Subjective Morality?

[mfigurski80]

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

[Mystic]

It's an oxymoron.

[robvalue]

Heya, welcome

We’ve just been having a massive debate about this in another thread! Here’s my take.

Basically, "good" and "bad" are very vague, subjective terms. You can only have objective morality once you’ve defined those words in precise terms, so that any two people would reach the same conclusion in any given situation. But since people don’t agree on exactly what these mean, even if they generally agree, then any particular definition will be arbitrary or personal.

We can hope to reach a best compromise, but that’s all.

[brewer]

Morality exists on a sliding scale.

That help?

[robvalue]

The attempt to produce guidelines for behaviour that generally produces agreed favourable outcomes tends to be called ethics. For example, a business might draw up its list of ethics for how it expects its staff to behave, or how much pollution is acceptable, and so on.

Morality is the much more personal journey of deciding for yourself how you should act, and how you feel about how others are acting. I couldn’t possibly draw up a comprehensive code for my morality if I tried. I could sketch out basic principles I try to live by, but I take each situation in its own merits.

[Mystic]

Morality exists on a sliding scale.

That help?

True, but morality is guidance through out stages, so it must recognized, not made up by us.

And if it's recognized, it's objective, although of various stages, not created by subjectivity.

And it's a guidance, it must truly a guidance, and not something that can lead correctly or incorrectly, and that there is no way to discern truth of it from falsehood.

Because warped morality is the cause of all oppression and chaos, it's people warping morality and justifying evil through it.

Guidance to be reliable, must have not only a reliable source (God) but a reliable means (Kings like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, etc).

[brewer]

Morality exists on a sliding scale.

That help?

True, but morality is guidance through out stages, so it must recognized, not made up by us.

And if it's recognized, it's objective, although of various stages, not created by subjectivity.

And it's a guidance, it must truly a guidance, and not something that can lead correctly or incorrectly, and that there is no way to discern truth of it from falsehood.

Because warped morality is the cause of all oppression and chaos, it's people warping morality and justifying evil through it.

Guidance to be reliable, must have not only a reliable source (God) but a reliable means (Kings like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, etc).

Not gonna play with you MK. Morals are a product of human society. Since societies differ what is considered moral will differ. god doesn't have a damn thing to do with it except that all gods are made by men.

Edit: Example using drinking ages: https://drinkingage.procon.org/view.reso...eID=004294

[downbeatplumb]

Morality exists on a sliding scale.

That help?

True, but morality is guidance through out stages, so it must recognized, not made up by us.

And if it's recognized, it's objective, although of various stages, not created by subjectivity.

And it's a guidance, it must truly a guidance, and not something that can lead correctly or incorrectly, and that there is no way to discern truth of it from falsehood.

Because warped morality is the cause of all oppression and chaos, it's people warping morality and justifying evil through it.

Guidance to be reliable, must have not only a reliable source (God) but a reliable means (Kings like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, etc).

Religious moralities always seem the most despicable, often just an excuse to oppress and abuse.

Like the systemic rapes by ISIS.
The Crusades.
Anti-choice.
Anti homosexuality.

[robvalue]

If you choose a book, and base your morality on that book, then that’s just as subjective as anything else. It’s also circular. Your only justification for why something is good is that the book says it is good. If you have any other justification than that, then you clearly have moral standards external to the book.

The book itself has objective text (although certainly not objective interpretations), but there are an infinite number of possible texts or fixed rules you could base your morality on. Everyone picks their own, in whatever way they think is best. I prefer to think things through and decide for myself. Deciding that you will never update your own morality isn’t a virtue, in my opinion.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Of course morality is subjective.  If it weren't, all cultures would have the same moral strictures, and all actions would be either moral or immoral.

Suppose I have a loaf of bread and you steal it from me.  If you committed the act because you hate me and wanted me to be hungry, that act would be immoral. But if you stole the bread to feed a starving child, that act would be moral.

Boru