Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheJayspyder

Subjective Morality?

17 posts in this topic

So I discovered this "definition" for Morality on Urban Dictionary.

 

A word that is quite subjective, given that everybody has different morals. To say that some one can do "good", Good must first be defined. An act of moral goodness in one persons eyes may be abhorrent in anothers. To assert that one is a moral person would require that some definition of good be a universal constant, and due to the fact that everyone has different morals, we are left with few options. 
A.solipsism 
B.There are no morals
 

 

Thoughts, guys? Girls? Is everything really subjective? Should anything truly be strong and sure in life? Is a person who considers themselves ethical a solipsistic person, who denies reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just don't violate anyone? The non-violation principle. Don't hurt anyone. Dont' steal from anyone. It's rather simple, really. I think the essential morals are self-evident. Some things can be debated, true. Most can't.

 

Edit: The one thing I'd say that is very subjective is our likes in regards to things like food and what we look for in a girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement, thereby invalidating its own existence.

 

Yeah. Truth is objective.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oooh!  I would love to respond to this one, but I'm afraid I'll write a book!  ....

How about this for a summary...

I believe that Truth is unchanging with or without the existence of the world.  I also believe that morality is part of that Truth.  Truth is in existence whether we comprehend it or not.  And I truly believe that the values of WTM are based highly on morality. 

Now, I know this is a highly debated topic since morality is so abstract.  If it weren't, we wouldn't learn the MANY different theories on morality in philosophy class.  This philosophy of Truth is one I have determined in my life. 

Look at society, morality is always changing from person to person, from group to group, from era to era.  But this morality I speak of comes from within, from goodness, from intuition.  And therefore, once enlightened and understood, one may discover morality to be unchanging. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's the way I see it as a christian everything is subjective to us it's true we are fickle people but even if we don't know exactly everything there are certain moral codes that are a correct. I think people change it to suit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality is subjective, but I find many moral beliefs are near universal, such as don't murder, don't steal, things of that nature. Other topics are subjective, such as WTM. I consider WTM to be highly moral, others couldn't care less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I dont believe in moral relativity, I am an objective moralist. I believe in an objective, transendent moral law giver (God), without which morals become arbitrary and subjective, so one persons BAD can be another persons Good. It all depends on the current flavor of society at the moment.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am entirely convinced that moral relativism is one of the primary things afflicting and killing the West. Good can triumph over evil, but only when parents teach their children objective moral lessons like the responsibility that comes with power and delayed gratification.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in objective morality especially since even moral relativity has some absolutes such as the "don't hurt anyone" approach. With pure moral relativity the "don't hurt anyone" can be rebutted to accommodate some different cultural rituals where other people are actively hurt. I think moral relativity can cause more harm than good since in my opinion a person would have to be amoral to be truly relative since there is at least one absolute such as no killing or harming others. There is also the lack of a concrete set of morals so "morals" are whatever society dictates at the moment. I believe in the judeo-Christian God and the Bible and the morals laws that God gives encompasses everyone of all cultures. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in objective morality especially since even moral relativity has some absolutes such as the "don't hurt anyone" approach.

 

True moral relativity means everything is relative and it doesn't matter what you do. I do not agree that authentic moral relativity encompasses this concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True moral relativity means everything is relative and it doesn't matter what you do. I do not agree that authentic moral relativity encompasses this concept.

I'm talking about those who say they are moral relative but still have that one absolute. I stated a little on in my post about how true moral relativity would mean amorality:

With pure moral relativity the "don't hurt anyone" can be rebutted to accommodate some different cultural rituals where other people are actively hurt.

With 100% pure (not just some of my college peers trying to act all "enlightened") relativity even the usual absolute of "don't hurt anyone" couldn't be used. 

I guess I did not make the distinction clear when talking about authentic moral relativity vs. modern/Almost moral relativity

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jayspyder, if morality is subjective, then what hitler did to all those people in the concentration camps is no different then me eating an ice cream sandwich on a Wednesday afternoon.

There are many reasons why morality has gone down in the west but for morality to have any true meaning it has to be objective, or else it becomes arbitrary, meaning one persons good is another persons bad.

Morality has gone down in the west primarily because of moral relativism.

The "don't tell me what's wrong, because it feels right to me " era is in full swing. Naturally there are other factors even from people that believe in objective morality (the lack of agape love within friends and family, the breakdown if the family unit etc etc), but I feel strongly that moral relativism is the primary reason.

Wanna see true moral relativity in action. Move to Hollywood lol.

The honest logical,conclusion is that if morality is subjective that one mans evil might be another mans good and no one can tell them otherwise in a morally relativistic society.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about those who say they are moral relative but still have that one absolute. I stated a little on in my post about how true moral relativity would mean amorality:

With pure moral relativity the "don't hurt anyone" can be rebutted to accommodate some different cultural rituals where other people are actively hurt.

With 100% pure (not just some of my college peers trying to act all "enlightened") relativity even the usual absolute of "don't hurt anyone" couldn't be used. 

I guess I did not make the distinction clear when talking about authentic moral relativity vs. modern/Almost moral relativity

In a true morally relativistic society why is " don't hurt anyone" wrong? If morality is subjective then there are many reasons that a morally relativistic person can come up with to hurt people, such as population control, less people equal less resources and less fighting over resources etc etc. I have seen many people that claim to believe in moral relativism themselves act in an objectively moral way.

I remember one such person I was in a debate with. I asked him why he thought killing people was wrong.

He responded with "isn't it obvious?"

I said its obvious by my worldview but it makes no sense from a morally relativistic point of view.

He got my point. We never talked a out it again lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jayspyder, if morality is subjective, then what hitler did to all those people in the concentration camps is no different then me eating an ice cream sandwich on a Wednesday afternoon.

There are many reasons why morality has gone down in the west but for morality to have any true meaning it has to be objective, or else it becomes arbitrary, meaning one persons good is another persons bad.

Morality has gone down in the west primarily because of moral relativism.

The "don't tell me what's wrong, because it feels right to me " era is in full swing. Naturally there are other factors even from people that believe in objective morality (the lack of agape love within friends and family, the breakdown if the family unit etc etc), but I feel strongly that moral relativism is the primary reason.

Wanna see true moral relativity in action. Move to Hollywood lol.

The honest logical,conclusion is that if morality is subjective that one mans evil might be another mans good and no one can tell them otherwise in a morally relativistic society.

 

You're right, and I never bought the Urban Dictionary definition I posted. To me, it just sounded like some degenerate lout trying to justify their own crappy choices. Thanks for stopping by.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality is objective. There is an absolute right and wrong. This thing about "evil is a point of view" is a load of nonsense. :P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a true morally relativistic society why is " don't hurt anyone" wrong? If morality is subjective then there are many reasons that a morally relativistic person can come up with to hurt people, such as population control, less people equal less resources and less fighting over resources etc etc. I have seen many people that claim to believe in moral relativism themselves act in an objectively moral way.

I remember one such person I was in a debate with. I asked him why he thought killing people was wrong.

He responded with "isn't it obvious?"

I said its obvious by my worldview but it makes no sense from a morally relativistic point of view.

He got my point. We never talked a out it again lol

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it couldn't be used because that phrase is objective within itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it is much more rational to believe in an objective morality (that some things really are wrong independent of human culture or preferences) than in subjective morality (the view that ethics is ultimately invented by humans). That just seems to me to be a basic presupposition that seems good to start with. From that, it seems to me that sex outside marriage is objectively not morally appropriate; this may be controversial, but there are some moral propositions that are just basic in a way that one just starts with them. It's hard to argue that sex outside marriage is not morally appropriate just like its hard to argue that hurting people is wrong or that incest is wrong. So, I guess that's why I'm trying to be sexually restrained--but it's just wee bit hard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0