Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Morality Objective or Relative?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Morality Objective or Relative?

    Maybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Maybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
    Neither objective nor subjective. By definition morality represents human codes, social norms and standards of behavior and ethics. It has consistent objective aspects shown to consistent from culture to culture throughout history, and subjective aspects relating how each culture defines and interprets its morals and ethics differently. Morality and ethics has been objectively shown to evolve over time and change.

    Example: Objectively wrongful death is considered universal in all cultures, but subjectively wrongful death is open to large range of interpretation, circumstances, cultural differences. One culture, society, religion or church may consider capital punishment as wrongful death. Other cultures, laws, societies, religions and churches may consider it justified as punishment for a crime.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-26-2016, 03:53 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Maybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
      I believe that morality is objective in the sense of what it is that is in the best interests of both society, as well as individuals within society, but it is not objective in the sense that it has any reality of its own, like devine law.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        Maybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
        I don't think morality itself is objective or subjective per se, but rather its sources can be described as objective or subjective. To me, saying morality is objective or subjective is just shorthand for describing the nature of the source as objective or subjective. For instance, God is a subject and thus a subjective source of morality, therefore the morality I derive from Him is subjective. Something like the Buddhist conception of morality, claiming a physical karmic law of the universe that is the moral equivalent of gravity, could be called objective because an aspect of the universe would be an objective source.

        Comment


        • #5
          The problem with the apologist concept concerning the existence of 'objective morality' is that it is ambiguous, undefined, vague and foggy idea concerning the belief that there exists an absolute objective morality associated with God. It is related to an old outdated argument put forth by Thomas Aquinas. The contrary has been a subjective morality where everything goes and personal preference rules, which in reality does not exist in any culture or society. Personal preference to follow or violate morals and ethics is always an option in every culture, society, religion or church regardless of what one asserts or beliefs. Fallible humans are indeed fallible and perfectly capable of breaking the rules when they choose to do so by personal preference.

          Reality kind of trumps any of the delusion of illusions that 'objective morality,' is definable concept to deal with the real word.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 11:14 AM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The problem with the apologist concept concerning the existence of 'objective morality' is that it is ambiguous, undefined, vague and foggy idea concerning the belief that there exists an absolute objective morality associated with God. It is related to an old outdated argument put forth by Thomas Aquinas. The contrary has been a subjective morality where everything goes and personal preference rules, which in reality does not exist in any culture or society. Personal preference to follow or violate morals and ethics is always an option in every culture, society, religion or church regardless of what one asserts or beliefs. Fallible humans are indeed fallible and perfectly capable of breaking the rules when they choose to do so by personal preference.
            Three points: First, objective morality is not an "apologist position" (although it can be adopted by apologists). There are objectivists (in the ethical, not the Randian sense) who are atheist. Second, objectivism should not be conflated with moral absolutism. They are not necessarily the same. Third, just because people are free to do as they prefer, whether in conformity to a moral code or not, doesn't mean there is not an objective standard of morality. Morality entails the possibility of immorality. Otherwise, we'd all be automata carrying out a morality program.

            Reality kind of trumps any of the delusion of illusions that 'objective morality,' is definable concept to deal with the real word.[/QUOTE]

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Neither objective nor subjective. By definition morality represents human codes, social norms and standards of behavior and ethics. It has consistent objective aspects shown to consistent from culture to culture throughout history, and subjective aspects relating how each culture defines and interprets its morals and ethics differently. Morality and ethics has been objectively shown to evolve over time and change.

              Example: Objectively wrongful death is considered universal in all cultures, but subjectively wrongful death is open to large range of interpretation, circumstances, cultural differences. One culture, society, religion or church may consider capital punishment as wrongful death. Other cultures, laws, societies, religions and churches may consider it justified as punishment for a crime.
              I prefer to think of morality in terms of normative versus descriptive morality. Nazi Germany had its own morality, which included shunning, informing on etc certain undesirable groups. It's arguable that, even tho they had a 'morality' in the descriptive sense, they might have been wrong in certain ways in a normative sense.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                I prefer to think of morality in terms of normative versus descriptive morality. Nazi Germany had its own morality, which included shunning, informing on etc certain undesirable groups. It's arguable that, even tho they had a 'morality' in the descriptive sense, they might have been wrong in certain ways in a normative sense.
                That's a very good way to think of it, in my opinion. I feel like most well-known moral systems conflate the two, and they typically fail as descriptions of how real people actually reason.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Three points: First, objective morality is not an "apologist position" (although it can be adopted by apologists). There are objectivists (in the ethical, not the Randian sense) who are atheist. Second, objectivism should not be conflated with moral absolutism. They are not necessarily the same. Third, just because people are free to do as they prefer, whether in conformity to a moral code or not, doesn't mean there is not an objective standard of morality. Morality entails the possibility of immorality. Otherwise, we'd all be automata carrying out a morality program.

                  Reality kind of trumps any of the delusion of illusions that 'objective morality,' is definable concept to deal with the real word.
                  I will qualify the reference to 'objective morality' is that morality that is believed by apologist theists. The objective morality held and defined by others including atheists is decidedly different, and should be addressed differently. There would only be a slight rewording of my original post that would take this into consideration. I believe it was understood based on what I wrote.

                  I am not conflating objective morality with moral absolutism. I did not mention this concept, but I will address this in a separate post now that you brought it up. Your comment on auto mata was also not addressed in my post, but I will address it if you provide a clarification.

                  I still hold that there is no such thing as 'subjective morality' as opposed to 'objective morality as theists propose to make the differetniation.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 05:01 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    I prefer to think of morality in terms of normative versus descriptive morality. Nazi Germany had its own morality, which included shunning, informing on etc certain undesirable groups. It's arguable that, even tho they had a 'morality' in the descriptive sense, they might have been wrong in certain ways in a normative sense.
                    In history over time this view could be described as the morality held by different churches and religions as well, not just the extreme example you gave as Nazism. Your broadening the discussion so first I would like to get back to the concept of 'objective morality' as opposed to 'subjective morality' believed by many theists since Thomas Aquinas.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Your broadening the discussion so first I would like to get back to the concept of 'objective morality' as opposed to 'subjective morality' believed by many theists since Thomas Aquinas.
                      Shuny, why do you ask questions about what you already know the answer to? You know that many would say that the law of God is objective to and independent of humankind. As opposed to the subjective opinions of men. But you already knew this.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Shuny, why do you ask questions about what you already know the answer to? You know that many would say that the law of God is objective to and independent of humankind. As opposed to the subjective opinions of men. But you already knew this.
                        I understand your view clearly, and of course we disagree. There is nothing in the Bible about objective morality.

                        JimB is trying a watered down version.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 06:54 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I understand your view clearly, and of course we disagree. There is nothing in the Bible about objective morality.
                          If the law of God is not objective to mankind then what is it?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            If the law of God is not objective to mankind then what is it?
                            Laws don't need god in order that they be objective. It is objectively true that being murdered or robbed etc. etc., etc, is not a good thing to happen to you, nor is it a good thing for society in general.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              If the law of God is not objective to mankind then what is it?
                              Subjective. God is the subject giving us His law, His morality.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              161 responses
                              514 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X