Posted in Reddit no good replies

1. Is morality subjective?

2. For the above question, I used the search feature on this board and looked through many posts and summaries of scholarly views. Every single one of these views, whether posted by the reddit user or citing philosophers, simply presents different conclusions based on different assumptions that are presented without evidence. I'm sure these assumptions are either seen as axioms or are deduced from prior axioms.

So, based on that, why the hell does nobody simple say, "Yes, it's subjective."? Why the hell is the can kicked one metre down the road by saying something like, "No, morality is objective as long as you believe in Philosopher X's 'Munich-Hedgehog-Footstool Metaphysical Epistomological Formulation of Ethics'", or towards any other axioms that you would then have to defend? Obviously this shifts the question to why I should trust the axioms to the system, but this is never answered (or admitted to be ultimately futile, or ultimately an appeal to emotion / intuition).

Feel free to ignore this paragraph if you're easily offended: It seems to me that anyone who chooses not to play the "Market your unfalsifiable theory based on evolution-religion-feelings" game self-selects their way out of philosophical discussion, so you'll rarely have someone like me who says, "Yes". But I know this board is sensitive to criticism of philosophy (i.e. meta-philosophy (i.e. philosophy, that you don't like)) so I won't go on and I am presenting things in this overly apologetic style. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

Holy.... I want more....

WAM.. A PANCAKE

Why would that make morality subjective?

From what you've said, all that follows is that different people accept different views of morality. This doesn't entail that morality is subjective since it is perfectly possible that all but one moral theory are false.

It is another question as to what kind of proof is sufficient for a demonstration of the correct moral view to someone else, too, since what will psychologically convince them isn't what ought to convince them.

tl;dr: your screed isn't evidence against objective morality

also:

>posting to reddit for any reason

Morality is subjective. Ethics is general.
It's sort of the definition, you should've learned this in school.

the school of reddit doesn't count

There is no objectivity, so of course morality is subjective.

It's on my old high school philosophy textbook. Unfortunately, I can't find it on online dictionaries.
Fuck off back to /v/

I think people go too far down the rabbit whole. I believe that morality is subjective as we all have different views on morality and ethics.

Nor is yours evidence against subjective morality. If morality is objective, it cannot be proven. So in the end, who really cares? My morals are likely different than yours, but neither of us fully understand the depths of our existence or the universe and our minds are all wired differently. Morality is a human construct, and even our legal system which may appear to be objective on the surface is an ever changing living being of collective thought and perpetual argument that changes with time and the culture of society.

I somewhat agree with there being no true objectivity. A general consensus, yes, but objectivity is debatable.

Just because something cannot be proven doesn't entail that there is no fact of the matter. You're essentially arguing that, functionally, there is no objective morality, since we will never encounter it due to its lack of demonstrability.

However, why do you think that it is indemonstrable?

Just because something cannot be proven doesn't entail that there is no fact of the matter. You're essentially arguing that, functionally, there is no subjective morality, since we will never encounter it due to its lack of demonstrability.

However, why do you think that it is indemonstrable?


Aside from using your own argument against you, I am just speaking from a perspective of personal opinion. I'm not trying to state what is or what isn't. I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no objectivity or that morality is not objective.

That would suggest, to me at least, that morality is not a human construct and originates from a higher power. Is it possible? Sure, I suppose. However, objectivity would mean that there is certainty in it as fact. Where did morality come from? Where did objectivity come from? Who is to say what is really fact and isn't more than just perspective and consensus of the experiences of our senses. How do we know that what we see or experience is not an illusion.

I'm not arguing whether you are right or wrong. I'm only speaking on my opinion. But I'm also likely not as well read in philosophy as you, I've just lived and traveled and have formulated my own opinions on these types of matters. I also mean no disrespect and enjoy engaging on this subject in hopes to open my mind further or learn something new.

Not that guy but objectivity is just a human created word. Figuring it out is not hard.

>Is morality subjective
Morality - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society
"one held by a specified person"

Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"one held by a specified person"

Seriously?

15 years old spotted.

You doubt for the sake of it.

>Objectivity isn't a word created by humans

So what is it? Let me guess, it's a concept that philosophers "attemot" to figure out yet it never will be as people will always say it's out of reach, even if God came to earth go define it

The word itself came to be by man. The definition is a general consensus of understanding that, for the purpose of this argument, what we recognize as objectivity may perhaps pre-date our understanding of it. If it exists at all.

Why does it have to be a consensus? Why don't we just number everyone's idea of objectivity?

>pre date our understanding

Oh wait, I was right in my previous post, you want the word objectivity to be permanently out of reach.

If God came down to tell us you'd still be claiming we need to figure out objectivity

> I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no objectivity or that morality is not objective.
Right, but you CAN say that it either IS or IS NOT objective. Surely you grant that?

>Where did morality come from?
There are different arguments, but one plausible argument that I am familiar with suggests that morality consists in the subsistent relations as determined by the nature of things. More specifically, because of the types of beings we are, there are such things as moral relations. If we were not free, for example, there could be no moral relations; if we were not rational, there likewise could not be any moral relations.

>Who is to say what is really fact and isn't more than just perspective and consensus of the experiences of our senses.
Morality isn't sensible; that's part of the reason why people who are fond of scientism or radical empiricism are content to jettison morality.

>I also mean no disrespect and enjoy engaging on this subject in hopes to open my mind further or learn something new.
The feeling is mutual.

>Why does it have to be a consensus? Why don't we just number everyone's idea of objectivity?
An impossible task, that'd be a sample size of 7-some-billion full of lurking variables.

No, I do not want the word of objectivity to be permanently out of reach. I'm not denying it's existence, merely questioning it or perhaps I'm questioning our perception and understanding of it.

If God came down to tell us, well, it'd be pretty hard to argue with that.

>Right, but you CAN say that it either IS or IS NOT objective. Surely you grant that?
Perhaps one day, at this point in time I cannot, nor can I say whether something truly IS or is Not subjective. I'm not certain.

But what is rationality? And I don't believe that scientism is suited to jettison morality.

You raise some excellent points that I will now have to mull over. I thank you for that, I've gotta go get on with my day, but thank you for the discussion.

It's a set of principles in an active state of development.

Morality is a simple concept. Justice on the other hand...

Shouldnt you just go read Hume or something if all you want is for someone to confirm your worldview

Morality is objective but indefinite.