ty
Meteorite
Posts: 33
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 0:40:57 GMT -5
Post by ty on Dec 5, 2010 0:40:57 GMT -5
Do you think morals are objective or subjective? Why?
I personally can't quite decide for myself...I'd probably say both dependent on the circumstances
|
|
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 0:44:54 GMT -5
Post by Lex on Dec 5, 2010 0:44:54 GMT -5
Subjective, but objective in a sense. For example: ending another person's life is detrimental to the human race.
Also, emotions and empathy are another huge factor.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 1:17:09 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on Dec 5, 2010 1:17:09 GMT -5
morals?.....(googling.....).......hahahahahaha, that's stupid...
|
|
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 1:54:19 GMT -5
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 1:54:19 GMT -5
I had to go look up the definitions of objective and subjective to e able to clearly distinguish the two.
Examples of Objective and Subjective Objective – scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data. Subjective – opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
With that in mind, I don't see how we could really argue that morals are objective.
Think of Hitler :=| He didn't share our morals over killing.
I think he believed exterminating millions of people was a moral act for the Aryan race. Although he could have in actuallility just ignored his conscience. But then you think of medieval times and the Middle East and Africa. When you think of these people, you probably don't think they have the same morals as us, killing was/is a common act.
Also, if morals were objective they'd be static, never-changing. That would mean that the morals of early humans would be the morals of us modern humans. Clearly this isn't the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 7:03:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2010 7:03:06 GMT -5
As I see not many people are understanding what this question about morals (and ethics) is, I'll explain each detail the best I can.
First, objective and subjective: Something is objective when it is universally applied, it doesn't change from person to person. A fact is objective because if it is true for one person it is true for everyone (you can't say "For you the moon is real, but I don't believe there is a moon, so for me there is no moon" and be correct). If 2 people say contradicting things regarding facts (or any other objective thing), one of them is wrong.
Something is subjective when it can't be universal. When something can be true for one person, and a lie for another (for example, a person might like cheese, but another one might not, and both are correct), then you have something subjective.
The question is whether morals and ethics (which are slightly different, but we'll ignore that) are objective or subjective.
If ethics is objective, then it means that there is only one correct ethical code, and that anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. If ethics is subjective, it means every people can have different ethical codes and still be correct.
Both theories have many problems. In objective ethics, we have the problem of not knowing which are and are not the correct ethical codes, even having two radical and opposite opinions on even how to reach to an ethical command (see utilitarianism and deontological ethics in Wikipedia). In subjective ethics, we have the problem of being unable to judge anyone, because it is possible for people to genuinely believe it is acceptable for them only to be selfish, or for them only to steal or kill without any good reason.
That is what I leave you with to debate. Think wisely.
UPDATE: Gameboob, one thing tough, if morals/ethics are objective, they would be static, but that doesn't mean we would have the same morals since we appeared, it would mean we adopted different possibly right and possibly wrong visions on morals and ethics and that we got closer or further away from the correct true morals and ethics.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 10:43:01 GMT -5
Post by newschooled on Dec 5, 2010 10:43:01 GMT -5
Everyone perceives morals a little differently. I've known people who actually thought being gay was an 'immoral lifestyle choice'.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 16:10:20 GMT -5
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 16:10:20 GMT -5
Gameboob, one thing tough, if morals/ethics are objective, they would be static, but that doesn't mean we would have the same morals since we appeared, it would mean we adopted different possibly right and possibly wrong visions on morals and ethics and that we got closer or further away from the correct true morals and ethics. But if morals are objective wouldn't that mean they aren't a choice, wouldn't you be born with them? Because if you can adopt different morals they would be subjective. Unless you know that these adopted morals aren't right, then they would clearly be immoral. But killing in medieval times was done in the name of God. But killing today, in many countries, is considered immoral... so that shows these different morals were both seen as the right morals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 16:29:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2010 16:29:39 GMT -5
Gameboob, one thing tough, if morals/ethics are objective, they would be static, but that doesn't mean we would have the same morals since we appeared, it would mean we adopted different possibly right and possibly wrong visions on morals and ethics and that we got closer or further away from the correct true morals and ethics. But if morals are objective wouldn't that mean they aren't a choice, wouldn't you be born with them? Because if you can adopt different morals they would be subjective. Unless you know that these adopted morals aren't right, then they would clearly be immoral. But killing in medieval times was done in the name of God. But killing today, in many countries, is considered immoral... so that shows these different morals were both seen as the right morals. Objective doesn't mean existence or lack of choice, or something being hardwired. It simply means that if there is a disagreement, one (or both) people might be wrong. If morals are objective, but not hardwired, being instead reachable trough human reflexion (for example), then your assumptions don't apply.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 5, 2010 16:54:27 GMT -5
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 5, 2010 16:54:27 GMT -5
But subjective means 'by choice'. If you choose your own morals (and believe in them) then they are by definition subjective.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 17, 2010 15:44:04 GMT -5
Post by nicolii on Dec 17, 2010 15:44:04 GMT -5
My own personal belief is that while many people would like to think that morals are subjective, they are truly objective.
For example, it took people a while to figure out that slaves were bad. But I am almost positive that if people really listened to their consciousness, they would understand the true difference between good and bad.
*brings out English homework*
St. Thomas Aquinas said, "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
Martin Luther King said, "An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is a difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."
Civil rights are moral because they uplift human personality. Killing is unjust because it degrades human personality.
People really know the difference between right and wrong... They just don't always choose to follow it, especially if they turn to some sort of evidence "proving" that they are right. It is just plain mean, and insulting to humanity.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 17, 2010 16:30:53 GMT -5
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Dec 17, 2010 16:30:53 GMT -5
I really don't think the southern farmers 140 years ago truly believed in their hearts that enslaving the blacks was immoral, maybe some minority did, but I'm sure the majority believed blacks didn't deserve much better. It was their way of life, they were born and raised that way.
In the same way that man has gone to war since the beginning of civilization. I would venture a guess that the majority of these men and their leaders didn't believe they were fighting and killing immorally.
Even nowadays, the American boys and men that went overseas to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq probably believed they were killing these terrorists in the defence of freedom. And what about those "terrorists" on the other side? They must be thinking that what they're doing is in the name of defending something they believe in.
|
|
|
morals
Dec 17, 2010 17:35:25 GMT -5
Post by stephen5000 on Dec 17, 2010 17:35:25 GMT -5
The concept of morality is a human construct, so I don't see where an objective morality would come from or frankly what it would even mean. Really, what does it mean for an action to BE objectively morally wrong (or right)?
We can look to evolution and the like for the source of what we might call moral laws, but that doesn't actually justify them as being objectively correct.
And of course, there is much evidence to suggest that morality is subject as given in examples by people above.
|
|