Morality: Objective or subjective?

[Skyler]

Questions for debate:

Is morality objective or subjective? Can we know either way?

Definition of terms:

morality: Differentiation between right and wrong

objective: An entity is objective when it exists independent of whether or not someone believes it.

subjective: An entity is subjective when it only exists if someone believes in it.

[olavisjo]

You simply have no objective way to demonstrate the behavior was inherently wrong, as opposed to just wrong now, which isn't enough to claim "morality is objective".

I am not trying to prove that morality is objective so much as I am trying to get you to see that morality is not subjective. If morality were subjective you could not condemn the following practices and would have to say...

* Cannibalism is permitted if you think it is morally correct.
* Raping two-year olds is acceptable if that is part of your cultural tradition.
* Brutalizing your wife is understandable if that is part of your ethical system.
* Castrating young boys is permitted for the sake of your cultural heritage.
* Torture is a morally accepted part of your criminal justice system.
* Human sacrifice is allowed as part of your religious system.
* Certain groups defined as unwanted by your society can be destroyed.
* There is no such thing as a war crime; it's in the eye of the beholder.
* Adolf Hitler should not be judged as morally reprehensible since he was acting lawfully.
* Josef Stalin was not acting immorally when he killed millions of innocent people.
* The suicide bombers of September 11, 2001 were acting properly in their own interests.
* Anything goes. Anything goes. Anything goes. We cannot judge.

Since moral relativism leads us to such absurd conclusions we must assume that it's opposite is true. (or should I say more true?)
And if morality is objective in these extreme cases, there is no reason to believe that it is not objective in the more subtle cases.

False. You're the one claiming an answer is sought after. To me, the answer is that morality is a dynamic concept, which evolves in the society that defines it, and in a broad temporal scope, has no fixed criteria.

Anything goes. Anything goes. Anything goes. We cannot judge.

[Beto]

You simply have no objective way to demonstrate the behavior was inherently wrong, as opposed to just wrong now, which isn't enough to claim "morality is objective".

I am not trying to prove that morality is objective so much as I am trying to get you to see that morality is not subjective. If morality were subjective you could not condemn the following practices and would have to say...

This a straw man. "Subjective morality" does not lead to the "non-condemnation" of such practices in our society. It merely acknowledges that "morality" is dynamic, which is why one can speak of "Aztec morality", that was neither wrong nor right. It was as it was. Right now, according to the criteria of my community, these practices are condemnable, which is not to say they are INHERENTLY wrong in a broad temporal scope. Ignore this distinction all you want, but I'll remind readers of it whenever it's necessary.

[olavisjo]

"Subjective morality" does not lead to the "non-condemnation" of such practices in our society. It merely acknowledges that "morality" is dynamic, which is why one can speak of "Aztec morality", that was neither wrong nor right. It was as it was. Right now, according to the criteria of my community, these practices are condemnable, which is not to say they are INHERENTLY wrong in a broad temporal scope. Ignore this distinction all you want, but I'll remind readers of it whenever it's necessary.

Sounds like you are saying that morality is objective, but changes with time and culture.
Like the speed of light is objective, but a hundred years from now it may be different than it is today, but still "the speed of light".
Either way morality is not made up by humans, it is discovered by humans.

[msmcneal]

If morality was not objective there would be no point having courts to judge innocence or guilt, it would all be the whim of those in power that would decide all cases.

The purposes of courts is not to judge what is moral and what is not, but to judge whether one has committed an immoral act or not. However, I see your point, but I would say the opposite is true.

Let me give another example: polygamy.

In the USA, polygamy is against the law. One can be tried for polygamy and sent to jail for it. Now, most Americans are Christians, who believe that polygamy is a sin. This is a moral of the USA. Now, in Saudi Arabia, polygamy is not against the law. Most Saudis are Muslim, which Islam believes a man can marry up to four wives. If morality were objective, then one of these has to be wrong and immoral. Now, the Christians here will obviously say the Muslims are wrong. But why? Besides your own religious preferences, what makes their morality, in fact, immoral? They could counter with something along these lines: "Males have a stronger sex drive, and are more likely to cheat on their wife. Limited polygamy at least partly solves this problem by allowing man to have more than one wife." This is not illogical to think this way. If morality is objective, then which is of these two scenarios are right, and why?

[olavisjo]

If morality is objective, then which is of these two scenarios are right, and why?

Don't ask the Muslim or Christian but rather ask yourself. How would you feel if your wife went out and brought home three more husbands for your household.

[msmcneal]

Don't ask the Muslim or Christian but rather ask yourself. How would you feel if your wife went out and brought home three more husbands for your household.

The question was aimed at those who believe that morality is objective. I don't.

[olavisjo]

Don't ask the Muslim or Christian but rather ask yourself. How would you feel if your wife went out and brought home three more husbands for your household.

The question was aimed at those who believe that morality is objective. I don't.

May I assume that you would not mind living with three more husbands for your wife, besides yourself?

Also may I assume that you agree with all the following...

* Cannibalism is permitted if you think it is morally correct.
* Raping two-year olds is acceptable if that is part of your cultural tradition.
* Brutalizing your wife is understandable if that is part of your ethical system.
* Castrating young boys is permitted for the sake of your cultural heritage.
* Torture is a morally accepted part of your criminal justice system.
* Human sacrifice is allowed as part of your religious system.
* Certain groups defined as unwanted by your society can be destroyed.
* There is no such thing as a war crime; it's in the eye of the beholder.
* Adolf Hitler should not be judged as morally reprehensible since he was acting lawfully.
* Josef Stalin was not acting immorally when he killed millions of innocent people.
* The suicide bombers of September 11, 2001 were acting properly in their own interests.
* Anything goes. Anything goes. Anything goes. We cannot judge.

If you do not agree with these things then you do hold that at least those morals are objective, and you would expect all people to know that, and therefore also hold those morals.

[msmcneal]

I believe that morality evolves, because I believe morality is a product of evolution. I don't believe in objective morality, so I'm going to answer your moral questions point by point. I have the ability to see things from another persons point of view. So I can see how some of your points might have been acceptable under certain circumstances. I also agree with Beto's anaylisis of your questions. Hopefully, then you will answer my question, instead of dodging it. If you can't answer it, then fine, but at least admit it.

*Cannibalism is permitted if you think it is morally correct.

This is one of those things that have evolved. Some ancient cultures practiced it, so had I lived in one of those cultures, I would have no problem with it. Today, we have evolved some, especially in morality, so I would have to say I disagree with it today.

*Raping two-year olds is acceptable if that is part of your cultural tradition.

Is this hypothetical? I'm unaware of any culture that has ever believed such a thing. However, I would have to completely condemn this.

*Brutalizing your wife is understandable if that is part of your ethical system.

Like the last point, I would have to whole-heartedly disagree with this one.

*Castrating young boys is permitted for the sake of your cultural heritage.

While I would disagree with this one, I can understand how it would be necessary in certain cultures/situations.

*Torture is a morally accepted part of your criminal justice system.

Gitmo. Abu Ghraib. I think it's reprehensible, but it does still happen here.

*Human sacrifice is allowed as part of your religious system.

If I was an Aztec living a thousand years ago, or a Celt living 3-4 thousand years ago, I would have no problem with this. This is one of those things you don't see or hear of much, if it all, today. So, I would agree with this one had I lived in a different time period or culture, but we've evolved a bit, and realize today that it's absurd.

*Certain groups defined as unwanted by your society can be destroyed.

Without trying to break the rules of the board, I can agree with this one under certain circumstances. I won't go into details, for sake of the rules, but I can understand this one.

*There is no such thing as a war crime; it's in the eye of the beholder.

That's the nature of war. War is a necessary evil, unfortunately, at times, but I never quite understood the concept of "war crimes".

*Adolf Hitler should not be judged as morally reprehensible since he was acting lawfully.

Genocide is evil. However, there are still groups who practice and believe in it today. I don't ever think it's ok, and it's about the most atrocious crime there is, on a world scale. But according to who's laws was he acting morally? His own. So there was no real law involved.

*Josef Stalin was not acting immorally when he killed millions of innocent people.

Same as with Hitler.

*The suicide bombers of September 11, 2001 were acting properly in their own interests.

Did the Islamic terrorists have a right to come here and do what they did? Absolutely not. But I can understand the outcry of Muslims in the Middle East who do not want democracy and westernization. Most are happy with fiqh and shari'ah. And we have no right to go over there and change that, just because we might disagree with them.

*Anything goes. Anything goes. Anything goes. We cannot judge.

Didn't Paul say "everything is permissable for me, but not everything is beneficial"? I don't believe anything goes. I believe we have to look at each situation, and judge what is the proper response, and that might change from situation to situation. Again I'll reiterate what I did at the first; morality evolves, and what might have been commonly accepted morality a thousand years ago may not be today. This is the nature of evolution, at least from a moral viewpoint. I don't think it's possible to sit down, write out a set of moral codes, and strictly abide by them, because situations change that might require one of those codes to be broken for the betterment of ourselves, our family, or our society. So a moral code that was effective 2000 years ago might have been fine then, but not today. Read your Bible. God was pretty good at breaking the morals that he gave to his followers. This should at least partly show that a strict moral code cannot be strictly enforced without, at least at times, doing harm to someone, and unnecessarily at that. Which is why I believe in subjective morality and moral relativity and situational ethics.

[Beto]

Don't ask the Muslim or Christian but rather ask yourself. How would you feel if your wife went out and brought home three more husbands for your household.

The question was aimed at those who believe that morality is objective. I don't.

May I assume that you would not mind living with three more husbands for your wife, besides yourself?

Also may I assume that you agree with all the following...

* Cannibalism is permitted if you think it is morally correct.
* Raping two-year olds is acceptable if that is part of your cultural tradition.
* Brutalizing your wife is understandable if that is part of your ethical system.
* Castrating young boys is permitted for the sake of your cultural heritage.
* Torture is a morally accepted part of your criminal justice system.
* Human sacrifice is allowed as part of your religious system.
* Certain groups defined as unwanted by your society can be destroyed.
* There is no such thing as a war crime; it's in the eye of the beholder.
* Adolf Hitler should not be judged as morally reprehensible since he was acting lawfully.
* Josef Stalin was not acting immorally when he killed millions of innocent people.
* The suicide bombers of September 11, 2001 were acting properly in their own interests.
* Anything goes. Anything goes. Anything goes. We cannot judge.

If you do not agree with these things then you do hold that at least those morals are objective, and you would expect all people to know that, and therefore also hold those morals.

Why do you insist on making this transition? It doesn't logically follow. It's a non-sequitur, and an appeal to emotion, and who knows what else. I FEEL a certain way about these behaviors because society AT THIS POINT in time molded my SENSE of morality this way. If you agree with the expression "sense of morality" you agree with the subjectivity of morality. Don't presume to tell me I would feel this way or that way about a certain behavior if morality was subjective. You can't possibly know how people feel about certain behaviors. You can make educated guesses based on where they live and based on the standards of their community. You cannot KNOW, and that's what makes "morality" subjective. Only I know how I feel about a behavior.

[Nilloc James]

I feel tha morality changes.

For example the Atzecs had human sacrifice as part of their culture. It was amoral NOT to go aginst it.

All morallity is, if following the social norms of the society you are in.