• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is morality subjective or objective?

A

Anglo-scot

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
776
Reaction score
142
Location
Brum
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm new to this sub-forum so apologies if this debate repeats earlier ones.

On various threads in the Sex and Sexuality sub-forum, we have the eternal debate raging between those who believe that morality is objective and those who believe it is subjective. I am 100% on the objective side but am not a professional philosopher, having studied it for a few years in my spare time only, as part of my interest in understanding Christianity and psychology better.

I'm keen to explore the philosophical issues a bit more deeply than is easily possible in the cauldron of discussions about specific sexual issues. I say this by way of explaining my frustrations with the subjectivists whose views seem to be along the following lines:

a) the fact that opinions differ on morality is obvious proof that morality is subjective
b) the objectivity of morality cannot be proved according to the scientific method and therefore must be a myth
c) philosophy and philosophers have little to add to this debate.

Some debaters in that sub-forum bring down the level of debate, imo, by accusing supporters of objective morality of imposing their views on other people and even "lying". One moderator also considers it a mission to make these two points to people proposing traditional Christian moral standpoints.

So my agenda is to flesh out more thoroughly the case for objective morality. Moral subjectivists are more than welcome to challenge.

To add some ideas to the debate, here is an introductory article from Wikipedia about moral realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Thanks for reading.
 
Subjective.
(/ thread)
 
I’d say subjective, which then becomes an objective consensus through norms and values. Remove those norms and values and it’s now starting to become subjective again. The consensus part is that which previously held societies together.
 
Anglo-scot said:
I'm new to this sub-forum so apologies if this debate repeats earlier ones.

On various threads in the Sex and Sexuality sub-forum, we have the eternal debate raging between those who believe that morality is objective and those who believe it is subjective. I am 100% on the objective side but am not a professional philosopher, having studied it for a few years in my spare time only, as part of my interest in understanding Christianity and psychology better.

I'm keen to explore the philosophical issues a bit more deeply than is easily possible in the cauldron of discussions about specific sexual issues. I say this by way of explaining my frustrations with the subjectivists whose views seem to be along the following lines:

a) the fact that opinions differ on morality is obvious proof that morality is subjective
b) the objectivity of morality cannot be proved according to the scientific method and therefore must be a myth
c) philosophy and philosophers have little to add to this debate.

Some debaters in that sub-forum bring down the level of debate, imo, by accusing supporters of objective morality of imposing their views on other people and even "lying". One moderator also considers it a mission to make these two points to people proposing traditional Christian moral standpoints.

So my agenda is to flesh out more thoroughly the case for objective morality. Moral subjectivists are more than welcome to challenge.

To add some ideas to the debate, here is an introductory article from Wikipedia about moral realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
I agree morality is objective. I think it's based on education, and empathy.

I understand that you are christian, you will get absolutely nowhere by saying obedience to religion is objective morality, because morality is doing what is right not doing what you are told. A secular approch is valid whether you believe in gods or not. This video gives a good preface to the concept.

 
I think if you have tens of millions of subjective views, you’re going to see the kind of chaos going on in the western world today. Whether morality comes from religion or government, it’s something that has to be agreed upon and adopted by consensus. Removing the Ten Commandments won’t leave a vacuum, it will be replaced by the Quran, Human Rights or some other variant, but whatever is decided, it must be a majority agreed upon morality.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I agree morality is objective. I think it's based on education, and empathy.
Click to expand...
You think ~ subjective.
The type of education spoken about ~ subjective.
Empathy ~ subjective.

Your agreement ~ subjective.
 
Subjective, since there exists no standard against which to judge morality other than that which humans have created. Even if you belong to a religion - I can't think of many religions where every single member has the exact same interpretation of their holy text.
 
Excon said:
You think ~ subjective.
The type of education spoken about ~ subjective.
Empathy ~ subjective.

Your agreement ~ subjective.
Click to expand...
I see your reason. Yes morality may be subjective. But that doesn't mean all things are permissible.
 
John V said:
I think if you have tens of millions of subjective views, you’re going to see the kind of chaos going on in the western world today. Whether morality comes from religion or government, it’s something that has to be agreed upon and adopted by consensus. Removing the Ten Commandments won’t leave a vacuum, it will be replaced by the Quran, Human Rights or some other variant, but whatever is decided, it must be a majority agreed upon morality.
Click to expand...

I disagree Morality is doing what is right, not doing what you are told by religion, government, law, or majority pressure. removing the ten commandments is simply overthrowing one commander for another.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I disagree Morality is doing what is right, not doing what you are told by religion, government, law, or majority pressure. removing the ten commandments is simply overthrowing one commander for another.
Click to expand...

Whose definition of doing what is right? Unless the majority agree it’s only one subjective view of ‘right’. Yes, that’s why I said that removing the Ten Commandments is replaced by something else, but not a vacuum.
 
John V said:
Whose definition of doing what is right?
Click to expand...
Not relevant. Morality Is doing what is right regardless of who's definition it is. It is not doing what you are told.
Unless the majority agree it’s only one subjective view of ‘right’.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean it isn't a fact. feeling pain from hitting my toe with a hammer is subjective but it is a fact.
Yes, that’s why I said that removing the Ten Commandments is replaced by something else, but not a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I think we are in agreement here commands aren't morals.
 
John V said:
I’d say subjective, which then becomes an objective consensus through norms and values. Remove those norms and values and it’s now starting to become subjective again. The consensus part is that which previously held societies together.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reply. As I see it, if morality is objective, then it is always so. It's true that consensuses in societies on moral issues are sometimes greater and sometimes weaker. But even when its weaker, morality is no less objective, in the terms I understand it.

Since the widespread abandonment of traditional Christian morality in the West, the consensus on moral truths has broken down significantly. Subjectivists would argue that this phenomenon supports their position. Objectivists can point to the consequences of such abandonment and a similar pattern among other declining civilisations as evidence in support of their position.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I disagree Morality is doing what is right,
Click to expand...
Is right?
No, what is thought to be right.


CLAX1911 said:
But that doesn't mean all things are permissible.
Click to expand...
Permissibility is an artificial construct based on subjective interpretation.


Absent the framework of man's artificial construct there are only actions and inactions.
 
Excon said:
Is right?
No, what is thought to be right.
Click to expand...
Not a relevant distinction.



Permissibility is an artificial construct based on subjective interpretation.


Absent the framework of man's artificial construct there are only actions and inactions.
Click to expand...
Absent the framework of man, there is nothing, all there is to us is what can be perceived by us. I don't agree that the frame work is artificial, just that it was constructed.
 
iangb said:
Subjective, since there exists no standard against which to judge morality other than that which humans have created. Even if you belong to a religion - I can't think of many religions where every single member has the exact same interpretation of their holy text.
Click to expand...
In response, I would say that determining the morality of actions conclusively is a difficult thing and opinions will always vary, within certain limits, because each of us have our own unique take on the world - our own perceptions. Nevertheless, imo, the quest for objective morality is an attempt to articulate what is common to the nature of every human being. Our common human nature is the source of morality.

Theists would go on to say that a transcendental God, however we understand this concept, was the ultimate source of morality; however, I believe that agnostics could also accept the objectivity of morality based on observation of our common human nature.
 
Anglo-scot said:
In response, I would say that determining the morality of actions conclusively is a difficult thing and opinions will always vary, within certain limits, because each of us have our own unique take on the world - our own perceptions. Nevertheless, imo, the quest for objective morality is an attempt to articulate what is common to the nature of every human being. Our common human nature is the source of morality.
Click to expand...
I would disagree Morality is based on our knowledge and empathy.

Theists would go on to say that a transcendental God, however we understand this concept, was the ultimate source of morality; however, I believe that agnostics could also accept the objectivity of morality based on observation of our common human nature.
Click to expand...
Morality doesn't have to be objective for it to be factual.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Not a relevant distinction.
Click to expand...
It most definitely is.
What you think is right or wrong is subjective.
Laws are created on what others think is right or wrong, these of course are based on subjectivity.
There is no universal morality.


CLAX1911 said:
Absent the framework of man, there is nothing, all there is to us is what can be perceived by us. I don't agree that the frame work is artificial, just that it was constructed.
Click to expand...
We are talking about morality (right/wrong) which is a creation of man. You have to remove mans interpretation of it to get to the bottom of what it really is, which is just an action or inaction. That is the base. You want to start a step away from the base.

Applying what you think to an action may be normal for man to do (it is how man interprets the world) but what you think of it is artificial.
This is demonstrated by people having different views of the action or inaction in question.
 
Anglo-scot said:
Thanks for reply. As I see it, if morality is objective, then it is always so. It's true that consensuses in societies on moral issues are sometimes greater and sometimes weaker. But even when its weaker, morality is no less objective, in the terms I understand it.

Since the widespread abandonment of traditional Christian morality in the West, the consensus on moral truths has broken down significantly. Subjectivists would argue that this phenomenon supports their position. Objectivists can point to the consequences of such abandonment and a similar pattern among other declining civilisations as evidence in support of their position.
Click to expand...

I think that if we assume morality is subjective and never becomes an objective consensus, we run into the same problems as trying to prove religion exists. Subjectivity is a belief and so societies develop a morality based on the consensus values and norms of that society. These become internalised and so objective and provide the basis for culture, values and what is considered ‘normal’ within that particular society.

Diversity for instance removes those consensus values and norms and proposes that all cultures and values are equal and so the morality on which they were founded in that society become subjective. That I think is where we are today, what’s right v what’s wrong; tradition v subjective freedoms . . . But unless you have an agreed on morality which constructs the values and norms needed for the cohesion of a society, what you have is the fractured society you see today.
Remove the previous consensus of religion and something else will take its place. Better or worse? That's subjective.
Just sayin' :)
 
Excon said:
It most definitely is.
What you think is right or wrong is subjective.
Click to expand...
So?
Laws are created on what others think is right or wrong, these of course are based on subjectivity.
There is no universal morality.
Click to expand...
Again, So?


We are talking about morality (right/wrong) which is a creation of man. You have to remove mans interpretation
Click to expand...
You can't

Applying what you think to an action may be normal for man to do (it is how man interprets the world) but what you think of it is artificial.
Click to expand...
Thoughts are artificial?
This is demonstrated by people having different views of the action or inaction in question.
Click to expand...
Explain.
 
Anglo-scot said:
I'm new to this sub-forum so apologies if this debate repeats earlier ones.

On various threads in the Sex and Sexuality sub-forum, we have the eternal debate raging between those who believe that morality is objective and those who believe it is subjective. I am 100% on the objective side but am not a professional philosopher, having studied it for a few years in my spare time only, as part of my interest in understanding Christianity and psychology better.

I'm keen to explore the philosophical issues a bit more deeply than is easily possible in the cauldron of discussions about specific sexual issues. I say this by way of explaining my frustrations with the subjectivists whose views seem to be along the following lines:

a) the fact that opinions differ on morality is obvious proof that morality is subjective
b) the objectivity of morality cannot be proved according to the scientific method and therefore must be a myth
c) philosophy and philosophers have little to add to this debate.

Some debaters in that sub-forum bring down the level of debate, imo, by accusing supporters of objective morality of imposing their views on other people and even "lying". One moderator also considers it a mission to make these two points to people proposing traditional Christian moral standpoints.

So my agenda is to flesh out more thoroughly the case for objective morality. Moral subjectivists are more than welcome to challenge.

To add some ideas to the debate, here is an introductory article from Wikipedia about moral realism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
It's a concept and can be both subjective and objective, just like reasonability or fairness.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So?
Again, So?
Click to expand...
If you are honestly asking so, you clearly do understand subjectivity.


CLAX1911 said:
You can't
Click to expand...
:doh
Already did.


CLAX1911 said:
Thoughts are artificial?
Click to expand...
This is you not paying attention to what was said.
No one said the thinking process was artificial. The interpretation of the action/inaction that the thinking process lead to is what is artificial (as in created).


CLAX1911 said:
This is demonstrated by people having different views of the action or inaction in question.
Click to expand...
Explain.
Click to expand...
That is not something that should need to be explained.

But since you nonsensically went there.
Homosexuality is immoral. Do you disagree?
 
John V said:
I think if you have tens of millions of subjective views, you’re going to see the kind of chaos going on in the western world today.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the quiet Middle Ages when we had the Hundred Years War and one third of the population died of the Black Death. There has always been chaos in the Western world. The Eastern world hasn't exactly been an oasis of peace either.
 
Krhazy said:
It's a concept and can be both subjective and objective, just like reasonability or fairness.
Click to expand...
In this area, the distinction would be clearer - objective morals exist independently of individual perceptions, whereas subjective morality come purely from perception.
 
John V said:
I think if you have tens of millions of subjective views, you’re going to see the kind of chaos going on in the western world today.
Click to expand...

The current "western world" is a far more peaceful, educated, and safe place to live in than any previous time or place in history.

There's no "chaos". :roll:
 
Anglo-scot said:
Since the widespread abandonment of traditional Christian morality in the West
Click to expand...

:roll: Oh please - care to point to a few examples?

Anglo-scot said:
Objectivists can point to the consequences of such abandonment and a similar pattern among other declining civilisations as evidence in support of their position.
Click to expand...

Again... :roll:

What "consequences"????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom