Objective Vs Subjective Morality

[VahnBlue]

Didn't really know where to put this, but it seems that not just Christians, but apparently majority of today's philosophers, also seem to stand by Objective morality? Why is that?

 

From my perspective, the very moral principles that they all claim to be "objective"; typically coincides with what they "subjectively" feel to be true. It's like one by paradox.

 

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

[mymistake]

I think objective morality is impossible.  Human morality is derived from what helps humans succeed as a

 

species.  I think it is hard wired into most people the way chasing a small red dot is hard wired into a cat.  

 

It is an instinct.  However for one reason or another some individuals don't wind up with a complete set of

 

morality instincts.  And morality that worked when we were hunter gathers on the African savanna

 

sometimes needs to be modified for modern life.  Furthermore what drives us to be moral continues to

 

evolve over time.  

[sdelsolray]

Didn't really know where to put this, but it seems that not just Christians, but apparently majority of today's philosophers, also seem to stand by Objective morality? Why is that?

 

From my perspective, the very moral principles that they all claim to be "objective"; typically coincides with what they "subjectively" feel to be true. It's like one by paradox.

 

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Please define "objective morality" as well as "subjective morality".  But before you do that, please define "morality".

 

Thanks.

[Jedah]

The idea that there is a debate between subjective and objective morality is a lie. The "two sides" of this "argument" are as follows:

1. People who understand that the fact humans experience subjective reality also means our morality will always be subject to the same paradox, therefore even if we did find an "objective source" our individual understanding of that source would still be subjective to our own interpretations and by extension our understanding of ethics would also remain subjective.

2. People who don't.

In other words, objective morality doesn't actually exist as far as humanity is concerned. It's a nice sounding fairytale and a useful tool for the elite to control plebs. Nothing more.
 

[♦ ficino ♦]

My understanding is that the dichotomy, objective vs. subjective morality, is not the same as the dichotomy, God-dictated vs. humanly derived morality.  Those dichotomies are built on different principles.

 

As I see it, "objective morality" tries to establish norms based on what is true about the thing -- the object under consideration, an action, the situation, the creature, whatever. A "subjective morality" would establish norms or rules of thumb based on what someone -- a judging subject -- says the norms/rules should be.  An objective morality would say, act in such and such a way about X, because X is good or bad in itself.  A subjective morality would say, act in such and such a way about X because someone likes things to be done that way.

 

Looking at human nature, and at what life in groups is like, we do all agree that some things and actions are good, others bad, and we have norms about them.  For starters, there are norms pretty much across cultures, like not murdering, not stealing.  I would think that counts as objective.  If I do what I want whenever I want, because I like it, that doesn't count as a morality at all - that's an amoral life.  But if I/we say, "it's wrong to do X," because some authority says so - whether the authority is me, God, or whoever -  I would consider that subjective, because the norms aren't related to the nature of X but to someone's preferences.

 

So a "God's will theory" of morality is subjective.  If a religionist says, "X is wrong because God says so," God is the subjective judger.  The wrongness is tied to God's will or preferences and not to the nature of X.

 

The subjectivity of Abrahamic morality is seen in the times that Yahweh changes his mind, decides to change laws, and so on.  Ditto in the Christian version of it - even worse, since much of the Torah is thrown aside.

 

Then, no one can figure out God's will, so the result is some human's preferences dressed up as though they are God's preferences.  So an even more subjective form of an already subjective morality is put out there onto everyone else.

[sdelsolray]

My understanding is that the dichotomy, objective vs. subjective morality, is not the same as the dichotomy, God-dictated vs. humanly derived morality.  Those dichotomies are built on different principles.

 

As I see it, "objective morality" tries to establish norms based on what is true about the thing -- the object under consideration, an action, the situation, the creature, whatever. A "subjective morality" would establish norms or rules of thumb based on what someone -- a judging subject -- says the norms/rules should be.  An objective morality would say, act in such and such a way about X, because X is good or bad in itself.  A subjective morality would say, act in such and such a way about X because someone likes things to be done that way.

 

Looking at human nature, and at what life in groups is like, we do all agree that some things and actions are good, others bad, and we have norms about them.  For starters, there are norms pretty much across cultures, like not murdering, not stealing.  I would think that counts as objective.  If I do what I want whenever I want, because I like it, that doesn't count as a morality at all - that's an amoral life.  But if I/we say, "it's wrong to do X," because some authority says so - whether the authority is me, God, or whoever -  I would consider that subjective, because the norms aren't related to the nature of X but to someone's preferences.

 

So a "God's will theory" of morality is subjective.  If a religionist says, "X is wrong because God says so," God is the subjective judger.  The wrongness is tied to God's will or preferences and not to the nature of X.

 

The subjectivity of Abrahamic morality is seen in the times that Yahweh changes his mind, decides to change laws, and so on.  Ditto in the Christian version of it - even worse, since much of the Torah is thrown aside.

 

Then, no one can figure out God's will, so the result is some human's preferences dressed up as though they are God's preferences.  So an even more subjective form of an already subjective morality is put out there onto everyone else.

I agree with much of this.  It's a good way to compare and contrast the adjectives "objective" and "subjective" when they modify the noun "morality".

 

I would like to comment further on your statement, "For starters, there are norms pretty much across cultures, like not murdering, not stealing.  I would think that counts as objective."

 

Murder - this word generally means taking a human life without just cause, or the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.  Put another way, murder is wrong except when it isn't.  The exceptions are subjective, e.g., war, self-defense, death penalty, only humans not other species.  I would argue that whether murder is moral requires a subjective determination because of the need to determine if an exception applies.  Whether murder is moral or not cannot be objective.  The nature of it cannot be objective because it inherently contains subjective exceptions.

 

Stealing - Determining whether this action is moral requires that we first define property rights among and between humans.  That alone is subjective and that subjectivity infects whether stealing is moral or not.  For example, taking another's car without permission is stealing but taking a breath of air is not only because we subjectively give property ownership rights to a car but not to fresh air.

 

Another issue regarding both murder and stealing deals with the biology of life on Earth.  All lifeforms require metabolism.  In practice, this means that all organisms must consume certain forms of matter and energy to remain alive.  Organisms kill other life and take from other life all the time in order to feed itself.

[midniterider]

Didn't really know where to put this, but it seems that not just Christians, but apparently majority of today's philosophers, also seem to stand by Objective morality? Why is that?

 

From my perspective, the very moral principles that they all claim to be "objective"; typically coincides with what they "subjectively" feel to be true. It's like one by paradox.

 

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

 

Seems like if morality was objective then we would not need laws to tell us how to behave. It would be as self-evident as the sky. We would not need parents to teach us how to behave. We would all just behave that way. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I would like to comment further on your statement, "For starters, there are norms pretty much across cultures, like not murdering, not stealing.  I would think that counts as objective."

 

Murder - this word generally means taking a human life without just cause, or the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.  Put another way, murder is wrong except when it isn't.  The exceptions are subjective, e.g., war, self-defense, death penalty, only humans not other species.  I would argue that whether murder is moral requires a subjective determination because of the need to determine if an exception applies.  Whether murder is moral or not cannot be objective.  The nature of it cannot be objective because it inherently contains subjective exceptions.

 

Stealing - Determining whether this action is moral requires that we first define property rights among and between humans.  That alone is subjective and that subjectivity infects whether stealing is moral or not.  For example, taking another's car without permission is stealing but taking a breath of air is not only because we subjectively give property ownership rights to a car but not to fresh air.

 

Yes, I think there will always be a pull toward slicing the issues in different ways, and each person is, after all, a subject.  So I can't say there is no subjective aspect to morality.

 

What I was trying to get away from is the idea that morality is objective if it comes as religious law, and it's subjective if it doesn't.  I think that common apologist's claim rests on a confusion.  I had the Euthyphro's dilemma in mind:  i.e. is something holy because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it's holy (or good).  God's saying X is good and therefore it's right to bring about X yields subjective morality if the "right-making feature" of the action is the fact that God commands it.  The judging subject is just God, not me, on that theory. 

 

But if God says X is good because there's something about X good independent of his pronouncement, then we can in theory discern that good feature, too.  In this case, a morality can aspire toward objectivity.

 

I think you probably got my drift, sdelsolray.  I can't claim that groups and individuals don't differ when you get down to particular cases!  But then, religionists differ, too, so I don't know when we ever have purely objective morality.

[AndrewTomlinson]

 

Didn't really know where to put this, but it seems that not just Christians, but apparently majority of today's philosophers, also seem to stand by Objective morality? Why is that?

 

From my perspective, the very moral principles that they all claim to be "objective"; typically coincides with what they "subjectively" feel to be true. It's like one by paradox.

 

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

 

Seems like if morality was objective then we would not need laws to tell us how to behave. It would be as self-evident as the sky. We would not need parents to teach us how to behave. We would all just behave that way. 

 

 

That's not objective, that's instinctive. We don't have a complete sense of morality at birth, because our instincts evolved for survival as hunter gatherers, not as members of civilized society. We need to be taught because we don't know the consequences of actions before we experience it or are taught about it. We need laws, because as rational beings we can choose to ignore social justice and act selfishly. Granted, without laws we'd still have to worry about retribution for offenses against other people. Laws help regulate that to ensure it doesn't become a who-can-hit-hard-enough-to-make-the-other-side-give-up sort of situation.