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?

[Mystic]

It's not our own moral framework, but rather the light we have to recognize is linked to the blessed tree, the name of God, and we have recognize ourselves, God and the leader through it.

Recognition is different then making things up and when you mean own moral framework, we have falsehood in that, and so must get rid of it, and we have doubtful hopes and conjecture in that, and must not rely on that, and we have our misconceptions....

And guidance is all about building based on proofs and building up with certainty.

[robvalue]

I made this video a while ago where I go into some detail about how I think morality works, and how it can’t possibly be objective. I feel like I still stand by what I said.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's not our own moral framework, but rather the light we have to recognize is linked to the blessed tree, the name of God, and we have recognize ourselves, God and the leader through it.

Yes, how objective.

[RoadRunner79]

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

No it can't.  Subjective morality is relative and dependent on the person.  You can have contradictory moralities and call them both moral, because they have a different basis for that morality.  Objective morality is independent of the person, and says what is right or wrong regardless of who is involved, or what they say.   

Atheists or more specifically materialists, can't account for an objective moral realism.   So they say morality is subjective, although all most everyone acts as if it is objective anywhere else.   They also seem to confuse a lot what morality is (objective vs subjective) with how we know or what we say is moral.  I hope this helps make sense of some of the comments.   A lot of times people are defining (talking) about different things, and don't really understand the argument (in my experience).

[robvalue]

It's not our own moral framework, but rather the light we have to recognize is linked to the blessed tree, the name of God, and we have recognize ourselves, God and the leader through it.

Yes, how objective.  

Maybe he’s trying to imply we all have the same framework, as provided by God. Clearly, we don’t. Not even close. We just have certain people telling others that their framework is the correct one, and others must be misinterpreting their own framework... or something.

If god really did want us to all behave according to a precise code of conduct, he could have done that, presumably. He could just have programmed it into us. It wouldn’t require any books, either. But he didn’t, so there’s no point him moaning about it.

(No, it wouldnt erase free will. It would prevent certain actions, but would still leave plenty of others.)

[brewer]

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?

[Mystic]

Being truthful to oneself, that is the trial. If we are true ourselves, will be able to destroy the falsehood and the truth will come. If we deceive ourselves, naturally, there is no light to recognize in our deception.  We have to be true to ourselves and hold on to certainty and what we know for certain, and not base our path on conjecture.

[robvalue]

Right, you have to define what it means for morality/actions to be objectively correct. If you just allude to some hypothetical system without saying what it’s even supposed to achieve, then you’re not specifying anything.

Every system is the best at achieving what that system achieves. You need a meta-system before you can grade the systems, and that either needs agreeing or declaring. The first doesn’t happen, which is the whole problem; and the second would be pointless.

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.

[Mystic]

Right, you have to define what it means for morality/actions to be objectively correct. If you just allude to some hypothetical system without saying what it’s even supposed to achieve, then you’re not specifying anything.

Every system is the best at achieving what that system achieves. You need a meta-system before you can grade the systems, and that either needs agreeing or declaring. The first doesn’t happen, and the second would be pointless.

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.

I have to go after this. But I repeated, there is difference between recognizing morality based on the proof of morality or a proof of it, and reflecting and seeing, and blindly following conjecture about it by society or conjecture about a holy book or blindly following a verse in a holy book, and there is difference between us making it per our desires or cultural norms and mixing culture with truth of what it truly is.

Recognition means discerning truth of moral percept. This has three basis to it.

1. The actually moral light and hue.
2. The application of the moral light and hue to the situation.
3. The assessment of the situation.

We can err in any combination of these 3.

That is why reflection from a holy book, will help us in all three. When he helps in all three, we can see properly.

And the family of the reminder help show how the book assess and shows all three.

This is no easy task but we have to unite on the truth if we are going to unite.