Is morality objective or subjective?

this, OP…read Kant.

duty, maxims, categorical imperatives...good stuff

>So if they are subjective, then do they even mean anything, can they even be considered morals?

They're just tools meant to judge the people and world around you. You determine what actions and persons are acceptable for your environment.

>If one person views murder as moral, how can you disagree with that?

My own self interest in not wanting a society that condones murder coupled with collective might to enforce it.

>This eliminates any sense of "right" or "wrong" and leaves you only with "I dislike this, personally".

This ultimately achieves my aims so the difference doesn't actually matter.

Recommendations on where to start with Kant?

Kant never manages to bridge the is/ought gap and provides no reason to value his particular moral system.

Those that talk about morality, excerpts from the book "Mere Christianity".

>Hitler is just as right as Gandhi. This is where nihilistic atheism leads to.

What's the problem with this? It is not in our interests to enforce a world where people like Hitler are given free reign to do as they please, so we ensure that this doesn't happen.

>Those that talk about morality
Those being?

Metaphysics of Morals

How many philosophers truly bridge the is/ought? Simply applying some of Kant's maxims brings the ought into is.

>why/how you do something is just as important as what you do.
volunteering at a soup kitchen so your friends think you're a good person is wrong. Doing it to help people is good.

>volunteering at a soup kitchen so your friends think you're a good person is wrong. Doing it to help people is good.

If the end point is others are helped, is it really wrong due to your intent only? The positive outcome of others being fed isn't altered.

Subjective because of what said.

>This eliminates any sense of "right" or "wrong" and leaves you only with "I dislike this, personally".

That's what morality is, except it's not just 1 person, but an entire group of people against a minority.

>Hitler is just as right as Gandhi.

And he is, you just disagree with him, alongside most other people, therefore he is evil, but he could be good. It just so happened that he lost the war, and he didn't got to make his morality the right one.

Ultimately that's how you decide what is right and what is wrong...You impose your ideas. That's the only true definition of morality: What the current most powerful group of people think is right and is wrong.

The only reason things like "don't kill" and "don't steal" are (almost) universally agreed to be bad, is because if we accept them in society, we are putting ourselves at risk, while not gaining a lot from it, so it's not logical from our own egocentric perspective to do so.

not necessarily. Kant outlines more of it.

there are several acts that vary in morality.
1. Acts that go against duty and our desire
2. Acts that go against duty but appease our desire
3. Acts that affirm duty and our desire
4. Acts that affirm duty but not our desires

1 and 2 are immoral because they do not conformm to Kant's "duty"

3 and 4 are both moral, but 4 is more admirable or whatever word he used...its been a while.

>How many philosophers truly bridge the is/ought?

None that I know of, ergo they aren't able to provide an objective basis to morality.

>Simply applying some of Kant's maxims brings the ought into is.

Which is fine, but you're still just using morality to create the world you want, not enforcing an objective good. The good is good because it's helpful and preferable to you, not because it is good.

>On Sexual Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=XBp8M8M4DMs

>Proving an absolute Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>Right & Wrong, A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>Bulverism
youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

All actions which are physically possible are equally valid actions. No human action or thought is more or less valid than any other.

So what is an objective good?

Nothing, because good is a subjective value judgment.

see
If you're using morality as a means instead of an end, it's an illusion and not real morality.

Relativists like
Don't really believe in morality. They simply use "morality" as a tool (pic related) to enforce their own beliefs on others.

OP is asking whether there is ABSOLUTE, DIVINE, OBJECTIVE morality. And there is.

...

so murder is wrong only because someone with "authority" says so?

Ending a sentient life is not objectively wrong?

The Constitution says — “Congress shall have power to declare war...” I agree to this. I endorse it. I swear to help carry it through... What then, am I less a Christian? Is not war a Christian service? Is it not perfectly Christian to murder hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings; to ravish defenseless females, sack and burn cities, and enact all the other cruelties of war? Out upon these new-fangled scruples! is is the very way to forgive injuries, and love our enemies! If we only do it all in true love, nothing can be more Christian than wholesale murder!

In another pamphlet, under the title, How Many Does It Take? he says, “How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does it is murder. Two, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take? is is the question. Just so with the , robbery, burglary, and all other crimes... But a whole nation can commit it... But how many does it take?” Why must one, ten, one hundred men not violate God’s law, while very many may?
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you.pdf

OP, seriously don't bother with C.S. Lewis. He's not a philosopher, just an apologist and nothing he says will hold up to philosophical scrutiny. Kant is a good suggestion, as are Plato and Aristotle for starting points. If you'd like something from a more egoistic angle, try Spinoza. The work to go with for Spinoza is Ethics, as for Plato I'd start with Apology and Symposium, then move on to the Republic. The Nicomachean Ethics is the big work of Aristotle, but I'm not widely versed in his work.

On the other side of the coin, I'd actually recommend Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, and Friedrich Nietzsche's The Gay Science.

>he's wrong cuz i said so
Not an argument.

>t. butthurt atheist angry that Lewis debunked Stirner/Nietzsche

>Don't really believe in morality. They simply use "morality" as a tool (pic related) to enforce their own beliefs on others.

Actually I use it as a tool to create a society conducive to my existence and the existence of the people I love. But that set aside, morality is just an idea created by man, and ideas are tools to serve man, not idols to be served.

>And there is.
>do you have a single fact to back that up.jpg

>Ending a sentient life is not objectively wrong?

No. Every society has countless exceptions where they consider it entirely reasonable to end sentient lives. Execution, warfare, and mercy killing come to mind.

>And there is.

But what is an example of this? I am looking through the videos, but a brief answer that can be summarized in text would be appreciated.

No. His works are only convincing if you already agree with him, but they flat out don't stand up to formal logic.

>No. Every society has countless exceptions where they consider it entirely reasonable to end sentient lives. Execution, warfare, and mercy killing come to mind.
Is it wrong to kill someone you know is guilty even though a jury found them innocent?

>"do you have a single fact to back that up"
>what are all the links posted in this thread

Isn't killing wrong, unless it is in self-defense? I am not sure if you can really, honestly, define war as self-defense, but maybe.
But then, why is killing in self-defense any less "wrong" than killing in general?

No, but society will still see to it that someone who does so is punished to ensure that rule of law is maintained.

Lewis' apologetics don't count. Make some actual philosophical arguments or bring up some actual philosophers.

Atheists don't believe in morality.
Rape, murder and torture is OK to them.

If you say you don't like those things, that means you believe in morality. But wait! You just said that morality is subjective? So you are admitting that your disgust of rape/murder is just an illusion and no different from what a serial killer's opinion on the issue.

If you don't believe in objective morality, you don't think there is anything inherently wrong with raping a little girl and cutting her throat with a blunt knife.

refer to #4 in
doing a good act because it is good and not because it is in your best interest shows a lack of bias and is the most admirable/moral act.

ex: Not lying even if you want to spare yourself punishment/criticism.

lying is not subjectively wrong because we want people to tell us the truth, Kant makes it a categorical imperative

ie: a world in which all people lie cannot function, therefore lying is not good/inline with duty

>if i dont like it, it doesnt count

How about you come up with an actual argument and try to refute him?

If he's wrong, you should easily be able to do that.

>No, but society will still see to it that someone who does so is punished to ensure that rule of law is maintained.
What right does one person have to take another person's life based on opinions?

i remember when i was an edgy 15 year old moral relativist, but then i grew up

We can only ever according to our own desires. If you at according to duty, is because on a certain level that you wanted to and believed the outcome of it preferable to the alternative. This is the fundamental failing of Kant; he assumes that there is some sort of impulse that drives us that is somehow separate from our desires. No matter what you do, you do it because you chose to do it. So the notion of "duty" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

He never brings up a convincing argument for us either being aware of natural law or natural law existing in the first place. Seriously, there are better thinkers to go with here. Cicero makes a better case for Natural Law, as does Aquinas. You just look foolish and ill-educated by using Lewis.

Collective might. It's what holds society together, and it's what we use to preserve our way of life. This is true of even the most benevolent society.

>each society has countless exceptions

You're using subjective morality to deny objective morality
>actualwtf.jpg
Having consentual sex with a sexually mature human of the opposite sex is not objectively immoral, but society has said the partners must meet certain age parameters to be "moral"

So killing someone, even if the law of society makes it justifiable, does not make it moral

I've seen this stereotype bandied around continually, but it's never held up to my own experiences. The teenagers that consider themselves philosophical enough to seriously think about the subject of morality tend to be some sort of extreme moral realist with really black and white views.

>Collective might. It's what holds society together, and it's what we use to preserve our way of life.

There was never provided a good reason to believe it's objectively wrong.

Hell in A LOT of cultures around the world and ages have had some sort of ritual killing that was morally right according to their own civilization.
Mayans, Aztecs, Incas did ritual sacrifices, Chinese and Japanese placed honor above life, so you have rituals like sepuku or harakiri.
Hell, some niggers in Africa raised and ATE humans in masse just because they where different (pygmies), yeah morality is not objective.

The right given to him by the people who dictate also morality.

>The right given to him by the people who dictate also morality
Morality isn't dictated.

Moral relativists are pseudo-intellectuals. They think they have figured it all out when they don't understand the arguments for an absolute biblical morality.

It's a phase, just as atheism is a phase.

Funny how you stop being a moral relativist when a thief steals your money or someone rapes your wife.

Prove it.

>Funny how you stop being a moral relativist when a thief steals your money or someone rapes your wife.

But I don't. It's not in my self interest to condone either of these things. I just don't think it's universal moral law.

Just doing what your told makes you a robot, not moral, because that requires differentiating between good and evil. In that case you better have a good god.

So you actually have no real enmity with the thief, rapist or murderer.

Remember, the thief has a different opinion on morality and you believe that morality is completely relative. So the thief is just as right as you are.

edition.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

/thread

Could you not argue that those people are morally wrong? To have an objective morality, does that mean all people have to behave "correctly"? A single failure can negate it?

using Kant's categorical imperative, a world where everyone killed people for whatever reason does not work.

the fact tht every civilization has made murder a punishable crime (even if said punishmennt is death) means tht it is universally recognizable as immoral. As for the exceptions, those are the true examples of using subjective morality to create a world that is beneficial to us.
>allowing police to kill in the line of duty
>allowing soldiers to kill to help gov'ts achieve their goals without riskng their own lives
>allowing killing in self defense.

Now, what's your defense as to why killing is ok? Because fallible humans said so?

>So you actually have no real enmity with the thief, rapist or murderer.

Define real. I'm really mad at them, and would like to see them punished for their crime.

>So the thief is just as right as you are.

In a universal sense. But in a more temporal sense, he doesn't have the might to see his ideals become reality.

Believe me, this isn't a phase, I've considered this fully and its ramifications.

>using Kant's categorical imperative, a world where everyone killed people for whatever reason does not work.

But not everyone does kill nor will everyone kill, so his categorical imperative doesn't bear consideration. It's morality for autists.

>the fact tht every civilization has made murder a punishable crime (even if said punishmennt is death) means tht it is universally recognizable as immoral.

But that's not the case, as evidenced by the exceptions.

>As for the exceptions, those are the true examples of using subjective morality to create a world that is beneficial to us.

Which is the only morality that is.

>Now, what's your defense as to why killing is ok? Because fallible humans said so?

Your argument against is that a fallible human said otherwise.

>would like to see them punished for their crime.

How can you punish them for a crime that doesn't exist? In their eyes, they committed no crime. In your eyes, they did. Why is it "wrong" enough to necessitate a punishment?

>How can you punish them for a crime that doesn't exist?

A law was enacted against it and they violated it.

>Why is it "wrong" enough to necessitate a punishment?

Because it is in my interests and the collective interests of society to see that they are punished for it.

Objective

Only degenerate will state that it is subjective

I think therefor I AM

Has there ever been a civilization or culture that thinks running away from battle is heroic?

Has there ever been a civilization or culture thinks cowardice is a good virtue?

No, so moral relativity is incorrect. Mankind shares moral laws more than you might think. The statement of "morals are just subjective" is itself a statement of fact, something objective. The statement is a logical paradox.

The only thing relative is on the surface level. There is a universal standard and people have different opinions on how to achieve that standard. But there is a universal sense of disgust when a Mexican cartel tortures people or when IS beheads an innocent woman.

Why do atheists deny a deep-rooted conscience?
If their worldview of random chance evolution and purposeless, senseless life is true, the world would be a much more chaotic and anarchist place. Instead we find the opposite.

"They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" - Romans 2:15

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." - Titus 1:15

Only low IQ people believe in objective morality.

One would have to look back to our ancestors, and the earliest humans to find an answer to this question. Obviously certain moral standards are subjective and change from culture to culture. So it leads me to the question:

>Is there a certain set of basic, inborn morals that all humans share?
>If so, what are these basic morals?

For example, do all mentally sound humans agree that it's wrong to kill someone with no valid reason? The term "valid" being subjective, of course. We don't have an inherent drive to kill, and only do so if we feel necessary, but when we do kill, we feel guilty.

Only low IQ retards believe in subjective morality.

If you don't believe in divine truth, I guess you have no problem with me fucking your wife.

>Has there ever been a civilization or culture that thinks running away from battle is heroic?

Draft dodging, being anti-war, refusing to fight/engage in violence?

>Has there ever been a civilization or culture thinks cowardice is a good virtue?
Similar to the above; passivity and reluctance to engage in violence/aggression, valuing self-preservation.

>But there is a universal sense of disgust when a Mexican cartel tortures people
Is the cartel member not repulsed?

but not all laws are good laws.

we have a sex offender registry that includes streakers and public urinators and harmless child porn possessors. but no public registry for murderers, assaulters, drug dealers, domestic abusers etc.

I don't use it as a tool for anything, i'm just stating a fact. What is wrong and what is right is defined only by power, I hate using the "i'm just stating a fact" thing but you can't deny that this views have changed and warped over time, and if they do, how could they be objective?.

And I am religious, but even believing in god, his word on what is right and what is wrong isn't more valid than anyone else's, he's just another figure of authority, and even having the knowledge of all of existence couldn't give you a real answer as to what is right and wrong.

Not someone with authority necessarily, a group of people, anyone that is capable of enforcing it.

And not really...I mean, I don't like it, I don't think it's right, but the only argument I have against is "I don't like it" and "most other people don't seem to like it either".

I'm not a teenager, I used to believe in black and white, but I can't really anymore, i'm not sure if you are defending that, but if you are, by all means I'd like to hear a good argument for it.

If someone comes and punches me in the face, I think that what they did is wrong, but they don't. For me they are bad people, but from their perspective, they aren't. What I feel is no more correct than what they feel, and the only thing making my feels be validated is whether I have people that sympathize with me, if nobody does, and on the contrary, people sympathize with that other guy, and they rule it that he is right, then he is, who is there to say otherwise?

You could, but then what if they argue that you are morally wrong for not doing so?

You already got a better response than mine, but I'd like to add that not everyone thinks that the greater goal is to achieve a functional society...In fact from my experience, most people don't seem to give a fuck, they put their own interest way before that. So it's not an accurate measurement, as it's also based on morality.

>For example, do all mentally sound humans agree that it's wrong to kill someone with no valid reason? The term "valid" being subjective, of course. We don't have an inherent drive to kill, and only do so if we feel necessary, but when we do kill, we feel guilty.

Even animals seem to adhere to this. It is uncommon for animals to become bloodthirsty killers that go on slaughtering rampages, without some sort of disease.

>You could, but then what if they argue that you are morally wrong for not doing so?

Then aren't they adhering to the idea that a moral is objective, because you've violated it? If they accepted it as subjective only, wouldn't the offender never be seen as "morally wrong" because, if they are subjective, they are acting in accordance to the only morals they are capable of having; their own subjective ones?

ITT:
>moral relativists make the universal claim that there are no universal truths

OP you should check out C.S Lewis, he answers your question and elaborates on why morality is objective.

People like Stirner, Nietzsche or Kant are shit tier that only pseudo-intellectual atheists bring up.

Mammals are nurturing by nature, evolution selected compassion over lizards.

Indeed, I never claimed all laws are good laws. It's in our collective interests to try and change laws to our betterment.

Well, i'm not proposing a situation where a group of people that believe in subjective morals go against a group of objectivists, in this case, it would be 2 groups of people who believe their views are objective.

>evolution

2/10 for making me reply

Yes, but that's explainable from a completely egoistic angle.

Then God created man and placed him over the snake.

Even reptiles do not just mindlessly kill, though. Birds are also a middle ground, and they don't do this either. They seem to follow set standards for behavior relating to killing out of necessity for self-defense, territory (livelihood), and food. They don't seem to typically engage in senseless bloodbath type killing.

I'm not saying that there are no universal truths, i'm saying that morality isn't one of them.

>I'm not a teenager, I used to believe in black and white, but I can't really anymore, i'm not sure if you are defending that, but if you are, by all means I'd like to hear a good argument for it.

I'm not. When I was a teenager my morality was very black and white, and in my experience most teenagers that consider themselves to possess a strong philosophy also tend to be hardline moral realists. The gray areas that come with moral relativism and moral nihilism don't seem to work well with their psychology.

So then can the person claiming morality is ONLY subjective, remain true to that, if they will shift to claiming their view is the objective truth?

Actually, I only made the claim that no moral system seems to stand up to extended scrutiny and that the conclusion to be derived from this is that they're baseless.

Explain?

whats wrong with Kant? Just because he doesnt name god as the ultimate motivation for morality does not mean his work doesnt coincide with christia morality or aa a belief in god

Relative, westerners might have a problem with eating dogs and cats but there are other grouips that have no such qualms. It all comes down to muh feels.

Attacking a non hostile organism expends energy, and exposes you to risk of injury, which makes it less likely the attacking organism can feed themselves or reproduce. It's worth noting that among animals, violence between members of their own kind is still fairly common, even if they don't go on killing rampages, as they often fight to scare away or eliminate competition.

Kant uses the "better for society" argument which is basic entry level tier atheist apologetics.

see And even if it wasn't the case, can we really take that as proof of a universally wrong or right thing? In that case we would still be basing that assumption off another completely arbitrary pillar, this time being "it's nature's way, therefore it's the correct way".

Which is the stance that I used to take.

Nobody can be fully unbias I imagine, everyone ultimately believes that something is right or wrong, I will take a stand if I have tho, but I will remain fully aware that I do so with no greater authority than the people going against me.

>disregard actual philosophers and listen to a shit-tier apologist who exercises no philosophical rigor

Shameful.

>Even reptiles do not just mindlessly kill, though
That depends on your definition of mindless, where do you draw the line on sentience and consciousness?

In fact I like to touch on that of the arbitrary pillar because it's also what I think of any religious moral system.

I believe in a god, in the christian god in particular, and I obey his word, out of my own free will, but I do not believe that his word on what is right and wrong is objective either, because it's the same situation as with the animals.

"This is right because god says so"
"God's word is the true word because he created the world"

Which is similar to saying "in my house it is ok to kill because I say so and I created it". You might give god the authority to decide what is right and wrong because he created everything, but his decisions STILL don't hold any real validation, they are still purely subjective even if you heard them straight from god's mouth.

Needlessly.

That's because it isn't in the realm of hard physical sciences.