Poll: Is morality objectively real?

Recommended Videos

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
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.
Saying "murder and slavery are wrong" doesn't necessarily mean a belief in moral objectivism. Anyone using the term "murder" in that sense is clearly not communicating effectively. Murder is presupposed to be wrong or unjustified homicide, distinct from suicide, or justified homicide.

I think many people are just generally poor with the linguistic nuances of even fairly basic philosophy. Many people I come across seem to sway towards moral relativism when asked in a way less influenced by tricky language.
 

Anticitizen_Two

New member
Jan 18, 2010
1,371
0
0
I would say it is. I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I feel guilt when I do something wrong. That's real enough for me.
 

Manhattan2112

New member
Jul 5, 2009
592
0
0
Sewblon said:
Manhattan2112 said:
"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.
I was actually just quoting Futurama (mostly to be funny). Your problem with it is part of the joke. How you interpret the statement is totally up to you. Some see it as inspirational, while others see it as irrelevant garbage. I prefer to look at it with a light heart - I understand what it could mean, but I also know it's just silly.

;)
 

Sewblon

New member
Nov 5, 2008
3,107
0
0
Dags90 said:
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.
Saying "murder and slavery are wrong" doesn't necessarily mean a belief in moral objectivism. Anyone using the term "murder" in that sense is clearly not communicating effectively. Murder is presupposed to be wrong or unjustified homicide, distinct from suicide, or justified homicide.

I think many people are just generally poor with the linguistic nuances of even fairly basic philosophy. Many people I come across who I talk to seem to sway towards moral relativism.
Sorry if I communicated poorly. But the common human behavior of formulating rules meant to encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior, and founding governments to enforce those rules is convincing evidence that at least certain groups of human beings share some moral values, or at least something akin to them.
wkrepelin said:
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.
But an individual or a group can prefer the extinction of their species over the survival of their species without contradiction. So your position only holds up if you are prepared to claim that working towards the survival of ones species is objectively right, and working against it is objectively wrong.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Sewblon said:
Sorry if I communicated poorly. But the common human behavior of formulating rules meant to encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior, and founding governments to enforce those rules is convincing evidence that at least certain groups of human beings share some moral values, or at least something akin to them.
Again, moral objectivity and moral subjectivity aren't claims about whether or not morality exists. They're both claims about the nature of morality. With the former saying it exists as much as family exists (as social construct) and the latter saying that there is some moral code independent of humans.
 

The Austin

New member
Jul 20, 2009
3,368
0
0
Here is some philosophy for 'ya.

Everything. EVERYTHING. Is an illusion. It is all man made.
But we made it out of natural laws. If one man were to kill the other, it would be wrong. And as such, we would give him the label of "Evil", because he broke one of the basic rules of mankind.
Evil is not a thing, it is a label to designate the actions one partakes it.

That's my take on it.

[small]That was my non-existent philosophy major at work.[/small]
 

LordWalter

New member
Sep 19, 2009
343
0
0
Sewblon said:
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.
Anyone who is a relativist is a fool who is ignorant of human evolutionary psychology. See also:

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703

and any of Steven Pinker's work/books.

Or this:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/delusion.htm#06
 

Samurai Goomba

New member
Oct 7, 2008
3,679
0
0
I don't think either opinion can be proven. If we prove a subjective morality, we have to ask ourselves why we follow moral codes which we do not agree with on a day-to-day basis. After all, the lawmaker's idea of right and wrong is not "better" than ours if it's all subjective. But government doesn't like people thinking like this, so they say, "Our morality is right because it keeps people from being hurt, but your morality is subjective because your parents raised you to think things we don't like." The reality is that the government's morality keeps some people from being hurt, but if we accept the idea of a subjective morality we see that the government hurts quite a few more people on a regular basis. It might be "stupid" to run a red light, but wrong?

That being said, I personally believe in an absolute morality. I like to bring up the subjective morality nonsense to mess with the heads of those who believe in subjective morality. With subjective morality, we have to agree that either ALL morality is the product of nurture and there is no absolute right or wrong, or there is at least SOME absolute morality, meaning that morality CAN BE absolute. I'm not sure morality is absolute, and it's DEFINITELY not black and white all the time, but I think it can be in some instances and should be in many others. A society where it is considered absolutely wrong to kill another human being would be a nice place to live. Well, as long as everyone opted in, which is the problem.
 

Sewblon

New member
Nov 5, 2008
3,107
0
0
Dags90 said:
Sewblon said:
Sorry if I communicated poorly. But the common human behavior of formulating rules meant to encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior, and founding governments to enforce those rules is convincing evidence that at least certain groups of human beings share some moral values, or at least something akin to them.
Again, moral objectivity and moral subjectivity aren't claims about whether or not morality exists. They're both claims about the nature of morality, with the former saying it exists as much as family exists (as social construct) and the latter saying that there is some moral code independent of humans.
I agree with you. I only meant to articulate that some people share moral values, whether they consider them subjective or objective.
 

2012 Wont Happen

New member
Aug 12, 2009
4,286
0
0
I think there are certain actions which are always immoral, but sometimes allowing the results of failing to take those actions to occur can be more immoral. For example, I always think that murder is immoral. However, if you have the opportunity to murder a person who would, if allowed to live, murder many, then, despite its moral implications to yourself, you should take that opportunity, because more immorality (multiple murders) would result if that one murder did not occur.
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
lilmisspotatoes said:
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*
Alternatively, in the future, it will become moral to abort fetuses of people that can't take care of it; Why ruin 2 or 3 (or more, if the extended families have to help) lives because of one dumb night or some sort of religious guilt?
 

RaphaelsRedemption

Eats With Her Mouth Full
May 3, 2010
1,409
0
0
I have to admit, after being brought up in the Catholic tradition, and trying the life of a religious, I was brought up to believe that morality is an objective reality backed up by natural law.

Now, some years later, I am not quite so sure. But I have not, and cannot bring myself to transgress most of the boundaries defined by morality. I do this, not because of the fear of the man in the sky, or even because of pyschological discomfort sustained while doing so, but just because they make sense to me.

Now I would imagine that this is just another remnant of my upbringing, except that my boyfriend does very much the same, and has very similar views to morality as I do - and he's not a Catholic, nor ever had much exposure to christian teachings and views. Again, when I ask him, he says he just tries to do what's right and what makes sense.

So, we don't tell lies. We'll get caught out, it's too much trouble, and people don't respect those that lie. Now, there may well be an objective reality of morality that states that lying is always wrong and that one shouldn't do it. I don't know anymore, I just know it makes sense not to lie.

It might be a cop out, but who cares if morality is objective or subjective, as long as it can give you a set of guidelines for getting trough life with as little trouble as possible?
 

Paksenarrion

New member
Mar 13, 2009
2,911
0
0
Many a Star Wars novel has been written on this very subject. I am still waiting for a Hutt Jedi, much like I yearn for an Elcor Spectre. I would read/play them with gusto.
 

RaphaelsRedemption

Eats With Her Mouth Full
May 3, 2010
1,409
0
0
Paksenarrion said:
Many a Star Wars novel has been written on this very subject. I am still waiting for a Hutt Jedi, much like I yearn for an Elcor Spectre. I would read/play them with gusto.
An Elcor ANYTHING is awesome.

And yes, why should they be left out of the Spectres? Think of their potential as measured diplomats!
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
In order to argue the objectivity of anything, one would require the ability to view from all perspectives. Even some that aren't possible. Of course, that also discredits the entirety of human thought. Including the preceding.

Hell, this question likely spawned monotheism. You know, assuming it wasn't exclusively manufactured to control people.
 

Paksenarrion

New member
Mar 13, 2009
2,911
0
0
RaphaelsRedemption said:
Paksenarrion said:
Many a Star Wars novel has been written on this very subject. I am still waiting for a Hutt Jedi, much like I yearn for an Elcor Spectre. I would read/play them with gusto.
An Elcor ANYTHING is awesome.

And yes, why should they be left out of the Spectres? Think of their potential as measured diplomats!
"Impassioned outburst: Do you want the truth? You can't handle the truth."
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
Your poll is unfairly worded. It can be subjective without being an illusion. Everyone has their own objective morality, that's what makes it subjective. The fact that everyone thinks that at least there exists some kind of action which they can think to themselves "It would be wrong for me to do this" shows that there is some kind of universality to morality.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
LordWalter said:
Anyone who is a relativist is a fool who is ignorant of human evolutionary psychology. See also:

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703

and any of Steven Pinker's work/books.

Or this:

http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/delusion.htm#06
You shouldn't latch on to such preliminary work as gospel. There are serious criticisms about his work. His own work stresses the importance of environment, which means different populations in different environments will come up with different moral standards. He argues for moral realism, that morality is based off of objective reality.