Morality is subjective

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Fgalkin Wrote:

Every society in the world, from our own to the remotest tribes of South America, Africa, or New Guinea with no contact with the outside world have come up with a set of baseline morals that is exactly the same. Stuff like rules against murder, rape, theft, some concept of marriage, etc. Moreover, every society in history has had those rules.

We have discovered a genetic basis for alturism, why not this? I think (and I'm hardly the only one) that there is a universal set of morals innate to every human being. It was not given to us by a supreme being, it was given to us by the social interactions of our primate ancestors. What is it? We'll find out when do more research on human genetics. But it's probably something other primates like chimps will have as well.

EDIT: It seems like Mike is advocating a similar view.

Have a very nice day.

Well, there were a few civilization/societies that did not have many of these rules. I believe they were discussed by anthropologist Ruth Benedict. However, I think it substantiates the point you and he were making in that it was not a very pleasant society. High stress, paranoia, near collapse etc.

However, I would be interested to know how the basic moral rules derrived from evolution got to expand to other creatues, because most moral maxims today are universal in that they appy to everyone, even non-humans. I don't know humans did that to the detriment of human wants, from an evolutionary perspective.

Also, I didn't know there was a specials survival imperative. That's cool. From reading Dawkins and Eldridge, they seemed to imply that there was no such thing, only an individual imperative (The Evolutionists/Morris). Altruism was supposedly reciprocal in nature to some degree.

Some ethical theories that deal with more concrete, non-abstract concepts can be drawn from human behavior and described by evolution. I think Peter Singer does this in one of his essays, explaining a plausible linkage between Utility and Human behavior. There are also a lot of studies going on in Utilitas (journal) discussing the new "happiness studies."

[dworkin]

Isn't the survival imperative more or less completely amoral, though? I think most would agree that it is more moral to save many people's lives, even if it ends one's own and one has no offspring? Or that it is immoral to kill one's self, even if one is well past reproducing age and has numerous offspring?

The phrase you are looking for is 'kin selection'. As the late JBS Haldane said (jokingly) "I'd lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins". In the past when there were Homo packs running about you'ld be sacrificing your life for that of siblings, children, cousins, aunts/uncles and parents. Well, and the odd exogammous mate too. It's not morality, but good genetic 'gamesmanship' to risk a genome's container (you) for the sake of all the other containers of large parts of that same genome (your relatives).

The same imperitives also predict why euthanising the aged is bad for the pack. An aged individual in such an environment is a survivor with a wealth of experience on how to do so. The old one has a vested interest in aiding it's descendant gene copies and the younger have a vested interest in keeping the old one alive to benefit from that knowledge.

Survival imperatives (those things which maximize health and fitness for humans) would probably be the only really objective things which could be moral, I'd think. But, even so, I'd be reluctant to say that they are definite in that regard.

You should be reluctant. 'Survival imperitives' is behaviour. Behaviour is based ultimately on your genetic combo. A species behaviour is an evolved set of strategies determined by it's peculiar suite of genes. And genomes are some of the most subjective things out there given that they are mediated in a very large part by the environment.

Now because we all share a very recent LUCA (last universal common anscestor) we all have very similar genomes which means that the derived characteristics will be very similar. This includes our social behaviours. So, as some others here have already pointed out there very likely are universal rules for modern human conduct. As for whether it's truly objective you'ld have to ask a neanderthal.

[dworkin]

Sorry, brain not working. Very recent MRCA (Most Recent Common Anscestor). The LUCA was a bacteria from about 3,000 - 4,000 mya.

[Thinkmarble]

Well, one could argue that universal morality and objective morality aint the same thing.
That is pretty much every human being has a naive moral sentiment, and each society still existing has developed a moral code conductive to its further existance, quite obvious, eh.
But is this universal code, or rather the universal kernel (murder bad, what else ? follow duly constituted authority ? stealing bad ? Help the poor ? ) shared by all these moral codes, truly moral ?
I would wager that all board members would say yes, but that is because we judge these rules by referencing a system which underwent the same sieving process.
I would aruge that a true metadiscussion of distinct ethical systems is not possible, because to jugde one is to reference another. As such a objective decision which system is the best is not possible.
This is also, partially, the root for the claim that atheist are not moral. Because for (some) christians god set the rules, moral is what gods want you to do, where as atheist either follow their naive moral sentiment or an elborate set of rules derived from a small number of axiom or a combinaion there of. These are not only distinct system but even distinc classes of moral systems (authority based vs. axiomatic systems) and the predictable outcome on both sides is disgust towards the other.

The only way a comparison can be made is looking towards how good systems fullfill their stated purpose, and if two systems have the same purpose at their core (in modern times this is quite often happiness for all or atleast the many) one can win converts by demonstrating that on fullfills this purpose better then the other.
I suspect that we prefer system which can bring about results which are congruent to our naive moral sentimens, thats ho we are rigged.

Rip it apart people ^_^

[Lord Zentei]

Morality may very well be a subjective social construct, but not all moralities are equal. The value of a moral system, I'd say, can be best measured by its effects on the society where it is prevalent from the medium to long term.

Then we only differ on whether the phrase "morality" refers to the construct whose quality is assessed by measuring the effects of its implementation on society, or whether it refers to the goals against which we measure the effects of the implementations of the sundry systems.

[Darth Wong]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy: "It's objectively wrong to kill because if our ancestors way back in the day didn't say it was wrong to kill others in their tribe, the tribe would die out."

No, it's pointing out that if the survival and prosperity of the species (two concepts that were pretty much unified in prehistoric times) is not a valid basis for these moral codes, then we would not even be here to discuss this at all.

Moral codes are rules of social conduct, so if a moral code is applied to prehistoric man and leads to the extinction of humanity, it's a pretty lousy moral code.

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

[Zero]

Morality is obviously subjective. If there were one universal creed as to what was right or wrong, people wouldn't argue about morality. There wouldn't be kantian ethical systems, utilitarian ethical systems, disputes over whether preference utility is best or not, etc., etc.. If there was some objective concept of morality or ethics, then there wouldn't be disputes over whether abortion was good or bad, or about whether euthanasia was good or bad.

And again, I reiterate: what is "morality". Define the term.

Obviously there are multiple ethical systems, that proves jack and shit if the majority of the systems in question are flawed in some way vis a vis if there is a common goal to which they strive.

From the OP, I had thought the working definition here was what someone considered right and wrong. According to dictionary.com...

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

There's no mention in any of these definitions over where the values or standards come from. Whether it's society or the individual (and even if it is the individual, it's obviously extremely influenced by the society), its still subjective. Different societies obviously value different things.

The notion of morality being based on survival instinct seems flawed to me. Yeah, it most certainly began that way, but that's not really that important to the common definition. By some people's moral considerations, the western world is full of evil heathens who all deserve to die. By some other people's estimation, the middle east is full of barbarians, and the best solution is to nuke them all.

Morals and ethics both relate to principles or a set of principles dictating "right conduct." Since there is no agreed upon universal standard for "right conduct," morality is subjective.

So what it seems to come down to is this: Who's definition of morality involves a specific goal implied, and why should we accept this definition for the word if it doesn't seem to fit all codes that claim to be codes of ethics and morality?

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

How isn't it subjective? What objective reality dictates that extinction of humanity is bad? Hell, there are humans who do think extinction of mankind would be a good thing. There's that group of crazies for the voluntary extinction of humanity.

Let's check the meanings of objective and subjective. Once again, this is just from dictionary.com, so take it with a grain of salt.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a.Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar.
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

Based on these definitions, I see no way in which morality can be considered objective unless you already place a subjective value on what it should accomplish, and since this value isn't something all humans will necessarily agree upon, it doesn't seem that it would be proper to apply it to morality.

Call it all sophistic bullshit if you want, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Darth Wong]

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

How isn't it subjective? What objective reality dictates that extinction of humanity is bad?

As I said, sophistic bullshit. Arguing just for the sake of trying to make yourself look more clever than anyone else even though you actually agree with the premise.

The very concept of a human moral code requires the existence of human society because morality is a decision-making system for human social conduct, moron. To argue that the erasure of human society could possibly be a valid moral value is a self-defeating proposition since there would be no morality in the first place if we did not exist. This is no better than solipsist idiocy.

[Lord Zentei]

Morality is obviously subjective. If there were one universal creed as to what was right or wrong, people wouldn't argue about morality. There wouldn't be kantian ethical systems, utilitarian ethical systems, disputes over whether preference utility is best or not, etc., etc.. If there was some objective concept of morality or ethics, then there wouldn't be disputes over whether abortion was good or bad, or about whether euthanasia was good or bad.

And again, I reiterate: what is "morality". Define the term.

Obviously there are multiple ethical systems, that proves jack and shit if the majority of the systems in question are flawed in some way vis a vis if there is a common goal to which they strive.

From the OP, I had thought the working definition here was what someone considered right and wrong. According to dictionary.com...

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

That definition is cyclic as I have already demonstrated, for crying out loud.

There's no mention in any of these definitions over where the values or standards come from. Whether it's society or the individual (and even if it is the individual, it's obviously extremely influenced by the society), its still subjective. Different societies obviously value different things.

Non sequitur. Though there is no definition of where the values or standards come from, the claim that anything goes does not follow.

The notion of morality being based on survival instinct seems flawed to me. Yeah, it most certainly began that way, but that's not really that important to the common definition. By some people's moral considerations, the western world is full of evil heathens who all deserve to die. By some other people's estimation, the middle east is full of barbarians, and the best solution is to nuke them all.

And these are immoral positions to hold. Otherwise you could claim that the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian killing fields were moral because they were consistent with the philosophy of the asstards who perpetrated these acts. In other words, relativistic horse shit.

Morals and ethics both relate to principles or a set of principles dictating "right conduct." Since there is no agreed upon universal standard for "right conduct," morality is subjective.

Cyclic logic. The point of morality is to distinguish what is right and wrong. If you define morality according to what is "right and wrong" and conclude from this that it is subjective you are being a sophist.

So what it seems to come down to is this: Who's definition of morality involves a specific goal implied, and why should we accept this definition for the word if it doesn't seem to fit all codes that claim to be codes of ethics and morality?

Because the codes that do not lead to a more prosperous society are demonstrable bullshit, hence to be discarded. Their proponents claim that these codes of conduct lead to condition XYZ, whereas they do not. Case in point: the fundamentalist ranting about the evils of atheism and how if God and his commandments are not held as being sacred, the rest of society goes out the window. This is demonstrable bullshit, since atheists have a lower divorce rate than mainstream Christians and mainstream Christians have a lowe divorce rate than fundamentalists.

[Simplicius]

I would aruge that a true metadiscussion of distinct ethical systems is not possible, because to jugde one is to reference another. As such a objective decision which system is the best is not possible.

...seems somewhat contradictory to...

The only way a comparison can be made is looking towards how good systems fullfill their stated purpose, and if two systems have the same purpose at their core (in modern times this is quite often happiness for all or atleast the many) one can win converts by demonstrating that on fullfills this purpose better then the other.

If two ethical systems are attempting to accomplish the same thing, and have measurable qualities, then objective comparison is absolutely possible.

If I were to compare a vacuum cleaner and a lawn mower, I could do so, because they each posess measurable qualities (mass, volume, engine power). But the comparison would be useless, because they are deigned to accomplish two completely different tasks.

On the other hand, if I attempt to determine whether a pickup truck or a station wagon is a superior vehicle, I can compare measurable criteria - gas mileage, cargo and passenger capacity, durability, cost, etc. - but I can also determine, based on those factors, which is better for the job I require it to do.

Competing ethical systems fall into the latter category. If all I am trying to determine is "which does the job better", then I don't have to rely on my personal ethic to answer that question.

I gather that your post was trying to get into the circularity of the issue with this:

But is this universal code, or rather the universal kernel (murder bad, what else ? follow duly constituted authority ? stealing bad ? Help the poor ? ) shared by all these moral codes, truly moral ?

but the problem is that the 'universal kernel' of morality can't be judged by any existing moral code because it is the source of all existing moral codes, and so should be the benchmark for them.

Moral codes are ultimately dervied from the biological imperative of group survival: the individual must survive to produce offspring, and the offspring must survive to allow the group to exist in future generations. Humans are social animals, so there are many different levels of group, from family up to species, but the rules are the same for each level of the hierarchy. We protect ourselves. We protect our offspring (defense of the genetic line). We cooperate with others in our group and defend the group against outsiders (group survival). We as a species compete with other species for resources. All of these behaviors emerge from biological imperative and human nature; moral codes arise to govern them.

Is the 'universal kernel' moral? Might as well ask if Nature, or biology is moral - and as far as I can see, the only possible aswer is "it just is." Nature can't be questioned on moral grounds because morality is an invention of living beings, and unless there exists some higher level of being - a god, and there's a whole different debate - there will be no higher moral authority than our own.

[Surlethe]

So, is the best way to bridge the is-ought gap to examine human evolutionary necessities? Or am I misconstruing the ramifications of that point?

[Simplicius]

So, is the best way to bridge the is-ought gap to examine human evolutionary necessities? Or am I misconstruing the ramifications of that point?

Begging your pardon, but was this directed at me? And if so, could you please clarify?

[Surlethe]

So, is the best way to bridge the is-ought gap to examine human evolutionary necessities? Or am I misconstruing the ramifications of that point?

Begging your pardon, but was this directed at me? And if so, could you please clarify?

No, it's not directed at you; it's a general question for the thread. The is-ought gap is what you run into when you say something like, "Rape is a natural part of the male psyche; thus, it's justified": you're essentially saying that because something is, that's the way it ought to be. (If you want some more less extreme examples of this, read Ayn Rand).

The OP asks more or less, "Is there an objective morality?" As I think on it, that's simply asking for a way to go from what is -- i.e., objective evidence -- to what ought to be -- a moral code.

[Spoonist]

Morality can be both objective and subjective. For morality to be objective all you have to do is define a perspective, like the survival of our species. Then some actions are objectively morally wrong like triggering a nuclear holocaust, while others could be subjectively wrong like killing.
Anyone here could easily make up a scenario where killing another individual would be morally right and then just as easily make up a different scenario where killing another individual would be morally wrong.

So trying to debate if morality as a concept is objective or subjective is redundant since it is both.


As a sidenote something that seems to be missing when people are arguing from ancient tribes is that most of them had different moral scales for inside the tribe and outside the tribe. Theft for instance was punishable inside the tribe but was encouraged when it benefitted the tribe.
And as another sidenote yes there seems to be an altruistic streak in humans but remember that all our legal systems are there for the simple reason that we also are egoistic bastards ready to take advantage of other people for our personal or tribal gain. We are a pack animal after all.
Most of the ancient 'great' cultures was founded on war, slavery and pillaging because this was also an effective method survival wise, well at least as long as you where on the winning side.
In nature it is natural that the greatest threat comes from your own species since it is dependent on the same resources and habitat.

[Rye]

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

It is subjective; it requires autonomous entities to make value judgments. Since the universe at large would not care one way or the other, it is down to individual humans to care.

Anything with those requirements to exist must, necessarily, be subjective. Sure, it could be universal (amongst humans that like living, anyway), but it's not an entity that exists seperate from people's minds. I realise you didn't say it was an external entity, but if you accept it's internal, why don't you see it as equivalent to being subjective?

So trying to debate if morality as a concept is objective or subjective is redundant since it is both.

I would not class the content of any thought as an object.

[Spoonist]

So trying to debate if morality as a concept is objective or subjective is redundant since it is both.

I would not class the content of any thought as an object.

I don't get your point.
The noun object has nothing but semantics to do with the adjective objective.

[Zero]

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

How isn't it subjective? What objective reality dictates that extinction of humanity is bad?

As I said, sophistic bullshit. Arguing just for the sake of trying to make yourself look more clever than anyone else even though you actually agree with the premise.

I never gave much of a damn about what a bunch of folks on a forum thought of me.

The very concept of a human moral code requires the existence of human society because morality is a decision-making system for human social conduct, moron. To argue that the erasure of human society could possibly be a valid moral value is a self-defeating proposition since there would be no morality in the first place if we did not exist. This is no better than solipsist idiocy.

The very concept of a human moral code comes from a being's perception of the universe, not from any material thing. The fact that our existance is required shows that morality must be subjective, since only perception allows its existance.

And these are immoral positions to hold. Otherwise you could claim that the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian killing fields were moral because they were consistent with the philosophy of the asstards who perpetrated these acts. In other words, relativistic horse shit.

Immoral based on your personal perspective. To the nazis, the chinese fellows who worshipped Mao, the people doing the killings in the Cambodian killing fields, these actions are moral. In their worldview, they're just elimiting scum and righting wrongs. How is this inconsistant with my position that morality is based on an individual perspective (IE is subjective) if all of these people believe they're doing something wrong? I disagree with these things based on personal taste: I don't like them.

Because the codes that do not lead to a more prosperous society are demonstrable bullshit, hence to be discarded. Their proponents claim that these codes of conduct lead to condition XYZ, whereas they do not. Case in point: the fundamentalist ranting about the evils of atheism and how if God and his commandments are not held as being sacred, the rest of society goes out the window. This is demonstrable bullshit, since atheists have a lower divorce rate than mainstream Christians and mainstream Christians have a lowe divorce rate than fundamentalists.

A prosperous society is your goal, not mine. It's subjective. The proponents of fundamentalists say that certain codes of conduct lead to pure evil because they believe it to be so. Their position is that all things in the bible must be true, so the ten commandments are right. To them, society is out the window by mere virtue of the fact that there are those disobeying the first commandment by not holding God as God, and that people not believing in "God and his commandments" represent a evil in and of itself.

And atheists have lower divorce rates because atheists on average occupy a higher economic status then the general populace, and fundamentalists typically are low on the economic ladder. I don't have any statistics to support this, but all articles I've seen that relate religion to divorce rates take no other factors into account, so they should be seen as questionable anyways. It's like polling homicide rates for blacks and whites, and concluding that being black makes you more violent, without taking socioeconomic factors into account.

[Darth Wong]

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

It is subjective; it requires autonomous entities to make value judgments. Since the universe at large would not care one way or the other, it is down to individual humans to care.

Totally irrelevant to the question of whether it would be an acceptable purpose in a moral code, which requires the existence of human society by definition. You are changing the subject from "what is moral" to "would the universe care", and that is a totally different subject. Moral systems are created for the purpose of human society; they do not exist in a vacuum.

[Darth Wong]

The very concept of a human moral code requires the existence of human society because morality is a decision-making system for human social conduct, moron. To argue that the erasure of human society could possibly be a valid moral value is a self-defeating proposition since there would be no morality in the first place if we did not exist. This is no better than solipsist idiocy.

The very concept of a human moral code comes from a being's perception of the universe, not from any material thing. The fact that our existance is required shows that morality must be subjective, since only perception allows its existance.

Don't be a fucking moron. By this logic, the statement "this piece of metal is 1.5 metres long" is also subjective, by virtue of requiring perception.

[Zero]

I am assuming, of course, that you agree that the extinction of humanity would be a bad thing; you could claim that this is just "subjective" too, but quite frankly that would be sophistic bullshit.

It is subjective; it requires autonomous entities to make value judgments. Since the universe at large would not care one way or the other, it is down to individual humans to care.

Totally irrelevant to the question of whether it would be an acceptable purpose in a moral code, which requires the existence of human society by definition. You are changing the subject from "what is moral" to "would the universe care", and that is a totally different subject. Moral systems are created for the purpose of human society; they do not exist in a vacuum.

The thread's about whether morality is subjective or not, not about what could be considered an adequate universal creed, isn't it? Or did I misread something? His point, then, that morality requires autonomous entities to make value judgements, is perfectly valid, as it shows why morality must be subjective.

[Zero]

The very concept of a human moral code requires the existence of human society because morality is a decision-making system for human social conduct, moron. To argue that the erasure of human society could possibly be a valid moral value is a self-defeating proposition since there would be no morality in the first place if we did not exist. This is no better than solipsist idiocy.

The very concept of a human moral code comes from a being's perception of the universe, not from any material thing. The fact that our existance is required shows that morality must be subjective, since only perception allows its existance.

Don't be a fucking moron. By this logic, the statement "this piece of metal is 1.5 metres long" is also subjective, by virtue of requiring perception.

No. The difference is that the metal is 1.5 metres long whether you state it, believe it, know it, or not. If there are no beings around to perceive said piece of metal, it's still that length, even if it isn't called a meter. Morals are quite different. If there are no beings around to make a value judgement, then there are no value judgements, and no morals. Morals exist in perception, whereas your hypothetical 1.5 meter bit of metal is an object existing in the material world.

[Darth Wong]

The thread's about whether morality is subjective or not, not about what could be considered an adequate universal creed, isn't it?

On the contrary, objectivity means that two independent observers will measure the same thing, not that the item exists outside of human observation. So the question of what universalities can be applied is quite relevant. The question of whether an anthromorphosized universe should "care", however, is totally irrelevant.

Or did I misread something? His point, then, that morality requires autonomous entities to make value judgements, is perfectly valid, as it shows why morality must be subjective.

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity, by assuming that the requirement of an observer somehow makes everything subjective by definition.

[Darth Wong]

No. The difference is that the metal is 1.5 metres long whether you state it, believe it, know it, or not.

And how do you know that? You only know it because multiple observers perceive it to be so. You actually have no way of "knowing" it in any philosophical sense. Differentiating between what is "truth" and what is measurable is the hallmark of solipsism: the exact line of reasoning I predicted you would take.

If there are no beings around to perceive said piece of metal, it's still that length, even if it isn't called a meter.

And if there are no beings around to judge that the existence of a species is necessary for a moral code which is intended to govern the behaviour of that species, it is still true. You're still not getting this; it is a simple matter of logic.

Morals are quite different. If there are no beings around to make a value judgement, then there are no value judgements, and no morals.

So? If there are no beings around to create systems of mathematics, then there is no system of mathematics. Does this make mathematics subjective?

Morals exist in perception, whereas your hypothetical 1.5 meter bit of metal is an object existing in the material world.

Morals are ideas; they do not exist in the material world by definition. Are you saying that all ideas are subjective by definition?

[Zero]

On the contrary, objectivity means that two independent observers will measure the same thing, not that the item exists outside of human observation. So the question of what universalities can be applied is quite relevant. The question of whether an anthromorphosized universe should "care", however, is totally irrelevant.

Then morals are still objective, by virtue of the fact that two individual observers will frequently disagree about what's right and wrong.

[Pick]

Don't be a fucking moron. By this logic, the statement "this piece of metal is 1.5 metres long" is also subjective, by virtue of requiring perception.

To be fair though, that is a quantitative statement, and morality isn't based on quantitative truths; it's based on qualitative truths. "Right" and "wrong" are not quantitative. Measurement is a simple, mathematically set arbitrary means of defining things in numbers precisely so perception does not become troublesome in communication. It does not seem not exactly comparable to, say, "Murder is wrong."

A better comparison would be to the statement, "This 1.5 meter piece of metal is sizeable", which would be subjective.

Sorry, this was pointless.