Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Is Morality Subjective?

19 posts in this topic

I come down on the same side as the "morality is subjective" person, for pretty much the same reasons. It's not particularly something I like to think about too often, but it is the truth as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If morality is subjective, then we can never say that what Hitler did was evil. All we can say is, he did something we didn't like, and went against the consensus of today's society. We can't condemn the actions of those societies in history that sacrificed their children. To be intellectually honest, we'd have to concede, "Well, we today think it's wrong, but they thought it was okay, and neither of our cultures is ultimately more or less correct."

 

I think when people actually think about the implications of what subjective morality means, they at least don't want to believe it. All of our instincts tell us that things like genocide and human sacrifice are always wrong, regardless of what society thinks about them, and that anyone who says they're morally okay is not just of a different opinion but is in fact gravely mistaken. If morality is subjective, then nothing is right or wrong, and there are no good or evil acts.

 

(This would be a good topic for Controversial, once it's up and running!)

 

xxx

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(This would be a good topic for Controversial, once it's up and running!)

 

I was thinking the same thing!

 

I think when people actually think about the implications of what subjective morality means, they at least don't want to believe it. All of our instincts tell us that things like genocide and human sacrifice are always wrong, regardless of what society thinks about them, and that anyone who says they're morally okay is not just of a different opinion but is in fact gravely mistaken.

 

I think I recall you saying something about the existence of Hell that more or less describes my feelings about subjective mortality; it was to the tune of, just because you don't like the idea of it, doesn't mean that it isn't true. I do think that humans have evolved to generally have a base morality, which more or less boils down to: don't kill or otherwise mess too much with the people in your tribe. We are a social species, and we would have killed each other off a long time ago if we didn't have a certain inherent drive to get along.

 

I would guess that the fact that this inherent 'morality' doesn't involve the 'other tribes' is probably why we see so much atrocity done to groups thought of as 'outside' of a given dominant group (such as centuries if not millennia of women being men's legal property, slavery, the various English-spin-off-colonies/countries slaughtering indigenous populations, the Holocaust, and so, so much more throughout the entirety of human history).

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(This would be a good topic for Controversial, once it's up and running!)

 

 

i feel like alot of my posts would be good for controversial xD

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If morality is subjective, then nothing is right or wrong, and there are no good or evil acts.

 

Right. It's like claiming there is no absolute truth. That in and of itself is an absolute truth and it is self-refuting. The fact is that if nothing is right or wrong, then there is no inherent value in anything we do in life. It's all meaningless in the end and the only thing left is survival. But even that implies a sense of objective morality because it is a basic instinct for every human being to fight for survival. From something as simple as eating dinner in the comfort of your own home to drinking your own urine in the middle of a desert, you value your life because you believe it has meaning. The preservation of life, however you want to define it, is the universal standard of objective morality and that is where we have to begin.

 

Life itself and how it originated defines what is right and what is wrong. The creation account according to the Christianity, the creation account according to Hinduism or the belief that we simply evolved from a single cell organism cannot all simultaneously be true. There is simply no room for subjectivity when it comes to the origin of life. Either there is a God or there isn't and if there is, only one religion's view on God can be correct. Therefore, the correct God's teachings are objectively true and any other teachings are objectively false. I can't imagine any supreme deity thinking it's okay to believe in other false gods. So when someone claims that God exists or claims He doesn't exist, they are proclaiming an objective moral truth. Only one of them can be correct and the other has to be objectively wrong. Even if evolution is true, then we are still bound by the morality of survival. If there is no right or wrong, then preserving life is neither right or wrong. Yet it is instinctual for every living creature to give everything to ensure survival. That strongly implies a universal right from wrong.

 

I know I probably repeated myself multiple times here. lol. As you can tell, I'm not the most articulate person especially when you have me talking about philosophy and ethics.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy 101 thread right here.  There is really no "right answer" that we can prove. 

But my answer is NO, morality is not subjective.  Morality is REALIZED.  It is a matter of wisdom and not knowledge.  From living a long life, we can observe the lessons life brings to us.  In those reflections, we can conclude that morality does seem to benefit us as individuals on a deeper level, conscious and subconscious.  Thus, morality is not subjective because it does not seem to change over time or in contexts, but the realization of morality and subsequent consequences are what change.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe morality is subjective either. Good explanations so far so I don't need to duplicate.

I believe there is an absolute moral standard but within that are certain subjective elements that relate not so much to the morality of an action but to its ultimate consequences. For example, in the bible sin is the transgression of the law and the penalty of sin is death. But I believe that for God to punish sin there is somewhat of a subjective element involved in how the person committed the sin. Did they know they were committing sin? Should they have known? Is it a case of wilful blindness? Did God work on their hearts but they rejected his leading? As such I believe that there will be many people in heaven that don't exactly share my understanding of the moral standard if thEir beliefs have a necessary genuineness about them. Thus I believe that someone who has never heard of the bible but has genuinely followed their belief system can very well be saved but that is the domain of God in his ability to judge the heart. I also believe that certain controversial issues that may not be defined as sin (at least not contemporarily) in the bible (e.g. Eating unclean meats and abortion.....treading on eggshells here!) can take on that nature depending on its practice. E.g. If you believe eating pork is a sin and you eat pork you will have taken the same rebellious steps against God as if you had transgressed an actual moral law.

I think a concern with accepting a non-subjective morality is in its enforcement on nonbelievers. We see that in the Christian and non-Christian religions especially in the issue of combination of church and state. Briefly said, while I do believe in a non-subjective moral standard I absolutely reject the union of church and state as well as legal moralism and moralistic legal paternalism. If anyone wishes I am willing to elucidate but for now I'll leave it at that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems to be. There are some very mean people out there who put on a big smiley face and everyone thinks they're morally right, but really they're just very good at hiding the bad things they've done :/ or distract from them, or are so smiley that everyone chooses to forget the bad things they do day to day. So other people think they're a nice happy person. But you and other victims know they're a right *******. But the other people think being smiley is more important that actually caring about people and sacrificing your time for others, so they think they're morally right, but you think you're morally right because you know a little work and sincerity now amounts to a better world later... Does this make any kind of sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Even if evolution is true, then we are still bound by the morality of survival. If there is no right or wrong, then preserving life is neither right or wrong. Yet it is instinctual for every living creature to give everything to ensure survival. That strongly implies a universal right from wrong.

 

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It's a natural phenomenon. Saying that evolution dictates any kind of right from wrong is like saying that I'm morally obligated to push people off of bridges because gravity exists. And, while living creates will give everything to ensure that their genes survive (which doesn't mean it's morally right -- it simply means that the creatures that did not exhibit that behavior died out), it's pretty hard to argue that most living creatures act in a way that we would call moral or ethical.

 

I believe that there are things that are factually true or untrue, but that doesn't translate into believing in an absolute morality. Even if I did believe in a deity, I don't think that would make me believe in an objective morality (as God's opinion on right/wrong is really just that -- another opinion, one that I might disagree with very strongly). And I can live a life that has meaning *to me* even if I don't think it has any *objective* meaning.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It's a natural phenomenon. Saying that evolution dictates any kind of right from wrong is like saying that I'm morally obligated to push people off of bridges because gravity exists. And, while living creates will give everything to ensure that their genes survive (which doesn't mean it's morally right -- it simply means that the creatures that did not exhibit that behavior died out), it's pretty hard to argue that most living creatures act in a way that we would call moral or ethical.

 

I believe that there are things that are factually true or untrue, but that doesn't translate into believing in an absolute morality. Even if I did believe in a deity, I don't think that would make me believe in an objective morality (as God's opinion on right/wrong is really just that -- another opinion, one that I might disagree with very strongly). And I can live a life that has meaning *to me* even if I don't think it has any *objective* meaning.

 

Gravity is an neutral and observable fact, preserving life is a matter of ethics. Pushing people off bridges (and likely leading to their deaths) is simply using gravity as a tool to violate said ethics. The law of gravity is simply part of physics, not an tenet of a moral code. Observable facts do not dictate morality. But we do have a consciousness and regardless if it comes from God or out of thin air, it is telling us that preserving life has value. If that has no objective meaning, then we are not much different from robots, let alone have to cognitive ability to even contemplate ideas like morality.

 

Moral absolutism doesn't necessarily dictate that certain acts are right or wrong (because you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons). It simply asserts that moral absolutism exists. Here's an example, lets assume for a minute that the existence of God has been undeniable proven by science. We do have the choice to agree or disagree with Him, but in the end it's irrelevant. He created you and I and the rest of the universe therefore His will is above ours whether we like it or not. If He is powerful enough to create all things, then it follows that His capacity to understand what is right and wrong is infinitely higher than our own. Just like if you have children. You brought them into this world and you have much more wisdom and intelligence than they do so your rules for how they behave are law, regardless of whether they agree or not.

 

Furthering the idea of moral subjectivity, one's own moral code will inevitably clash with another in a profound way. Let's you believe that traffic laws should be obeyed because it's for safety, but the guy driving behind you thought they were unnecessary and just slow people down. He could ignore them and try to go around but ends up rear ending you and causing an injury or even death. Would you say he was in the wrong? After all he was simply acting under his own moral code and you with yours. But then one might modify their position and say, "people can have their own morals except if it harms others." Well that presents a whole new set of issues. First, it still sets "harming others" as a universal moral standard so again, it's self refuting because it's defining what is right and what is wrong. Secondly, how does one define "harming others?" One person might say feeding the poor is noble and good, but another may say it's harming their personal growth because it enables them to complacent. Thirdly and perhaps the most damning, is that it's an idea and like every idea, it seeks to convert. By design, you are asserting that your belief is the correct one and that others should live by the same standard. It is an idea that forces people to believe in not forcing their own beliefs on to others. To take it even further, what if another person believes in forcing their their beliefs on others? Well we can't say that person is wrong because the original premise was that there is no objective morality and people can find their own. You may call that person close minded or intolerant, but at least they are consistent in maintaining there is an objective truth.

 

So moral subjectivity taken to it's logical conclusion leads to chaos and confusion. Without a universal standard to guide us right and wrong, there would be no order, compassion or justice. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity is an neutral and observable fact, preserving life is a matter of ethics. The law of gravity is simply part of physics, not an tenet of a moral code. Observable facts do not dictate morality. But we do have a consciousness and regardless if it comes from God or out of thin air, it is telling us that preserving life has value. If that has no objective meaning, then we are not much different from robots, let alone have to cognitive ability to even contemplate ideas like morality.

 

And evolution is much like gravity in the sense that it is an observable, natural phenomenon, with no moral implications. As part of our evolutionary process, people have developed a base morality, one that probably roughly translates to, 'don't kill or otherwise mess too much with people in your own tribe, and take special care of your family.' However, there are plenty of other species that don't highly value preserving their own, or other creature's lives, so long as they are able to effectively pass on their genes -- objectively, neither is more meaningful, or more right or wrong, and many paths can lead to an effective survival strategy.

 

Here's an example, lets assume for a minute that the existence of God has been undeniable proven by science. We do have the choice to agree or disagree with Him, but in the end it's irrelevant. He created you and I and the rest of the universe therefore His will is above ours whether we like it or not. If He is powerful enough to create all things, then it follows that His capacity to understand what is right and wrong is infinitely higher than our own. Just like if you have children. You brought them into this world and you have much more wisdom and intelligence than they do so your rules for how they behave are law, regardless of whether they agree or not.

 

My father is a piece of crap excuse for a human being. I disagreed with him and his outlook when I was a kid, and I do now. The fact that he brought me into this world did not make him more wise than me, and it did not oblige me to obey the messed-up things he asked of me. It certainly didn't make the things he wanted more moral than the things I wanted. When I have kids, I hope they won't believe that everything I want is right simply because I created them; I hope that they will challenge me, and that I will learn new things from them. If God were irrefutably proven by science, I'd sure have a few fightin' words for him/her/it/them. I'd probably feel 'morally' (haha) obligated to go to hell, on principle. 

 

Let's you believe that traffic laws should be obeyed because it's for safety, but the guy driving behind you thought they were unnecessary and just slow people down. He could ignore them and try to go around but ends up rear ending you and causing an injury or even death. Would you say he was in the wrong? After all he was simply acting under his own moral code and you with yours.

 

If I thought it was inherently wrong to force my beliefs on the rear-ender because there is no inherent morality -- well, that would be espousing an inherent moral belief, wouldn't it? The nice thing about true moral nihilism is that the flip side of not believing in an objective morality also means that I see no problem with creating laws and a justice system, even if I acknowledge that they are inherently subjective. The world is 'better' -- as in happier and more cooperative  --  when we have order, compassion, and justice, so why would I *not* want to have those things?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And evolution is much like gravity in the sense that it is an observable, natural phenomenon, with no moral implications. As part of our evolutionary process, people have developed a base morality, one that probably roughly translates to, 'don't kill or otherwise mess too much with people in your own tribe, and take special care of your family.' However, there are plenty of other species that don't highly value preserving their own, or other creature's lives, so long as they are able to effectively pass on their genes -- objectively, neither is more meaningful, or more right or wrong, and many paths can lead to an effective survival strategy.

 

 

My father is a piece of crap excuse for a human being. I disagreed with him and his outlook when I was a kid, and I do now. The fact that he brought me into this world did not make him more wise than me, and it did not oblige me to obey the messed-up things he asked of me. It certainly didn't make the things he wanted more moral than the things I wanted. When I have kids, I hope they won't believe that everything I want is right simply because I created them; I hope that they will challenge me, and that I will learn new things from them. If God were irrefutably proven by science, I'd sure have a few fightin' words for him/her/it/them. I'd probably feel 'morally' (haha) obligated to go to hell, on principle. 

 

 

If I thought it was inherently wrong to force my beliefs on the rear-ender because there is no inherent morality -- well, that would be espousing an inherent moral belief, wouldn't it? The nice thing about true moral nihilism is that the flip side of not believing in an objective morality also means that I see no problem with creating laws and a justice system, even if I acknowledge that they are inherently subjective. The world is 'better' -- as in happier and more cooperative  --  when we have order, compassion, and justice, so why would I *not* want to have those things?

Darn ipad crashed the browser so I need to retted - how im is my broken pc!

I must disagree with your version of evolution in every sense. I believe you may be confusing the term with similars like natural selection, adaptation, and speciation ( see https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-vs-evolution/ for dis ambiguities). As a bible believer evolution presents profound moral implications as it is completely incompatible with its teachings. Thus strongly disagree with those who try and combine the two- not possible! Darwinian evolutionism also serves to support atheism which arguably provides at least a foundation for a belief system.

I also did not really like the comparison between parents and god though it did make a valuable point. But your critique makes the error of attempting to compare god with human agency. I once discussed with an atheist who couldn't believe in the idea of an omniscient god because not even the CIA knows everything about even just one person! Arguing this topic with an atheist/aGnostic is largely limited because they don't/rarely accept the same premises of god as believers do. As in gods word is law, what he speaks is, it's impossible for god to lie because his words have creative power and that we humans are completely dependent on god for every millisecond of our life (though some believe in the natural immortality of the soul....). Thus while we can follow our own understanding of morality, and I believe the Christian god give us free will to do so, this does not mean that he is obliged to recognise it as such and to continue giving us life when we rebel against his authority and love. From a Christian perspective the law of god will be the only moral law ultimately that we are judged by and thus the only relevant one. God and sin (ie following a different moral code that conflicts with gods) cannot coexist eternally so every person will eventually either be in heaven or dead for eternity (note I don't believe in the eternally tormenting hell but that's a different topic!).

You make it sound like an objective morality is somehow inconsistent with a government system or even a secular government system. Just because their is a objective morality doesn't mean that it should be forced on ppl. I make a VERY clear distinction between my political philosophy and moral philosophy. This goes towards my previous topics mention of moral legalism and moralistic legal paternalism. God does not value forced obedience/"conversion". Moral action that is not valued as such by the actor is not valid as such for the actor. As for justice, it would be the subjective justice of whoever's morality is enforced by law....I could go into how state law according to various legal philosophies (esp derrida's deconstruction) is incapable of achieving justice but I will desist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And evolution is much like gravity in the sense that it is an observable, natural phenomenon, with no moral implications. As part of our evolutionary process, people have developed a base morality, one that probably roughly translates to, 'don't kill or otherwise mess too much with people in your own tribe, and take special care of your family.' However, there are plenty of other species that don't highly value preserving their own, or other creature's lives, so long as they are able to effectively pass on their genes -- objectively, neither is more meaningful, or more right or wrong, and many paths can lead to an effective survival strategy.

 

That base morality according to your description is still the universal standard because that is how we as a species naturally developed. It all comes back to the origin of life argument I stated. If we evolved from a single cell organism then our carnal instinct to survive is the moral code we live by. That kind of code isn't concerned with the methods of survival as long as it is achieved. In addition, anyone believes in this origin of life are by default forced to make an objective moral statement that the existence of a deity and by extension many of their teachings to be wrong.

 

My father is a piece of crap excuse for a human being. I disagreed with him and his outlook when I was a kid, and I do now. The fact that he brought me into this world did not make him more wise than me, and it did not oblige me to obey the messed-up things he asked of me. It certainly didn't make the things he wanted more moral than the things I wanted. When I have kids, I hope they won't believe that everything I want is right simply because I created them; I hope that they will challenge me, and that I will learn new things from them. If God were irrefutably proven by science, I'd sure have a few fightin' words for him/her/it/them. I'd probably feel 'morally' (haha) obligated to go to hell, on principle. 

 

I'm sorry to hear that. Every child deserves to have loving parents. I suppose it was my fault for not clarifying by saying loving parents. But even so I admit that the comparison between God and humans wasn't very effective to begin with. But my point was that at least on a basic level, we are guided by a higher authority that shapes who we are today.

 

 

If I thought it was inherently wrong to force my beliefs on the rear-ender because there is no inherent morality -- well, that would be espousing an inherent moral belief, wouldn't it? The nice thing about true moral nihilism is that the flip side of not believing in an objective morality also means that I see no problem with creating laws and a justice system, even if I acknowledge that they are inherently subjective. The world is 'better' -- as in happier and more cooperative  --  when we have order, compassion, and justice, so why would I *not* want to have those things?

 

See there lies the contradiction. If there is no inherent value in anything, why do we even bother with striving for things like justice and compassion at all? It's all pointless in the end anyways, right? What you are essentially implying is that since laws and justice are subjective, it doesn't really matter whether we punish a rapist or just let him walk free. In the end, he was just doing what he thought was right. Yet you ask "Why would I *not* want to have those things?" That very question demonstrates you believe in a common good and that these things are worth fighting for. If there was no objective morality, how could we even come up with ideas like compassion and justice in the first place? It certainly cannot come from relying our most primal instincts to survive because it is motivated entirely by self interest. The very idea of morality at all has to suggest the existence of a higher power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must disagree with your version of evolution in every sense. I believe you may be confusing the term with similars like natural selection, adaptation, and speciation ( see https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-vs-evolution/ for dis ambiguities). As a bible believer evolution presents profound moral implications as it is completely incompatible with its teachings. Thus strongly disagree with those who try and combine the two- not possible! Darwinian evolutionism also serves to support atheism which arguably provides at least a foundation for a belief system.

 

Hoo boy, I only skimmed it, but that article is wrong about...pretty much everything. I tried to find a rebuttal to it (since I don't have the time to type one up right now, and getting too into it would probably derail this thread anyway), but I kept getting directed to the debate between Bill Nye and the Answers in Genesis founder...but you could check that out, if you want. It's very long. On a side note, I'm honestly a bit confused as to why evolution is always pegged as the theory that either makes or breaks biblical truth...the way I see it, there are a ton of other historical/scientific theories that seem to contradict a literal reading of Bible as well (even the Bible contradicts itself). I always feel kind of sorry for evolution, getting so picked on! And I wouldn't say evolution inherently supports atheism. It could be completely possible that an atheist would find evolution to be an incomplete or lacking theory, and go off in search of a better one. Since atheism is just a lack of belief, it doesn't really say much about what you *do* believe.

 

That base morality according to your description is still the universal standard because that is how we as a species naturally developed. It all comes back to the origin of life argument I stated. If we evolved from a single cell organism then our carnal instinct to survive is the moral code we live by. That kind of code isn't concerned with the methods of survival as long as it is achieved. In addition, anyone believes in this origin of life are by default forced to make an objective moral statement that the existence of a deity and by extension many of their teachings to be wrong.

 

Perhaps we are getting our definitions of universal crossed. When I say universal, I think of it as having to apply to the entire universe. As in, it would have to be some kind of natural force or law that we see enacted everywhere, in every planet, solar system, and galaxy, much like gravity. When I look at the universe as a whole, I see no signs of morality. We could (and one day will) die out as easily as the dinosaurs, and it wouldn't be any grand tragedy on a universal scale, just like an individual strain of Lactobacillus dying in India wouldn't be particularly sad. Entire planets, stars, solar systems are snuffed out on a regular basis, and it doesn't really matter. Our own planet will be one of the ones that is snuffed out, eventually. And the universe itself, along with everything living and non-living in it, will all end eventually, likely in a fairly nonchalant way. I don't see any evidence for universal morality in all that, which is fine by me.

 

I suppose I don't see how saying there is or is not a God is making a moral, rather than a factual statement. 

 

See there lies the contradiction. If there is no inherent value in anything, why do we even bother with striving for things like justice and compassion at all? It's all pointless in the end anyways, right? Yet you ask "Why would I *not* want to have those things?" That very question demonstrates you believe in a common good and that these things are worth fighting for. 

 

Because, simply, "If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is." So what if it's all pointless in the end? If I'm not getting an afterlife, nor am I ever going to be remembered for any significant amount of time after I'm dead, then why *wouldn't* I want to make my existence here, now, as awesome as possible? And why wouldn't I want to do the same for other people, whose existence is just as transient as mine? I'm not working towards any end; I'm working for the *now*.

 

If there was no objective morality, how could we even come up with ideas like compassion and justice in the first place? It certainly cannot come from relying our most primal instincts to survive because it is motivated entirely by self interest. The very idea of morality at all has to suggest the existence of a higher power.

 

Actually, I think our sense of morality *is* the result of our survival instincts. Some creatures -- creatures that live short, isolated lives and produce a ton of offspring who are pre-programmed with all they need to know to survive -- they get by pretty well on pure self-interest. Human babies? They need a ton of help. They literally can't even lift their own heads for the first many months of their lives. If we weren't programmed to feel a strong sense of love and devotion to our young, we'd be pretty screwed as a species. And by the same token, we typically don't live very isolated lives. We live in groups. These groups enable us to survive really effectively when faced with obstacles that are stronger than we are (not an uncommon occurrence, given our lack of sharp teeth and claws). However, they would never be able to work unless we had an inherent desire to get along with and help each other out (hence, compassion), and punish members who are damaging the common good (hence, justice).

 

Objectively, neither the self-interest nor the group survival strategy is inherently 'righter' than the other, but I do believe that our group survival strategy is where the innate sense of morality in most human beings comes from (with the exception of psychopaths, who likely had their development of that inherent morality hindered somehow).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, morality is an objective feature of the world and natural law morality is the only sensible ethical system (aside from appeals to biblical special revelation/scripture, which is compatible and complementary with it anyway). But it can be hard to see that if you abandon classical metaphysics and embrace a mechanistic view of nature like the early modern philosophers (e.g. Descartes) did. All the moral confusion we are witnessing now is a direct result of the abandonment of an essentially Aristotelian worldview (perfected by medievals like Thomas Aquinas), especially the final causes. If nature is nothing but random, directionless, purposeless particles, then it certainly becames hard or impossible to build an absolutist ethics, but if the world is filled with purpose and teleology from top to bottom (which it is), then it follows logically.

Besides, even modern science is basically incomprehensible without something like an Aristotelian worldview. Such basic notions as regular causation that science itself presupposes and takes for granted don't really make sense under the modern worldview, unless you do like Newton and other early scientists and make a direct theological appeal to "laws of nature" that God uses to impose order on otherwise dead, inert matter (interestingly enough, talking about "laws of nature" is now something secularists, completely unaware of its theological origin, do precisely to explain why you don't in fact need God, which is hilarious). Not the right approach in my view, but it would take more than one post to explain all the reasons.

The roots of disbelief in God, of materialism in philosophy of mind, and of ludicrous moral systems (whether utilitarianism, Kantianism or subjectivism) can all be traced back to the early moderns' rejection of the classical, essentialist, teleological worldview, started way back in Ancient Greece and painstakingly developed further by the medieval Scholastics. Once you get rid of that, most importantly of the Aristotelian final cause (which is one of the four causes), you open the door to philosophical nonsense and we're seeing the full-blown effects of it now.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe "morality" is objective. ( quotation marks here because it goes by many names )

I wouldn't say it can even be subjective, by definition, as the distinction between right and wrong . It's either there or it isn't. And if it isn't, nothing is ultimately right or wrong, at which point "subjective morality" i.e. personal opinions attempt to separate right and wrong (but why/how, since nothing ultimately is right or wrong). Likewise on the other hand, if something ultimately is right or wrong, then how can it be subjective?

Still, that doesn't prove whether or not morality itself is true. In the case morality is not true, I completely understand why people would repurpose the meaning of it, and conclude that "morality is subjective". However, I am in the belief that morality is true.

Instead of myself trying to explain my observation, I'll refer to C.S. Lewis, who does a fantastic job explaining it.

(While I'm at it let me mention that this is from a series of doodles along old recording of his book Mere Christianity, and I can highly recommend watching the rest as well!! Also for you atheists / non-christians out there as it's not just about Christianity, you might catch some interesting points. He also goes deeply into the subject of WtM and does a very thorough job at it :D )

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to correct a mistake that I realized in my sentence.

On 26/8/2017 at 9:00 PM, Peter said:

... if it isn't, nothing is ultimately right or wrong, at which point "subjective morality" i.e. ... (...).

It ends abrupt, but I meant to end it with pointing out that this case doesn't make sense.

Either there is a morality, in which case we cannot decide it. Or there is none, in which case it does not make sense to call anything wrong or right.

It is like trying to determine who is closest to point A, without having determined where point A is (or if it even exists).

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