Morality = subjective??

[Karenea2132]

I was talking with a friend and we were talking about whether or not morals were subjective.I honestly think they are. What may be good to someone else would be an deplorable act in another person's eyes. Like homosexuality. Christians think its bad to be gay but not everyone else thinks so. What do you guys think?  

[Shanna66]

of course they are subjective. like how its wrong to eat cats and dogs in america but in other countries they are normal food items  

[She Promised You Cookies]

Relativism is bullshit.

Just because one person finds something okay doesn't mean that affects morality in the slightest. Someone finds child abuse okay, that means everyone should look at it with an open mind because it's just a subjective thought, right? Wrong.

Society has a basic standard for right and wrong. If morality was subjective and everyone's thought mattered, then there would be no sense of morality at all because everything would be acceptable since someone thinks it's okay to do something bad.

We humans have a system that mentally decides good from bad, and the good and bad pretty much follows the same rules. There are some individuals whose thoughts differ enough to what the standard is, but since it's just one person, it doesn't matter.

If they were accepted, then so would incredibly horrible acts.

So even if morality WAS subjective, it would become obsolete if everything was good and nothing was bad, as you say so here.  

[neko-mata-01]

She Promised You Cookies

Relativism is bullshit.

Just because one person finds something okay doesn't mean that affects morality in the slightest. Someone finds child abuse okay, that means everyone should look at it with an open mind because it's just a subjective thought, right? Wrong.

Society has a basic standard for right and wrong. If morality was subjective and everyone's thought mattered, then there would be no sense of morality at all because everything would be acceptable since someone thinks it's okay to do something bad.

We humans have a system that mentally decides good from bad, and the good and bad pretty much follows the same rules. There are some individuals whose thoughts differ enough to what the standard is, but since it's just one person, it doesn't matter.

If they were accepted, then so would incredibly horrible acts.

So even if morality WAS subjective, it would become obsolete if everything was good and nothing was bad, as you say so here.

^this
and honestly im not willing to accept anything. there are somethings im ok with even though i wouldn't do them such as idk eating bugs. but for example the mistreatment of women in certain middle eastern countries im not ok with and never will be even though its apparently completely fine there. or assuming the Aztecs were still around and they sacrificed people i dont think many people would like that, no matter how much we have to trample on their religion.  

[nurnse_rolol]

Morality is definately subjective. Most points to prove this were already covered so I won't repeat them, but I agree.

On a different note, be careful when you generalize specific groups (how you did so by saying Christians are against homosexuality), some people might find it offensive. I just wanted to let you know before someone else sees it and gets pissed...  

[Lady Kayura]

It most certainly is subjective and varies from culture to culture.  

[Meeatu]

She Promised You Cookies

Relativism is bullshit.

Just because one person finds something okay doesn't mean that affects morality in the slightest. Someone finds child abuse okay, that means everyone should look at it with an open mind because it's just a subjective thought, right? Wrong.

Society has a basic standard for right and wrong. If morality was subjective and everyone's thought mattered, then there would be no sense of morality at all because everything would be acceptable since someone thinks it's okay to do something bad.

We humans have a system that mentally decides good from bad, and the good and bad pretty much follows the same rules. There are some individuals whose thoughts differ enough to what the standard is, but since it's just one person, it doesn't matter.

If they were accepted, then so would incredibly horrible acts.

So even if morality WAS subjective, it would become obsolete if everything was good and nothing was bad, as you say so here.

Subjective morality means that we can't take offense to anything anybody does, right? Wrong.

Morality IS subjective, that doesn't mean that everyone's own subjective morality doesn't grow and adapt through the influence of others moralities.

Different societies have different basic standards for right and wrong.

The only 'systems' that we humans have to decide 'good' from 'bad' are those which we, ourselves built in order to cultivate working societies.

Your points are invalid.  

[Atrum_Anima]

Morality, like all abstract concepts inevitably are, is subjective. No matter how painful it seems, the statements, "Raping someone is wrong," "Being generous to others is right," or "Child abuse is wrong," are not technically facts. Just very commonly-held views.

If you wanted to be existential about it, one could say that everything beyond our own mind is subjective; perhaps nothing truly 'exists'. (Though that seems a bit pessimistic to me)

By the way, I wanted to point out something in my argument, or the argument itself, really. If all concepts are subjective, then the idea that morality is subjective is subjective. And that's why we're having this discussion.  

[Esiris]

Moral Relativism is a self-defeating idea if someone really thinks about it. People confuse moral relativism with cultural pluralism- but they don't get that just because a culture does something, that doesn't mean it isn't abusive and harms it's victims.

People approach it in a few different ways- universal, personal, agnostic, the subjective reality, an argument from perspective,


Moral Relativists say all truth is relative-
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" 100% true all the time, if not- then it isn't absolute like "all" would mean. This is the "positive" framing. If "All truth is relative" then there cannot be any absolute truths. "There are no absolute truths" means the same thing, but it's the negative framing. But then, that becomes a paradox because the statement "All truth is relative" is an absolute, which contradicts the negative framing proving the positive framing to be wrong.
If there aren't any 100% truths, then you can't ever believe that something is 100% absolute- not even moral relativism.

In the "personal" idea of moral relativism "What is true for you is not true for me." In this case- specific people's view points are treated as true or false. But it creates a paradox when I, as someone who knows moral relativism is false, encounters someone who believes it is true.
When I say "Moral relativism is false", you have 6 options:
If you say yes, because it is true for me- you've just shown that moral relativism is false. If you say no, then you then what is true for me is not "true" and it demonstrates relativism is false. If you say it's "only true for me" then I am a living example of how moral relativism is false- how could it be true when real life shows it to be false? That creates a paradox- because that would mean that moral relativism creates situations when it is and of itself is false.

Since moral relativism says each point is equally valid, it's self defeating when people disagree about moral relativism- in believing that moral relativism is false, but because of moral relativism it's absolutely true for me, it becomes an absolute and thus isn't relative- likewise if you believe it is absolutely true, then it becomes an absolute and is disproved in the same way that universal moral relativism is.

Some people take an agnostic perspective that "No one can know for sure", but if we know that's true, then we create that same paradox.

When it comes to moral relativism and subjective reality, a moral relativist might say "My reality has moral subjectivism even if yours doesn't."- but that becomes a misuse of the word reality- reality is what's "real"- if what's real actually exists- and reality includes moral objectivism instead of moral relativism- then our realities can't both be real- and the one that exists would be the one that doesn't create paradoxes like the ones described above. That is your reality, not mine.

Some people say it's all a matter of perspective- that we "See things how we want to see them"- but if that's true, how can you know? If you want to experience truth, how do you know you aren't creating self-deception? It's not like people can't and don't lie to themselves. Wanting truth doesn't magically give it to you- and if you say it's only my perspective that moral relativism isn't true, then you've just created that same absolute we talked about before- the one that disproves itself.

All these problems are created when people try and claim morality is relative instead of saying that specific people mess up and act in immoral ways or don't know any better.

And like I said- this doesn't exclude cultural pluralism, it just acknowledges that because something is part of a culture- that doesn't make it morally right. Killing LGBT people in WWII was morally wrong- even though the Nazis thought it was right. Same with stoning gay men because of the Bible. People make mistakes and do things that are immoral- but that doesn't mean morality is relative.

Meeatu

Different societies have different basic standards for right and wrong.

Just because different standards exist, that doesn't mean that both are moral- see above about the "personal subjective morality" argument.

Lady Kayura

It most certainly is subjective and varies from culture to culture.

Just because a culture believes something is right- that doesn't make it so. See above about the Nazi and Jewish executions of LGBT people.

Shanna66

of course they are subjective. like how its wrong to eat cats and dogs in america but in other countries they are normal food items

That's a question of cultural norms- not morality in and of itself.

Atrum_Anima

Morality, like all abstract concepts inevitably are, is subjective.

You don't give any reason why an abstract concept needs to be subjective.

Quote:

No matter how painful it seems, the statements, "Raping someone is wrong," "Being generous to others is right," or "Child abuse is wrong," are not technically facts. Just very commonly-held views.

Overwhelming evidence that creates solid verifiable conclusions become facts. Rape has demonstrable effects on the brain, so does abuse- and so does kindness. The values that come from observing those effects are objective.

Quote:

If all concepts are subjective, then the idea that morality is subjective is subjective. And that's why we're having this discussion.

And that creates that first paradox I mentioned- meaning it's false.  

[Meeatu]

[quote="Esiris]Lalala, morality is objective, here's my evidence
I'm not going to quote you in full, as it'll take up waaay too much space.

I understand where you're coming from.
But before I disagree, I'm interested to know what your alternative is.
If morality is objective, what defines that which is and isn't moral?
How do I know if what I believe to be moral really is?

Is it the bible?
The law?
Human instinct?

Understand, I'm not arguing with you (yet), I'm just curious as to what defines objective morality if it does exist.  

[Esiris]

Meeatu

I'm not going to quote you in full, as it'll take up waaay too much space.

Presenting evidence is a good thing. cat_3nodding

Quote:

I understand where you're coming from.
But before I disagree, I'm interested to know what your alternative is.
If morality is objective, what defines that which is and isn't moral?
How do I know if what I believe to be moral really is?

If you want a lesson in morality, I recommend taking a college philosophy course.
When you generalized and said "The only 'systems' that we humans have to decide 'good' from 'bad' are those which we, ourselves built in order to cultivate working societies." That isn't really accurate- because it doesn't account for human biology.

Quote:

Is it the bible?
The law?

Have you had a chance to read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau?

Quote:

Understand, I'm not arguing with you (yet), I'm just curious as to what defines objective morality if it does exist.

Objective morality is self-defining, what you're really asking isn't about what defines it- but how we interact with it, which is the problem since people can be as wrong about what is moral in the same way that they can get a math problem wrong.

If you want to understand morality- you'll need a cross disciplinary study in philosophy, psychology, history, neuro-linguistics, sociology and biology.

Pointing at codes won't do you any good because you're pointing at what people have intuitively explored and attempted to articulate as "ethics". That's the essence of subjective experience- looking at the hard science is what will lead you to what's objective. So what you have is a daisy chain of disciplines- history linking to sociology, linking to philosophy linking to neurolinguistics, linking to psychology linking to biology. It's kind of re-inventing the wheel, but that's because pointing at the Bible, Laws, etc is like that old Buddhist story about pointing at the moon.  

[Atrum_Anima]

Esiris

You don't give any reason why an abstract concept needs to be subjective.

First, I wanted to point out that I can't truly prove that all abstract concepts are subjective. I could give examples when truth or justice are subjective, or when freedom, happiness, or meaningfulness are subjective, but I think we can all imagine the scenarios.

Any of these examples, though, would just be examples. That doesn't prove anything. However, I honestly don't think I can prove that abstract concepts are subjective. This is because they are, and thus this idea is only my opinion. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in saying that this idea is both a fact and my opinion, although there are others who disagree with that opinion. (What I mean to say is, just because something is a fact doesn't mean that everyone believes the fact is true.) If people didn't disagree with that opinion, I would have no basis to believe that the idea is true. But I do, and others do disagree.

That's the closest I can come to proving that all abstract concepts are subjective.

Esiris

Moral Relativism is a self-defeating idea if someone really thinks about it. People confuse moral relativism with cultural pluralism- but they don't get that just because a culture does something, that doesn't mean it isn't abusive and harms it's victims.

People approach it in a few different ways- universal, personal, agnostic, the subjective reality, an argument from perspective,


Moral Relativists say all truth is relative-
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" 100% true all the time, if not- then it isn't absolute like "all" would mean. This is the "positive" framing. If "All truth is relative" then there cannot be any absolute truths. "There are no absolute truths" means the same thing, but it's the negative framing. But then, that becomes a paradox because the statement "All truth is relative" is an absolute, which contradicts the negative framing proving the positive framing to be wrong.
If there aren't any 100% truths, then you can't ever believe that something is 100% absolute- not even moral relativism.

Even though this wasn't necessarily directed at me, I want to point out something. I'm not arguing that all truth is relative. I'm arguing that truth itself is subjective. Although it seems to be a petty difference, there's actually a huge difference. It's the difference between saying, "What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me," and "What I believe is true is different than what you believe is true." I'm arguing for the latter, because as you pointed out, the former is paradoxical.

Esiris

Overwhelming evidence that creates solid verifiable conclusions become facts. Rape has demonstrable effects on the brain, so does abuse- and so does kindness. The values that come from observing those effects are objective.

I'm going to admit that I'm terribly confused, particularly by the statement, Rape has demonstrable effects on the brain, so does abuse- and so does kindness. I do agree that the values coming from those observations are objective, though I don't see how that adds up to morality being objective. Are you saying that if something has a demonstrable effect on the brain, that it inherently has a moral value? --that a negative demonstrable effect is immoral and a positive one is moral? Please correct me if I'm wrong.  

[ForeverDreamWithinADream]

Since it vary from courty to country and different religions. Not everyone believes in the thing or follow the same beliefs, views, rules or even laws as things change from place to place. So I guess you can say yes, it is subjective.  

[Esiris]

Atrum_Anima

First, I wanted to point out that I can't truly prove that all abstract concepts are subjective. I could give examples when truth or justice are subjective, or when freedom, happiness, or meaningfulness are subjective, but I think we can all imagine the scenarios.

You're saying it is again- but not giving any evidence. I can point at objective happiness- neuro-chemistry released objectively effect happiness. Truth can be explored by empiricism. fMRI's can demonstrate all kinds of things objectively.

Quote:

However, I honestly don't think I can prove that abstract concepts are subjective. This is because they are, and thus this idea is only my opinion.

Since opinions can be wrong- supporting opinions with something other than circular logic is important in these kinds of discussions. That's why I outlined the logical flaws in the claims everyone made.

Quote:

Personally, I don't see anything wrong in saying that this idea is both a fact and my opinion, although there are others who disagree with that opinion. (What I mean to say is, just because something is a fact doesn't mean that everyone believes the fact is true.) If people didn't disagree with that opinion, I would have no basis to believe that the idea is true. But I do, and others do disagree.

That's the closest I can come to proving that all abstract concepts are subjective.

But those examples can and are refuted by observable, repeatable science. Statements can be both opinion and fact- but only when the opinion is a qualified: supported opinion that is formed by an overwhelming, observable, repeatable evidence.
In philosophy this is called episteme- and it is separated from what is known as doxa- which is uninformed unqualified opinions.

Plato wrote a lot about this- you can read some of it in Crito where he explains through Socratic method that any fool can have an opinion, but thoughtful people explore qualified sources to create their opinions. That's the whole point of outlining the self-defeating claims of moral relativism.

Quote:

Even though this wasn't necessarily directed at me, I want to point out something. I'm not arguing that all truth is relative. I'm arguing that truth itself is subjective.

Relative and subjective are synonyms in this branch of philosophy- I'm just using the common terms you find in philosophy instead of fumbling with popular terms.

Quote:

Although it seems to be a petty difference, there's actually a huge difference. It's the difference between saying, "What's true for you isn't necessarily true for me," and "What I believe is true is different than what you believe is true." I'm arguing for the latter, because as you pointed out, the former is paradoxical.

Both are paradoxical- that's why I addressed both of them, the first quote is a classic example of universal moral relativism, the second is the classic example of personal moral relativism. These terms are parts of huge bodies of philosophy, special jargon developed to talk about this stuff in the academic field. These ideas have been explored for the last 2500 years- it's a lot of catching up to do.

Quote:

I'm going to admit that I'm terribly confused, particularly by the statement, Rape has demonstrable effects on the brain, so does abuse- and so does kindness. I do agree that the values coming from those observations are objective, though I don't see how that adds up to morality being objective. Are you saying that if something has a demonstrable effect on the brain, that it inherently has a moral value? --that a negative demonstrable effect is immoral and a positive one is moral? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I am saying that morality can be explored by empiricism by observing a moral question and it's effect on human life.

Because of the objective damage or objective benefit an act causes, we can extrapolate morality.

Playboy Karasu Uchiha

Since it vary from courty to country and different religions. Not everyone believes in the thing or follow the same beliefs, views, rules or even laws as things change from place to place. So I guess you can say yes, it is subjective.

That doesn't make it subjective- it just means that some people act in a moral way and some don't and people confuse it with cultural pluralism because they don't really understand what morality is.

The big problem so many people in this thread are having is that people are making opinions without having researched them first- doxa, unqualified opinions, aren't always right. They're popular- but if popularity made things right, then a GSA is going to be in a world of hurt because it will deny the fundamental rights to LGBT people. Episteme is a qualified opinion formed through evidence. This is why before tackling these questions people should be familiar with a large number of academic disciplines- including philosophy, psychology, history, neuro-linguistics, sociology and biology.  

[Taeryyn]

I really think this belongs in the extended discussion. Would the OP (or any of you, really) be offended if I move the thread?