What's your opinion on morality? Subjective or objective?
Give only your point of view and do not critique others' opinions. This is for informative purpose.
Is?
Morality?
Subjective?
Or?
Objective?
Sorry, I'm not sensing a thing.
"Subjective" implies a vantage point, relative to other vantage points. Inside a kind of space. A differing set of conditions.
But what's "objective"?
Are these two supposed to act as a kind of duality? I don't believe that they are. I have no idea what "objective" is supposed to mean here. So, in other words: What are we trying to answer? Is it a real question? Or is it just a sequence of words, with a question mark at the end?
It really matters
if you say hurting people is bad, is subjective when I would disagree. Some moral rules shouldn't have a room for being subjective, usually fundamental for running a society, you can question whatever being x and y is bad/good or trying give a reason why a bad act is justified but never touch the core
@VanSwerick said in #2:
> Are these two supposed to act as a kind of duality? I don't believe that they are. I have no idea what "objective" is supposed to mean here. So, in other words: What are we trying to answer? Is it a real question? Or is it just a sequence of words, with a question mark at the end?
The question is: Do you believe moral values are subjective and change from one person or another, or do you believe moral values are fix and objective like rules?
@xDoubledragon So it matters, morals.
But does asking this question achieve anything?
Shouldn't morals be simply growing on trees?
Have you not noticed what happens, when people start making lists?
@WassimBerbar said in #4:
> The question is: Do you believe moral values are subjective and change from one person or another, or do you believe moral values are fix and objective like rules?
Not fixed and objective. It will NEVER work.
@VanSwerick said in #6:
> Not fixed and objective. It will NEVER work.
Feel free to explain your view with clarity, why do you think morality isn't fixed and objective?
@WassimBerbar said in #7:
> Feel free to explain your view with clarity, why do you think morality isn't fixed and objective?
Maybe it is, from a 4-dimensional eternal Universe's point of view. Let's call that divine subjectivity.
But are you planning to boil that down to <pick your holy scripture/ constitution of choice>? We haven't been having a lot of success with that. Will you still be selling the Qur'an to the Swedes? With or without force?
@VanSwerick said in #8:
> Maybe it is, from a 4-dimensional eternal Universe's point of view. Let's call that divine subjectivity.
> But are you planning to boil that down to <pick your holy scripture/ constitution of choice>? We haven't been having a lot of success with that. Will you still be selling the Qur'an to the Swedes? With or without force?
Why are you getting angry? I wanted opinions, I get provocations.
I said it's for informative purpose. Stop doing as if I will start a debate.
There is a third option where people don't really believe morals exist, but I think we can put it under the umbrella of subjective.
I think subjective moral values are the only position that is rationally justifiable. When we have ice cream we feel positive emotions. And its logical that there are other more basic interactions with others that feel good or bad. Nothing about that really implies any special status for morals - they seem to be more or less just deeply felt fundamental emotions. This is the most logical position in my mind for what morality is. When people talk about an objective source, in almost every case it is religious and unprovable. And for the non-religious cases, its equally unclear how you prove their existence outside of the human mind. I'm talking about moral realism here which seems unprovable either by deduction or induction.
When people say morals "ought" to be objective because it "feels too uncomfortable" to say hurting other people is bad, they need to realize that this is an appeal to emotion, and appeals to emotion should not be confused with reality as it actually is. There are a lot of things we wish were true - a lot of things that we might feel better about if we pretended that they didn't exist for example, like viruses or illnesses, but that is not an argument for why those things actually don't exist. It is just your preference on how you wish reality would be. And we are not talking about wishes, but about how reality really is.
