• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Is morality objective or subjective?

Subjective or objective.


  • Total voters
    6

Daemonic

Registered Member
I will give my answer in detail later but want to hear other views first.
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
It seems to me that morality is either objective or it effectively doesn't exist.

Morality is how you should act. If it's subjective, then doesn't that mean that there is no way you SHOULD act, only ways you feel like acting?
 

EllyDicious

made of AMBIGUITY
V.I.P.
For the most part morality is subjective.
I can't find any argument about why morality would be otherwise.

How is it objective Wade? If the Bible/a friend tells you that it's immoral to have pre-marital sex does it actually make you immoral for real just because you've had sex before marriage??

Though there are a few moral standards that we all approve of. For example stealing is immoral, killing also...etc.
But still, the killers/thieves don't think so. They see it as something normal.

So that's why everyone has their own standards of morality and this (mostly) makes it subjective.
 

Fire

Registered Member
Thought experiment: Does morality exist without the human mind?

I wonder if those of you stating that it is 'for the most part' subjective are actually referring to a state of moral relativism, whereby it depends on circumstantial or environmental factors or is simply formulated by a culture (which could also apply as being environment or circumstantial).

Another question: Does this universe require humans to exist? Do humans require the universe to exist? It's not a co-dependency. If humans went extinct, the universe still goes on.

In short, there is no objective morality because the universe is apathetic and humans are subjective creatures in mind.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
I've got too much to say on the issue to give a proper answer. I usually say that morality is subjective, though, due to my preference for people evaluating situations in accordance with their own moral compass, as opposed to looking to external rules. I consider the later to create too much of an all-or-nothing situation when you have a lot of people turning to the same source for what should be done, and also to result in ethical systems too broad to handle the complexities and nuances found in real-life scenarios.

My own moral views are not really derivable from any set of ethical axioms I can conceive of, and so it is difficult for me to personally see how what I consider right and wrong to be intrinsic to events themselves. Some would likely see that as a flaw in my views, but I mostly agree with Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines[,]" though I am more charitable than Emerson in my assessment of people who do show a greater concern for consistency than I do.
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
For the most part morality is subjective.
I can't find any argument about why morality would be otherwise.

How is it objective Wade? If the Bible/a friend tells you that it's immoral to have pre-marital sex does it actually make you immoral for real just because you've had sex before marriage??
If the Bible tells you it's immoral, and IF the Bible is correct, then it does mean that one action you took was immoral (which isn't necessarily to say you're any more or less moral than anyone else, since everyone's committed immoral acts according to the Bible).

Though there are a few moral standards that we all approve of. For example stealing is immoral, killing also...etc.
But still, the killers/thieves don't think so. They see it as something normal.

So that's why everyone has their own standards of morality and this (mostly) makes it subjective.
There have been cultures that were okay with theft or murder. And there are killers and thieves who acknowledge that what they're doing is wrong, but they don't care.

Here's the thing - if something is immoral, that means it's wrong for someone to do it. If morality were subjective, that means it's not right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. It's quite possible that there is no morality - that there's only peoples' opinion.

I'm not saying that certain actions are objectively moral or immoral - I'm saying if they're moral or immoral, they have to be objectively that way.

(Also, if even one aspect of morality is objective, then morality is objective. For example, let's say that murder is the only thing that is objectively wrong. That would mean murder is the only thing that morality cares about. If you steal, that's not moral or immoral - it's just someone's opinion)
 
Last edited:

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
Wade8813 said:
Here's the thing - if something is immoral, that means it's wrong for someone to do it. If morality were subjective, that means it's not right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion.
We can distinguish between moral relativism and subjectivism. The later can be interpreted as no more than the position that morality involves some necessary subjective component. Which is really what makes the question so difficult to answer. It's vague. Also, even by the standards of moral relativists, things are right and wrong. They're just right and wrong relative to an individual, culture, etc. The belief that there is no right and wrong is moral nihilism.
 

Daemonic

Registered Member
I beleive it is subjective, I don't believe there is any one figure that has the authority to decide what is moral for every person. Each individuals sense of morality is based on things such as their environment, beliefs, and life experience.

Being subjective doesn't mean a group of people can't decide on a set of certain morals that can be commonly agreed on to best benefit society. In the end though a persons sense of morality and immorality depends on their sense of perception. So I would say it is completely subjective.
 

EllyDicious

made of AMBIGUITY
V.I.P.
If the Bible tells you it's immoral, and IF the Bible is correct, then it does mean that one action you took was immoral (which isn't necessarily to say you're any more or less moral than anyone else, since everyone's committed immoral acts according to the Bible).
First off, there's nothing/no one to tell that the Bible is correct and there will never be anything to tell that.
And IF it were correct, it would be for those who believe in it. Not for those who don't. So still, it's subjective.

If morality were subjective, that means it's not right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. It's quite possible that there is no morality - that there's only peoples' opinion.
People's opinion is what makes their morality. If I think that something is right [though to some others could be wrong] it's because that's how I was raised and that was the morality I was taught/am used to have.

I'm saying if they're moral or immoral, they have to be objectively that way.
You want them to be that way but the fact is that they are NOT.

For example, let's say that murder is the only thing that is objectively wrong.
I have reservations about this. Even within the objective morality, there's still some part of if that is subjective.
Let's suppose. If someone kills your sister and you know that killing is wrong [and we are objective about this], you think that taking revenge in the same way could be right. So you go and kill the person who killed your sister because you think that was the right way to condemn that person.
On the other hand, some others would say this would be wrong because he has to be jailed, not killed.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
First off, there's nothing/no one to tell that the Bible is correct and there will never be anything to tell that.
And IF it were correct, it would be for those who believe in it. Not for those who don't. So still, it's subjective.
Unless, of course, it's correct.

If it's correct, that means that "every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord".

And even if we wouldn't ever know, that doesn't change the reality of the objectivity. IF it's true, then all of the morality presented in it is true. And anyone who doesn't follow it is wrong, even if they don't believe in it.


People's opinion is what makes their morality. If I think that something is right [though to some others could be wrong] it's because that's how I was raised and that was the morality I was taught/am used to have.
If I think Green is the best color, and you think Blue is, if there's no objective answer, then neither of us can be right or wrong.

Morality requires there to be a right or wrong. If there's no objective answer, there can't be a right or wrong.

You want them to be that way but the fact is that they are NOT.
Is that a fact? Or is it just your opinion? How can you know for sure that morality doesn't exist objectively?

I have reservations about this. Even within the objective morality, there's still some part of if that is subjective.

Let's suppose. If someone kills your sister and you know that killing is wrong [and we are objective about this], you think that taking revenge in the same way could be right. So you go and kill the person who killed your sister because you think that was the right way to condemn that person.
On the other hand, some others would say this would be wrong because he has to be jailed, not killed.
But the fact that I feel one way about revenge, and someone else feels another way, has no bearing on whether or not one of us is right.

If morality is objective, then there would be an objective answer to whether killing in revenge is okay or not.

Let me use another example - let's look at a real life example from history. Ptolemy believed that the earth is the center of our solar system. Copernicus believed the sun is. They can't both be right, it's impossible. Despite the fact that both have an opinion, this isn't a subjective issue. There is an objective truth (that the sun is the center), and Ptolemy is objectively wrong.
 
Top