Is Morality Subjective?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Koh, Aug 28, 2014.

  1. What is right and wrong, are these terms open to interpretation?
     
    Torturing an infant, in my opinion, can only be wrong, or immoral. 

     
  2. What is more helpful than harmful is right.
    What is more harmful than helpful is wrong.
     
    What is perfect in helping is perfect morality.
    What is perfect in harming is perfect immorality.
     
  3. Perceiving is one thing. Believing is another.
    Do not always believe what you see.
    And don't always see what you believe.
    In that, you perfect morality.
    For by the power of truth, you while living, may conquer the universe.
     
  4. Everything is subjective.
     
  5. Everything is only subjective if you see and believe it as subjective.
    But seeing everything as objective without any hint of subjectivity, you find freedom.
     
  6. Subjecting perception is only the easy route, albeit a painful route.
    While perception of objectivity is a hard route, it is the most enlightening.
     
  7. Yes. There is no consistent moral universal laws. I can think of a counter example to any moral law such as don't kill, steal, or rape. I think there are general guidelines that work in a lot of situations. Like generally it's probably the most moral decision not to kill anyone but you can't say that for every instance in life. Also this really depends on how people even define moral? I think immoral codes are something that no two people will have the same off. Like a lot of people might think similar things but no two people would agree about every single moral dilemma. Really the question becomes very circular because you can define the moral outcome as the one that results in the most good for most number of people, utilitarianism. There are people who say moral actions are all about the intent of the action and if they conform with categorical imperatives, kantinism. Someone who believes in kants approach is more likely to say that things are not subjective and that there are consistent laws such as do not kill. A utilitarian would say that it is completely subjective except for one thing and that is that the most hapiness is produced. There are no consistent moral laws from a utilitarian perspective but rather one major theme so that is why I would say a utilitarian would find morals to be more subjective. Ultimately this is a tough question to answer because you really have to define morality before I feel like you can attack this question.

    Personally I believe in a form of utilitarianism I call reasonable expectation utilitarianism. The basic idea is that the most moral decision is the decision which can reasonably be expected by the individual to create the greatest amount of hapiness. Of course this belief is a little more vague because you have to define as what a person can reasonably expect, but I think it is pretty obvious. Take for example a scenario where robbers hold you up at gun point and tell you that if you rape another citizen they'll let you go but if not they'll kill everyone. I would say based on my philosophy that the moral decision is not to rape the other person. This is because you can't reasonably expect such a heinous group of individuals to keep their word enough to be willing to commit such a heinous act yourself. Essentially the plan aims to combine utilitarianism and kantism by adding intent and knowledge as a factor in utilitarian decision making process. I think this philosophy lends itself towards a subjective view of morality.
     
  8. To say morality is subjective is to say experience is also subjective, which comes a debate between free-will and determination. Pain and pleasure is often the premise of morality. You can consider what is pleasurable to all and not painful to anyone as something moral. While what is painful to all, and not pleasurable to anyone as something immoral.
     
  9. #9 0ri0n, Aug 28, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
    And I do therefore everything is fucking subjective.
    This difference in viewpoints you're talking about is in itself a perfect example.
     
  10. Right on.. Your choice, but then again, gives you the excuse to fuck off..
     
  11. However you want to see it, just don't subject me in the process, brother..
     
  12. Well as everything is, I'm afraid it's too late. Your specific, personal moral compass and perception of the world are all that you know. Nobody will ever experience or understand it in the way you do, every aspect of every facet of existence will appear different even if only in the minutest of ways, and it is therefore subjective. By "it" I mean everything. Including morality.
     
  13. Everything being subjective implies that all things are subjected, which begs the question, what are these things subjected to?
     
  14. Also, who are you to say that is all i know?
    Who are you to say that nobody, will ever understand it the way i do?
     
  15. #15 0ri0n, Aug 28, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
    The differences in human perception... What is perceived in your mind is subjected to how it is perceived in everybody else's mind. There is no single intrinsically correct and unbiased viewpoint for comparison.
     
     
    These are empty rhetoricals and I refuse to dignify them with a response.
     
  16. But my mind is not subjected to anyone else mind, and not everybody's mind is subjected to each other, therefore, how can what you say be close to true?
    When knowledge of objectivity is applied, there are choices. Nothing is impossible. And if i choose to be free, well that is my choice. If someone chooses to ask me for help to be free, that is our choice. And nothing is impossible.
     
    And what I say is not rhetoric, but an example, you already knew the answers would refute your position, but you chose not to be subjected.
     
  17. No... Your mind is not subjected to the minds of others... That's illogical and impossible and idk why you would even think that's what I meant, I am almost insulted. YOUR PERCEPTION OF EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTED TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S PERCEPTION OF EVERYTHING. Can we as humans know objectivity? The possibility cannot be denied. But we have no way of knowing that what we think is objective really is, because there is no basis for comparison, because nobody perceives it the same way. What you consider to be objective I may consider complete bullshit, and vice versa, we have no way of knowing what true objectivity is. I don't know where this 'nothing is impossible nonsense' came from but it is 100% irrelevant to this discussion, and once again you're assuming what I believe. Of course nothing is impossible...
     
    And it's not because the answers would refute my position it is because I had already given you the answers to those questions.
     
  18. A better term would be relative.. just like every other experience and aspect of the universe.

    Mobile mumbling..
     
  19. #19 *guest, Aug 28, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
    Sam Harris did a great TED Talk on this
     
    [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww[/media]
     
     
    If you're not into watching a long video, you can also read the entire transcript here.
     
  20. Its sort of subjective.

    Do to.others as you would do to yourself.

    Murder therefore is wrong because no one wants to be killed. (Obviously some people kill and want to get caught but some people are jjust crazy)

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     

Share This Page