Current Events > Is 'morality' subjective or objective?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Government exists so it has to be objective. That's pretty much it...

Morality is subjective by definition. Objective morality cant exist in the same way objective beauty cant exist. People just dont know what these words actually mean.

Morality is subjective by definition. Objective morality cant exist in the same way objective beauty cant exist. People just dont know what these words actually mean.

By claiming subjective morality, you are basically saying there is no morality because it is all based on the views of the people at the time.

You deny the existence of evil and good by claiming subjectivity.

Under a subjective moral framework, each person has their values and beliefs about right and wrong, and all values held this way must be equally valid.

Once you have this equality in validity, you acknowledge that what is right to one person is wrong to another, which means any given action is both right and wrong depending on who is viewing the action. In this way, you can't really define any action as right or wrong because every action is both. Since right and wrong are opposing concepts, you are saying A and Not A are both true.

So you're saying objectivity is involved and morality is objective?

That's the problem though, if you have subjective morality, then there is no point to morality at all.

There is no value in a subjective moral framework because there is no measure of if an action is right or wrong. It's both at the same time.

They are probably subjective (objectively) but should be taught as objective. If that makes sense.

In other words, Im sure someone is going to claim that murder is only wrong in societys that do not tolerate it, but I would argue that universally, murder should not be tolerated.

I also know that under a subjective moral framework you MUST have contradictions and logical impossibilities like an action being both morally right and morally wrong because without an objective framework to adjudicate, all subjective moral judgements must be equally valid.

You can't address this problem with subjective morality because it is inherent that the contradiction exists in order to have a subjective moral framework.

Probably better not to confuse or mislead people about what the words subjective and objective mean.

a person can like the taste of a strawberry. Its good. It tastes right. But this is based on the subject and their experience, ergo it is subjective.

Its a fact, and its true, but its also subjective.

No, its not a fact. I hate strawberries. Liking and disliking them is clearly subjective. Like the tolerance of any experience a person can have. People like and dislike different things, and they get to decide what they are. Ergo, a person who doesnt like strawberries is never going to say that they taste good, and theyd be right to do so, from their own point of view.

Under a subjective moral framework, the definition of right and wrong varies and you can't say there is a valid or invalid definition of right and wrong because they are all subjective.

Without that external framework, you have to admit that an action can be both morally right and morally wrong. To admit otherwise is to admit that there is a separate determination that makes one subjective morality better, or more correct, than another. And that is objective morality.

Subjective on what code of ethics you follow and objective within that code of ethics.

Is it not a fact that you hate strawberries, then?

You have to acknowledge that when something is reliant on the observer to exist, then it has to be able to contradict itself among different observers.

To say otherwise is to say that it exists independently of the observers. Once something exists independently of the observer, it is objective.

Morality doesnt exist independently from living beings. It is by definition subjective.

I've very clearly spelled out my argument, provided citations, and explained problems and what you need to overcome to solve them for your argument, and all you have done is just go, "LOL NO UR WRONG".

Reading your posts, it seems like your definition of subjective is just "anything that can be observed", which is quite different from the philosophical definition of subjective, which is "that which exists only in the mind of the observer."

Your two options for subjective morality are as follows;

Option A) There is no right or wrong, only whatever an individual believes to be right or wrong, and all individual judgements on this must be equally valid, otherwise it is an objective moral framework.

Option B) An action can be both right and wrong at the same time, and ALL actions MUST be right and wrong at the same time.