• 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.

morality, objective or subjective

This-will-be-the-sixth-time-we-have-created-a-thread-about-it.jpg
CLAX1911 said:
Listen I know this subject has had a fair share of threads started. But I have given this a lot of thought and I have to switch teams. Morality is very subjective. I have come to this position logically. But I did prompted by discussion with various people on this forum.

Before we discuss we must first define terms.
Subjective the way I mean to use it is something based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinion.

Objective meaning something not based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinion.

So, I have come to accept morality as subjective. I won't try and preempt any argument in the op. I am pretty confident in my ability to defend my position. But who knows it could change.
Click to expand...

Morality is the expression of the survival instinct above the individual level. For proof, look to who we hold up as heroes. We hold up people who sacrifice themselves for the larger population such as firefighters, police, soldiers, teachers who donate unpaid time and buy supplies needed when the school won't. Even our enemies, like ISIS and kamikaze pilots of WW2, elevate suicide bombers who sacrifice the self to better the greater movement. Humans elevate those who place the group ahead of their individual self.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
There is no survival value in forbidding interracial barrage, homosexuality, differing religions, so forth.
Click to expand...
Anti-SSM argue that SSM poses a threat to the greater institution.

Pro-SSM argue that SSM good for the greater institution.

Pro and con are both using the same rubric of what is better for the greater body. Even your basic argument in favor of promoting individual liberty bases itself on the idea that individual liberty promotes the health of the whole nation.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Anti-SSM argue that SSM poses a threat to the greater institution.

Pro-SSM argue that SSM good for the greater institution.

Pro and con are both using the same rubric of what is better for the greater body. Even your basic argument in favor of promoting individual liberty bases itself on the idea that individual liberty promotes the health of the whole nation.
Click to expand...
Okay i See what you mean.

but that says nothing of whether or not it's subjective.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Okay i See what you mean.

but that says nothing of whether or not it's subjective.
Click to expand...
Everyone's using the same standard, that means morality is objective.

....but only in it's broadest sense. Morality becomes more subjective the closer in you look at a given fact-dependent situation.
 
Jerry said:
Everyone's using the same standard, that means morality is objective.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't

....but only in it's broadest sense. Morality becomes more subjective the closer in you look at a given fact-dependent situation.
Click to expand...

there is nothing objective that morality is based on. It is about what people feel is right or wrong.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It is about what people feel is right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Every single healthy adult human on the planet, including you, bases that feeling of right and wrong on what is beneficial for the group over the individual.

Go ahead and post your token objection so we can move on and look at a specific example of your choice.
 
Jerry said:
Every single healthy adult human on the planet, including you, bases that feeling of right and wrong on what is beneficial for the group over the individual.
Click to expand...
And?

Go ahead and post your token objection so we can move on and look at a specific example of your choice.
Click to expand...

Grow up
 
CLAX1911 said:
Explain how anything you said indicates morality being objective.
Click to expand...
Certainly:

Jerry said:
Morality is the expression of the survival instinct above the individual level. For proof, look to who we hold up as heroes. We hold up people who sacrifice themselves for the larger population such as firefighters, police, soldiers, teachers who donate unpaid time and buy supplies needed when the school won't. Even our enemies, like ISIS and kamikaze pilots of WW2, elevate suicide bombers who sacrifice the self to better the greater movement. Humans elevate those who place the group ahead of their individual self.
Click to expand...
Jerry said:
Anti-SSM argue that SSM poses a threat to the greater institution.


Pro-SSM argue that SSM good for the greater institution.


Pro and con are both using the same rubric of what is better for the greater body. Even your basic argument in favor of promoting individual liberty bases itself on the idea that individual liberty promotes the health of the whole nation.
Click to expand...


Jerry said:
Everyone's using the same standard, that means morality is objective.


....but only in it's broadest sense. Morality becomes more subjective the closer in you look at a given fact-dependent situation.
Click to expand...
 
CLAX1911 said:
Listen I know this subject has had a fair share of threads started. But I have given this a lot of thought and I have to switch teams. Morality is very subjective. I have come to this position logically. But I did prompted by discussion with various people on this forum.

Before we discuss we must first define terms.
Subjective the way I mean to use it is something based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinion.

Objective meaning something not based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinion.

So, I have come to accept morality as subjective. I won't try and preempt any argument in the op. I am pretty confident in my ability to defend my position. But who knows it could change.
Click to expand...

Surprising to me that I missed this thread when it started. I am a huge fan of the divisions of classic philosophy by Aristotle including ethics.

What you are asking about is called ethics.

Aristotle defined it as follows.

The Greek word for two is thio -- and ethics mean e thio -- from two.

Ethics is about a choice of two ways. You have come to a fork in the road and now you must choose between two ways.

Morality is ethics. There is always a choice to be made and criteria for making it.

Once you have identified the choice, you then simply choose the higher of the two.

If that's what you mean by subjective then perhaps you are right.

Otherwise if you always choose the high road, as you should, then it is an objective choice all the time.
 
CLAX1911 said:
There is no survival value in forbidding interracial barrage, homosexuality, differing religions, so forth.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
Anti-SSM argue that SSM poses a threat to the greater institution.

Pro-SSM argue that SSM good for the greater institution.

Pro and con are both using the same rubric of what is better for the greater body. Even your basic argument in favor of promoting individual liberty bases itself on the idea that individual liberty promotes the health of the whole nation.
Click to expand...

Jeeze frat boyz are we back on G/L marriage again? Hasn't anyone looked up the 14th Amendment yet?
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
If someone murdered you, and it felt good to them and they thought it right, would it be right?
Click to expand...

To them? Based on what you said, yes. To someone else? Probably not. Congratulations. You just proved subjective morality.
 
Riveroaks said:
Jeeze frat boyz are we back on G/L marriage again? Hasn't anyone looked up the 14th Amendment yet?
Click to expand...
It was one post using a topical example of common lines of reasoning. No one on this thread is rehashing same sex marriage. I'm sorry you compleatly missed what I was saying in that post.
 
Jerry said:
It was one post using a topical example of common lines of reasoning. No one on this thread is rehashing same sex marriage. I'm sorry you compleatly missed what I was saying in that post.
Click to expand...

The lets please put G/L marriage to bed (no pun intended) and talk about something more obvious like serial killers.
 
Riveroaks said:
The lets please put G/L marriage to bed (no pun intended) and talk about something more obvious like serial killers.
Click to expand...
You're free to make that argument if you wish.

Go ahead...
 
Riveroaks said:
Surprising to me that I missed this thread when it started. I am a huge fan of the divisions of classic philosophy by Aristotle including ethics.

What you are asking about is called ethics.

Aristotle defined it as follows.

The Greek word for two is thio -- and ethics mean e thio -- from two.

Ethics is about a choice of two ways. You have come to a fork in the road and now you must choose between two ways.

Morality is ethics. There is always a choice to be made and criteria for making it.

Once you have identified the choice, you then simply choose the higher of the two.

If that's what you mean by subjective then perhaps you are right.

Otherwise if you always choose the high road, as you should, then it is an objective choice all the time.
Click to expand...
I prefaced what I meant by subjective in the OP.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Beliefs are based on feelings.
Click to expand...

Which becomes subjective, we agree on that.

What I would argue though is while beliefs can be based on feelings, it is more likely that beliefs are based on experience and instruction. That is another way of saying that what is moral is something usually handed down generation to generation by some means. Call them social confines in the form of learning about ethics, or morality, or law, etc. that ultimately craft how we look at belief on what is moral. While reasonable people can usually get together and craft social norms through various controls (like law or social controls via systems of belief,) without that confine you generally see "immoral" behavior. Worse, even in social climates with strong degrees of law and system of beliefs you still see "immoral" behavior. And why? Because morality is subjective, always has been. Otherwise humanity would have acted with a sense of morality in our context since the very beginning. And we know that is absolutely wrong when reviewing history.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I don't care. I am saying it's wrong based on feeling. There is no objective source of morality. it all comes from the way people feel.
Click to expand...

Well thats a strawman. I'm not obliged to defend your reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom