Objective or Subjective Morality

[Pontifex Maximus]

1. Keep god out of it.

2. I'm not going to take a side, I just want to hear both arguments.

3. I swear if this somehow devolves into an islam thread I will become violent.

Is morality objective or subjective:

Objective: Some actions and behaviors will always be wrong, as determined by the laws of the universe.

Subjective: Morality is determined solely by the individual.

Feel free to criticize, approve of, or elaborate on my definitions of each and argue which is better. If someone makes a great point or redefines my definitions more fully, I will update the OP, so be on your toes. This is a topic that I've been tossed up on for a long time and every time I try to discuss it with classmates they usually don't care.

[Phier]

Morality is subjective, but subjective in such a way that we have evolved the concept that it is objective.

When one leaves this genetically similar subjective morality they are considered mentally diseased, a sociopath, our collective subjective morality as social animals takes on an apparently objective nature.

While the genetics give a basic framework, its subjective to the culture as well but its late and I'll get into it later if need be.

[xcorps]

Morality is a sense of behavior. It is subjective in the perception of the observer. It could be considered objective only in the subjective sense of social mores. So it is still subjective.
Individual morality changes over time, social mores change over time. Both change based on interpertations of behavior, sometimes due to objective realizations of truths not previously known. But it's still subjective.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

I say something is good, you say something is good, and billy ray from that old farme yonder says something is good. These things that are qualified as good, are different.

There are some conclusions you can draw.
1) Some of these qualifications that have been drawn could be illogical, or they haven't been thought through. The person believing them has just been raised to believe them, and these beliefs are open to a critique of their value.
2) Some, or all, are valid opinions. Morality is subjective, and is dependent on where/when/what you are as to what you see. Does that mean that there is a point, time, or thing that has the ability to see infinitely far and thus turn morality into an objective truth? Maybe, maybe not.
3) Some, or all of these 'things' partake of some sense of 'goodness'. They all refer to some idea of goodness, and therefore the definition of goodness would be one that encompasses, and yet also provides framework for, all things that can be described as 'good'. This 'form' of goodness, doesn't need to be the laws of the universe, which, if we follow Plato, would be seen as illusory.

I'm not sure where I stand on it. I like Plato's idea of the forms, but I don't know how well it explains reality, as for some reason that I am not yet aware of, I'm not quite omniscient :S

[black-dragon]

"Morality" as a blanket term for the various moral philosophies that have been developed over the ages is itself neither subjective or objective. It can be both. Examples of subjective morality are plentiful and therefore I won't go into them. But there are also many examples of objective moral systems, such as Objectivism and Rawls' social contract.

An objective morality can arise by simply choosing a reference point that's not based on perception or emotion. You then build on it to create a system of morals. e.g. you can develop a perfectly objective moral system by starting with the statement "any act that increases the production of cake is good". Any arguments over the what constitutes "good", within the confines of this moral system, will be factual, as factors increasing the production of cake are entirely objective.

I think the real questions are; why should we follow any of those moral philosophies and what's the evidence that they are actually true?

[MentshmitT]

Morals are the rules a subject gives itself. Morals are relative to the subject.
When several subjects agree on identical or similar values, then subjective morals turn into ethics.
Ethics are objective in so far as they are always content of discussions between free subjects.
Therefore, ethics are the discursive form of subjective moral value settings.
Laws can reflect morals (free value decisions) and ethics (an open debate about common values) without having to be identical with either.
Laws are objective rules that need to satisfy the requirements of legal frameworks.
Moral, ethics and laws have a revisable nature.

I think the real questions are; why should we follow any of those moral philosophies and what's the evidence that they are actually true?

Moral settings, ethcal debates and common laws require non-arbitrary rationals and explanation to be assertible.

True in relation to morals: That is to reduce choices by excluding those that conflict with the subjective value setting.
True in relation to ethics: That is to describe the best possible goals and rules in relation to common goods.
True in relation to laws: That is to find and to extend the judgements and common rules based on legal frameworks.

Example:
Morals: Don't abuse animals!
Ethics: It should be our goal to preserve biodiversity because we are a part of it.
Laws: The legislator inniates, founds and pays for a grand ape reservation.

[black-dragon]

Moral settings, ethcal debates and common laws require non-arbitrary rationals and explanation to be assertible.

True in relation to morals: That is to reduce choices by excluding those that conflict with the subjective value setting.
True in relation to ethics: That is to describe the best possible goals and rules in relation to common goods.
True in relation to laws: That is to find and to extend the judgements and common rules based on legal frameworks.

Example:
Morals: Don't abuse animals!
Ethics: It should be our goal to preserve biodiversity because we are a part of it.
Laws: The legislator inniates, founds and pays for a grand ape reservation.

I wasn't arguing against objective morality, I was just saying that the real debate lays elsewhere

[MentshmitT]

We are about on the same line. The remark has been made to underline the distinction between the applicable rationals. Besides, we just use different words.

[Gordon Freynman]

There's no such thing as objective morality (by the OP's definition anyways). All morals are subjective. The closest thing you can have to objective morality are morals that are imposed upon us by society, i.e. killing is bad.

[vecordia]

Objective or Subjective Morality

Technically - subjective. Individual and personal, although might be inspired by some common values, basics of good, evil, harm, kill, help, peace, brotherhood, etc.

When we are trying to make it objective, it becomes more like ethics than morality.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

Comrade Wiggum, that seems awfully certain. Is it without a shade of doubt that you know there are no laws of the universe?

Is it not perhaps perceptibly possible for the visible universe and/or your personal experiences are deceiving you? I mean, it could work either way for me, but at least I don't make statements like "all morals are subjective".

I'm just wondering where you're coming from.

[Gordon Freynman]

Comrade Wiggum, that seems awfully certain. Is it without a shade of doubt that you know there are no laws of the universe?

Is it not perhaps perceptibly possible for the visible universe and/or your personal experiences are deceiving you? I mean, it could work either way for me, but at least I don't make statements like "all morals are subjective".

I'm a scientist by heart, so I probably have slightly different definitions of a law than the OP. A "law of the Universe" in my mind is only concerned with physical entities, whereas morals are abstract concepts. That's basically what I meant when I said:

There's no such thing as objective morality (by the OP's definition anyways).

Now, concepts like morals, and what's right and wrong only have meaning when applied to a social environment and/or individuals (you wouldn't question the morality of a black hole swallowing a star, for example). You will never find any two people who have the exact same moral opinions. One may think killing is never right, the other may think killing is right in certain situations, etc. What is seen as right and wrong is entirely up to the subjective opinions of the individual, but those are usually heavily influenced by the pressures of society and law (the legal kind, not the physical ), so IMO the closest thing to "objective morals" are those which are imposed on us by social norms. These however will differ from society to society.

[xcorps]

Morality relates to the well-being of conscious creatures (and yes: that's the only thing it can possibly be about).

Completely false.

You suppose the the morally upstanding priests of Aztec society were concerned with the well being of the slaves and prisoners of war that were sacrificed en masse?

[Phier]

You suppose the the morally upstanding priests of Aztec society were concerned with the well being of the slaves and prisoners of war that were sacrificed en masse?

This gets back to the genetic angle. You have rules for 'outsiders' which are different than rules for you.

Its not moral for you to something to your peer but completely moral to do it to an underling.

If there is one change in the 20th century thats apparent is the information age has made more people empathize with those in the out groups.

[xcorps]

Besides, it's a little bit of a misrepresentation of sociopaths in the first place to think that they simply have a different rulebook in terms of morality.

No it isn't. It's accurate.

From Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition
Diagnostic criteria for 301.7 Antisocial Personality Disorder

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

[Theseus1234]

Subjective Morality. Morals are influenced by personal beliefs and society itself. If our society was centered around murder, most people would have no problem with it because that's what they grew up to accept. In fact, the crazies would be the pacifists.

[xcorps]

I don't think that Phier meant that morality is a genetic trait. I think he meant that the genetic makeup (say white vs black) influences morality as an us-vs-them factor.

[Pontifex Maximus]

All that being said. let me pose a new question:

Is pedophilia wrong (age ages 10 and up, understanding that the definition of pedophilia is the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals, just to have some sort of yardstick)? Is pedophilia wrong if the child in question willingly consents to the sexual relationship? Is the ability to consent to sex a right that governments limit to fit into a perceived moral belief?

Again, I won't be answering.

[Lord Rahl]

I think it's a mixture of both.

Some actions will always be wrong and we can see how that is pretty much universal with humanity. We all have laws against murdering someone, for example. However, if all morals were completely objective then there would be no middle ground or gray area. Every action would be black or white. That's not how a good society works. Objective morality is based on ideals, and while ideals are great, life is never ideal and so basing morals on a universal ideal does not make for the best system of morals. If you wish for a further explanation then I can provide one.

[Elfdude]

I believe in objectivity for morals. If everyone is deriving their morals from a singular equations which everyone understands on even footing then objectivity is approached in the same way science approaches objectivity. There's also objectivity in motivation. If everyone is heading towards the same goal common ground can be reached which implies objective understanding. There's also objectivity in procedure. If everyone proceeds through the same steps it's objective. Unfortunately definition isn't objective enough right now to allow common complete understanding and creating a applicable equation is nearly just as impossible. Communication means understanding, as long as people are capable of misunderstanding each other objectivity is out of reach.