Subjective Morality?

[bennyboy]

Okay, first of all, we have to determine what terms mean.

In a sense, one might argue that all is objective, even the feelings actions of the self, if the world is deterministic. In this case "subjective" refers to an experience of a deterministic process-- really just labels for two sides of the same coin.

In another sense, one might argue that all is subjective, even the world we think we know, because it is all processed through (and potentially created by) a thinking, feeling agent. Corpses or coma victims are moral-neutral, one would assume.

But let's not require a metaphysical position as a precondition of a moral discussion. I would take "subjective" to mean that moral ideas are an expression of individuals or communities--i.e. that people consider their feelings about things, and arrive at some agreement about what to think and how to act. In other words, morality is subjective insofar as there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong beyond what human beings dub right or wrong.

What would "objective" morality be? Presumably, the OP is a member (despite claiming in an anti-religious forum that his religious position is "irrelevant") of one of the Abrahamic traditions which hold God as the arbiter of what is "good," and man struggling and mostly failing to make the cut. But EVEN IF God has made the entire Universe and everything in it, I still wouldn't accept the assertion that we as humans shouldn't negotiate our own moral views anyway.

For example, let's say there really is a God, and he for some reason has decided that it is objectively bad for people to engage in non-reproductive sexual acts. Should we take the position, then, that such acts are immoral? Or should we just say such a God would be an asshole God, for making people a certain way and then condemning them for what they are? I think, as a member of a community more sophisticated than 1st-century Jews (well, really more like 3rd-century), that I'm comfortable with the latter position.

---

[. ..] if one knows morality to be subjective, the only way to evaluate another's actions is to knowingly impose one's own morality upon them (which starts seeming incredibly like objective morality) without consideration for their own morals. This is commonly held as immoral by both objective and subjective moralists though... so how do you evaluate the world/others/actions with a subjective morality?

We're a social species. We DO evaluate morality differently from individual to individual, but there is also a general understanding of the moral views of the society at large. People, growing up in the society, generally adopt its values. If their own feelings about things are sufficiently at odds with the societal norms, then they may question them, either themselves or in a public attempt to sway ideas.

We can see this social negotiation of mores in progress right now. Being gay, for example, has almost completely ceased being considered immoral. Instead, it is now considered immoral to express extreme prejudice against gay people. If you accept that God has provided us with objective mores, and that this includes an intolerance of homosexuality, then I will say God is immoral, having created homosexual creatures and then condemning them for their homosexuality.