Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mymamamary

Guest
I think that Objective morality is needed to run an organized society. Moral relativism is a self defeating theory. Logically, there has to be two fixed standards on which to judge right and wrong. Subjective morality will never work in our world. You will get nutjobs like peter singer, who advocates that a pig has more worth than an unborn child. I think peter singer is a nazi. Hitler would have loved to employ folks like peter singer in his camp.

How can a world function with subjective morality? I don’t see the logicity of it.

I do see however, an objective standard running the world, ensuring that right and wrong are indeed right and wrong, in all and ever case.

Subjective morality only causes chaos. We all know that satan loves chaos and discord. We all need moral convictions, otherwise as the saying goes “Anything goes”, including peace and harmony, for the sake of our personal selfish good. Then who can tell me that killing is wrong. What If I see it as a right course of action for me to take, as it is a subjective value no? Who can tell me stealing is wrong? If you do, are you not guilty of holding me to an objective standard?

Subjectivism cannot work. It is an illogical method of philosophising and operating. :cool: :cool:
 
i think you’re thinking of relativism. Subjectivism is where basically any statement about a culture’s attitudes is factual; an example i found is that to a cat, eating mice is fine while to a mouse, being eaten by cats is morally unacceptable. this doesn’t say anything other than the truth of those statements. so, i think you’re thinking of relativism. obviously, regulation is in order in terms of relativism, because there are some truths that most agree on, such as not stealing, killing, etc. consider a culture who had no contact with other cultures, and they had the practice of smoking what we consider to be harmful substances. relativism states that in our morality, it is wrong, but in theirs, it is the proper thing to do. relativism is a hard thing to defend, because in the end, most will disagree, and say that there is something that is intrinsically immoral, regardless of cultural differences. also, i really am not fond of Peter Singer, however, comparing him to a Nazi is not the way to go. his issue is that he doesn’t think that humans are intrinsically endowed with the right to life, nor does he believe our humanity comes with the development of a soul, from conception to end of life. his theory is based on the ability to feel pain, so he seems to have more sympathy for animals. the best way to do something is to pray for him and/or perhaps writing him a letter voicing the areas of his theory you find problematic. i am sure that as long as you are respectful, he will give you an opportunity to say your piece.
 
mymamamary said:
I think that Objective morality is needed to run an organized society. Moral relativism is a self defeating theory. Logically, there has to be two fixed standards on which to judge right and wrong. Subjective morality will never work in our world. You will get nutjobs like peter singer, who advocates that a pig has more worth than an unborn child. I think peter singer is a nazi. Hitler would have loved to employ folks like peter singer in his camp.

How can a world function with subjective morality? I don’t see the logicity of it.

I do see however, an objective standard running the world, ensuring that right and wrong are indeed right and wrong, in all and ever case.

Subjective morality only causes chaos. We all know that satan loves chaos and discord. We all need moral convictions, otherwise as the saying goes “Anything goes”, including peace and harmony, for the sake of our personal selfish good. Then who can tell me that killing is wrong. What If I see it as a right course of action for me to take, as it is a subjective value no? Who can tell me stealing is wrong? If you do, are you not guilty of holding me to an objective standard?

Subjectivism cannot work. It is an illogical method of philosophising and operating. :cool: :cool:
Click to expand...
👍
Morality must come from outside the human, otherwise, as you point out, anything goes, and the question becomes whose morality do we adopt? If standards are lowered from the ideal, there is no floor. We have seen this happen more and more ever since the '60s, and maybe even before. If morality is relative as moral relativists say, how can there be a moral high ground that they claim they have?

You might be interested in reading about polylogism [internet search].
Relativists reject morality until someone does something to offend them. Then all of a sudden they are talking about morality.
 
mymamamary said:
I think that Objective morality is needed to run an organized society. Moral relativism is a self defeating theory. Logically, there has to be two fixed standards on which to judge right and wrong.
Click to expand...
Objective parameters for behavior in a society are the only way to enact and enforce laws and judge guilt or innocence.

Morally, who is “judging right and wrong?” Only God. Not you. Yet, you have to make choices about your own behavior in terms of right and wrong. So, where do you find the guidelines to do that? Jesus gave us those.

Now - what do you mean by moral relativism? Here’s an example:

Adultery is a sin.

Here is an example based on a real culture: in the Arctic there was a tribe of native peoples who lived, for the most part, far removed from one another in igloos. If a stranger came, you were required, by moral law of the culture, to give them shelter and food. But the man was also required to offer his wife to the traveler to sleep with (and have sex if he wished) and the wife was duty bound to comply. It was considered very rude for the guest to refuse.

Do you think all these people are in Hell because they committed mortal sin and were never confessed and forgiven?
 
Julia_Mae said:
Objective parameters for behavior in a society are the only way to enact and enforce laws and judge guilt or innocence.

Morally, who is “judging right and wrong?” Only God. Not you. Yet, you have to make choices about your own behavior in terms of right and wrong. So, where do you find the guidelines to do that? Jesus gave us those.

Now - what do you mean by moral relativism? Here’s an example:

Adultery is a sin.

Here is an example based on a real culture: in the Arctic there was a tribe of native peoples who lived, for the most part, far removed from one another in igloos. If a stranger came, you were required, by moral law of the culture, to give them shelter and food. But the man was also required to offer his wife to the traveler to sleep with (and have sex if he wished) and the wife was duty bound to comply. It was considered very rude for the guest to refuse.

Do you think all these people are in Hell because they committed mortal sin and were never confessed and forgiven?
Click to expand...
you are repeating my first two points, so I agree. I am not so quick to agree with the example you provided. If they rationally, according to the natural moral law, acted contrary to thus said law, even for cultural purposes, it would still be a big no no. If they didn’t that is different, and I will not be the one to Judge thheir hearts. However, I can say as much that if they acted contrary to natural moral law for cultural purposes and being “polite” that is little to no excuse. Right is right, wrong is wrong, uncultured or cultured, Churched or unchurched. Tribal or Civilized. It was seen as cultural and ok to throw “Unhealthy” or “Weak appearing” Babies into pits according to the Greeks, to do contrary and keep an “Unhealthy Baby” was seen as taboo and against the culture. Is it still ok to do that?
 
Even ignoring a law giver we have the more thornier issue of a law enforcer. If there is no universal authority, then the noblest thing a man can do is become a universal dictator. For if morals are subjective then the only way to achieve order is by will to power. If every man disagrees on what is moral then a dictator is needed to beat all other men into submission and make a well-ordered community. If there is no God, man must fight each other until one takes His place.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Even ignoring a law giver we have the more thornier issue of a law enforcer. If there is no universal authority, then the noblest thing a man can do is become a universal dictator. For if morals are subjective then the only way to achieve order is by will to power. If every man disagrees on what is moral then a dictator is needed to beat all other men into submission and make a well-ordered community. If there is no God, man must fight each other until one takes His place.
Click to expand...
Exactly, all the more chaos, which is why We need to put CHRIST THE KING back into our hearts and let HIM rule over us in all that we think, say and do. We aren’t just Catholics on a Sunday’s only basis. We are Catholics before we are Americans, Canadians, African American, Chinese, Filipino, Hungarian, Polish etc.

Our Faith comes first in all things, more precisley put, CHRIST JESUS must come first in all things.
 
can you please give examples of
  • subjective morality
  • objective morality
…to help us understand. 🙂
 
mymamamary said:
Logically, there has to be two fixed standards on which to judge right and wrong.
Click to expand...
I am guessing that you did not participate in the most recent thread on this topic in whih it was found that if you agree to follow a behaviour standard labeled as “objective morality” there isn’t necessarily agrement on what behaviours and rules would be part of it. Thre was an attempt to describe how one could validate whether or not a rule were a part of that morality but it seems that available validation methods are rather subjective.

you can see that thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=725271

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
Michael Voris has forwarded the concept of a “benevolent Catholic dictator,” and a society where only informed Catholics have a say in what occurs in their nation.

I find this as a laughable, but still disturbing, notion.
 
mymamamary said:
you are repeating my first two points, so I agree. I am not so quick to agree with the example you provided. If they rationally, according to the natural moral law, acted contrary to thus said law, even for cultural purposes, it would still be a big no no. If they didn’t that is different, and I will not be the one to Judge thheir hearts. However, I can say as much that if they acted contrary to natural moral law for cultural purposes and being “polite” that is little to no excuse. Right is right, wrong is wrong, uncultured or cultured, Churched or unchurched. Tribal or Civilized. It was seen as cultural and ok to throw “Unhealthy” or “Weak appearing” Babies into pits according to the Greeks, to do contrary and keep an “Unhealthy Baby” was seen as taboo and against the culture. Is it still ok to do that?
Click to expand...
You have to answer my question before I answer yours.

Do you think all these people died in mortal sin?
 
ringil said:
Michael Voris has forwarded the concept of a “benevolent Catholic dictator,” and a society where only informed Catholics have a say in what occurs in their nation.

I find this as a laughable, but still disturbing, notion.
Click to expand...
Actually, Voris ended up with only the dictator, no one got to vote.
 
ringil said:
Michael Voris has forwarded the concept of a “benevolent Catholic dictator,” and a society where only informed Catholics have a say in what occurs in their nation.

I find this as a laughable, but still disturbing, notion.
Click to expand...
indeed the path to hell is laced with good intentions. :rolleyes:
 
ringil said:
Michael Voris has forwarded the concept of a “benevolent Catholic dictator,” and a society where only informed Catholics have a say in what occurs in their nation.

I find this as a laughable, but still disturbing, notion.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of the state of things in early USA history when some of the states had their own official religion. Though the people in a given state are not necessarily part of that religion. So there were a few skirmishes from out-group vs in-group, religious persecution, and people in the out-group not having a say in the government. I get the impression from this and a number of other lines that had been drawn for including or excluding people in the conversation of what will go on in the nation, I’m inclined to see systems of exclusion based on religion (or as it was in other parts of history, ethnicity, gender, and other attributes) as being a bit dubious.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
 
Julia_Mae said:
You have to answer my question before I answer yours.

Do you think all these people died in mortal sin?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, Perhaps not. Grave matter to be sure, Whether it was done ratioanlly and withfree will is not mine to determine…
 
ringil said:
Michael Voris has forwarded the concept of a “benevolent Catholic dictator,” and a society where only informed Catholics have a say in what occurs in their nation.

I find this as a laughable, but still disturbing, notion.
Click to expand...
Well, I would tone it down a little but Otherwise I would agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top