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

[capitano666]

That's kind of getting into semantics

And this just never happens on this forum

BTW, it is my opinion that morals are subjective.
Just to give you an example, today having sex with a child is considered a horrible horrible thing. In ancient Rome and Greece it was common practice.
You could say the same about women's position in society and middle-east countries.


EDIT: INB4 semantic nazi pointing out that I wrote "subjective" but made examples with cultural groups.

[Deleted]

I think they are relative. I mean there I are some which are just common sense like don't kill, don't take or destroy other peoples property and don't hurt, limit the freedom or bother others(including animals). These aren't universal though but they make a lot of sense in the current world. But I doubt anyone would consider it morally wrong to break any of them when survival was in question. For example steal food or die from starvation or kill to protect your life or the lives of others.

But every other moral outside these and just plain stupid. There is no right or wrong there and it depends on peoples own judgement. So yea.. it's hard to say, they all seem to be relative but after thinking about it a little, I'd say they are actually objective. What causes the confusion is that even the ones that most consider absolute like the not killing one can change. But the morals that never change are just not doing evil stuff to others when they aren't threatening to do the same for you (or loved ones).

[Deleted]

you can objectively determine "right" and "wrong" based on whether it's beneficial to human society.

That's what Hitler did. He considered that the society would be so much better without the Jews, so he started capping them. Also, let's say taht children resemble their parents, and the society would be a lot better with smart people. Does that mean we should systematically kill the stupid?
This whole thing with "beneficial to the society" is very much like shifting sands...
That being said, I do think that morals are subjective. They depend largely on the spirit of the time, on the region, even age. There are some things like killing, abusing freedom and stealing that are "universally" immoral, but not even those. Think about killing a member of the enemy tribe: such a person would be praised in his own tribe. Not gonna talk about rape and stealing much, because even today in some circles you're the man if you do those things. So yes, morals tend to be subjective.

[Providence]

Dude, I said people shouldn't use these words on like page 2, yet people persisted.

There needs to be a common ground.

No one was willing to budge.

quite a bit late but thats clearly your fault and misinterpretation of the words. You want to argue something completely unrelated to what the question was using your own semantics then don't blame people for not budging to view things in your perspective.

[Deleted]

quite a bit late but thats clearly your fault and misinterpretation of the words. You want to argue something completely unrelated to what the question was using your own semantics then don't blame people for not budging to view things in your perspective.

My misinterpretation?

OP didn't give a definition, and I'm going by how these terms are generally used in morality and ethics. Then I was quoted and called wrong, someone actually misinterpreted me. I still wonder if you even read my posts from the start. I doubt it.Because you havn't even directly refuted one of my points, I would say you put up a staw man almost every time, but you didn't even mean to do it. You simply didn't/don't understand my position. Everyone is going by different definitions here, and if someone is going to try correct me, I'm atleast gonna make sure they do it right. Thus, the semantics ensued to no avail. Silly me for expecting anything more in such a topic like morality on MMOchamp, I won't make the same mistake again.

Best if we just drop it, this isn't going anywhere.

[Deleted]

Just because I said some people can justify it doesn't mean i'm 'their representative'. don't confuse it

I'm not. You are de facto even if for the purposes of argument suggesting that others are valid in their assessment that a rapist deserves rape for their crime. I'm asking you how that can be justified, if you think that it can't or don't know how then you're at odds with yourself.

then what the hell are you arguing with me about?

That popular opinion has nothing to do with why X is right or wrong. If you were consistent on your point in this thread you outright refuse to justify any moral beliefs you had on the basis that they're subjective and solely your opinion.

fuck no. did you know that popular opinion 200 years ago was that blacks were nothing more than property and that women were just slabs of meat? and a lot of people could argue till they were blue that it was right.

So you agree then, they were morally wrong for being massive racists.

I, and I hope you as well as most other people, don't need a popular opinion to come to their own moral compass on whats right or wrong. You shouldn't share the same opinion because its popular, you just have an opinion thats alike others. They are very different.

So what is your moral compass then? If you have one, and you believe it accurate and relevant then in terms of pragmatism you reject moral subjectivism.

is my moral compass at all relevant to the fact that it's subjective?

Perhaps. I'm also curious though. Why is a Muslim arguing in favour of executing apostates from Islam wrong?

[Providence]

I'm not. You are de facto even if for the purposes of argument suggesting that others are valid in their assessment that a rapist deserves rape for their crime. I'm asking you how that can be justified, if you think that it can't or don't know how then you're at odds with yourself.

if you believe in an eye for an eye or vengeance, then raping a rapist is considerably justifiable.

That popular opinion has nothing to do with why X is right or wrong. If you were consistent on your point in this thread you outright refuse to justify any moral beliefs you had on the basis that they're subjective and solely your opinion.

popular opinion doesn't have anything to do with what is right or wrong this is true, because what is right or wrong is based on person to person. It just so happens that a lot of us feel similarly on whats right and whats wrong.

I refuse to justify my moral beliefs because i feel its irrelevant. I can't come with a scientific or factual reason as to why i feel a way about certain things. I can give you an opinion, but as far as arguments go opinion really matters little when trying to discuss something objectively.

So you agree then, they were morally wrong for being massive racists.

yes. but don't forget they thought it was right. culture can heavily influence ones morals, and that is a good example of it.

So what is your moral compass then? If you have one, and you believe it accurate and relevant then in terms of pragmatism you reject moral subjectivism.

I do have a moral compass, however I think the concept of it being accurate from a pragmatic standpoint is a little misleading. I believe it is right, obviously or I wouldn't follow it, but there are people who differ on some views, not a lot, but some. The thing is that there's no accuracy to a compass because theres no real definition of it. I couldn't even describe my entire life view philosophy without either being extremely generic or going through many multiple scenerios. Could you?

I view things as doing what's right because it's right. There are some who disagree with that and say you do what's right because God asks you too (it sounds strange but I've had real life convo's with people like this :|). Even the most generic of a description of a moral compass can't even be objectively agreed upon. Nor could it ever since it's entirely my opinion on how I think the world should operate. It is entirely their opinion on how the world should operate. We might agree on things but in the end it is both of our opinions on how we believe or wish things were, there is no right or wrong answer too it.

Perhaps. I'm also curious though. Why is a Muslim arguing in favour of executing apostates from Islam wrong?

depends. were the apostates from islam committing heinous war crimes?

[Deleted]

I think his argument rests on his definition of morality. Basically it's what manbeartruck said above:



If you agree with that definition of morality, then you CAN objectively determine if something is right or wrong.

His other argument is that most people DO agree on that definition of morality. This may not be 100% true though, and I may have to disagree with him there.

My point was that while you can probably determine what is the preferred outcome of a given situation as moral or 'desirable', or 'best for as many as possible', the means of getting there might change from situation to situation, requiring you to take action that strives against an absolutists definition of morality.

An absolutist in this sense might refuse to take action because his morals forbid him, no matter the result.
Morality for the absolutist is always the means of getting to a goal, while, for the 'objectivist' it's the goal that matters. Or so it'd seem, anyway.

[Deleted]

if you believe in an eye for an eye or vengeance, then raping a rapist is considerably justifiable.

What makes "eye for an eye" morally justifiable and what makes vengeance as motive morally justifiable?

popular opinion doesn't have anything to do with what is right or wrong this is true, because what is right or wrong is based on person to person. It just so happens that a lot of us feel similarly on whats right and whats wrong.

Why do you suppose that is? I think I know at least in part, but I wonder why you think there is a significant consensus on why certain actions are accepted and certain actions not?

Concerning also your statement "because what is right or wrong is based on person to person". This is incomplete. What people think is right or wrong are based on well, what they think. People rationalise all kinds of contemptible things as justified.

I refuse to justify my moral beliefs because i feel its irrelevant. I can't come with a scientific or factual reason as to why i feel a way about certain things. I can give you an opinion, but as far as arguments go opinion really matters little when trying to discuss something objectively.

By this reckoning, all progress towards human rights was irrelevant. Those advocating it obviously couldn't come up with a factual reason for why they feel that they should be so they shouldn't have bothered.

Right?

yes. but don't forget they thought it was right. culture can heavily influence ones morals, and that is a good example of it.

I don't care that they thought it was right. I also don't care about the stupid excuses made for the militants in Libya and the pseudo-justifications I've seen for why the Chinese get to suppress and censor their population. It is wrong.

Both result in the restriction of people from living their lives as they choose and ultimately that is all that matters. We can all attest without exception to the inherent desire to live life as we choose, to be the architects of our own path. When this is restricted either by an individual, a state or an imposed authority it is a direct moral violation. This recognition alone is enough to ensure the relevancy of human rights, arguably one of the most important legal moral advances of history.

I do have a moral compass, however I think the concept of it being accurate from a pragmatic standpoint is a little misleading. I believe it is right, obviously or I wouldn't follow it, but there are people who differ on some views, not a lot, but some.

Without saying "because I believe it" (as it is redundant): Why do you think that your moral compass is accurate?

The thing is that there's no accuracy to a compass because theres no real definition of it. I couldn't even describe my entire life view philosophy without either being extremely generic or going through many multiple scenerios. Could you?

Probably not. My moral world-view though is based on a recognition of individual liberty and little else.

I view things as doing what's right because it's right. There are some who disagree with that and say you do what's right because God asks you too (it sounds strange but I've had real life convo's with people like this :|).

People who say that aren't actually moral, they're simply following orders.

That's obedience, not morality.

Even the most generic of a description of a moral compass can't even be objectively described. Nor could it ever since it's entirely my opinion on how I think the world should operate. It is entirely their opinion on how the world should operate. We might agree on things but in the end it is both of our opinions on how we believe or wish things were, there is no right or wrong answer too it.

A civilisation that allows for random murder is simply wrong. It is unsustainable and detrimental to everyone who lives under it. The same goes for a civilisation that allows theft (as in abandons all forms of property).

depends. were the apostates from islam committing heinous war crimes?

No, though if they were - what exactly has committing a war crime got to do with apostasy from Islam? Surely if you've committed a war crime, you should be held responsible for that alone.

[Borzo]

That's the thing, you won't find decisions that are always the best option for everyone all the time, it will never ever ever ever ever happen.

No, you misunderstand. I mean the best possible outcome for the most possible people. The most "total net good". I'm talking about it from a utilitarian perspective.

---------- Post added 2012-02-17 at 10:20 AM ----------

Also I find it odd that you people are saying that we can objectively determine what's best for the whole society/humanity. Really? So why are there politics? Why is everyone's opinion on the subject absolutely and fundamentaly different? You can't determine anything obcjectively, it's all opinions. And you can't say "it's best if the majority agrees" either. The majority doesn't neccesarily know what's best for it. In fact, I'd say the majority is pretty fucking stupid most of the time.

1) Not everyone wants whats best for society/humanity. (eg Some religious people don't care.)
2) Our opinions are different because our understanding of science, economics, sociology, etc isn't good enough to come to a consistent answer. Doesn't mean there aren't answer though. We're not looking for majority opinion, we're looking for the correct answer.

---------- Post added 2012-02-17 at 10:29 AM ----------

That's what Hitler did. He considered that the society would be so much better without the Jews, so he started capping them. Also, let's say taht children resemble their parents, and the society would be a lot better with smart people. Does that mean we should systematically kill the stupid?
This whole thing with "beneficial to the society" is very much like shifting sands...

It was Hitler's OPINION that what he was doing was best for society. It might be someone's OPINION that killing stupid people is best for society. Thing is, they're probably wrong about that. In fact, you can get factually correct answers to "what's best for society?" with enough knowledge and understanding about psychology, sociology, economics, etc etc. We don't currently have that kinda knowledge/undrestanding here in 2012, but it's theoretically possible. For some simple cases, we can answer those sorts of questions already. (eg Is finding a cure for cancer good or bad for human society?)

[Providence]

What makes "eye for an eye" morally justifiable and what makes vengeance as motive morally justifiable?

as opposed too? i could answer that question with another question, what makes them morally unjustifiable?

Why do you suppose that is? I think I know at least in part, but I wonder why you think there is a significant consensus on why certain actions are accepted and certain actions not?

Concerning also your statement "because what is right or wrong is based on person to person". This is incomplete. What people think is right or wrong are based on well, what they think. People rationalise all kinds of contemptible things as justified.

Just because a large portion of the populous has a similar opinion does not make it fact. A large portion of the world regards sugar as tastey, yet you cannot factually state sugar as tastey because A tastey is relative, B the opinion is subjective and C people will disagree, even if it's a small minority.

Just like you cannot state something is morally right or wrong as fact be cause A Right and Wrong are relative, B the opinion is subjective, and C people will disagree no matter how small the minority.

By this reckoning, all progress towards human rights was irrelevant. Those advocating it obviously couldn't come up with a factual reason for why they feel that they should be so they shouldn't have bothered.

Right?

Not exactly. If you can come up with enough compelling reasons on your opinion you can convince people. You can convince people that freeing blacks from slavery is a good thing, you could also convince people that killing 7 million innocent jews is a good thing.

I don't care that they thought it was right. I also don't care about the stupid excuses made for the militants in Libya and the pseudo-justifications I've seen for why the Chinese get to suppress and censor their population. It is wrong.

Both result in the restriction of people from living their lives as they choose and ultimately that is all that matters. We can all attest without exception to the inherent desire to live life as we choose, to be the architects of our own path. When this is restricted either by an individual, a state or an imposed authority it is a direct moral violation. This recognition alone is enough to ensure the relevancy of human rights, arguably one of the most important legal moral advances of history.

This is a funny thing about cultural morale. It really boils down to "we are right and they are wrong"

moral violation? yea maybe. What if this totalitarian state had to keep its power for the actual good of the nation? It's not impossible. If a society is running rampant and it takes an iron fist to keep people from killing each other then we have a situation where a militant nation may in fact be a good thing.

Without saying "because I believe it" (as it is redundant): Why do you think that your moral compass is accurate?

Without believing it, I have little else reason. Do you? Can you honestly tell me that, with some extensive in depth analysis, that your moral compass is nothing more than a personal belief? Can you find no paradox or quandary in which your moral compass begins to fade if but momentarily because your question on what life is becomes less clear cut? Can you find any instance where the term "Right" can accurately and unanimously be defined?

Probably not. My moral world-view though is based on a recognition of individual liberty and little else.

same to an extent.

People who say that aren't actually moral, they're simply following orders.

That's obedience, not morality.

except they believe that following gods word is the right thing to do. see the problem here?

A civilisation that allows for random murder is simply wrong. It is unsustainable and detrimental to everyone who lives under it. The same goes for a civilisation that allows theft (as in abandons all forms of property).

murder has existed for a very long time. much longer than law. In those times, if a family or friend was murdered, you exacted vengeance. Obviously those societies still managed or we wouldn't be here.

No, though if they were - what exactly has committing a war crime got to do with apostasy from Islam? Surely if you've committed a war crime, you should be held responsible for that alone.

I consider war crimes like mass murder of many innocent civilians to be a justifiable excuse for an execution.

[Borzo]

My point was that while you can probably determine what is the preferred outcome of a given situation as moral or 'desirable', or 'best for as many as possible', the means of getting there might change from situation to situation, requiring you to take action that strives against an absolutists definition of morality.

An absolutist in this sense might refuse to take action because his morals forbid him, no matter the result.
Morality for the absolutist is always the means of getting to a goal, while, for the 'objectivist' it's the goal that matters. Or so it'd seem, anyway.

Oh, I agree with that mostly. Saying something like "killing is always wrong" is a stupid moral viewpoint. That statement groups all killing together and simplifies it to assume it's all the same, when it is obviously not. Humans are just lazy, and can't be bothered to look at individual situations individually.

[Deleted]

as opposed too? i could answer that question with another question, what makes them morally unjustifiable?

You could, but that's simply avoiding my question.

"Eye for an eye" is simply another word for vengeance, really. Vengeance is unjustified as it simply has no consideration for a proportionate or humane response. It simply is only interested in harming the perpetrator. It literally has nothing to do with rehabilitation, or civilisation. I can assure you that no-one would actually want to be subject to the judgement of someone only interested in setting the score even with you, or getting revenge on you.

So why is it or can it be argued to be justified?

Just because a large portion of the populous has a similar opinion does not make it fact.

Correct, and I've said this myself - but I want to know why you think that a massive consensus exists on so many actions.

A large portion of the world regards sugar as tastey, yet you cannot factually state sugar as tastey because A tastey is relative, B the opinion is subjective and C people will disagree, even if it's a small minority.

Of course, given that whether or not someone finds sugar tasty or tasteless or horrible has no impact on the lives of others....

Not exactly. If you can come up with enough compelling reasons on your opinion you can convince people. You can convince people that freeing blacks from slavery is a good thing, you could also convince people that killing 7 million innocent jews is a good thing.

But you said previously that it would be pointless to justify your moral beliefs because you can't demonstrate them as factual. Why is it now that "compelling reasons" are good enough?

This is a funny thing about cultural morale. It really boils down to "we are right and they are wrong"

Did you mean moral rather than morale? In any case, cultural elitism or superiority often leads to infringing upon the rights of others.

moral violation? yea maybe. What if this totalitarian state had to keep its power for the actual good of the nation? It's not impossible. If a society is running rampant and it takes an iron fist to keep people from killing each other then we have a situation where a militant nation may in fact be a good thing.

The state would only need to act to prevent people from inflicting upon others.

That said, do you disagree with my statement that every human wants to live their life without interference from any unwelcome authority?

Without believing it, I have little else reason. Do you?

That you believe it is a consequence of you being convinced by it. You have the nature of belief backwards. Why are you convinced by your moral beliefs?

Can you honestly tell me that, with some extensive in depth analysis, that your moral compass is nothing more than a personal belief? Can you find no paradox or quandary in which your moral compass begins to fade if but momentarily because your question on what life is becomes less clear cut? Can you find any instance where the term "Right" can accurately and unanimously be defined?

I never said that my own conviction is completely accurate. I'm always swayed by convincing arguments - I only take issue with the notion that I should pay any respect or consideration to the viewpoint of those I find evil.

Right (in a moral sense) is broadly what one ought to do in the context of the consideration of others. It has no other meaningful definition, and of course there are plenty of grey areas that make it very hard to determine what is the appropriate course of action.

except they believe that following gods word is the right thing to do. see the problem here?

No, they're simply wrong. They have no coherent definition of morality beyond following the orders of God which leads them potentially open to endorsing murder and rape or torture in the name of said God. That is pseudo-morality at its most convincing.

murder has existed for a very long time. much longer than law. In those times, if a family or friend was murdered, you exacted vengeance. Obviously those societies still managed or we wouldn't be here.

A society that allows, as in does nothing and legalises murder is a society that is one step ahead of anarchy. What societies are you even referring to though?

I consider war crimes like mass murder of many innocent civilians to be a justifiable excuse for an execution.

Uh, okay - though that wasn't what I asked. Why do you think a Muslim calling for an apostate of Islam to be executed is wrong?

[Lilcheeks]

Definitely relative. Every culture has different needs, different things are expected of people. Survival requires different things in different places. I think what might be universal is the moral concept of doing "the right thing". What constitutes this however is relative.

[Deleted]

I think the best way to distinguishing if moral is objective or relative, is to look at our best attempt of making it objektive, written laws. Every time we try and make moral objektive we write it down, every country/state in the world has a law that is diffrent in many ways, we have the "UN human rights" that are suppose to be the basic right all humans should have in our oppinions... but to inforce this we have to break some of the rules we have made.

But back to my first point... Law = our wish to have an objective set of morals
You can say it started with the 10 commandments but it didn't take long untill we realized something like that wouldn't be sufficient in every situation, so we had to evolve the law, and it still keeps beeing this fluent ever changing thing, with new bills beeing passed and removed every day, all over earth, because despite the human need to have objective morals, thats not even close to beeing realistic.

We look back in history and think that people 2000 years ago was savages for killing people for religious purposes, but the fact is that they thought they were helping humanity and saving people from damnation. Who knows mabey in 2000 years from now they will look back at us and think we were savages for killing people for political believes like democracy in wars, even tho we at the moment think it's the only and truely right way of living...

The objective set of morals we have right now, is only a snapshot of the state the world is in and what the people with power think would serve the world the best. When i say people with power in a democracy, that would meen the majority of a population in a nation that has the ability to enforce their believes of the perfect world onto others. Even tho we like to think that people have the same morals as eachother, since that gives us comfort in a otherwise caotic world, it should be blatently clear, that is simply not the case, and must therefor be relative to each person.

[Deleted]

Morality is relatively objective.

[FathomFear]

Definitely relative. Every culture has different needs, different things are expected of people. Survival requires different things in different places. I think what might be universal is the moral concept of doing "the right thing". What constitutes this however is relative.

I agree, and I say that as someone who has a degree in Philosophy.

People make the mistake of seeing this as a dichotomy. Either a moral statement holds true 100% of the time, everywhere, or it's "relative" and arbitrary. In reality it's a lot more complicated than that.

Even the distinction of subjective/objective comes out of a certain school of though (particularly modern Enlightenment thought). When you ask the question "Is X subjective or objective?" you're already making assumptions. It's sort of the equivalent of asking "Is your cough due to an imbalance in your yellow bile or black bile humors?" The question only makes sense if you're buying into the underlying metaphyics of "humors".

[hellosaltygoodness]

i don't believe at all in moral relativism and i view anything that causes harm to innocent people as being universally immoral, and anything that doesn't cause harm is universally not immoral. i don't care what culture has to say about anything, hurting people is immoral and things that do not hurt people are not immoral. if your culture says otherwise, that doesn't change basic facts.

[Knight Gil]

Relative, obviously. It's human's judgement that creates morality. As such, there is no universal truth, because every system, from a culture to a single person, has their own moral code.

HOWEVER

Just because I aknowledge morality is relative, it doesn't mean I'm going to stop defending my moral principles. It doesn't mean anyone should stop defending points of view that makes the world better and more just. Because even if morality is relative, different moral codes have different effects on a civilization

[Ettan]

Morals are beyond doubt culture relative.
Take this old example King X something something from persia invites people from 2 diffrent cultures, the greeks and some tribe to the far east.
The greeks burnt their dead, the other guests found this utterly despicable and morally wrong.
Likewise was the greeks horror when they learned that the guests ate their dead.
They both despised one and another, what is right for you is not necessarily right for someone else.

To find morals that apply universally is near impossible, even murder has been acceptable to certain cultures in the past.

---------- Post added 2012-02-18 at 03:30 AM ----------

""Eye for an eye" is simply another word for vengeance, really. Vengeance is unjustified as it simply has no consideration for a proportionate or humane response. It simply is only interested in harming the perpetrator. It literally has nothing to do with rehabilitation, or civilisation. I can assure you that no-one would actually want to be subject to the judgement of someone only interested in setting the score even with you, or getting revenge on you.

So why is it or can it be argued to be justified?"

It may not be the right approach or cut out for our time but vengeance is justice. The law of retaliation is the only true justice to this date.
One eye for one eye, one hand for a hand, a life for a life. No matter how gruesome or unproductive the result is in its core it still is 100% just.