Subjective Morality?

[DLJ]

(unless you are Belaqua)

Hey, it's OK with me. As long as he's clear about it.
It's not like word definitions are universal and eternal... what's the word for that?

Absolute nonsense?

[bennyboy]

(unless you are Belaqua)

Hey, it's OK with me. As long as he's clear about it.
It's not like word definitions are universal and eternal... what's the word for that?

hehe

[Haipule]

It's kinda like thee righteousness of God prescribed for us in the bible. As it concerns business; God wants you to give a just weight; DON'T water it down; take VERY good care of your slaves(employees); and pay your fair share of taxes, nothing more and nothing less.

That is God's simple recipe for how to succeed in business--By His blessing! He doesn't care who does it, as long as this is done! There is NO advantage whether Xtian or Atheist! God doesn't care who we are or whom anyone else is! It's just His way!

Funny, some say, "Yeah well...that taxes thing?" God just put that there to keep you out of jail!

It's a part of nature: water will always seek it's own level. The more you can pour in of that pure water, the more you will receive. Now give the excess and you will be on easy street! And abound!

You don't believe me? Well then--how many times have you tried it?

[robvalue]

I have to be honest at this point-- I really don't understand what an objective moral might even be.  It seems that any kind of objectivity or realism is just the imposition of outside influences on my actions. . . but an imposition based on OTHER people's subjective feelings and ideas about the way the world should be or how people should act.

Can someone give a super-simple example of objective morality, not buried under semantics or rhetoric?

Absolutely. I don’t know either. The best you can do is note trends. There’s no factual statement that you can guarantee everyone with agree with; perhaps, ironically, this itself is the moral fact! And they won’t agree on how you would even establish a moral fact or what it would mean.

There is always an underlying appeal to something: to emotion, to popularity, to personal opinion, to a nebulous underlying fact among poorly defined terms, to tribalism, to nature, to discomfort, to some analogy, and so on. As I point out in my video on the previous page, at some point a personal or group stance (or an arbitrary stance) has to be injected to bridge the is/ought gap.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not being able to get everyone to agree is meaningless.  Not everyone agrees that evolutionary biology is a fact, either.  I don't know how many times that has to be said, lol.

It's the simplest thing in the world to understand, and this will double as an answer for bennys q. Is rape only wrong as a matter of your opinion, or is there something about rape which would be true regardless of your opinion (or anyone's opinion, or anyone's agreement) that makes rape wrong?

The former is a subjective appraisal..the latter..objective.

[Dr H]

I keep hearing are that morals are conditional ( even if called objective). Sorry, having conditions attached makes them subjective.

I believe morals are subjective, but I disagree with that statement.
'Conditional' is not the same as 'subjective'.

The answer to:

1 + 1 =

is conditional, depending on the base number system in which it's contextualized.  In base 10, the answer is "2"; in binary the answer is "10".  Neither answer is subjective.

What might be considered subjective is whether the answers are considered identical, given that the are equivalent in value, but different in notation.

---

Ethical axioms are unprovable but self-evident, like those in math. Objective morality is when we apply those axioms in a disinterested and unselfish way.

Axiom: flourishing of living things is good.

How is that self-evident?

The flourishing of, say, Rickettsia prowazekii or Vibrio cholerae anywhere in my vicinity is decidedly NOT good by my standards.

YMMV.

[brewer]

I keep hearing are that morals are conditional ( even if called objective). Sorry, having conditions attached makes them subjective.

I believe morals are subjective, but I disagree with that statement.
'Conditional' is not the same as 'subjective'.

The answer to:

1 + 1 =

is conditional, depending on the base number system in which it's contextualized.  In base 10, the answer is "2"; in binary the answer is "10".  Neither answer is subjective.

What might be considered subjective is whether the answers are considered identical, given that the are equivalent in value, but different in notation.

Did you omit the "morals" from my statement and just flip to conditions in math?

Previously someone said killing is both immoral and moral based on the conditions of situation. My view, changing based on conditions/circumstances makes the moral position subjective.

[Belacqua]

How is that self-evident?

The flourishing of, say, Rickettsia prowazekii or Vibrio cholerae anywhere in my vicinity is decidedly NOT good by my standards.

YMMV.

I guess that depends on what your standards are. 

Living things come in conflict. The thriving of saber-tooth tigers maybe was not compatible with that of cavemen. Negotiations are largely ethical questions. How much are we justified in killing in order to encourage our own flourishing? 

People used to say that morals were based on "human flourishing," but I think we've learned to be less self-centered.

And we should consider carefully our reasons. If we dislike some living things purely for aesthetic reasons or personal preference, I suspect that modern ethics will encourage us to re-think that. 

But I see your point: certain examples are easy to agree on.

[sdelsolray]

Hey all,

New user here, I thought this to be a good resource for a layman's morality question:

Whats the deal with Subjective Morality?

I know subjective morality is in nowadays, but I don't really understand how it's functional. Isn't the purpose of morality to rationally distinguish between good and bad actions? Can subjective morality do that, or are people defining things differently?


Thanks, any insight appreciated,
Mikolaj

Before asking for discussion about a noun (morality) modified by an adjective (subjective), perhaps it would be more fundamental to first seek consensus on the noun "morality" without modification.

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe morals are subjective, but I disagree with that statement.
'Conditional' is not the same as 'subjective'.

The answer to:

1 + 1 =

is conditional, depending on the base number system in which it's contextualized.  In base 10, the answer is "2"; in binary the answer is "10".  Neither answer is subjective.

What might be considered subjective is whether the answers are considered identical, given that the are equivalent in value, but different in notation.

Did you omit the "morals" from my statement and just flip to conditions in math?

Previously someone said killing is both immoral and moral based on the conditions of situation. My view, changing based on conditions/circumstances makes the moral position subjective.

Getting into a fistfight with a child...and getting into a fistfight with an adult, are different conditions for a fistfight......It stands to reason that the moral appraisal and moral restrictions involved with either would be different.  

An objective morality has to take into account relevant facts, the circumstances of some x are often relevant.  That, is an objective appraisal, not a subjective one.

Essentially, it's the moral version of "if things were different....then things would be different".