Is morality objective?

[See land]

Over the course of centuries new views on morality has come and gone, each phase followed as devoutly as the next. But is there any foundation to morality?

Morality is simply a statement, and ought or should statement. For example a moral statement could be something like "eating pork is bad", or "stealing bread when you need to eat is good".
My point here is that there is no good reason for why eating pork is bad. Most would say "because god says so!", but god isn't real. Others might say "because you shouldn't eat other living beings", I would respond "why", and the vegetarian would have no plausible reason for why I shouldn't after that. There simply is no reality to base an "ought" or "should" statement on. Morality simply a tradition, or an opinion. A social construct relative to it's context nothing more.

So let me refrain, my question is whether morality is objective, and my answer is no.

What do you think?

[New Ogunquit]

Over the course of centuries new views on morality has come and gone, each phase followed as devoutly as the next. But is there any foundation to this morality?

Morality is simply a statement, and ought or should statement. For example a moral statement could be something like "eating pork is bad", or "stealing bread when you need to eat is good".
My point here is that there is no good reason for why eating pork is bad. Most would say "because god says so!", but god isn't real. Others might say "because you shouldn't eat other living beings", I would respond "why", and the vegetarian would have no plausible reason for why I shouldn't after that. There simply is no reality to base an "ought" or "should" statement on. Morality simply a tradition, or an opinion, nothing more.

So let me refrain, my question is whether morality is real, and my answer is no.

What do you think?

Morality is real in the sense that people can have morals. Whether it's objective or not is a different matter entirely, I believe.

[See land]

Over the course of centuries new views on morality has come and gone, each phase followed as devoutly as the next. But is there any foundation to this morality?

Morality is simply a statement, and ought or should statement. For example a moral statement could be something like "eating pork is bad", or "stealing bread when you need to eat is good".
My point here is that there is no good reason for why eating pork is bad. Most would say "because god says so!", but god isn't real. Others might say "because you shouldn't eat other living beings", I would respond "why", and the vegetarian would have no plausible reason for why I shouldn't after that. There simply is no reality to base an "ought" or "should" statement on. Morality simply a tradition, or an opinion, nothing more.

So let me refrain, my question is whether morality is real, and my answer is no.

What do you think?

Morality is real in the sense that people can have morals. Whether it's objective or not is a different matter entirely, I believe.

Real as in moral laws exist as things we should follow.

[Rhyfelnydd]

Nope.

[Santo Prisco]

I think that there are definitely good rules to follow, like not killing, and treating people like you'd want to be treated, but they involve so many what-ifs and "unless"es that you're better off keeping them (well) in mind and judging based on the situation.

In my opinion there are a few objective morals everyone should follow, with subjective accesories.

[Conserative Morality]

From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.

Morality isn't objective, but that doesn't mean that we all lock arms and sing kumbaya.

[Ostroeuropa]

Morality isn't objective, and i've never had someone coherently explain how it possibly could be.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

I think a distinction needs to be made between cultural and moral relativism. Moral relativism holds that most morality is not innate, but influenced by self interest, societal ideals, and culture. Moral absolutism holds that an innate and universal morality exists, which sounds overly clunky and easily disprovable to me. Do Liberians living in forests feel a single degree of remorse for eating the hearts of humans? No.

But, moral relativism doesn't mean that we should accept what we consider to be heinous acts, and that's something that needs to be said, because the misconception is that all moral relativists are liberal, ultra tolerant relativists. That's simply false.

[Sun Wukong]

Depends on what you mean.

Behavioral biology is objective.

[Kraslavia]

It is objective.

Harm is denial of other person lower needs in name of fulfilling your higher needs.

Low need is need of food, leep or most basicly - beeing alive.
High need id need of love, power or acceptance.

For example - totalitarian system is evil because it causes danial of low needs like need of security, food or beeing alive in name of fulfilling govt or even single person high needs of power, importance and control.

[Rusozak]

Morality isn't clearly defined. It depends on perspective. It's more or less philosophy, so yes, it is objective.

[Conserative Morality]

It is objective.

Harm is denial of other person lower needs in name of fulfilling your higher needs.

Low need is need of food, leep or most basicly - beeing alive.
High need id need of love, power or acceptance.

For example - totalitarian system is evil because it causes danial of low needs like need of security, food or beeing alive in name of fulfilling govt or even single person high needs of power, importance and control.

So taking food from a murderer to strengthen your clan is wrong?

Is a person who loves their SO more than they care for the life of a stranger evil?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No. If it were, everyone would agree on what is right and what is wrong. There'd be no conflict, no differing cultures, and no diversity.

[Highfort]

I don't believe in objective morality; whether it exists is another matter entirely.

Essentially even if we all agreed on the same morals, that wouldn't necessarily make them objective - it would just mean that our subjective views on what is good and evil would all align, but they would still be subjective. This is because if you unravel all our moral precepts, they come down to a basic opinion rather than a fact.

For instance, "Harm is denial of other person lower needs in name of fulfilling your higher needs", as Kraslavia mentioned, is an opinion. Some would argue that if the other person has violated you, your higher needs may take precedence over their lower needs as a result of an inequality of debt (your immediate needs may be less important to your survival than their immediate needs, but they owe you a debt as a result of violating you). This is an opinion, not a fact, and if you base your morality around this then your morality is necessarily subjective - subject to your viewpoint - rather than objective - demonstrable to all regardless of viewpoint.

You cannot get an is from an ought: your moral judgment on an act is based on how you feel about it in a certain situation, not on the act itself. This is why most people consider the killing of another human being without cause reprehensible (survival instinct tells us that it's bad if we let others kill wantonly because then we might be killed) but find it tolerable in self-defense (because we would do the same to preserve our lives).

[New Werpland]

(as was stated in a previous thread) 60% of people with philosophy phds believe it is.

Moral absolutism holds that an innate and universal morality exists, which sounds overly clunky and easily disprovable to me. Do Liberians living in forests feel a single degree of remorse for eating the hearts of humans? No.

Irrelevant. Ken Ham believes evolution doesn't exist, does that mean reality is subjective?

[Highfort]

Irrelevant. Ken Ham believes evolution doesn't exist, does that mean reality is subjective?

We can be objectively shown evidence that infers the existence of evolution; Ken Ham cannot objectively show us evidence of creationism (he requires that we accept the unverifiable statement "The Bible is literally the Word of God and is factual").

The difference with morality is one cannot be shown objective evidence that any moral precept is true; one can only be shown evidence that a moral precept functions in society or that some behavior correlates with that moral precept. But the precept itself may be false and merely beneficial or may be beneficial as the result of a subjective opinion about how the world ought to be rather than a statement of how it is.

[Hirota]

All Morality? Probably not. Some morals are probably universal - such as the idea that "a person being punished for something they did not do is wrong" is probably an objective moral statement.

However, since we are talking about morality in it's entirety, and not just it's parts, I would have to say all morality is not objective.

[Constantinopolis]

If morality isn't objective, what do you tell someone who has done something you consider to be heinously evil, but which he considers to be good?

And there are people doing those sorts of things all the time, by the way.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

I'm fairly convinced that morality is objective, but my beliefs on the subject are kinda fuzzy for a few reasons. I think I'm generally inclined towards a deontological approach to morality.

I get the impression that a lot of the arguments against objective morality tend to confuse descriptive and normative ethics a bit.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

There is no reason to believe that morals exist in some objective way, like some sort of entity in the universe, one that we can point to (like, say, a chair, or to gravity), and one that is somehow magically obliges you to follow it, despite it not really having any binding power other than your own sense of responsibility. In addition, somehow, this universal set of moral maxims, like thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. are unique to humans, and if you happen to be born another creature, following another evolutionary path, where partaking in something that is humanly immoral is necessary, somehow you are just wrong.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I'm fairly convinced that morality is objective, but my beliefs on the subject are kinda fuzzy for a few reasons. I think I'm generally inclined towards a deontological approach to morality.

I get the impression that a lot of the arguments against objective morality tend to confuse descriptive and normative ethics a bit.

Only, this doesn't concern either of those, this concerns meta-ethics.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

(as was stated in a previous thread) 60% of people with philosophy phds believe it is.

Moral absolutism holds that an innate and universal morality exists, which sounds overly clunky and easily disprovable to me. Do Liberians living in forests feel a single degree of remorse for eating the hearts of humans? No.

Irrelevant. Ken Ham believes evolution doesn't exist, does that mean reality is subjective?

I think it's silly to mix reality and morality up. Reality is finite, though it is true that some groups of people choose to ignore reality in the most blissfully of ignorant or even gross ways.

One's perception of reality all depends on access to information and cultural values. That doesn't mean reality is objective, which it is, reality is absolute. However, when it comes to morals, I'm inclined to say that it's a mix of evolutionary and cultural factors. Thousands of years ago, the reality was that cannibalism was a-ok. Today, most societies view this as repugnant. But, head into the tropical forests of Papau New Guinea and you'll see people who say that reality includes cannibalism, all because of their own moral code.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

If morality isn't objective, what do you tell someone who has done something you consider to be heinously evil, but which he considers to be good?

Are you making an appeal to emotion?

[Valkalan]

Whether or not a morality is objective would depend upon the premises for that morality. Most are derived from religion and cultural norms, neither of which present a strong argument for objectivity. However, I find it is possible to derive an objective standard for morality. Consider the case of murder. If murder were allowed and was freely practiced, it would be quite difficult to maintain an orderly let alone prosperous society. Therefore we can objectively conclude that murder is undesirable, and should be prevented.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

I'm fairly convinced that morality is objective, but my beliefs on the subject are kinda fuzzy for a few reasons. I think I'm generally inclined towards a deontological approach to morality.

I get the impression that a lot of the arguments against objective morality tend to confuse descriptive and normative ethics a bit.

Only, this doesn't concern either of those, this concerns meta-ethics.

What I mean is that people sometimes say things along the lines of "In some cultures, honour killing/slavery/etc. is moral, but in others it isn't, so clearly morality is subjective," as if the beliefs that various cultures hold about morality are identical to morality itself, even though that's not necessarily the case.