Morality is subjective

b00tleg · Post by **b00tleg** » 2006-03-13 05:00pm

Anyone agree?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-13 05:01pm

No. What makes you think it is?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-03-13 05:01pm

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-03-13 05:02pm

b00tleg wrote:Anyone agree?

Explain your belief as to why it is subjective.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2006-03-13 05:02pm

I guess it depends on how you define 'subjective.' I certainly believe that whether an action is moral or not does depend on the circumstances, but that may be more 'relativistic' than 'subjective.'

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-03-13 05:03pm

b00tleg wrote:Anyone agree?

Please explain your position and support your argument with logic. Keep in mind that logical fallacies will result in your quickly becoming riddled full of holes from several dozen types of gunfire from at least as many sci-fi 'verses.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-03-13 05:04pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:I guess it depends on how you define 'subjective.' I certainly believe that whether an action is moral or not does depend on the circumstances, but that may be more 'relativistic' than 'subjective.'

Merriam Webster wrote:Main Entry: 1sub·jec·tive
Pronunciation: (")s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject : as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> -- compare OBJECTIVE 1c

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2006-03-13 05:08pm

So morality being "subjective," in this case, would mean either that what is 'moral' or 'immoral' depends on the person (meaning that there would be no universal moral standard of any kind), or that morality is an 'illusion' of some sorts. I don't believe in either; I believe that there are several universal moral rules that all humans seem to use (in most cases), which are rooted in our biology.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-13 05:12pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:I guess it depends on how you define 'subjective.' I certainly believe that whether an action is moral or not does depend on the circumstances, but that may be more 'relativistic' than 'subjective.'

Of course a certain action can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances; in most reasonable codes of ethics, the morality of an action is determined by its immediate context, not by any qualities inherent in itself.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-03-13 05:18pm

So, B00tleg, I see you hovering here in this forum. Care to post your argument in support of your assertion now or are you somehow too busy to respond?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-13 05:18pm

Define "morality".

If morality is defined as "right or wrong conduct", you need to define what constitutes right or wrong.

If the definition of right and wrong depends on the philosophy in question, then certainly morality is subjective, but defining morality in this way is cyclic logic, hence fallacious (behaviour XYZ is moral because it is right, it is right according to philosophy ABC, since philosophy ABC defines what is right, it is a moral philosophy, making behaviour XYZ morally right).

Or one can define right or wrong in terms of the help or harm it inflicts upon other people. In this case it becomes much less subjective, especially if this help or harm must be verifiable - in that case objectivity is essentially implicit.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-13 05:39pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:So, B00tleg, I see you hovering here in this forum. Care to post your argument in support of your assertion now or are you somehow too busy to respond?

There's no need to be so jumpy; he could simply be taking his time to compose a reasoned and thoughtful extension of his initial post; or, he could be intimidated by this seeming pile-up. Remember, it's good policy to hold someone innocent until proven guilty, and forum behavior is no exception. For now, I'm not judging b00tleg one way or the other until he actually provides an argument, and I'm not going to presume that he will simply repeat his claim without logic or evidence behind it.

b00tleg · Post by **b00tleg** » 2006-03-13 05:41pm

Sorry, something has come up, I'll reply with my arguement in a bit.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-03-13 05:41pm

Surlethe wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:So, B00tleg, I see you hovering here in this forum. Care to post your argument in support of your assertion now or are you somehow too busy to respond?
There's no need to be so jumpy; he could simply be taking his time to compose a reasoned and thoughtful extension of his initial post; or, he could be intimidated by this seeming pile-up. Remember, it's good policy to hold someone innocent until proven guilty, and forum behavior is no exception. For now, I'm not judging b00tleg one way or the other until he actually provides an argument, and I'm not going to presume that he will simply repeat his claim without logic or evidence behind it.

Good idea. I'll admit that such a strong and baseless assertion did prejudice me, due to the preponderance of such arguments amongst Fundies.

b00tleg · Post by **b00tleg** » 2006-03-13 06:12pm

I think morality is subjective due to where it comes from. Morality is ultimately based upon an individual's thoughts, ideas and beliefs. While there may be enormous consenus on extreme examples like murder is wrong; it is still up to the individuals of that majority to have arrived at their own decsion regarding the issue.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-03-13 06:22pm

I'd argue that since there IS an enormous consensus WRT the morality of a lot of issues the individual that DOESN'T arrive at that conclusion is simply wrong. That may be an 'appeal to popularity' fallacy but as there IS no physical standard of 'moral' to adhere to I'm inclined to accept that as a reasonable approximation.
So individual people not adhering to that set of morals is not because of morals being subjective, it's people not knowing (or in a lot of cases deliberately falsifying) what is 'moral' in the first case.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-03-13 06:32pm

For those who claim that morality is not subjective, do you also believe that morality is intrinsically real? Surely, humanistic ideals and ethical standards are largely based on the fact that we are human beings but can you substantiate morality outside that context?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-03-13 06:44pm

b00tleg wrote:I think morality is subjective due to where it comes from. Morality is ultimately based upon an individual's thoughts, ideas and beliefs. While there may be enormous consenus on extreme examples like murder is wrong; it is still up to the individuals of that majority to have arrived at their own decsion regarding the issue.

I have almost the opposite school of thought. Morality is objective because it is based on how much objective harm or lack thereof different behaviours have been observed to do. Ergo, if it's harmless (defined as 'causes no injury or death of sentients, damage or destruction of property, or hindrance of basic rights) it's not immoral.

b00tleg · Post by **b00tleg** » 2006-03-13 06:45pm

Batman wrote:I'd argue that since there IS an enormous consensus WRT the morality of a lot of issues the individual that DOESN'T arrive at that conclusion is simply wrong. That may be an 'appeal to popularity' fallacy but as there IS no physical standard of 'moral' to adhere to I'm inclined to accept that as a reasonable approximation.
So individual people not adhering to that set of morals is not because of morals being subjective, it's people not knowing (or in a lot of cases deliberately falsifying) what is 'moral' in the first case.

I don't think morality exists as some kind of universal truth waitting to be discovered. Morality like any other belief system can change, and it has. Just as it was moral and legal to own a slave in the ancient world, the idea has become quite unpopular and immoral in the modern world.

Morality also allows for future changes. Right now today, murder is illegal and found to be quite distasteful and repugnant by people. What happens if someone developed technology that could revive a person declared dead. Not only that, what if the technology was inexpensive and widely available. Such a technology would ultimately lead to murder being reduced from a capital crime to something lesser, possibly even a misdeamenor. And I'd guess that people's morality would widely change if such a thing ever existed.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-13 06:54pm

b00tleg wrote:I think morality is subjective due to where it comes from. Morality is ultimately based upon an individual's thoughts, ideas and beliefs. While there may be enormous consenus on extreme examples like murder is wrong; it is still up to the individuals of that majority to have arrived at their own decsion regarding the issue.

I disagree. The purpose of morality is to regulate human behavior to enable society to function smoothly and to maximise the well-being of the individuals in society, and it is quite possible to objectively ascertain the effects of different moral codes on societal function and overall well-being.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-03-13 07:04pm

b00tleg wrote: Morality also allows for future changes. Right now today, murder is illegal and found to be quite distasteful and repugnant by people. What happens if someone developed technology that could revive a person declared dead.

Then it wouldn't be murder anymore.

Not only that, what if the technology was inexpensive and widely available. Such a technology would ultimately lead to murder being reduced from a capital crime to something lesser, possibly even a misdeamenor.

No it wouldn't. It would simply lead to a redefinition of what constitutes murder.

And I'd guess that people's morality would widely change if such a thing ever existed.

And I'd guess it wouldn't. So now what?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-03-13 07:06pm

Of course morality is subjective; moral values are not inherent to anything outside people's perceptions.

It isn't like there are any other existing things that you have any choice in, you cannot choose to be nongravitic, so why should you be able to choose to be immoral? The whole point of morality is there's choice involved and "wrong" choices can exist like "good" ones. This is not the case for anything else that isn't subjective, aesthetic beauty, musical preference and personal taste are all subjective, and morality is no different.

Where morality is concerned, there are appeals to emotion, and there's game theory, which is ultimately an appeal to personal preference, which is, as noted, subjective, but comprises large amounts of popular views.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-03-13 07:14pm

Murder being made moot by your hypothetical Sarcophagus (ref. Stargate) is not viable. Murdering someone will, on average, be very painful. Even if it's done painlessly, what's to stop a deceased individual from being DENIED resurrection? Your example is broken.

Let's take a different example; in fact, I'll take two: The prosecution and/or persecution of homosexuals and marijuana users. Neither activity has been shown to cause objective harm to anyone, provided there is no non-consensual component, I.E Force, in the behavior. However, throughout history, the various punishments meted out to individuals practicing these activities, state-sanctioned and otherwise, HAS been scientifically proven to do objective harm to the individual and society at large.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2006-03-13 07:16pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:However, throughout history, the various punishments meted out to individuals practicing these activities, state-sanctioned and otherwise, HAS been scientifically proven to do objective harm to the individual and society at large.

If you were a cat, you wouldn't classify oppressed human beings as harm. In fact, you wouldn't even care.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-03-13 07:27pm

[quote="Pint0 Xtreme"
If you were a cat, you wouldn't classify oppressed human beings as harm. In fact, you wouldn't even care.[/quote]
Somebody please tell me how this is relevant.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Morality is subjective

Morality is subjective

Re: Morality is subjective

Re: Morality is subjective