Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Angrboda]

OP Title: Yes, it is true. That does not mean it is arbitrary. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/arbitrary

What are your trees?

You people keep saying morality is not arbitrary, but you never give me an alternative view.

Morality is an instinct like any other. Just as we have a preference for sweet and fatty foods based on our evolutionary heritage, our moral systems appear to come preloaded with "orientations." These orientations aren't necessarily fixed, objective, and absolute, just as what types of sweet and fatty foods appeal to us aren't fixed, but neither is it arbitrary, meaning that it has no inherent bias towards any perspective. It's not random, in other words.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

You people keep saying morality is not arbitrary, but you never give me an alternative view.

Morality is an instinct like any other.  Just as we have a preference for sweet and fatty foods based on our evolutionary heritage, our moral systems appear to come preloaded with "orientations."  These orientations aren't necessarily fixed, objective, and absolute, just as what types of sweet and fatty foods appeal to us aren't fixed, but neither is it arbitrary, meaning that it has no inherent bias towards any perspective.  It's not random, in other words.

Certainly people have their own built in morality; empathy. But it's different for each person, it won't be the same for every person. It is arbitrary.

[Whateverist]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

Well, you've given me no reason to think otherwise. I don't know why you'd just make a declarative statement and expect me to reason with that.

You could ask a question but instead chose to make a declarative whine.  Your call.

---

Indeed. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

I believe the problem is like shaking a gift box and knowing that there is something in the box but only being able to guess what it is (...or how it got there or who it's from, etc.) Morality may ultimately have an objective basis but that in no way necessitates that people can know everything about it. So I am willing to grant assumptions both atheistic and theistic approaches could share such as, the existence of conscience and the cultural contingency of all moral systems, etc. with the understanding that these are ultimately grounded in moral absolutes that transcend any individual or culture.

It is arbitrary. I explained that in the OP. A person's desires are arbitrary.

Yeah, cuz he splained it, ok?

[bennyboy]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

Subjective morality is arbitrary by definition, in the sense that we get to decide on it for ourselves.  But people with the power to make arbitrary decisions don't normally spin the Wheel-o-Mores or whatever and say, "Fuck it, I'ma go rape some bitches today!"  That's because normally-developed people are fairly coherent-- they don't like killing, they understand that other people's feelings are important, too, and so on.

[Whateverist]

We're not using "arbitrary" in the same way. Would you describe your moral choices as involving total whim. I don't think that is even what we could call moral experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's an easy thought experiment that anyone can do, to work out for themselves, why their moral judgements..whatever they are (regardless of whether or not they're "right or wrong", aren't arbitrary in any meaningful sense. Think of some easy thing that you consider to be categorically wrong.  Abducting a child in order to carve out it's eyes to see what they taste like in a martini.  

Did you choose to consider that wrong?  Can you choose to consider it right?  Do you have any control over how you feel about it's "wrongness"? If you can't answer yes to these questions, we're not discussing something arbitrary...whatever else it may be.

[Angrboda]

Morality is an instinct like any other.  Just as we have a preference for sweet and fatty foods based on our evolutionary heritage, our moral systems appear to come preloaded with "orientations."  These orientations aren't necessarily fixed, objective, and absolute, just as what types of sweet and fatty foods appeal to us aren't fixed, but neither is it arbitrary, meaning that it has no inherent bias towards any perspective.  It's not random, in other words.

Certainly people have their own built in morality; empathy. But it's different for each person, it won't be the same for every person. It is arbitrary.

As evolved animals with social impulses, our instincts are biased towards certain ends by the process of evolution. Morality, at its most basic, is valuing some things over others. Our preferences may vary widely, but that doesn't make our preferences arbitrary. Do you feel that the preferences of morality are completely without bias towards certain ends rather than others? Because that's what arbitrary would mean.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry. I cannot accept the idea that mere preference qualifies as a basic morality. A morality without obligations or imperatives is no morality at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our "mere preferences" seem to be able to provide both obligation and imperative, despite being "mere preferences".

[Angrboda]

Sorry. I cannot accept the idea that mere preference qualifies as a basic morality. A morality without obligations or imperatives is no morality at all.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what he means by arbitrary, not staking out a full fledged moral theory. Yes, morality includes a sense of imperative to our preferences which other preferences do not have.