Objective Morality

[Delta40]

Can there really be an objective morality?

Isn't all morality subjective?

[Volya]

I suppose I am quite arrogant in thinking this, but I believe my own morals are the only true ones. What I believe is 'right' is right, and what I believe is 'wrong' is wrong.

Speaking impartially though, I don't think there is really any way of telling what is truly good or bad unless you have faith in some kind of higher order such as God or karma or some such thing.

[liza]

deleted

[Delta40]

Speaking impartially though, I don't think there is really any way of telling what is truly good or bad unless you have faith in some kind of higher order such as God or karma or some such thing.

That's hardly impartial though is it? Somebody could say exactly the same thing you just have and then stone a woman to death for getting raped based on that higher order.

I guess that's subjective morality in all it's finery.

[Volya]

I don't quite understand Delta... I do not mean that belief in a higher order is impartial, I mean that if you try and look at it from an impersonal perspective there is really no way of telling right from wrong, they're all just constructs of the mind that are usually shaped by the society we are in rather than being an inherent truth.

[Delta40]

Gotcha.

[MANICHAEAN]

The 'objective' in objective morality simply means independent of any particular person's feelings and value judgments on the moral issue in question. If the rightness or wrongness of acts, motives/attitudes depend on how individuals feel, then morality is hopelessly subjective and everyone has a right to do as one pleases. Objective morality rescues us from this dilemma.

Morality is objective in that it isn't a function of individual or cultural preferences, opinions, or responses. Morality is objective in that it is recognized and discovered rather than invented by humans. Rationally considered, objective morality makes moral dialogue and debate possible, interpersonally, nationally and internationally, and makes sense of moral obligation -- a sense of duty to do what is right and avoid what is wrong.

Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act (where, when, how, with whom, the consequences, etc.) Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised. Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong. Such acts are intrinsically evil acts. The goal, end, or intention is the part of the moral act that lies within the person. For this reason, the intention is the subjective element of the moral act.

[cacian]

I object my honor this is entirely circumstantial ;)
haha only kidding.
morality from morals are subjective. the reason being they implicate a subject ie a he or a she or they a group of people.
the object is entirely obsolete. the sentence of the morals are again according to one's intentions/feelings depending on what is being moralled.
to put moral next to an object is like sentencing a moral and since we know sentencing only applies to a subjects the object is again denied.
for example
the expression ''I object'' that used to support one's subjectivity about a concern/ a subject. It is essentially used to condemn a feeling about something a disagreement and therefore is usually in opposition to a subject.
but one cannot say I subject an object. that sounds incorrect.
to put morality next to objective goes against it and not with it. morality is made of various ideas based on feelings about certain aspects of society. morality deals with humans feelings and attitude. it could not be objective because morality does not form new ideals nor reforms them it placate them instead.
'the object of my desire' for example is cantered around an ideal that is not attainable.
objective morality is denying the moral code because it puts on a idealism that is not attainable.

great topic by the way Delta ! :)

[AuntShecky]

Define "objective," "subjective," and "morality."

[chirpy]

Isn't it possible to understand something is wrong for the sole reason it infringes on a person's rights? Do I need a personal perspective to recognize that taking someone away from their home without their consent is wrong?
Granted reality is complicated. So it is entirely possible Person A is taken from their home without consent is because they did the same to Person B. In that case would objective morality fall apart and subjective morality take the lead?

If I was randomly conceived into being with no memory, basic understanding of existence (let's say "living in the moment" as a system of belief? No past, therefore no future?) and someone made it clearly understood they were going to kill me, would I allow myself to die?
Same set-up except this time the killer is going to kill someone else. Would my reaction change if I viewed the person as "like me" or "not like me"?

Sorry, currently reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

I guess my thought here is objective reality does not exist in humans as individuals, but many individuals could create an objective morality.

@cacian please stop using a rhyming dictionary as a dictionary.

edit:
added "...going to kill me, would I allow myself to die?"

[Delta40]

I don't get it. If the person was in danger and couldn't make a rational decision to escape and save themself, would you say it was still wrong? So it is subjective.

Sorry about my posts but I take a while to catch up so I hope you will humour me.

[chirpy]

I meant to word it in such a way that questioned the victim's motives, not the killer's. Automatically assume killing people is wrong, so I tried to think about the victim instead. It is not the victim's fault if they are killed, but could they be morally wrong for allowing themselves to die? Would objective morality mean ... most of what I've posted in this thread is more than a little insane and probably completely wrong.

[hypatia_]

i don't think the person who has no control over the situation is infringing on a sense of morality.