Morals: Objective or Subjective?

[acri1]

Bored at work today, and rather than be productive I figured I'd try to think of some topics for this board.

So let's start with this one...do you think morals/ethics are objective or subjective?

Just to make clear what I mean for people not familiar with this debate, an objective claim would be something like "I'm 5'9". There's no room for opinion or personal preference, and the accuracy of my statement could be checked by a third party. A subjective claim would be "Nas is the GOAT". Not something that can be empirically verified, just my opinion.

So when it comes to morality, so you think it's objective or subjective? Is is set in stone or is it a matter of opinion and the society you live in? And furthermore, do you think morality should be enforced on others?

 

[SirSmokeCrackAlot]

Well I think its a little of both. Its seems obvious that some are subjective given how they have changed over time.

 

[SirSmokeCrackAlot]

 

[No1]

I think morality is culturally relative in the sense of how society operates. But from a religious stand point, I believe those that argue that there are objective moral truths and because God is all-powerful he directs us to those truths, have a more compelling argument than those who claim that things are good or bad strictly because God says they are. That would mean that things like rape would not be morally wrong if God had not ordained it so. But that seems irreconcilable with common human instincts. The former argument is more beneficial to theists.

 

[Pool_Shark]

I think there are basic morals that should be enforced. Not hurting others that are innocent, not stealing from others that are innocent, and not raping others.

The basics are obvious, it gets harder to distinguish the difference as you go deeper into morals.

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

Depends on if you believe the golden rule is true. If we can agree that no person wants to have something done to him or her that he or she wouldn't like, then we can form an objective set of moral principles.

e.g. if I wouldn't want my property taken away from me, I will not take anyone's property. From that point we can proceed to form a moral code. People can create a moral code by coming together and agreeing that people should not do certain things so that the group's success is guaranteed more or less.

I reccomend reading the book Morals by Agreement by David Gauthier. He explains it a lot better than I can. Also touches on human nature too.

 

[Dooby]

Subjective, yes. And should not be imposed on others because of that.

 

[OsO]

imo some morals have to be enforced, at least until people start acting more responsibly.

but like bro said above its gets more complicated the more layers you build out

 

[WaveCapsByOscorp™]

it's a little from column a and b...

some morals have universal appeal, so they're more objective...

 

[BlvdBrawler]

Entirely subjective. Look at how Muslim nations treat their women if they are unlucky enough to be sexually assaulted.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

Of course morals are objective.

You'll find that Muslim laws, however brutish and medieval the appear to be, are interpretations of objective morals fact that all human societies adhere to.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Morals are subjective and always will be subjective. Morals are essentially our way of mediating and constructing the way in which we interact with the world and constructing it on terms that allow for less suffering. Even when they coalesce into something more social than individual, it's still nothing more than constructed subjectivity that can ONLY be seen to gain independence from the mind as a function of the fact that everyone enacts them. A self alienation of the symbolic (or rather, the symbolic working on a mass scale. Still subjectivity), so to speak.

Does that mean that they shouldn't be enforced, since they have no existence outside of the human mind's narrative creation and arresting of the real? Depends on your definition of the word "enforced". Generally, I would say no,and specifically only to the extent that the collective can be able to function so that all can explore and realize their potential as creative beings, but that all depends on the way in which you conceive of a perfectly functioning ideal society.

 

[Dras]

Morality is a human concept/ideal. It didn't exist before us, and it will cease to exist the moment our species becomes extinct. That's not to say there have never been, aren't, or will never be intelligent beings with their own systems of behavior, but it would be just that, their own. Morality is our thing and in this way is inherently subjective.

It's a complex construct, though. If you qualify it with goals and/or intent, such as, happiness & well being are preferable to suffering, then it's definitely possible to objectively establish a "best" system of morality. Sam Harris draws the example between vitamins & poison--one is objectively better for the human body than the other. But even that's not absolute...vaccinations are an example that immediately comes to mind.

 

[Angel On The Rag]

subjective

 

[Tesseract]

Moral objectives (oughts) are unavoidable. Even those who deny them use them. What people do is subject to change, what people ought to do does not.

The abortion issue is a perfect example of objective morality in-action since both Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers believe it is absolutely morally wrong to take a human life. The actual disagreement is when does an embryo/zygote become a human life, which is not a moral issue IMO.

Relative morals are inadequate without an objective standard by which they are measured. If all morals are relative, to what are they relative? Other relative morals? Then, what are THOSE morals relative to? With relative morals, there is no standard, just an endless list of actions that are 'better' or 'worse' but nothing 'best' or 'worst' for all people at all times in all places.

Hopefully this makes sense.