Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[grannymh]

If we all agree that this is the case, that is evidence that it is not subjective.

Where your local agreement originates determines subjective or objective reasoning.

 

[grannymh]

There is always disagreement on what is sin and how severe any sin is. I certainly agree that America has more ethnic and cultural diversity than in the past. But even with a more homogenous people there was disagreement and change regarding sin. So I wouldn’t be willing to say disagreement is something new or unique to our age.

What is certainly not new is the desire for people to ally with each other to ignore the others in mutual agreement. The abortionist will align with the homosexual and both will say neither sins.

We know from our experience that man tends to view his current morality as more right than the past morality. Two hundred years from now our time will be viewed as immoral. Since we have every reason to believe the future will arrive and we will be judged immoral time itself presents a problem if morality is simply what is agreed upon. We know our morality that we call right will no longer be right. You’d have to believe this is a special time in history and we are the most holy people to think that our morality is the most right.

Time has nothing to do with the actual basis for evaluating moral actions. The human person is an objective fact. Human nature, which in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds, does not change with the passage of time. We neither become half-human or double-human as time passes. As descendants of two sole parents, we belong to a unified species which shares unique human nature. Thus, our human nature has always been and always will be an objective fact.

 

[tonyrey]

Science is also “subjectively thought-out”!

Science doesn’t work if no one is involved! It is based on subjective reasoning.

Do you reject the moral principle that we should always do what we believe to be right?

Does “we” mean me personally or “we” as society? I will do what I think is right, which 99% of the time also happens to be what collective society agrees with, because it just so happens that we all agree on the obvious and blatant evidence provided before us suggesting if an action will be beneficial or not.

There are always people who disagree - and the majority are not infallible. What determines whether an action is beneficial? Is it just a matter of opinion?

The other 1% I acknowledge that I take the chance and respect possible punishment for other things which may technically in the books be deemed wrong by the collective.

So in practice you always try to do what you think is right?

 

[shoe]

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

But without God, “collective societies,” as well as individuals, would have no objective standard by which they could establish moral right and wrong. These “collective societies” would not have a moral “ought” and “ought not” because once they deny God’s moral absolutes, they deny the foundation of objective moral truth. Morality then would become anyone’s guess.

I believe that the universe must logically be a universe with an objective standard of morality, or else things such as good and evil could not exist. But since good and evil do exist in the universe, objective morality must also exist in order to make it possible for mankind to distinguish between good and evil.

Therefore, since the universe has moral laws, and since most of mankind recognizes them (except those souls who are in rebellion against them, such as murderers, thieves, thugs, etc.), it follows that the universe must also have a moral Lawgiver with the power to establish these objective moral values within mankind.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There are always people who disagree - and the majority are not infallible. What determines whether an action is beneficial? Is it just a matter of opinion?

That’s a question for which I think we still have no adequate answer. At first glance it looks like an easy question with an obvious answer. It may invoke responses that relate to emotional and physical well being of individuals and groups. But between our actions having impact and being entangled with the actions of others and the mixture of predictable and unpredictable consequences, both short term and long term, you don’t have to dig for too long before you start to encounter problems with producing an evaluation method that has wide spread validity.

I expect that some one that deals with public policies has had to struggle with this a lot with hoping/praying that she/he is making the “right decisions” on various matters.

I believe that the universe must logically be a universe with an objective standard of morality, or else things such as good and evil could not exist.

It looks like “good” and “evil” are being used as nouns instead of being used as an adjective. When you say “Good exists” is that the same as saying “There exists things that have attributes that make them good” or does it mean something entirely different?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

If I understand the above definitions correctly then someone that follows “ethical objectivism” can both maintain that some statements on ethics true while others are dependent on other factors (ex:cultural). In other words the person’s views on ethics are not limited to those that are seen based on objective features. Is that correct?

I was saying to the IP that among the set of all statements claiming to be ethical some are objectively true as I described. In other words, I am contradicting the assertion that no ethical statements are objectively true.

 

[sharptiger999]

Practicing Catholics must use the "***
Societies become corrupt and immoral and then decay when everyone just “does their own thing”.***
Correct, which is why societies create “objective” standards that apply to everyone. It’s just we have collectively created the objective standards. It’s not the same use of the word as you would use it regarding God’s ultimate moral law.

 

[tonyrey]

There are always people who disagree - and the majority are not infallible. What determines whether an action is beneficial? Is it just a matter of opinion?

The absence of adequate answers does not imply that there are none! It merely reveals our ignorance and confirms that the emotional and physical well-being of individuals and groups are objective facts rather than subjective opinions.

 

[sharptiger999]

Without God and objective morality, moral progress is impossible. With God, there is standard against which we can measure progress. If an objective morality exists, then we can say that things are becoming more good or more bad the same way that if one draws a picture of new york and then changes it, one can say the picture is becoming more or less accurrate.

With science there is a standard against which we can measure progress. Someone stealing another persons belongings of which he/she has worked for is all of a sudden at a disadvantage, whether it be not being able to trade for food, housing, or other goods/services. We can all agree that we do not want our own personal rights taken away because they give us disadvantages. We can easily argue based on evidence what factors allow people to progress or be hindered (i.e. your example of worse or better).

Now if morality is not objective, then it is only subjective, that is, dependant on what humans think. It is simply a a matter of social convention. On your thesis, there is nothing really wrong about torturing and raping a little girl. Such an action has become taboo in society, but it is not really wrong.

It is dependent on what humans think, but we argue and rationalize based on evidence. If someone rapes my little girl, and it also happened to others in the community, we feel empathy for each other. We organize and strive that those who commit these acts should be punished as they have taken away rights from others. Therefore, societies determine we do not want done to others as we wouldn’t want done to ourselves. We then set sentencing to those who took away rights, and therefore they have chosen to give away their own. Through evidence and history, people must respect others, otherwise they will eventually end their own chance at life.

Indeed, it gets worse, since there is no objective morality and you claim socities make their own, then we have no basis by which to judge another society. For us to say that the Hindu practice of sutee (burning widows on their husbands funeral pyres) or child sacrifice is morally obscene, would be a matter of cultural chauvanism.

We have the assumption that we choose what we want in life and that we want to be happy, and through the evolution of moralities, those societies that hinder rights will not prosper, and eventually they will die off. Whereas one with individual freedoms allow prospering and reproduction. Societies evolve and realize that freedoms for everyone allows places like the USA vs Hindu tribe practices you mention. People then say hmm, I want freedom. Though an argument could be made that Africa, even in horrid conditions populates at a higher rate than everywhere else. The “good feelings” of intercourse is often too hard to resist for them - this may be a way for their genes to live on.

Now maybe you will say these things are determined to be wrong by society. But what about societies that do not determine them wrong? Is it ok for that society to round up and exterminate the Jews or homosexuals? If morality is subjective (based on what people think) and determined by society alone, then we cannot say such societies are wrong. So we cannot say that Hitler was wrong, or Stalin. Here, anyone who acted for freedom was put in prison by the determination of society.

Societies that do not determine these things you mention wrong will die off. No, extermination of the Jews or homosexuals is not ok because it takes away their rights and hinders future growth. We simply all realize nowadays in order to have our rights, we must protect others as well. I can say that society is wrong based on evidence, with the assumption that we want a happy and free life. Unfortunately those people had to go through something horrendous, but it doesn’t mean they have no meaning. Since we feel empathy, through what we have all considered bad times, through time, people will always come together and good will prevail.

Maybe you will try to claim that societies should only make laws that help freedom. But why? You would have to say because it is simply right. And that takes us right to objective morality.

We eventually have set our “objective” morality. The basics of not killing or stealing is apart of a long history that it basically seems “objective” by now. Again, think simplicity to understand my argument. Why do I say freedom is simply right? Because I and most others have argued it based on evidence, that with it, with the basic assumption that we want a happy life with personal freedoms, it has allowed the growth of civilization. Someone as horrid as Hitler or Stalin today would be wiped off the map very soon in today’s times.

 

[sharptiger999]

Raping townspeople? What are you referring to?

After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).

That we dont enforce such strong punishment today is merely a result of a greater tolerance for sin. The tolerance could be mercy or it could be injustice. But it does not necessarily invalidate the morality expressed in the Old Testament.

Are you implying we shouldn’t have greater tolerance (mercy) and perhaps this is an injustice that would be validated by the bible to stone someone today?

We should rejoice in the mercy of God.

Should we also rejoice in the condemnation of stoning or eternal torment? Sounds like a wife who rationalizes the good parts in her abusive husband.

Because we dont want to accept just how sinful we truly are we look for ways to lessen the seriousness of sin.

Yes, the optimistic approach.

Jesus was pretty ‘harsh’ in his condemnation of sin as well.

Right, I would say stoning a child who talks back to his parents one time is a little harsh.

We tend to ignore that and focus on His great mercy.

Right, the good ole cherrypicking approach.

 

[sharptiger999]

For example. A truth such as* the human person is worthy of profound respect* is an objective basis for moral actions.

We have slightly definitions of the word objective. In law, we create objectivity. But why? And how? The answer is, coming with the agreed assumption that we want to be happy and relatively free (still can’t do whatever you want to infringe someone else), is that we have a rational debate with evidence pointing to why a human is worth of profound respect, because without it (as times have shown) the people do not want to live in these civilizations because they demand freedom and respect. Is there a person today who doesn’t like freedom and respect?

 

[sharptiger999]

We “must”? Why?

Because not developing cultural moralities lead to barbarianism, (i.e. anything goes). This used to be the case hundreds of years ago. How long did that society and culture last?

But no one does this. We rationally debate and discuss what the moral law is, not what we’d like it to be.

So congress sits around in a circle for all day and says let’s look at the morals and laws in the books, ah yes, the same as they were yesterday. No, there have always been and will be proposals and revisions made to what is ok in society based upon evidence.

Yet you’ll notice there’s stunning similarity across them all, e.g., a prohibition on murder, theft, rape, etc. Where they differ are on questions that are technical and thus morally neutral (e.g., what is the optimal tax system and tax rate for that system) or morally gray (e.g., whether or not to subject a murderer to capital punishment).

Yes, stunning similarity based on obvious undeniable evidence. It takes time for others to evolve as they are closer to being morally neutral as you stated. For example, if something proposed has 50/50 positive/negative implications ± 5%, maybe it isn’t time and clear for something to clear proposal or revision yet. With new ways of life, come new moralities (i.e. computer-> internet → file sharing → music downloading). Is it wrong to share a music file that I paid for, but then hand it out to other people? In fact, I recall reading this exact proposition on this forum by a catholic member who needed help. The fact is we debate tough questions, because we always want rationale to prevail, rather than it is the way it is because it is the way it is. No, we must debate and use logic.

I don’t see why anyone should value anything on the basis of “freedom” or “happiness,” but if you substitute those (meaningless nonsense) claims with what natural law, you derive the objective natural law prohibition on murder: we do not murder because murder constrains others from living in accordance with natural law.

Most people do see why we should value that. We rationalized that based on history, these are what allowed us to progress to get where we are today.

I’m guessing you don’t know what most religions teach or why they teach them…

I’m guessing you have rationalized to follow the one which you do, rather than the others. 60 years ago Christianity rationalized based on scripture that slaves in America were moral.

At any rate, no, morality does not evolve.

So, the greater advancement of the rights of women for instance never happened?

The notion of justifiable homicide is not some recent innovation.

Right, that was a basic that began long ago. We start big and work our way step by step. Now we debate whether or not shooting a burglar in our home is justified if the burglar was only stealing and had no visible weapon or threatening action toward the owner. Within every general rule, we debate specifics as they appear infrequently.

 

[sharptiger999]

We know from our experience that man tends to view his current morality as more right than the past morality. Two hundred years from now our time will be viewed as immoral. Since we have every reason to believe the future will arrive and we will be judged immoral time itself presents a problem if morality is simply what is agreed upon. We know our morality that we call right will no longer be right. You’d have to believe this is a special time in history and we are the most holy people to think that our morality is the most right.

This is a very good well-constructed statement. And yes, it shows that morality evolves. We can look back 1,000 years ago and say how very immoral the times were, yet 100 years ago we may call the times immoral, yet still far developed from 1000 years ago. In 100 years from now, people will most likely think we were still closer to their morality than the % difference in how we look back 100 years ago. Big common rules first start, and then it develops slowly step by step, which each step theoretically giving an advantage, so we see how morality advances humans and their collaboration in the world. Simply summed up, we develop the moralities in our land based on evidenced rationale, not just - it is what it is because it says so in a holy book.

 

[sw85]

Because not developing cultural moralities lead to barbarianism, (i.e. anything goes). This used to be the case hundreds of years ago. How long did that society and culture last?

Why should we think barbarianism something to be avoided? Isn’t that simply an irrational and subjective value judgment based entirely on the prejudices of the time in which you live?

So congress sits around in a circle for all day and says let’s look at the morals and laws in the books, ah yes, the same as they were yesterday. No, there have always been and will be proposals and revisions made to what is ok in society based upon evidence.

Civil law changes because society changes. That which is moral remains constant.

At any rate, even liberals argue that morality demands this or that policy (usually involving government spending of some kind). That is not an argument to arbitrarily scrap moral system X and adopt moral system Y; it is an argument that this or that policy is objectively moral.

Yes, stunning similarity based on obvious undeniable evidence. It takes time for others to evolve as they are closer to being morally neutral as you stated. For example, if something proposed has 50/50 positive/negative implications ± 5%, maybe it isn’t time and clear for something to clear proposal or revision yet. With new ways of life, come new moralities (i.e. computer-> internet → file sharing → music downloading). Is it wrong to share a music file that I paid for, but then hand it out to other people? In fact, I recall reading this exact proposition on this forum by a catholic member who needed help. The fact is we debate tough questions, because we always want rationale to prevail, rather than it is the way it is because it is the way it is. No, we must debate and use logic.

Technological innovations do not provide moral ones. We are still asking the same old questions: is this theft? To what extent do we have ownership over the fruits of our labor? etc.

Most people do see why we should value that. We rationalized that based on history, these are what allowed us to progress to get where we are today.

Happiness allowed us to progress to where we are today? That’s such a meaningless statement as to border on semantic nullity. Why should we even value where we are today?

I’m guessing you have rationalized to follow the one which you do, rather than the others. 60 years ago Christianity rationalized based on scripture that slaves in America were moral.

Really? The main body of Christendom supported slavery in America in 1951?

I follow Church teachings because they are objective and rational. Are you familiar with natural law theory?

So, the greater advancement of the rights of women for instance never happened?

What in the world does that have to do with the supposed subjectivity of morality?

Right, that was a basic that began long ago. We start big and work our way step by step. Now we debate whether or not shooting a burglar in our home is justified if the burglar was only stealing and had no visible weapon or threatening action toward the owner. Within every general rule, we debate specifics as they appear infrequently.

In other words we struggle to fit general moral principles to specific circumstances that are subject to change. We could do not do this unless there were general moral principles in the first place.

 

[sharptiger999]

Science doesn’t work if no one is involved! It is based on subjective reasoning.

Before we were able to use science to explain things, these things still worked whether or not we understood them. Gravity always works, the earth is always rotating around the sun, water always evaporates, etc.

There are always people who disagree - and the majority are not infallible. What determines whether an action is beneficial? Is it just a matter of opinion?

It’s a matter of evidence with facts. Usually nowadays, generally people are open-minded and will listen to arguments. The obvious one’s have been done, but now the harder ones are under scrutiny.

So in practice you always try to do what you think is right?

Yes. However, those who go against the “objective” standards put into law such as the polygamist Warren Jeffs thinking it was ok to rape children because his God told him so, will go to jail and be removed the general public because his morality chose to take the rights away from others.

 

[sharptiger999]

But without God, “collective societies,” as well as individuals, would have no objective standard by which they could establish moral right and wrong. These “collective societies” would not have a moral “ought” and “ought not” because once they deny God’s moral absolutes, they deny the foundation of objective moral truth. Morality then would become anyone’s guess.

It’s not a guess. It’s what works and what doesn’t based on facts. Personal liberty works, people are happy. Communism doesn’t, people are unhappy. We decide what our own rights are, based on what works.

I believe that the universe must logically be a universe with an objective standard of morality, or else things such as good and evil could not exist. But since good and evil do exist in the universe, objective morality must also exist in order to make it possible for mankind to distinguish between good and evil.

Good and evil are adjectives in the English language. We can only know what the mean relatively. The words also have a deep history in religions. It is true that it is simply instilled in us that we want to live longer, happier lives. So given that, how do we? We debate and come up with a plan.

 

[shoe]

It looks like “good” and “evil” are being used as nouns instead of being used as an adjective.

Yes.

From the TheFreeDictionary:

Good:
n
Something that is good. Goodness; virtue: There is much good to be found in people.

evil:
n
the quality or an instance of being morally wrong; wickedness the evils of war.

When you say “Good exists” is that the same as saying “There exists things that have attributes that make them good” or does it mean something entirely different?

No. When I say that “good exists,” I mean that God is the source from which all goodness flows; and that He is the standard of “good” by which mankind should judge all things called “good.”

 

[sharptiger999]

Why should we think barbarianism something to be avoided? Isn’t that simply an irrational and subjective value judgment based entirely on the prejudices of the time in which you live?

Some debated that surely this wasn’t a way to progress. Some didn’t adhere to this advice and continued stealing from and killing each other. Looks like evidence prevailed. People that learn to get rid of prejudices and listen to ideas with an open mind, will eventually run by some agreeable good ideas and they will move forward.

Civil law changes because society changes. That which is moral remains constant.

Most of civil law deals with morals. Please then give examples of what morals remain constant from the bible.

At any rate, even liberals argue that morality demands this or that policy (usually involving government spending of some kind). That is not an argument to arbitrarily scrap moral system X and adopt moral system Y; it is an argument that this or that policy is objectively moral.

Please give a specific example and I will comment on it.

Technological innovations do not provide moral ones. We are still asking the same old questions: is this theft? To what extent do we have ownership over the fruits of our labor? etc.

I’m not really understanding your point here. We still ask is this version theft, because we have already concluded that theft is not beneficial to society.

Happiness allowed us to progress to where we are today? That’s such a meaningless statement as to border on semantic nullity. Why should we even value where we are today?

There are other descriptive words too, but the pursuit of happiness for all is what leads progression. I can’t answer why you should value where you are today, I can only answer for myself.

Really? The main body of Christendom supported slavery in America in 1951?

My mistake and apologies. I meant the 1800s.
*As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history. In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his “A Scriptural View of Slavery:”

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

What in the world does that have to do with the supposed subjectivity of morality?

Because it shows that we always can change our collective morality standards. We can always reason and persuade why something is moral or immoral. It does not come written in stone - we must always decide with reason.

In other words we struggle to fit general moral principles to specific circumstances that are subject to change. We could do not do this unless there were general moral principles in the first place.

Right. At a time there were no general moral principles until some realized that barbarianism doesn’t fulfill one’s natural gene to simply live and not die. It’s why even young children naturally do not want to walk off the edge of a cliff, for example. The “thing” that you are thinking of that existed in the first place is our basic assumption that we want to live and not die, and live happily at that without pain and sorrow.

 

[grannymh]

We have slightly definitions of the word objective. In law, we create objectivity. But why? And how? The answer is, coming with the agreed assumption that we want to be happy and relatively free (still can’t do whatever you want to infringe someone else), is that we have a rational debate with evidence pointing to why a human is worth of profound respect, because without it (as times have shown) the people do not want to live in these civilizations because they demand freedom and respect. Is there a person today who doesn’t like freedom and respect?

Ah, one says. There are so many definitions of objective depending on those wonderful agreed upon assumptions. That might be true in society, but not necessarily in real life.

Objective reality refers to something that actually exists independently in the external world. Subjective reality proceeds from a person’s internal world, i.e., one’s mind, emotions, memories, intuition, subconscious and so on. One needs to recognize the difference between the external world and the internal world in order to find a basis for universal or objective morality.

Re: Is there a person today who doesn’t like freedom and respect?
A person is a separate being who intrinsically deserves respect. A person naturally has the gift of freedom. However, that gift of freedom can be abused, limited or denied. Thus, no is the essential answer to the question “Is there a person today, or who lived in the past, or who will live in the future who doesn’t like freedom and respect?”

 

[grannymh]

This is a very good well-constructed statement. And yes, it shows that morality evolves.

I suppose one could say morality evolves when it is based on an individual person’s feelings and personal desires. That kind of sounds like a house built on sand. If one prefers ocean living, one can rationalize the means to obtain that goal.