Subjective And Objective Morality

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by InindoHero, Feb 15, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  2. I know. I love Ravi Zecharias.
  3. What time is it?!? It's Epic verbal bitch slapping time :D

    "...I just hope no one absorbs it..."

  4. "People do bad things, therefore subjective morality is bad. This is true regardless of whether those individuals themselves believed in any (either?) type of morality."

    High quality argument, that. This argument makes the assumption that everyone always acts directly according to their personal moral code. That way objectivists can point and claim, "Look! Their subjective morality is flawed!" That's very much like claiming that all people always only ever eat food to directly nourish themselves and nothing more. Ever. And of course there are enough obese people to discredit that. So.

    It's also an argument of convenience. One of the claims advocating objective morality is that because of our inherent sinfulness (from the concept of original sin), any subjective moral code thought up by a human is automatically tainted by this sinfulness and thus evil and flawed. But look, says the objectivist, I have a moral code for you from an outside source! You know, it just happens to be the one that the Unknown Superior Entity Responsible that I personally believe in has come up with. Ain't that a coinky-dink.

  5. *sigh*

    Obligatory mention not to step on other people's feelings/call other people evil

    I have mixed feelings ont he subject of subjective morality. I think some things are subjective (EG: Is it morally wrong to spank your child when he/she misbehaves?), and others are solid (Murder is always wrong).
    It's one of those things that's hard to explain via example, because on a lot of things, people have different perspectives; like, someone might believe there are situations where murder is justified.

    My personal morality boils down to two rules and an addendum

    1: Do all you have agreed to do
    2: Do not encroach upon other persons or their property
    Addendum: Don't be a dick about it.
  6. From a purely philosophical standpoint, let's say that a someone, a divine lawmaker, did in fact create our moral code. Wouldn't we then simply be following HIS subjective morality which he then imposes upon us?

    Put aside what you may believe about religion, and just consider that if our moral code of ethics is imposed or enforced upon us by the individual who created them, and we follow because we trust the lawmaker or we agree that the code of ethics is a good one, that makes them inherently subjective. It doesn't matter who the creator is.

    I assert, and I'm being serious, that all morality is subjective, and relative. There is no such thing as a certain act being universally bad, just as there is no such thing as an act being universally good. The classic example of this is that while we regard the act of killing to be bad, we acknowledge that it's justified if the killing of one prevents the killing of many (like if we could go back in time to kill Hitler, for example). If morality were objective and concrete, this would be paradoxical - under that set of rules, killing is universally bad and therefore the assassin who kills Hitler is just as much of a monster as Hitler is.

    My point is, the universe just is, regardless who or what created us, and the ideas of "good" and "bad" are purely and entirely subjective notions. Whether you believe they came from a divine source or we created them, they are subjective. That's not to say that they're bad - they are designed to, in an ideal world, serve our best interests.
    • Love Love x 1

  7. The problem with that idea is that if you follow that, then it is a preconceived notion that such a law giver is divine to begin with. In other words, it's saying God isn't perfect to begin with. How is an imperfectly moral supernatural force a deity? If God is well, God, well then, he's perfect to begin with.
  8. Unless He's a bit of a dick.

    Or unless He's not as powerful as some claim.

    Or unless He's, as Nietzsche was so fond of saying, dead.

    Or unless He just really doesn't give a shit either way.

    That's the trouble with God: you can't take something that exists outside of the known laws of the universe and start saying "well he must be this".
    #9 Grumpy, Feb 16, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Pastafarian here not understanding why being the christian god would make a being perfect.
    Especially given that the christian god (particularly old testament) is really into smiting, pillars of salt, torture, rape, and murder. Doesn't strike me as all that perfect morality.

    Now, the FSM has a great code of morality, but I'm not saying it's perfect nor objective. He is an imperfect being (especially when it comes to beer) but hey, he's a kind and loving god who has an awesome heaven, and I think that's enough for me without perfection. ^^
  10. Wil Wheaton says, "Don't be a dick."
  11. I don't understand all this subjective vs objective morality stuff. >>

    I like the "don't be a dick" philosophy. o__o Morality is something made up by people so there can be order, right? And the rules of morality are always going to change as our culture changes. Whether we're influenced by religion, or science, or cool books, or cute puppies.

    But there are definitely instinctual rules that we know deep down are good/bad. Killing is only for survival. Take someone's stuff, you're gonna get bitten. Don't pee on your neighbor's territory.

    Everything else is complicated. D:
    • Like Like x 1
  12. In my subjective opinion, Mr Zecharias here is boiling down massive dimensions of social, political and cultural upheaval. Yes, the 20th Century was bloody. But is this simply the outcome of Objective vs Subjective meta-morality?

    I do not think so. Religion is an idea, like countless others. It has been used to justify atrocities, just like the other ideas that don't happen to include a Deity. Nazism had a god figure. Communism had a god figure. The basic construction is the same. Religion is simply a highly evolved and sophisticated arrangement of ideas with elements held sacred, elements held allegorical and elements held esoteric.

    The real evil, in my opinion, is ignorance. Blind adherence. If you follow something with your heart and not your mind, you may fall over and break something.

    With greater education comes a greater leveling of mankind's extremes. I believe in the power of the internet, in social enlightenment and universal education. With this we can stop the conformism that bred the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Red Terror, and all those other crimes we could talk about ad nauseam.

    Just look at this thread. No one wants to come to this thread with an ill-informed idea. We are STRIVING to make good arguments and avoid embarrassment. This is not a mob. This is not a congregation. This is the very act of enlightenment, right here. Thinking - really thinking about things before we type them out for the world to see.

    This thread proves that subjective morality is being constructed and applied to the supreme effect of making us LESS LIKE CUNTS.

    I would take this thread, sprinkled with the sounder advice of my ancestors, and hold it as my Guiding Ethos, rather than a book written and interpreted by men who never lived to see this day.

    God would approve. If He does not... then He is not God.
    • Like Like x 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.