

ugh... Anyway... couldn't find the link, i regret having voted now -_-

[Deleted]

Perhaps, but there are cultures where they consider other things morally right than we do. There are people who genuinely believe that getting rid of their enemies is morally right because "it will make the world a better place". These people might be mad men, but it still means that morality is not objective.

Odd logic.

So if there is a large group of people that disagree with the theory of evolution, does that mean the theory of evolution is not objective?

[Fuzzzie]

You don't hate, you despise me with the fury of the burning hells.

But i know why. :X

ugh... Anyway... couldn't find the link, i regret having voted now -_-

Now I'm interested. PM me why if you like. Don't wanna derail this too much.

[ranku]

considering that morals change from place to place, i say relative

[Archangel Tyrael]

Now I'm interested. PM me why if you like. Don't wanna derail this too much.

okie dokie, won't derail it further! sowwy !

[Borzo]

If one sets up criteria for these words, they automatically stand subject to truth conditions.

^^^ This.

People's definition of morality is relative. But once you have a definition, you can determine morality objectively.

[Ichimarunico]

If morals were objective we wouldn't have war.

This isn't really a question, and the results of the poll are hilarious to me.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

If morals were objective we wouldn't have war.

No.

Why?

Because bad men don't have any morals but their own greed.

[Deleted]

If morals were objective we wouldn't have war.

This argument doesn't make sense.

Eg. If science were objective we wouldn't have people who believe in demons

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Perhaps, but there are cultures where they consider other things morally right than we do. There are people who genuinely believe that getting rid of their enemies is morally right because "it will make the world a better place". These people might be mad men, but it still means that morality is not objective.

But if you look at their aims it's for a purpose that isn't universal and for society's own good.

Folks can bring up a various numbers of dictators who justified their greeds, but each one wasn't for the good for their people overall.

Not to envoke Godwin's Law, but just take Hitler for example. He had a vision of a "Thousand year reich". He had an idea of what he thought was right. But both flies in the face of universal truths of "do no harm". He executed his own people for simply being different or disagreeing with his policies. Just disagreeing or being different isn't justified for killing (or in this case murder). No matter how he could justified his aims, he was morally bankrupt after violating the universal morals/truths.

Those universal morals/truths defy even dictators, because they must harm and control those morals/truths to not be a pariah of society itself (and society getting rid of that pariah for preservation).