Subjective Morality?

[mfigurski80]

Lots of good ideas up there!

Anyway, someone brought up religion (@robvalue, @downbeatplumb, @MysticKnight) -- this really can be transformed into an a-religious topic, as objective morality can (and maybe should, maybe even inside of religious context) be derived from reason (think math, thats pretty objective). Not to say that that doesn't have its own problems, like for example the is/aught gap and others, but no problems that subjective morality doesn't encounter also.

And subjective morality seems to have an extra nagging problem in that one can't evaluate anything to be moral/immoral without fully trusting oneself. How do people get around this?


Someone mentioned a common point against objective morality: societies differing across space/time also differ in moral structures. This can be easily chalked up to erroneous interpretation of objective morality; just like ancient societies will likely not be able to solve derivatives of functions, or even understand what derivatives are, that doesn't mean derivatives don't exist and that there isn't an objective way to calculate them correctly. Some people just lack the tools to do so.
@BrianSoddingBoru4, either way, you just made objective claims about morality within specific situations. The question is: can I decide to say it's still not okay for someone to steal bread to feed a starving child and be RIGHT?

bold mine

Are you stating that you have the tools (mental ability) to make objective moral determinations that will apply to every person/society and in all situations?

Nope. There's the catch.
I cannot make objective moral determinations. I cannot make anything objective at all. Nobody can.

I can interpret it and analyze it. And, just like in harder science, I have to be a bit distrustful about all observations, but ultimately the current moral theories (specific laws, not meta about it) are presumably taking into account the largest body of information and are the best conclusion given the data/reasoning. Just like we can say people were objectively wrong about the sun orbiting earth, we can say people were objectively immoral to do certain actions -- we don't KNOW that the sun doesn't orbit the earth, I've never personally stood outside, being stationary, and observed that it does, but we have so much evidence that it's pointless to question at this point. Nevertheless, we are still observing an objective situation, even if not absolutely reliably.

Unless, of course, morality is subjective, in which case I can make all the subjective moral determinations I want



Also, to @robvalue:

"What do we achieve by saying, "I’m right and they are wrong"? If we expect them to actually change their ways, we need to provide our reasoning, otherwise we're just massaging our egos."

Can reason (ignore the is/aught thing for now) discover morality then, or does it need to create it? If reason just creates moral laws, is there a point to providing reasoning? It's like arguing a math theorum with someone who valiantly believes 2+2 is 7, and, if math is subjective, is technically RIGHT about it.
Is morality objective, like math, then?; should we be providing reasoning?