Objective vs Subjective Morals

[FallentoReason]

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to know what the theists on here think about morality, and how they justify their moral code.

[truthBtold]

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to know what the theists on here think about morality, and how they justify their moral code.

Nice thread... im with u all the way.. subjective is the framework.. im waiting to hear from xtians too... in 3...2...1..

[Jacob(smooth)]

Everyone's morals are subjective.

Except mine of course.

[MindForgedManacle]

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

Theists aren't the only ones who are moral realists. 72% of philosophers are atheists, and 59% of philosophers are moral realists.

And saying that because one goes about morality through a certain framework they choose that morality is therefore subjective is silly. That would entail that everything else (mathematics, logic, science) are equally as subjective, as you do that in those fields too.

[bennyboy]

I don't know. Is the process of choosing or accepting mores considered part of morality? Is it to be allowed that if the universe is deterministic, all morality is objective, since the choice of even strange mores is in that case rooted in events that predate people?

In general, given the things we normally talk about as being subjective and objective, I'd say that a moral framework can clearly be objective-- but that the choosing of the moral framework is based on subjective whims to a degree.

[Rampant.A.I.]

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

Theists aren't the only ones who are moral realists. 72% of philosophers are atheists, and 59% of philosophers are moral realists.

And saying that because one goes about morality through a certain framework they choose that morality is therefore subjective is silly. That would entail that everything else (mathematics, logic, science) are equally as subjective, as you do that in those fields too.

I don't think we should let theists paint us into a corner with a false dilemma.

We have Virtue ethics, which predate the Bible, Deontology from Kant, (pure reason-based ethics), Utilitarianism. All of which are valid alternative frameworks to "I get my morals from God," which is a problematic statement in and of itself. Few contemporary Christians would be able to defend slavery, beating children and women, stoning, and rape with a straight face.

And yet, that is the morality we find in the bible.

If all morality is from God, where did those outside morals come from?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

[John V]

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to know what the theists on here think about morality, and how they justify their moral code.

Personally I think morality is subjective. When theists speak of having an objective morality, it's only objective from a human point of view. They're generally not arguing that there's some objective code of morality which is independent of and superior to god, which is what a true objective morality would require.

[bennyboy]

Personally I think morality is subjective. When theists speak of having an objective morality, it's only objective from a human point of view. They're generally not arguing that there's some objective code of morality which is independent of and superior to god, which is what a true objective morality would require.

In this sense, I think from a personal view, any member of a fundamentalist community has an objective morality-- so long as the moral requirements are outlined in detail. What's the difference between a God making a moral code from Moses making it, in terms of any non-Moses member of that early community?

[FallentoReason]

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

Theists aren't the only ones who are moral realists. 72% of philosophers are atheists, and 59% of philosophers are moral realists.

Then those philosophers are also begging the question.

And saying that because one goes about morality through a certain framework they choose that morality is therefore subjective is silly.

How is it silly? Until it can be shown that there are objective facts that show what right and wrong are, morality will always be an opinion based on our subjective thoughts. It's a reality that can't be escaped.

That would entail that everything else (mathematics, logic, science) are equally as subjective, as you do that in those fields too.

Maths (and logic, but maybe to a lesser degree?) is a construct that only exists in our minds. The most fundamental concepts of e.g. geometry don't exist outside of our minds; you can't find a circle in real life, or parallel lines. It is just accepted that such concepts exist, and from there, we can build upon those assumed truths. I think this is a nice analogy for morality actually, in that it's a construct that doesn't exist in reality.

As with science, we're dealing with emipirical data. Yeah, sure, it must pass through our subjective interpretation, but at the end of the day we can easily say who's right and who's wrong. For example, we could be talking about how much oxygen is required in order to combust x litres of petrol. There is a definite answer to that. Morality isn't like this e.g. is it wrong to take someone's life? It really depends, doesn't it?

---

As far as I can tell, morals aren't something that are "out there" to be discovered i.e. they don't seem to be objective. And until a proof is given that they actually are, it can only mean that the theist is working from a subjective framework, just like the rest of us.

I'd like to know what the theists on here think about morality, and how they justify their moral code.

Personally I think morality is subjective. When theists speak of having an objective morality, it's only objective from a human point of view. They're generally not arguing that there's some objective code of morality which is independent of and superior to god, which is what a true objective morality would require.

If you put it that way, then I agree.

The next question then would be: why should I think your moral code to be the right one?

[MindForgedManacle]

Then those philosophers are also begging the question.

How so? There's is nothing question-begging about being an atheist and a moral realist.

How is it silly? Until it can be shown that there are objective facts that show what right and wrong are, morality will always be an opinion based on our subjective thoughts. It's a reality that can't be escaped.

You don't seem to grasp quite what moral realism is. The "facts" under moral realism would still be dependent on the particular ethical framework you've chosen to work under. Killing someone to save 10 others would generally be called moral for a consequentialist, but immoral by a Kantian deontologist. None of that has to do with opinions. What they do have to do with is taking on board certain axioms and seeing what follows from them, which is the case with any branch of learning.

Escaped.

Maths (and logic, but maybe to a lesser degree?) is a construct that only exists in our minds.

Unless you're a mathematical Platonist, which turns out to just slightly be the most popular position on the ontology of mathematical objects and relations.

The most fundamental concepts of e.g. geometry don't exist outside of our minds; you can't find a circle in real life, or parallel lines. It is just accepted that such concepts exist, and from there, we can build upon those assumed truths. I think this is a nice analogy for morality actually, in that it's a construct that doesn't exist in reality.

Lol, of course morality exists, it just refers to a particular consideration of humans on how to act with one another. However, you actually seemed to have missed the point of the analogy. Most relevant here is logic itself. There are all sorts of logical systems that exist which are mutually exclusive and/or bizarre. One chooses what logical system one is going to work under by assuming the relevant axioms of that system (i.e for the S5 system in modal logic you'd assume ). But does that make modal logic "subjective" and "opinion based"? No, because different things can be approached different ways.

As with science, we're dealing with emipirical data. Yeah, sure, it must pass through our subjective interpretation, but at the end of the day we can easily say who's right and who's wrong. For example, we could be talking about how much oxygen is required in order to combust x litres of petrol. There is a definite answer to that. Morality isn't like this e.g. is it wrong to take someone's life? It really depends, doesn't it?

Depends on the ethical framework, yes. Makes it subjective, no. A better example from science of why your example doesn't work would be to ask "Is static or dynamic?", because when discussing which ethical framework one should adopt, we're not talking about something quantifiable in terms of simple measurement. We're talking about which assumptions about reality we should make and what most consistent with those assumptions?

So, asking "is it wrong to take someones's life?" is not a yes or no question, nor does that being the case make it subjective. The only sense in which answering that question can be considered subjective is if you think that selecting formal logical frameworks makes them subjective. And if you do, you'd make a great post-modernist.

If you put it that way, then I agree.

The next question then would be: why should I think your moral code to be the right one?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but it's really not that hard of a question to answer, I think. Why should you adopt a particular ethical framework? Because it could be shown to be sound, consistent with itself and axioms you agree to, pragmatic, and flexible enough so as to be doable without undue burden for the relevant agents.