Is morality objective or subjective?

[The United American Social Republic]

I personally believe it is 100% subjective. I'm a strong agnostic atheist in that I believe that there is and will never be evidence of a deity's existence, and because of lack of evidence, I believe a deity doesn't exist. Because of this, along with their being naturalistic explanations as the driving cause of what we consider the ethical thing to do, I believe morality is entirely subjective to a specific set of circumstances. I believe that morality comes from evolution as a way of surviving, which is what I think most atheists and nonreligious people believe. Religious people seem to be more split on the issue, with many saying that God is the ultimate authority of morality and his word is law, but others argue that even with God, morality is still subjective based on human nature (though these theists are more like deists mostly).

I also believe that even if God does exist, his word on ethics is not the objective or correct opinion of them. His opinion is only right because people believe it to be right. But if God said that murdering a baby was the right thing to do, I would completely disagree with that.

[The Holy Therns]

'Zjust a bunch of perspectives. Entirely subjective.

[Prezelly]

For one thing, agnostic and atheist contradict each other. Sorry just bugged me.
But I agree with you on the Morality issue and all

[Costa Fierro]

All humans are born with a basic concept of right and wrong. This has actually been proven after studies of 8 month old babies. However, society builds upon that basic concept of right and wrong and further defines it according to societal or religious doctrine.

[Tekania]

For one thing, agnostic and atheist contradict each other. Sorry just bugged me.
But I agree with you on the Morality issue and all

Depends on the type of atheist, actually... so they are not necessary contradictory (theist and agnostic is not contradictory either).

It would be contradictory to explicit atheism, but it would not be contradictory to implicit atheism.

There is no direct correlation because agnosticism deals with a philosophical point that neither relies on the existence nor non-existence of an divine being/god/entity... but rather deals with a philosophical thought of the know-ability of such an entity.

On the thread topic:
Morality is subjective and based on particulars and circumstances.

[Quintium]

Dividing things into 'right' or 'wrong' is something nearly all humans do. But what constitutes 'right' or 'wrong' is largely determined by a person's society. I've always maintained that people who claim "we all want the same things in life regardless of where we are from" and that there are basic values that we all share should explain to me why there are societies where human sacrifice is considered morally good, where sending your children to blow themselves up in a bus is considered the second-highest form of bravery for a woman, and where killing those who disagree with you is considered a good thing.

[Threlizdun]

As self-aware sentient beings are the only entities within the universe capable of holding a conceptualization of the self to bear witness to the events of the universe and feeling the consequences of actions as an individual being, they are the only entites within the universe to which morality could reasonably apply. With that realization established, the only sensible basis for morality is the promotion of something to which all self-aware sentient beings would have a stake in, and the one matter which holds universal importance is of the wellbeing of these self-aware sentient beings. Wellbeing, generally accepted as being the combined totals of happiness, health, and prosperity, has actiosn that promote it or detract from it. The ability of specific actions to promote wellbeing can be objectively determined through scientific inquiry, and therefore the moral weight of these actions can be determined. With all of this in mind, it appears that if the very notion of morality is to hold any meaning whatsoever, then it must be accepted as objective.

[The United American Social Republic]

For one thing, agnostic and atheist contradict each other. Sorry just bugged me.
But I agree with you on the Morality issue and all

No they don't. Atheism has two different meanings: active rejection in God (which does outright contradict agnosticism), and lack of belief in God (which doesn't at all contradict agnosticism). I personally prefer the second definition, though I understand why people would get confused by something like that.

[The United American Social Republic]

For one thing, agnostic and atheist contradict each other. Sorry just bugged me.
But I agree with you on the Morality issue and all

Depends on the type of atheist, actually... so they are not necessary contradictory (theist and agnostic is not contradictory either).

It would be contradictory to explicit atheism, but it would not be contradictory to implicit atheism.

There is no direct correlation because agnosticism deals with a philosophical point that neither relies on the existence nor non-existence of an divine being/god/entity... but rather deals with a philosophical thought of the know-ability of such an entity.

On the thread topic:
Morality is subjective and based on particulars and circumstances.

Yeah, it seems like some people believe atheism = active rejection of God while others (like me and you) just think it = lack of belief in God. Both of them are technically correct, though I'd agree that rejection = explicit and lack of belief = implicit/agnostic.

[Pope Joan]

I served 20 years as a pastor. Based upon my experience, those who are most vehement about claiming moral absolutes are themselves the most highly subjective.

It's a pity, because they only weaken their own cause.

[The United American Social Republic]

All humans are born with a basic concept of right and wrong. This has actually been proven after studies of 8 month old babies. However, society builds upon that basic concept of right and wrong and further defines it according to societal or religious doctrine.

But do those concepts come from somewhere in particular, or are they just the product of our evolutionary path? Is there an ultimate right and wrong?

[Kelinfort]

Personally, I'm a moral nihilist. Humanity itself invented morality. That of course doesn't mean we should act with total abandon at other people's expense, but it does mean that morality itself isn't a concept that was codified when time began.

[Threlizdun]

All humans are born with a basic concept of right and wrong. This has actually been proven after studies of 8 month old babies. However, society builds upon that basic concept of right and wrong and further defines it according to societal or religious doctrine.

But do those concepts come from somewhere in particular, or are they just the product of our evolutionary path? Is there an ultimate right and wrong?

It's irrelevent really. Our evolution has led to the rise of specific tendencies in how we treat others. Some of those have grown rather outdated since our move into global societies while others remain important. We can still find the capacity to act morally just the same.

[The United American Social Republic]

As self-aware sentient beings are the only entities within the universe capable of holding a conceptualization of the self to bear witness to the events of the universe and feeling the consequences of actions as an individual being, they are the only entites within the universe to which morality could reasonably apply. With that realization established, the only sensible basis for morality is the promotion of something to which all self-aware sentient beings would have a stake in, and the one matter which holds universal importance is of the wellbeing of these self-aware sentient beings. Wellbeing, generally accepted as being the combined totals of happiness, health, and prosperity, has actiosn that promote it or detract from it. The ability of specific actions to promote wellbeing can be objectively determined through scientific inquiry, and therefore the moral weight of these actions can be determined. With all of this in mind, it appears that if the very notion of morality is to hold any meaning whatsoever, then it must be accepted as objective.

It doesn't have to be accepted as objective, just agreed upon by a majority even if everyone also agrees that it is subjective to their situation. Even if they did accept it as objective, I'd still argue it's subjective and just because a majority says otherwise doesn't make them correct.

[Threlizdun]

Personally, I'm a moral nihilist. Humanity itself invented morality. That of course doesn't mean we should act with total abandon at other people's expense, but it does mean that morality itself isn't a concept that was codified when time began.

Of course humans invented morality. There is no other being on this planet with the capable intelligence of inventing it. That means nothing about whether it is objective or subjective. Absolute morality is not the same thing as objective morality. Morality as a human invention can be just as meaningful, if not more meaningful, than that established through some sort of universal force.

[Threlizdun]

As self-aware sentient beings are the only entities within the universe capable of holding a conceptualization of the self to bear witness to the events of the universe and feeling the consequences of actions as an individual being, they are the only entites within the universe to which morality could reasonably apply. With that realization established, the only sensible basis for morality is the promotion of something to which all self-aware sentient beings would have a stake in, and the one matter which holds universal importance is of the wellbeing of these self-aware sentient beings. Wellbeing, generally accepted as being the combined totals of happiness, health, and prosperity, has actiosn that promote it or detract from it. The ability of specific actions to promote wellbeing can be objectively determined through scientific inquiry, and therefore the moral weight of these actions can be determined. With all of this in mind, it appears that if the very notion of morality is to hold any meaning whatsoever, then it must be accepted as objective.

It doesn't have to be accepted as objective, just agreed upon by a majority even if everyone also agrees that it is subjective to their situation. Even if they did accept it as objective, I'd still argue it's subjective and just because a majority says otherwise doesn't make them correct.

It would be objective however, as we would be able to prove it. We have already proven the effects of many actions on human society. We know slavery is detrimental to happiness, health, and prosperity for example, and from there we can determine that it is wrong as it detracts from wellbeing. That wouldn't be an opinion, but a fact.

[Pope Joan]

Personally, I'm a moral nihilist. Humanity itself invented morality. That of course doesn't mean we should act with total abandon at other people's expense, but it does mean that morality itself isn't a concept that was codified when time began.

That could also fit with existentialism. We make up our meaning as we go along; we discover it through our actions.

Paolo Friere and Myles Horton said "We make the road by walking".

https://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/804_reg.html

As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "The free deed knows itself as guidance".

http://books.google.com/books?id=q7pyQw ... ce&f=false

In other words, existential freedom.

[Alcase]

Morality is subjective. You can't even debate that...

[Pope Joan]

Morality is subjective. You can't even debate that...

Hush up, son.

This is NSG..

We can debate anything, the force of gravity, whatever, until the mods say "stop".

[Silent Majority]

I am by no means an expert in meta-ethics, but I do feel the need to point out that "divine command" theories like the one detailed in the OP are subjectivist ethical theories.

[Conscentia]

It's subjective in the sense that it's arbitrary.

[Stovokor]

All humans are born with a basic concept of right and wrong. This has actually been proven after studies of 8 month old babies. However, society builds upon that basic concept of right and wrong and further defines it according to societal or religious doctrine.

Proof? Also how can you claim that within those 8 months they haven't been influenced by their parents? I am referencing feral children as my counter argument.

[Conscentia]

All humans are born with a basic concept of right and wrong. This has actually been proven after studies of 8 month old babies. However, society builds upon that basic concept of right and wrong and further defines it according to societal or religious doctrine.

No. All humans are born with basic emotions.

[The United American Social Republic]

It doesn't have to be accepted as objective, just agreed upon by a majority even if everyone also agrees that it is subjective to their situation. Even if they did accept it as objective, I'd still argue it's subjective and just because a majority says otherwise doesn't make them correct.

It would be objective however, as we would be able to prove it. We have already proven the effects of many actions on human society. We know slavery is detrimental to happiness, health, and prosperity for example, and from there we can determine that it is wrong as it detracts from wellbeing. That wouldn't be an opinion, but a fact.

But the idea that thing that detriment happiness, health and prosperity are wrong is subjective, therefore any arguments that are based off of it must also be recognized as subjective.

[The United American Social Republic]

Morality is subjective. You can't even debate that...

Hush up, son.

This is NSG..

We can debate anything, the force of gravity, whatever, until the mods say "stop".

No, quite a few religious people actually believe it's objective. It's certainly a valid argument question, though really it is more theism vs atheism than anything else.