I am new to this forum and I did not check the older topics. Probably this question has been asked before.
For me, morality is subjective, in the sense that it depends on the individual or a group of individuals. In the functioning of societies, morality is what usually referred to as “social construct“, where people agree to follow certain rules that allow collaboration and common survival against natural phenomena or other human societies.
I have seen philosophical opinions, even from non-religious people, that support objective morality. To me the issue is how we define objectivity in general. What is the reference point? If we say God, then it stays only on God and noone else has access to it. There are plenty of examples of different people with similar religious beliefs who support different moral standards.
PS: Now that I created the post I saw a similar topic from 22. I can transfer this text there if the moderators consider it better.
Like most you seem to think of morality in terms of an accretion of individual “actions” and/or “values”. With such an approach, you will never understand morality. Instead you need to go up a level of abstraction - or five.
Consider that through the ages many cultures across the globe, both secular and religious, have had some variation of the Golden Rule. It’s not a coincidence. No divine law giver necessary.
Does the Golden Rule apply also to the canibalistic societies, or those that performed human sucrifices? Also, it is difficult to verify if the golden rule was applied among the cavemen.
Since morality has been observed in other animals too, it is reasonable to consider that some basic principles arise for evolutionary reasons. Simulations in the 1980s demonstrated that collaboration increases chances of survival over individualism. Still, individualists do exist. The society represents the most acceptable moral rules, not the “all acceptable”.
I do not understand how something objective allows exceptions. Maybe if we give a proper definition to objective morality, it will become clear. Until we can add something inside the basket called “objective morality”, my position remains the same:
Something cannot be created out of nothing. This applies also to empty concepts.
The universe (defined as all that exists) is uncaused since if it was caused, the cause would need to exist in order to produce it. Whenever that cause exists, the universe exists (consisting, at least, of that cause, whatever it would be). So, the only option is the other one
When I talk about universe, I refer to the observable, the one we found that was initiated from the Big Bang. Outside that, we have no clue what is going on. It can be multiverse, string theory or another procedure (causal or not) that we have not thought yet.
According to the Big Bang theory, the observable universe expanded from an extremely hot and dense state. How this state appeared and why it expanded there are no specific answers, only speculations. It can be purely random quantum phenomena, or some causal interactions within (or outside) the “initial” state.
Now, if we use your definition of universe (all that exists), then I agree that nothing outside of it could cause its existence. It is, what you refer as, “uncaused”.
Not sure how to respond to this. Based on what you’ve written thus far, it’s clear that you’re way out of your depth - not just a little bit. Your approach and thoughts about this are completely backward. Are you willing to accept this as a possibility?
That said, let’s try a couple of basic things.
1 Objective does not imply universal.
2 You can’t get an ought from an is. Nor from what has been.
Try applying the above to what you’ve written thus far. What does this change for you?
Something not universal is too generic (subjective morality is not universal, for example) and does not give a point of reference.
Sorry but I do not understand the second sentence. Can you make it more clear?
I specified subjective morality as morality that depends on an individual or a group of individuals. This is quite specific. Can you give me a similar definition for objective morality?
To answer your question, I can consider it as possibility if I have a clear idea on what it is and what includes.
It is not question of pride, is question of understanding it.
I searched the google.
For the objective I got the classical: does not depend on one’s opinion.
For the second phrase, it says that originated from Hume. It means: from what happens to be in our experienced world, we cannot conclude that what is ought to be, let alone that anything else ought to be.
So, if I use these two, I conclude that objective morality does not depend on humans’ opinions and we cannot exactly identify it. Am I correct? Such definitions are used to described inconceivable concepts, like God for example. Which leads to the following question:
If I have no way to express some characteristics of the objective morality, nor to say what it includes, or how it is connected with my current moral standards, then what is the point of discussing about it?
PS: You seem to avoid the question that I repeated multiple times. What does it include?
Google AI didn’t kick in for you for the first? Here’s what it gave me
No, “objective” does not inherently imply “universal.”
Objectivity refers to facts independent of personal feelings, bias, or mind-dependent, whereas universality refers to being applicable to all people at all times.
Try applying the above to what you’ve written thus far. What does this change for you?
Your question is moot, which you should eventually understand. Can you just roll with it?
Well yes: we have less info, in regards to causes, about the observable part of the universe, rather than about the universe. Many things are like that, like we having more info about ‘what causes rain to fall?’ rather than ‘what caused droplet to fall?’
I don´t see any point in making the distinction anyhow.
In the same way, it may very well be easier to research on if killing is unethical rather than to research if killing this mosquito is unethical.
I have always read morality as pertaining to what is unapproved, and ethical about what is bad, tho. Quite different stuff
Gravity is independent of personal feelings, bias or mind-dependent, should I count it for objective morality?
It does not change anything unless you answer what objective morality includes. Going in circles is not my style. Empty terms still remain empty terms.
PS: If somehow you imply that all morality is objective and there is no subjective morality, then you simply change names between subjective and objective. If that is the case, I do not see why you do not say it from the beginning.
PS 2: If in your subjective opinion I am prideful, I cannot change that.
The distinction I made is minor and unimportant in this context, I agree on that with you.
For me, both what is unapproved and what is bad are subject/person dependent. You may not approve X behavior and call Y behavior bad, I can have them in reverse. One for instance can say “it is good or approved behavior to kill for my survival” and another person reject this as unethical and/or immoral.
PS: I am not native English speaker. In my language morality and ethical are translated the same, so I have a hard time distinguishing between the two.
Now here goes my double-part definition on subjective morality.
The individual can be selfish and care only for its survival, the society that lives in (group of individuals) can decide a less selfish approach.
The society frequently imposes its opinion on individuals, either by isolating them or punishing them. It is thus on the individual to decide if it wants to change its view and concede with society’s standards, or go against the society, facing the consequences.
Individuals that have decided to oppose society existed and still exist. Some of them reshaped their society’s morality (charismatic leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela for example). Hitler was also another example that reshaped temporarily his society, whose moral standards are now rejected by almost everyone.
PS I do not approve Hitler in any way. In the context of subjective morality, even his deranged view can be considered “moral code”.
Your question does not have anything to do with what I have written. It’s as if you have failed to understand much, if anything, of what I’ve been writing. If you feel like we are going around in circles it’s due to a failure on your part.
I can make similar statement too. Thus, our opinions on who is responsible for the circles in the discussion diverge. That is how subjectivity works, mind-dependent and feelings-driven.
Independent of personal feelings and bias literally means universal though.
Its a constant that can be measured by any and all, independent of their personal bias, belief, faith, expectation, idea, ideology, etc.
If its not a constant that can be equally measured by all for the exact same result, then its a meaningless concept to begin with.
So no idea what distinction the AI tried to force there, but the concept of “objective” pretty much implies a universal/constant value across all.
And the answer to the question is: no.
There is about as much an objective morality as there is an objective reality, a god, a universal standard, a standard for what it means to be human and many other concepts.
There are only frames of reference.
Moral for me.
Moral for my family.
Moral for my tribe.
Moral for my country.
Moral for my species.
Moral for the subset of people who share the same values i do.
Objective morality can exist only within a frame of reference, so by definition its subjective.
”Objective morality” is about the same thing as “the truth” in the chinese proverb of “there are 3 truths”.
There is an ABSOLUTE truth. And you will never be aware of it because you’d need to know everything in existence for a fact in order to do so.
Its not only a psychological and theoretical, but also a physical impossibility.
A perfect paradox of “In order to know whether or not there is a god, you’d have to become omniscient, and thus god itself”.