Poll: Is morality objectively real?

[Sewblon]

I touched upon this before http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.204110-Moral-Philosophy-The-is-ought-problem But no discussion really took off so I am going to simplify this. I am referring to morality in an ethical "right and wrong, good an evil" sense, not a psychological sense.

 

[Manhattan2112]

"Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do."

 

[Chamale]

I think it's possible to determine what is and isn't moral, but it's impossible to decide who we apply morality to. Is it moral to abort a zygote to preserve the mother's health, or does the zygote deserve rights? Is it moral to chop down a forest to provide farmland for more cattle, and is it then moral to eat those cattle? These are questions that, in my opinion, do not have objective answers. Speciesism will always colour our opinion on whether or not cows or trees have rights, and few people use hard scientific data to decide whether or not developing babies should have rights.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

Morality is a subjective concept. I think it's perfectly moral to perform an abortion, and I know quite a few people who would disagree with me. *shrug*

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

Objectively can you can measure someone's (or a group's) emotional and physical well-being when it comes to whether or not an action is morally just.

 

[spartan231490]

yes it exists, but it is different from one person to the next.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I suppose in great grand scope of the Universe, no I guess not. All the Universe needs to thrive is balance. A balance between all things, order & chaos, creation & destruction, life & death. As long as these things are kept in relative balance, anything else is immaterial.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Morality being a culturally shared concept ensures its objective reality in practice.

 

[wkrepelin]

I do not believe in good and evil or right and wrong. I just believe in destructive and beneficial or functional and dysfunctional. One man's good is another man's evil. That concept is totally subjective. I still consider myself moral and ethical but what I mean by that is that I behave in a way that is conducive to the benefit of humanities sustained survival not that I follow some sort of Platonic values that are objectively part of reality.

On a side note, though, I do concede the philosophical point that thoughts are part of reality too and also the information theory point that reality is information and its being processed. In both views any concept is to some degree "real" but I don't think that is what the OP is getting at.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I suppose in great grand scope of the Universe, no I guess not. All the Universe needs to thrive is balance. A balance between all things, order & chaos, creation & destruction, life & death. As long as these things are kept in relative balance, anything else is immaterial.

Who says that the universe is "thriving" at the moment or that the universe would even be capable of "thriving"?

The universe just "is" plain and simple. Without any sort of proven reason, purpose or will.

Which in turn makes morality a totally subjective topic. Because in the end, the universe doesn't care in the slightest if we rape infants for a living or if we feed and clothe he poor. In fact there's not even a single sign that the universe would be capable of caring.

Dr Manhattan in Watchmen pretty much summed it up when reflecting upon the death of The Comedian by saying:

"A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"

 

[Fbuh]

Our basis of morality ultimately stems back towards religion. Therefore, we can say that our morals are a religious aspect, and thus can change depending upon said religion. This is evident especially between what we define as the East and the West, where there is such a difference in cultures (mainly due to a lack of intermixing that is now becoming more prevalent). However, we see that most morals are similar between cultures, i.e. don't kill, don't steal, etc., etc. This generally translates as morals=being good. However, it is certainly possible to have, in a hypothetical sense, a world where evil is what is considered morally right. Because this is not so, I have to conclude that our idea of morals stems from an ingrained sense of wanting to be good.

 

[DarthFennec]

I don't understand why there's any discussion ever about this. I can't see how good and evil, right and wrong, etc could ever actually be more than just an illusion.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Our basis of morality ultimately stems back towards religion.

A completely unscientific statement on your part. There is no historical evidence or other to suggest that human morality would originally stem from religion...

 

[Estocavio]

People do as they see fit out of selfishness. There are no contradictions to this.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Morality is a subjective concept. I think it's perfectly moral to perform an abortion, and I know quite a few people who would disagree with me. *shrug*

I think abortions are morally sound until the 15th birthday.

 

[BoxCutter]

"Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do."

Well said, I completely agree with this post/quote.

 

[Sewblon]

"Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do."

I am sorry but I don't see how that particular cliche is relevant, ethics is about how we should behave(as in, what we should do) after all.

Morality is a subjective concept. I think it's perfectly moral to perform an abortion, and I know quite a few people who would disagree with me. *shrug*

People disagree about whether God exists or not, does that make the existence of a god or gods a subjective issue?

Odd answers for the poll.

What makes you sure it's shared?

Most people I talk to agree that murder and slavery are wrong, so apparently some people share it. Sorry if my choice of words is counter-intuitive though.

I think it's possible to determine what is and isn't moral, but it's impossible to decide who we apply morality to.

I can not make sense of that statement. An internally consistent moral code could be applied to everyone couldn't it? And if an internally consistent moral code can not exist, doesn't that necessitate that morals have no bearing on objective reality?

All the Universe needs to thrive is balance. A balance between all things, order & chaos, creation & destruction, life & death. As long as these things are kept in relative balance, anything else is immaterial.

Doesn't that mean that the inhabitants of the universe should value balance above all else? Which necessitates that at least one moral principle is objectively true and correct?

Our basis of morality ultimately stems back towards religion. Therefore, we can say that our morals are a religious aspect, and thus can change depending upon said religion. This is evident especially between what we define as the East and the West, where there is such a difference in cultures (mainly due to a lack of intermixing that is now becoming more prevalent). However, we see that most morals are similar between cultures, i.e. don't kill, don't steal, etc., etc. This generally translates as morals=being good. However, it is certainly possible to have, in a hypothetical sense, a world where evil is what is considered morally right. Because this is not so, I have to conclude that our idea of morals stems from an ingrained sense of wanting to be good.

You can't base morals around being good, and not being evil, without clear definitions of "good" and "evil." And the definition of those two terms are both open to dispute.

People do as they see fit out of selfishness. There are no contradictions to this.

But it still isn't relevant, we are talking about what people should do, not what people actually do.

Morality being a culturally shared concept ensures its objective reality in practice.

But an individual or a group can prefer the results of rebelling against their culture to the results of conforming to their culture without contradiction. So under your thesis morality is still just a shared illusion.