Is morality subjective?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?

Do you seriously believe that people having different opinions on a given topic necessarily indicates that the topic is subjective?[/b]

It was a question, with discuss written after it...

Perhaps you could explain why you disagree, rather than simply expressing disbelief at the question.


I agree with you that people having different opinions on a topic doesn't make the topic necessarily subjective.

And I intend to demonstrate that morality is objective and not subjective. Without being necessarily absolute.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It was a question, with discuss written after it...

Perhaps you could explain why you disagree, rather than simply expressing disbelief at the question.


I agree with you that people having different opinions on a topic doesn't make the topic necessarily subjective.

And I intend to demonstrate that morality is objective and not subjective. Without being necessarily absolute.

I was looking to understand where the originator actually stands regarding his question. I wasn't asking the question of you. Not sure why you think it's your place to dictate how the OP should be addressed.

That said, these questions ARE for you: Do you seriously believe that anyone doesn't understand that they can explain why they disagree rather than ask a question? Do you believe that there's something inherently wrong with asking questions prior offering explanation?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I was looking to understand where the originator actually stands regarding his question. I wasn't asking the question of you. Not sure why you think it's your place to dictate how the OP should be addressed.

That said, these questions ARE for you: Do you seriously believe that anyone doesn't understand that they can explain why they disagree rathe ...[text shortened]... ve that there's something inherently wrong with asking questions prior offering explanation?

I wasn't dictating anything. I was simply suggesting.

Do you seriously believe that anyone doesn't understand that they can explain why they disagree rather than ask a question?

Do you seriously believe that's a clear and coherent question?

Do you believe that there's something inherently wrong with asking questions prior offering explanation?

No. But you were not merely asking a question...

By starting off with "Do you seriously believe..." you are doing way more than simply asking a question.
You are pre-emptively expressing disbelief at what you have already decided their answer is going to be.

Your tone is from the off aggressive and confrontational... Which may be entirely what you intended.

However I was pointing out that the OP is posed as a discussion starter.

It seems thus more civilised and reasonable in context to start off with a low tension calm and reasoned stating of
your starting position and setting up for the debate at hand.

I was simply pointing this out.

You are free to ignore my suggestions to your hearts content.

However you are climbing my A**h**e index quite handily...

And yes this post was intentionally confrontational... if you would like a nice civilised debate of whether or not
morality can be objective or subjective (both, neither, other, none/all of the above...) then feel free to ignore
this and carry on with the debate.

In the mean time please remember, because I want you to be clear on this, I am not questioning "anyone's" ability
to understand... I am questioning yours.

Do have a nice day.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?

Or does anyone believe in an absolute morality?

Discuss.

Well, googlefudge seems to think you do not understand the question. Well, do you, punk? 😏

P.S. Well, who cares what googlefudge thinks anyway. He is just a punk, too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, googlefudge seems to think you do not understand the question. Well, do you, punk? 😏

I think he understand the question perfectly...

Just because I think you're an idiot doesn't mean I think everyone else is.

You're 'special'.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't dictating anything. I was simply suggesting.

Do you seriously believe that anyone doesn't understand that they can explain why they disagree rather than ask a question?

Do you seriously believe that's a clear and coherent question?

[quote]Do you believe that there's something inherently wrong with asking questions prior o ng "anyone's" ability
to understand... I am questioning yours.

Do have a nice day.

However you are climbing my A**h**e index quite handily...

Well, maybe it's because I spend almost all my time with mature adults that makes it difficult to relate to your schoolboy mentality which is exemplified by the above - as well as most of the rest of your post for that matter.

I was looking to have a discussion with the originator of the OP. On the 'God created everything one hour ago!', you seemed to have difficulty understanding that as well. Why is it so difficult for you to wrap your mind around the fact that not everything is about you? If you were half as intelligent as you seem to like to think you are, seems that you'd have no trouble understanding this.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?

Or does anyone believe in an absolute morality?

Discuss.

Discuss? OK. I will take a shot at morality being based on objective, learnable facts about the world, and that it is "applied" using subjective emotions.

It has been said that the West uses guilt as an emotional reaction to immoral behavior and the East uses shame.

It isn't significant for this discussion, which is used where, it is significant that emotions are used. And because emotions are subjective, it seems that morality is subjective.

But there are facts about the world that are involved. Granted they are a little vague, since the sciences involved in studying them are sociology and psychology.

For example, we are social, self-aware, fairly intelligent animals that use our brains to optimize our situation in the world. Whether it is the best way to cook food or the best way to manage a relationship, to the best way to get a team to cooperate, we can learn facts that help us optimize our situation.

I propose that morality derives from an effort to learn and adhere to those facts about the world which we learn to associate with emotions clustered around guilt and/or shame (and certain "positive" emotions like esteem, respect and self-esteem.) Societies and individuals that learn these facts and apply them, are more successful than societies and individuals that do not learn and apply them.

It helps to look at Kohlberg on this. The use of guilt and shame is but one phase of the development of morality, but it is a clear example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

In my view, a good analogy for the situation is the law, or constitution within a country. Both are often fairly concrete, but nevertheless get interpreted very differently by different people and in different situations. Even learned judges may have different opinions as to whether something is or is not constitutional. Yet the constitution itself is not subjective is it?

I think morality is the socially approved of means of human interaction AT THAT TIME. This did and does allow for any behaviour required in order for a group to survive.The success of which only time can tell.Thus in curtain circumstances both murder and theft can be acceptable ,indeed I would suggest that killing and theft are fundamental to the evolutionary process .

Originally posted by OdBod
I think morality is the socially approved of means of human interaction AT THAT TIME.

I disagree. I think that during the time of slavery, it was perfectly reasonable for someone to claim it was morrally wrong despite being socially acceptable. The same goes for racism under aparthied, or even modern day torture or death penalties. I do not think social acceptance is equivalent to morals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. I think that during the time of slavery, it was perfectly reasonable for someone to claim it was morrally wrong despite being socially acceptable. The same goes for racism under aparthied, or even modern day torture or death penalties. I do not think social acceptance is equivalent to morals.

I did tie that statement to a "Group", both slavers and abolitionists would have a different moral perspective. Even today the relative success of different moral codes is unclear,it depends where you look.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?

Or does anyone believe in an absolute morality?

Discuss.

We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?

The fact that persons, or groups of persons, hold differing views on morality is simply a descriptive, anthropologic fact. Persons, or groups of persons, also hold differing views on virtually any subject imaginable. This fact is not even relevant to a discussion on whether or not morals are subjective. Ethical subjectivism is not concerned with these types of anthropologic considerations. It is concerned with meta-ethical considerations. To show that some version of ethical subjectivism is true, I would think you would need to, at minimum, show something about the nature of moral statements; something about whether any of them are true or not; and something about the associated truth conditions. That is, for one to show that some version of ethical subjectivism is true, I would think one would need to show, at minimum, all the following:

(1) Moral statements characteristically serve to express propositions. (This rules out non-cognitivism.)
(2) At least some moral statements are true. (This rules out error theory.)
(3) The truth conditions of moral statements depend on observer attitudes. (This would rule out some forms of realism).

Showing that "we all have differing morals" has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I was looking to have a discussion with the originator of the OP.

I doubt that very much.
More likely you were looking to wreck another discussion with your
schoolboy antics. I cannot stop you posting but I shall not reply to any
more of your nonsense and I urge others to do the same.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Is killing for your country OK?
You use the word murder but that means different things to different people.
I personally find capital punishment immoral.

And stealing?
Stealing to feed a starving child - ... is that OK?

Of course in general we have similar morals - it is what our laws are
based on - but when one examines the minitiae of morality we all differ.

You are splitting hairs. The fact remains that people for the most part are against killing, unless it is viewed as self defense or a path to dealing out justice etc.

Face it, there is a universal sense of morality that we all share.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I doubt that very much.
More likely you were looking to wreck another discussion with your
schoolboy antics. I cannot stop you posting but I shall not reply to any
more of your nonsense and I urge others to do the same.

It was a valid question. Your OP basically consisted of two questions. The first question could be taken as either a question which reflects your views or as a rhetorical device merely meant to engender discussion. The question I asked gave you a chance to declare which or in the case of the former, reflect on the fallacy of what the question implies.

How does asking such a question "wreck another discussion"?

Why do you take asking such a question as "schoolboy antics", "nonsense", etc.?

I cannot stop you posting but I shall not reply to any
more of your nonsense and I urge others to do the same.

Now if anything screams of "schoolboy antics" it is this. That and your avoidance of questions that get to the heart of the matter.