Subjective Morality?

[Mystic]

Love values love above all things.

Acts of love are loved, but by what? By love.

Circular reference to itself is always wrong to justify, but in case of love it iterates itself constantly. It's like while (true) loop in programming. It never will disbelieve in itself being justified in some regards, and will believe in acts of love, no matter what.

It knows we have value, because are instances of love. The greater we in love, the greater we are. All branches come through it.

It not only asses all morals and sees them for what they when people do them, but through a limited perception of it, the beauty of nature is within it's grasp.

Paintings are all assessed by it's love of beauty. Mathematics and how people speak, so the many hues of culture and language, are all perceived by it.


It knows everything already, so when it sees something, it's reminded of what is and assesses it.

Every information that it downloads is but a reminder it already knew and hence it assess it.

It knows the taste of Lasagna and Vanilla Ice cream.

It knows the taste of speghatti.

And it knows the value of friendships.

It knows what a mother is, what a father is, what a brother is, what a sister is, and not only that, but the particular ones we have.


It's not valuer by whims, but by truth.

That truth and it's source, to me, is God.

He makes us laugh and cry.

And I fear my dark sins and know the day of judgment through realization that he hates the opposite of love, which is envy.

Hate is an application of love or hate is an application of envy.

If it's from the envious eye - it's from the forbidden tree, and it's from the idolization of oneself through false vision.


I believe in my creation in truth, because I believe in love, and I believe love needs to be guided, and so I believe God will establish a link to him, that if we hold on to by love, it will make us see through love what we need to see and will guide us to the springs of his love in higher states.


Love has to be the unseen eye to God.

If love doesn't see God, then yes, God would not exist, there would be no being worthy of Worship as far as we know.

But it sees it through various veils, in all things, everything manifests God to some degree, even it's parable of being what he is not.



We talk about morals, and not love. Every moral act must be an act of love.

Otherwise morality for the sake of morality, it's just meaningless ego seeking drive.

We have to love people for the good in them and love people for their potential, and even if a person is lost and evil, we have to love by compassion for them even when he are disgusted by who they are.


Love needs guidance, and love that acts chaotically without guidance, will find itself confused and lost.

I hate all moral discussions as if moral laws apply to us like some law we must follow, rather, they are all dictated by language of love. Love has limits it must not cross, it has ways of destruction it must protect itself against, and there is misleading ways.

Love already knows what is to be valued most by definition, and if it didn't it would be false. Love is not based on imagination but reality.

It values is based on truth and this includes the highest possible definition of what it ought to value and love the most.

[brewer]

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

Who is the "we" you keep referring to?

Observation of the sun has nothing to do with morals. Position fail. 

If the observation/observer of the moral situation is not reliable then it's subjective. 

Curious, what is your position on abortion?

[mfigurski80]

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

Who is the "we" you keep referring to?

Observation of the sun has nothing to do with morals. Position fail. 

If the observation/observer of the moral situation is not reliable then it's subjective. 

Curious, what is your position on abortion?

We <- You and I, provided that we both operate under objective morality.

Observation of the sun has everything to do with objectivity, however. The sun is objectively there, with an objective state, whether we observe it correctly or not. Likewise, morality, if objective, should be there with it's objective state whether we observe it correctly or not.
It's a metaphor, man.

If the observer is not reliable, that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If I ask a 5 year old to judge the correctness of linear transformations, he will not be reliable. Are linear transformations subjective? Most people say no (I say yes! They pull answers out of hat or somthn). Therefore, unreliability of the subject would not be enough to demonstrate that the thing being evaluated is subjective.
Also a metaphor^.

I'm trying to stay as far away from politics as I can, so I hope you don't mind if I don't answer.






My impression is that objective morality is valid (except for is/aught, which plagues subjective morality too) and can be used to make practical decisions within the world, while subjective morality cannot be used to make practical decisions because, 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?

[brewer]

We <- You and I, provided that we both operate under objective morality.

Observation of the sun has everything to do with objectivity, however. The sun is objectively there, with an objective state, whether we observe it correctly or not. Likewise, morality, if objective, should be there with it's objective state whether we observe it correctly or not.
It's a metaphor, man.

If the observer is not reliable, that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If I ask a 5 year old to judge the correctness of linear transformations, he will not be reliable. Are linear transformations subjective? Most people say no. Therefore, unreliability of the subject would not be enough to demonstrate that the thing being evaluated is subjective.
Also a metaphor^.

I'm trying to stay as far away from politics as I can, so I hope you don't mind if I don't answer.

My impression is that objective morality is valid (except for is/aught, which plagues subjective morality too) and can be used to make practical decisions within the world, while subjective morality cannot be used to make practical decisions because, 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?

Then it's a mixed metaphor and not valid. 

I'm sorry, what exactly if the morality of linear transformations? Another fail. 

Subjective on a sliding scale. For specific issues (i.e. pedophilia) for most is would approach an objective end point. But put one NAMBLA person in the discussion and the objective moral fails. 

Therefore, applying "one's" morality is subjective. I can and do make judgments on human actions as to it's/their morality but I'm only one person. It takes more than one person to make a moral determination in societies. Just because you and I have an opinion on what's moral does not necessarily make it correct or right to impose it upon others. 

Actually I do mind but I'll change the question, what's your position on killing?

[Abaddon_ire]

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

OK, Bear in mind that MK is plainly delusional.

Subjective morality is a myth propagated by the religious as an excuse for abandoning all morallity. The religious will reject their basic humanity in favour of a god that supports genocide, rape, human sacrifice, slavery and much else.

You know, the kind of thing that you or I would reject as immoral. Odd is it not. Human morallity seems superior to any of the proposed deities.

[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.

[mfigurski80]

We <- You and I, provided that we both operate under objective morality.

Observation of the sun has everything to do with objectivity, however. The sun is objectively there, with an objective state, whether we observe it correctly or not. Likewise, morality, if objective, should be there with it's objective state whether we observe it correctly or not.
It's a metaphor, man.

If the observer is not reliable, that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If I ask a 5 year old to judge the correctness of linear transformations, he will not be reliable. Are linear transformations subjective? Most people say no. Therefore, unreliability of the subject would not be enough to demonstrate that the thing being evaluated is subjective.
Also a metaphor^.

I'm trying to stay as far away from politics as I can, so I hope you don't mind if I don't answer.

My impression is that objective morality is valid (except for is/aught, which plagues subjective morality too) and can be used to make practical decisions within the world, while subjective morality cannot be used to make practical decisions because, 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?

Then it's a mixed metaphor and not valid. 

I'm sorry, what exactly if the morality of linear transformations? Another fail. 

Subjective on a sliding scale. For specific issues (i.e. pedophilia) for most is would approach an objective end point. But put one NAMBLA person in the discussion and the objective moral fails. 

Therefore, applying "one's" morality is subjective. I can and do make judgments on human actions as to it's/their morality but I'm only one person. It takes more than one person to make a moral determination in societies. Just because you and I have an opinion on what's moral does not necessarily make it correct or right to impose it upon others. 

Actually I do mind but I'll change the question, what's your position on killing?

Hmm. You'll have to cut me some slack, I can't formally do formal explanations. Here goes:

By describing the sun and it's state, I meant to remind of the inherent nature of objective events. I then argue this same inherent nature of objective events would include some of the traits/inconsistencies you pointed out earlier. Aka, the inconsistencies you describe are not traits of objective morality specifically, but of the idea of an objective thing in general.
By describing the sun specifically, I meant to show that your points were really arguing against the objective existence of a sun as well as objective morality. I do not relate the sun and morality in any way, except by their supposed objectiveness.

Similarly, linear transformations do not relate to objective morality directly. They are, again, pointing at the inherent nature of an objective event, which objective morality would also have should it exist.

What exactly fails here? Could you be more specific?




Are you saying that one NAMBLA (?) person would change the nature of a moral law from objective to subjective, or merely prove that it was never objective to begin with? If the former: that's not how I understand objectivity to work; if the latter, the following questions arise:

If moral laws are split between subjective/objective, do you hold that at least one of the objective laws, upon violation, could not be possibly held up by a violator as immoral itself (and therefore subjective)? If so, cool, if you have any specific examples of such a law, please share. If not, isn't that the same as entirely subjective morality, since you're essentially just waiting for the nutcases to get through everything?

Therefore, applying "one's" morality is subjective. I can and do make judgments on human actions as to it's/their morality but I'm only one person. It takes more than one person to make a moral determination in societies. Just because you and I have an opinion on what's moral does not necessarily make it correct or right to impose it upon others. 

So, just to be clear, you pronounce humans and their actions as either good or not good, independently of what they think about themselves and their actions? And, no matter how hard your moral judgement, you would accept the crowd's moral legislation instead?
Would you be comfortable to act on a conviction made by yourself? By the crowd?



My position on killing: moral under certain circumstances and certain mindset, immoral under most. 


@bennyboy

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.

Yes, but this doesn't really support a subjective morality -- change in moral interpretation can happen under objective morality as well.
In fact, the very idea that people argue over morals -- you mentioned the gay transformation --  suggest that they think it meaningful to argue over such morals, aka, that people recognize their own morality as better than another and are capable of transmitting that to people who don't yet hold that morality. How? Shouldn't a moral interpretation be self sufficient, if subjective? Why would anyone change their morals?

[Belacqua]

... so how do you evaluate the world/others/actions with a subjective morality?

I spot a chance to chime in with my pet peeve...

A lot of times when people say "objective" they seem to mean "universal and eternal." As if any objective judgment will be the same always and forever. But I don't think that's what "objective" means. 

Say for example I assemble a panel of nutritionists to help me plan my diet. They can -- objectively -- figure out what's healthiest for me to eat. But that doesn't mean that it's best for absolutely everyone. 

And if new research shows that, contrary to prior theories, chocolate TimTams are in fact the healthiest thing you can eat, then the same nutritionists would have to adjust their objective evaluation to take account of these new findings. (I mention this because I am conducting a long-term experiment on the benefits of chocolate TimTams.) 

I think that the nutritionists' decisions will be objective if they are disinterested and unselfish. But they may nonetheless change their minds later, and may even disagree in the present.

Now if people want to debate the (perhaps religious) belief in a universal and eternal set of moral laws, that would be a different subject.

[bennyboy]

Yes, but this doesn't really support a subjective morality -- change in moral interpretation can happen under objective morality as well.
In fact, the very idea that people argue over morals -- you mentioned the gay transformation --  suggest that they think it meaningful to argue over such morals, aka, that people recognize their own morality as better than another and are capable of transmitting that to people who don't yet hold that morality. How? Shouldn't a moral interpretation be self sufficient, if subjective? Why would anyone change their morals?

That last question constitutes a meta-morality: why should we be moral? But that hints at infinite regress-- any reason FOR moral thought instantly becomes part OF moral thought, and then you ask again-- why should I care about that? And so on.

The answer isn't a moral answer, but an observation: we are a social species, and our social instincts include feelings of justice, empathy, outrage, forgiveness, and so on. Since morality is an expression of our humanity, then it will attempt to reconcile those various feelings with the environment, social and otherwise.

You could argue that a general moral sense is truly objective, since there are signs of it in animals which lack the capacity for language. My dogs, for example, show jealousy and offense when I favor one over the other. If they could speak, they'd tell me how immoral it is that I sometime run with only my beagle, or sometimes let only my Yorkie out of their enclosure to sit on the bed while I read to my son.

As for specific mores, or their collation into moral systems, surely those are a reconciliation among instinct, ideas, and environment. Since we are evolving technologically, the way in which we have to deal with our instincts, and the way in which we are presented with moral ideas (instantly from around the world, for example, rather than just in the local church) constantly imposes moral questions on us: how do I really FEEL about homosexuality? About freedom of speech? About democracy? About women's equality? And then, if the way I feel about it isn't approved by my social context, I will decide how I feel about angry forum posts, or losing my job, or being shot in the face. As the picture emerges (for me), I will pick my battles, surrender others, and attempt to continue living my life.

That's how morality is sorted out, in my view.

[Whateverist]

I wonder if those who feel morality is objective actually think it is even for those who think it is actually subjective. Those of us who feel morality is subjective likewise feel that objectivists are simply misidentifying their subjective experience as something objective. If ever there was a question where it would be rewarding to try to make the best case you can for side you don't identify with, this is it. Clearly there is a sense in which both are valid.