Is morality subjective or objective?

[Radical]

There are multiple defintions of truth. Which one are you using? Are you uisng the one 'this is a fact', or are you using the one 'This is a metaphysical truth'.

From the way you seem to be flip flopping definitions, it seems you are using the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'

Factual truth, metaphysical truth, or truth of reality all means the same thing to me.

 

[RAMOSS]

Factual truth, metaphysical truth, or truth of reality all means the same thing to me.

Well,, that's a problem you see.. because metaphysical 'truth' and 'factual truth' are entirely different. This causes a communication breakdown, and errors in logic.

 

[Critter7r]

You're coming at this with the premise that morality is subjective regardless of what I say.

Now you get it!!

Quit that.

I can't ...

Start with no presuppositions.

I am!!

What I claim is that humans discover things, and perhaps using that same curious nature we can discover an objective moral system, just as we discover the laws of physics. You can't rule out objective morality because it requires human interpretation; the sciences also require human interpretation.

No, they don't. Hydrogen will weigh the same whether we weigh it in nanograms or quidzorks, or even if we're not around to weigh it. The sun will shine whether or not we're around to call it "hot". Science only requires our interpretation so that *we* can understand what it's doing. It will continue to do its thing if we aren't around to interpret and understand it.

Hmm, I guess I wasn't talking to nihilists last time. I was talking to egoists. I'll need a different starting point. I've never written it this way before, so I might actually hit a dead end with you and have to concede defeat. My disorganized line of thought is to dismiss the words "good" and "bad" altogether. Instead, I'd approach the entire argument through the duality of order and disorder. Human behavior doesn't have a "should" anymore, but if certain behaviors contradict, it would demonstrate a disorder within the ethical system. And concluding, I think I'd say that reason is orderly, and so disorderly behavior is unreasonable. I'd then reintroduce the "should" and say "rational creatures should behave rationally", and assert that the should is closer to a tautology than anything else.

What would you object to in this outline?

I wouldn't say I'm a nihilist. I believe that morality is valuable to society. But if we walk it backwards, morals are a completely human invention and malleable; therefore subjective according to the customs and beliefs of civilizations of a particular time.

I'm going to stick with the idea that there are only actions or inactions and any interpretation of that action or inaction is subject to human interpretation. i.e. subjective.

 

[Cephus]

You're coming at this with the premise that morality is subjective regardless of what I say. Quit that. Start with no presuppositions. What I claim is that humans discover things, and perhaps using that same curious nature we can discover an objective moral system, just as we discover the laws of physics. You can't rule out objective morality because it requires human interpretation; the sciences also require human interpretation.

But objective reality can be tested, as I've already said and you seem to have ignored it. A scientist can make a discovery and other scientists can all do the same experiments and come to the same conclusion, in fact, that's a requirement for proper scientific research. It must be repeatable. So tell us what experiments you want to propose that gets rid of people's inherent biases and desires, as the scientific method does, that will produce the same moral results? No matter where you go on the planet to test gravity, you get the same results. You don't get the same morality everywhere on the planet.

 

[Northern Light]

This is an ethics question.

There are morals and ethics which are structural, created by human systems to enforce order, control, social cohesion, etc. These morals are subjective. They are subjective because many of them require abstract explanations in order for us to understand their reason for existing -- well, for those who care to question them.

Objective morality stems from a refined spiritual core. There are universal morals which are self-evident once an individual has reached a certain level of attainment. Such individuals have a high level of virtue and behave accordingly, not out of ego but out of truth. These individuals all behave the same and come from the same place of understanding, no matter their upbringing, unique backgrounds, or whether or not they know one another. They are all coming from Source Truths. All humans are born with these virtues, but they become muddied and clouded by the structural values taught from their families, communities, governments, etc. There are Truths which persist beneath and beyond all those, which require no explanation, yet they cannot be taught, only realized. The question of subjective morality ultimately stems from the question of whether or not we are actually responsible for our actions, at the deepest level. People who believe morality is subjective, and thus can theoretically act from any of their egoic whims without accountability, are not operating at this level. Objective Truth does not come from this Self-oriented way of living.

However... this duality will be lost on most people, because most people have not developed a sufficient level of consciousness to act from objective truth, and are still obeying the tenets of structural morals. People who follow structural morals tend to believe morality is subjective, because what they have been obeying does not have its own intrinsic value beyond the circular logic of obedience. It's not their fault, it's a symptom of the human condition. Most people never realize these things.

 

[Cephus]

There is no spirituality and no attainment. It's all delusion.

 

[Northern Light]

There is no spirituality and no attainment. It's all delusion.

That's true.

And so is everything else, ultimately.

 

[Radical]

Well,, that's a problem you see.. because metaphysical 'truth' and 'factual truth' are entirely different. This causes a communication breakdown, and errors in logic.

Assist me in the differences in your definitions versus mine. And moreso, explain why there are different truths that may or may not conflict, because that's going to confuse the hell out of me.

 

[Radical]

No, they don't. Hydrogen will weigh the same whether we weigh it in nanograms or quidzorks, or even if we're not around to weigh it. The sun will shine whether or not we're around to call it "hot". Science only requires our interpretation so that *we* can understand what it's doing. It will continue to do its thing if we aren't around to interpret and understand it.

What I'm claiming is that morality only requires our interpretation so that we can understand it, and it will continue to do its thing if we aren't around to interpret and understand it. What you use to claim science as objective I agree with and share the same premises about objective morality. I'm claiming morality is a science, specifically that of ordered behavior. It would be a subfield of logic. Those actions/inactions are either compatible or incompatible with each other, making way for an objective system of orderly behavior. So for example, intentionally shortchanging a customer (say, by cutting the jack daniels with water) is incompatible with demanding that when you buy a drink, you don't expect the bar to short you. Essentially, this creates a kind of "justice", and is objective.

 

[Radical]

But objective reality can be tested, as I've already said and you seem to have ignored it. A scientist can make a discovery and other scientists can all do the same experiments and come to the same conclusion, in fact, that's a requirement for proper scientific research. It must be repeatable. So tell us what experiments you want to propose that gets rid of people's inherent biases and desires, as the scientific method does, that will produce the same moral results? No matter where you go on the planet to test gravity, you get the same results. You don't get the same morality everywhere on the planet.

Morality can be tested. Should I take out a loan with no intention of paying anything back? No. Why? That action contradicts the reason the banking system offers loans. If it was acceptable to not pay a loan back, then no one would offer loans. Not paying back a loan contradicts getting a loan.

 

[Cephus]

Morality can be tested. Should I take out a loan with no intention of paying anything back? No. Why? That action contradicts the reason the banking system offers loans. If it was acceptable to not pay a loan back, then no one would offer loans. Not paying back a loan contradicts getting a loan.

How can it be tested when there's no objective standard to test it against? You shouldn't take out a loan like that because they'll come and take you away to jail. You're not arguing morality, you're arguing consequentialism. There's a difference.

 

[Critter7r]

What I'm claiming is that morality only requires our interpretation so that we can understand it, and it will continue to do its thing if we aren't around to interpret and understand it. What you use to claim science as objective I agree with and share the same premises about objective morality. I'm claiming morality is a science, specifically that of ordered behavior. It would be a subfield of logic. Those actions/inactions are either compatible or incompatible with each other, making way for an objective system of orderly behavior. So for example, intentionally shortchanging a customer (say, by cutting the jack daniels with water) is incompatible with demanding that when you buy a drink, you don't expect the bar to short you. Essentially, this creates a kind of "justice", and is objective.

And what I'm claiming is that morality requires humans to be present for it to be able to do its thing. In a universe without humans (or other animals that may exhibit forms of morality), morality ceases to exist. There's no one to shortchange a customer on his whisky order. There's no on to decide that killing a man because he cut you off on the freeway is immoral, but killing a man because he had a gun to your head is not immoral. Or that burning a witch at the stake in 1456 is ridding the world of evil, but doing so in 2015 is intolerable.

 

[Radical]

How can it be tested when there's no objective standard to test it against? You shouldn't take out a loan like that because they'll come and take you away to jail. You're not arguing morality, you're arguing consequentialism. There's a difference.

I actually ripped this example from Immanuel Kant. And I didn't argue consequentialism because I didn't talk about the the end consequence. I spoke only of internal logical contradiction. Under the ethic system I just gave, consequences are irrelevant.

 

[Cephus]

I actually ripped this example from Immanuel Kant. And I didn't argue consequentialism because I didn't talk about the the end consequence. I spoke only of internal logical contradiction. Under the ethic system I just gave, consequences are irrelevant.

Except you did present it as consequentialism by arguing that if you didn't pay back the loan (and by extension, nobody paid back loans), nobody would offer loans. Morality has nothing to do with the consequences.

 

[RAMOSS]

Assist me in the differences in your definitions versus mine. And moreso, explain why there are different truths that may or may not conflict, because that's going to confuse the hell out of me.

Is 'Roses are beautiful' a truth?? To some, yes it is. That is a metaphysical subjective truth, but that is not true for everyone.

 

[Radical]

And what I'm claiming is that morality requires humans to be present for it to be able to do its thing. In a universe without humans (or other animals that may exhibit forms of morality), morality ceases to exist. There's no one to shortchange a customer on his whisky order. There's no on to decide that killing a man because he cut you off on the freeway is immoral, but killing a man because he had a gun to your head is not immoral. Or that burning a witch at the stake in 1456 is ridding the world of evil, but doing so in 2015 is intolerable.

And if there is no matter or energy there is no physics. Does that make science subjective? It's similarly dependent on a subject (the universe) existing.

Also, your version of "objective" morality might not be what people mean by objective morals. Killing is bad in some circumstances and not in others. Self-defense is the most common example. So when is killing bad? It has to do with circumstance, circumstance being external to the subject. Objective morality says the relevant objects are the important pieces for deciding what is ethical and what is not. So death penalty for witchcraft might be fine. Problem is, the woman being burnt better be a witch, otherwise those external relevant objects don't line up just right.

 

[iangb]

And if there is no matter or energy there is no physics. Does that make science subjective? It's similarly dependent on a subject (the universe) existing.

Really?

'Subjective' means it depends on the observer, not on the thing which is observed. Science is the study of the universe, not a study by the universe.

 

[mpg]

Is 'Roses are beautiful' a truth?? To some, yes it is. That is a metaphysical subjective truth, but that is not true for everyone.

There's a significant difference between saying 'roses are beautiful' and saying 'I like roses'. If I say 'I like roses', unless I'm lying, I'm stating a fact about myself, but if I say 'roses are beautiful', I'm stating an opinion about roses, and opinions are neither true nor false.

 

[Quag]

There's a significant difference between saying 'roses are beautiful' and saying 'I like roses'. If I say 'I like roses', unless I'm lying, I'm stating a fact about myself, but if I say 'roses are beautiful', I'm stating an opinion about roses, and opinions are neither true nor false.

In both cases the answer is subjective. You liking roses while it may be true (only you know for sure) is dependant on the subject (you). The same is true if you said roses are beautiful. (again may or may not be true for you).

If I ask: do you like roses? or I ask: are roses beautiful?
The answer in either case is dependant upon the person who answers. As the answer is dependant on the answerer they are in both cases subjective.

 

[mpg]

In both cases the answer is subjective. You liking roses while it may be true (only you know for sure) is dependant on the subject (you). The same is true if you said roses are beautiful. (again may or may not be true for you).

If I ask: do you like roses? or I ask: are roses beautiful?
The answer in either case is dependant upon the person who answers. As the answer is dependant on the answerer they are in both cases subjective.

We agree quite a bit. My enjoyment of roses is an example of subjective beauty, so I know for a fact that subjective beauty exists because I know that I enjoy roses. If I say that roses are beautiful even when no one is looking at them (objective beauty), I'm stating an opinion rather than a fact, because I don't know if it's true or not. Whether or not objective beauty exists, is a matter of opinion. Anyone who thinks it's a matter of fact, is confused.

 

[Quag]

We agree quite a bit. My enjoyment of roses is an example of subjective beauty, so I know for a fact that subjective beauty exists because I know that I enjoy roses. If I say that roses are beautiful even when no one is looking at them (objective beauty), I'm stating an opinion rather than a fact, because I don't know if it's true or not. Whether or not objective beauty exists, is a matter of opinion. Anyone who thinks it's a matter of fact, is confused.

Have to disagree, if you say roses are beautiful even when no one is looking at them it is NOT objective beauty. It remains subjective beauty. There being no such thing as objective beauty.
SUBJECTIVE:

Subjective things depend on your own ideas and opinions: there isn't any universal truth. Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective. What's the best song, band, movie, or TV show? These are all very subjective issues. There's no right answer.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subjective

 

[mpg]

Have to disagree, if you say roses are beautiful even when no one is looking at them it is NOT objective beauty. It remains subjective beauty. There being no such thing as objective beauty.
SUBJECTIVE:

subjective - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

If a flower grows in a forest, and there's no one there to see it, there's nothing subjective about its beauty. If you say that it can't have beauty without anyone seeing it, that's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Quag]

If a flower grows in a forest, and there's no one there to see it, there's nothing subjective about its beauty. If you say that it can't have beauty without anyone seeing it, that's an opinion, not a fact.

Yes the beauty of a flower is always subjective. What isnt subjective is the existence or non existence of the flower.
You are appear to be confusing the term objective and subjective, considering that it has to be directly observed to be subjective. If humanity ceased to exist the concept of beauty would cease to exist, yet the flower may live on.
Of course another form of life may exist that already has or will develop the concept of beauty and it will continue to exist for them and will continue to be subjective.

 

[mpg]

Yes the beauty of a flower is always subjective. What isnt subjective is the existence or non existence of the flower.
You are appear to be confusing the term objective and subjective, considering that it has to be directly observed to be subjective. If humanity ceased to exist the concept of beauty would cease to exist, yet the flower may live on.
Of course another form of life may exist that already has or will develop the concept of beauty and it will continue to exist for them and will continue to be subjective.

Do you agree that there's a significant difference between saying 'roses are beautiful' and saying 'I like roses'?

 

[Quag]

Do you agree that there's a significant difference between saying 'roses are beautiful' and saying 'I like roses'?

Yes there is a difference, but that doesnt make the 2nd statement objective.

They are both subjective statements no matter how you look at it.