|
|
Post by captainbryce on Nov 30, 2017 22:19:20 GMT
I had an argument with a Christian recently who accused me of having “no moral basis“ because I said I believed that morality was subjective.
He argued that morality was objective (given to us by God), and that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, that doesn’t change. Right is always right, and wrong is always wrong.
I told him that everyone decides on their own what they believe to be moral or immoral based on their values. What’s wrong to me may not be wrong to you. He then proceeded to tell me that he was disgusted with my lack of moral center and then decided to block me (which I thought was sad, but not terribly unexpected).
Anyway, wdo do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 30, 2017 22:27:53 GMT
I had an argument with a Christian recently who accused me of having “no moral basis“ because I said I believed that morality was subjective. He argued that morality was objective (given to us by God), and that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, that doesn’t change. Right is always right, and wrong is always wrong. I told him that everyone decides on their own what they believe to be moral or immoral based on their values. What’s wrong to me may not be wrong to you. He then proceeded to tell me that he was disgusted with my lack of moral center and then decided to block me (which I thought was sad, but not terribly unexpected). Anyway, wdo do you guys think? Morality is subjective that is indisputable, the way to prove this is ask for a simple objective moral rule. One thing though, people do not decide on their own, morality is not (often ) personally subjective it is usually agreed upon within a cultural setting, and oftentimes indoctrinated into 99% of people, a good example of this is the historical acceptance of slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by allaby on Nov 30, 2017 23:44:46 GMT
I agree with you Bryce that morality is subjective.
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Nov 30, 2017 23:50:36 GMT
Yeah, morality is subjective and anything goes. Apart from circumcision and homophobia, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by puvo on Dec 1, 2017 0:02:18 GMT
I had an argument with a Christian recently who accused me of having “no moral basis“ because I said I believed that morality was subjective. He argued that morality was objective (given to us by God), and that there is a universal standard of right and wrong, that doesn’t change. Right is always right, and wrong is always wrong. I told him that everyone decides on their own what they believe to be moral or immoral based on their values. What’s wrong to me may not be wrong to you. He then proceeded to tell me that he was disgusted with my lack of moral center and then decided to block me (which I thought was sad, but not terribly unexpected). Anyway, wdo do you guys think? Depends how you define morality, I guess. It can be objective if you think of morality as 'promoting wellbeing' or something similar. Generally though, it is subjective. All one has to do is point to immoral things in the bible sanctioned by god, to show it is largely cultural, and therefore subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 1, 2017 0:32:58 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 1, 2017 1:10:20 GMT
It's true and ultimate nature is objective, but humanity needs to go through a very long and hard path of enlightenment. 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' is a related sentiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Dec 1, 2017 1:29:00 GMT
I never understood what morals have to do with any kind of religion or faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 1, 2017 1:51:53 GMT
The only people that dispute that morality is subjective are idiots that don't know what the fuck subjective/objective means and how to tell the difference.
Objective = things outside the mind; Subjective = things inside the mind. Trees and the sun exist if there is no mind to observe them; how the hell does morality exist if there are no minds to decide/understand what is/isn't moral?
Even if we suppose there's a God, this doesn't stop morality from being subjective on two fronts:
1. Supposedly, God would have something resembling consciousness, so even if God decided what was moral and told us, the source of morality would still be a (or THE) mind: God's.
2. Even if God determines morality, he must relay this morality through other minds (humans) who then understand it. So even then it requires human minds for morality to exist in any meaningful sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 1, 2017 2:10:26 GMT
It's true and ultimate nature is objective, but humanity needs to go through a very long and hard path of enlightenment. 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' is a related sentiment. Then I am guessing you can supply an objective moral rule that is correct in all circumstances? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 1, 2017 12:50:15 GMT
tpfkar Yeah, morality is subjective and anything goes. Apart from circumcision and homophobia, of course. Why would you exclude those two? Anything people call "objective" is just shared subjective. Not enforced by ancient fictions as much as before, thankfully.
just drawn that way |
|
|
|
Post by viola on Dec 1, 2017 13:04:24 GMT
tpfkar Yeah, morality is subjective and anything goes. Apart from circumcision and homophobia, of course. Why would you exclude those two? Anything people call "objective" is just shared shared subjective. Not enforced by ancient fictions as much as before, thankfully.
just drawn that way |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 13:39:57 GMT
Yeah, morality is subjective and anything goes. Apart from circumcision and homophobia, of course. Well you can’t really say its “subjective” if parts of it are objective, unless you can justify why it’s subjective to some things but not others. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 13:41:18 GMT
It cannot be two contradictory things at the same time friend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2017 13:42:47 GMT
Depends how you define morality, I guess. It can be objective if you think of morality as 'promoting wellbeing' or something similar. Generally though, it is subjective. Exactly so. If you think morality is a code of behaviour to promote wellbeing then morality is objective - it is an objective fact that "murder people regularly" does not promote wellbeing for individuals or society. If you don't think morality is that... well, tell me what you do think it is, and I'll tell you if I think it's objective or subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 13:44:23 GMT
It's true and ultimate nature is objective, but humanity needs to go through a very long and hard path of enlightenment. 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' is a related sentiment. If I am interpreting this convoluted and packed statement correctly, you are essentially saying that morality is objective. So then I have to ask, what is the basis for that position? How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially given the fact that it has changed from generation to generation, and seems to vary from society to society, to say nothing about individual perspectives? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 13:45:27 GMT
I never understood what morals have to do with any kind of religion or faith. Well, most religious people believe that morals come from God and are taught by their religion. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Dec 1, 2017 13:57:21 GMT
Depends how you define morality, I guess. It can be objective if you think of morality as 'promoting wellbeing' or something similar. Generally though, it is subjective. Exactly so. If you think morality is a code of behaviour to promote wellbeing then morality is objective - it is an objective fact that "murder people regularly" does not promote wellbeing for individuals or society. How do you figure? Isn’t this in itself a subjective judgement? Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Bashar Al Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un obviously considered murder to be in their best interests. While the former eventual suffered negative consequences for their actions, the latter three seem to be benefiting from it, and would subjectively argue that their respective societies are better off because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Dec 1, 2017 13:58:36 GMT
It's true and ultimate nature is objective, but humanity needs to go through a very long and hard path of enlightenment. 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.' is a related sentiment. If I am interpreting this convoluted and packed statement correctly, you are essentially saying that morality is objective. So then I have to ask, what is the basis for that position? How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially given the fact that it has changed from generation to generation, and seems to vary from society to society, to say nothing about individual perspectives? Because growing and learning from past mistakes is part of the human experience? We absolutely can say that past acceptance of things such as slavery are morally wrong, no matter how right previous generations thought they were. And things this generation supports, such as the exploitation and abuse of animals, will also rightfully be judged as evil by future generations. The fact that societies disagree over what is moral and right doesn't mean that there aren't real standards of what is moral or right. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 1, 2017 14:00:19 GMT
It's subjective, and there's no question about it. Believing that it's objective is like believing that the Earth is flat.
By the way, "subjective" refers to it obtaining mentally, versus obtaining in the world outside of minds. So even if there were a God who issued moral proclamations, if we're talking about the God being sentient/having a mind, we're still talking about subjective morality. And then it's just a matter of some people (subjectively) feeling that they should conform their moral stances to God's. If someone is positing a God that is the source of moral stances, but where that doesn't have to do with the God's mind, then . . . well, it's a mystery just what the person would be saying. They'd have to explain.
Even if ethics (and aesthetics) were objective, by the way, so that ethical and aesthetic judgments were somehow embedded in the non-mental world, that would have no normative weight for individuals conforming to those judgments. This is easier for folks to see with aesthetic judmgents usually. Say that objectively, Shakespeare in Love was the best film--however that would work that the world itself would somehow have "Shakespeare in Love is the best film" embedded in the fabric of spacetime or whatever. Well, so what? You still either personally like or dislike Shakespeare in Love, and if you dislike it, what does it matter that the world itself likes it/prefers it over all other films. Objective ethical or aesthetic judgments would still just be an opinion--it would be "the world's opinion" rather than your own, but why shouldn't you care about how you feel about it instead of how someone or something else feels about it?
In the above scenario, you wouldn't be wrong for saying "I hate Shakespeare in Love" or "I feel that Shakespeare in Love is the worst film, not the best." The only time you'd be getting something wrong is if you were to say, "The non-mental world feels that Shakespeare in Love is an awful film."
Of course, objectivists won't usually come right out and say that they believe that judgments like "Shakespeare in Love is the best film" are somehow embedded in the fabric of the world. Even if they believe something like that, they realize that it sounds absurd. What people often do is attempt to map "objective" to some sort of community agreement instead, but in that case, they're just forwarding the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
|
|
