Poll: Is morality objectively real?

[Withall]

Morality is, at the lowest level, a set of "universally agreed-upon actions and expressed ideas that do not offend a majority of people", and a set of "universally agreed-upon actions and expressed ideas that do offend a majority of people".

Let's pick a favorite "moral" issue. *rummages through the issue-box* Hmh... yeah. Abortion. Now, let's generalize!

A majority of people (at least, in the west) are against it, due to the set of moral principles they both agree with, AND have been raised with. To them, the concept of "pro-life" is good and right.

Another majority are for it. They are either trying to distance themselves from old tradition, or are convinced of that the individual have ultimate power over their own bodies, no matter how many people are in it. To this group, the concept of "pro-choice" is the good and right stance.

(yes, I am aware I most likely have offended at least most women on the Escapist for writing that.)

This is, one of the most, if not THE most obvious social and moral issue in the world, seeing as it hits a VERY big nerve in pretty much EVERYONE alive today.

While I am probably pro-choice, that is MY moral principle. Those who disagrees with me, they would disagree with my stance, since according to them, it's a moral crime, and just plain "wrong".

Before anyone asks, Yes. I am male, so I can't possibly understand the emotional bond any mother out there has to their child (provided the child was welcome, and the mother was emotionally stable (again, I'm generalizing here), and nothing happened during pregnancy, and the growth of the child).

Now, for the point I'm trying to make... morals affect how people act and express themselves. However, morals are personal. That is why people take offence when they encounter something that conflicts with the moral code that they are familiar and comfortable with.

Generally, THEY themselves take offence with something, because it makes THEM uncomfortable. For the record, as far I understand it, people are *really* easily offended. Being able to take offence, and be able to realize *why* something is said, I think that is "true" moral objectivity.

Again, an example to help make my point: seeing as I am against the actions of homosexuals who more than willingly participate in event like the Pride Parade. The mentality and how it looks offends me deeply. However, I can realize that the way they behave is their way of expressing their morality. I don't like it for a second. However, it is a way they can express themselves in a way they are comfortable with. Again, I don't like it, but who am I to use my ability to express my opinion, if my only objective is to shoot down THEIR right to express their opinion?

Being able to take offence and realize "Oh shit. I don't like that. I can express that, but I CAN NOT stop others from saying the things that I don't like". That's a sign of maturity, in my mind.

I could elaborate my thoughts about "morality" and "maturity" further, if there is anyone who wants me to. Other than that, I think I'll stop here.

Disclaimer: if you are uncomfortable with any points I've brought up, I can only hope that you realize that my points are my own, and that if there is any offence, the offence is in *your* eyes. I apologize for offending you, but you can not prevent me from expressing myself, unless you yourself want to be prevented to express yourself.

 

[similar.squirrel]

no. Just look back at the morals of a hundred years ago. We know a lot of it was nonsense.

 

[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.

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

Evolutionary Psychology, by itself does not solve Mr.Hume's is-ought problem. Proving that an inclination is natural and ubiquitous among our species does not prove that all members of our species should obey that inclination. You need to remember that there is no internal contradiction in preferring the end of all life to the continuance of any life.

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.

Sorry, but if morality is entirely subjective, then it is useless in a purely logical or scientific context. So your conclusion is of little use in this discussion.

 

[blinkgun96]

Morality depends purely on the individual, what is right to some is wrong to others.

 

[tthor]

morality is our subconsious way of trying to keep us from causing a complex chain of events to occur that may eventually bite us hard in the ass. for example: if its ok for you to kill that man over there, what makes it not ok for another man to come kill you?

 

[Sewblon]

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.

Please don't discuss religion in this thread, this is the wrong section for that. Heck your post contains at least two things that could start a flamewar.

 

[Irving Delgado]

yes it exists, but u gota do the buddha thing and live a few lives to see all the good endings then do the naughty thing to see the bad endings!
our existence is all designed like that, think of it as Gods video game and we`re the fucking sims.

or simply form your own opinion of what is right and wrong and roll with it. its not like we`re all gona get the same opinion one day and fully understand each other cause that would mean we stop changing and thats fucking boring.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Morality is a measurement against others. Therefore, it is not objective.

 

[Arcticflame]

Depends on your definition of morality, there is certainly an inherent leaning towards certain things in our genetic makeup, humans have instincts which influence our base morals to be certain ways. In this respect human do have a basic set of morals which are a strong tendency.
You could also argue that morals are the sum of all the morals of society, or perhaps of all people, and make morals be objectively that.

Morals certainly aren't 100% objective, however they also aren't a 100% fabrication coming from only you as an individual either.

 

[OpiateChicken]

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

straight outta the meno

 

[Fbuh]

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...

Oh, but there is. What do we consider moral, as of today? Not killing, not stealing, not adulterating...all of these come from the ten commandments given to Moses by God, as the Old Testament tells us. I would say that in that case, religion has a big part to play. If you can rebuke this, please share, as I am interested in this sort of debate.

 

[Dags90]

Oh, but there is. What do we consider moral, as of today? Not killing, not stealing, not adulterating...all of these come from the ten commandments given to Moses by God, as the Old Testament tells us. I would say that in that case, religion has a big part to play. If you can rebuke this, please share, as I am interested in this sort of debate.

Slavery and domestic abuse are also considered immoral, despite the Bible being totally fine with these things. Also, I don't think people consider adultery wrong in and of itself, that is to say, swingers exist. People consider the lying and deception that it usually entails to be more wrong than the physical act.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Go read Deathworld 2, there's some interesting philosophical talks about this in that. But IMO I don't believe that there is a universal right or wrong. Only the expectations we put on ourselves.

 

[Fbuh]

Oh, but there is. What do we consider moral, as of today? Not killing, not stealing, not adulterating...all of these come from the ten commandments given to Moses by God, as the Old Testament tells us. I would say that in that case, religion has a big part to play. If you can rebuke this, please share, as I am interested in this sort of debate.

Slavery and domestic abuse are also considered immoral, despite the Bible being totally fine with these things. Also, I don't think people consider adultery wrong in and of itself, that is to say, swingers exist. People consider the lying and deception that it usually entails to be more wrong than the physical act.

Remember that those ancient laws were written in a time when society did not have the advances in medicine and science that we do now. Rules were laid down to keep a struggling society stable and healthy. If everyone was screwing around back then, they risked the spread of disease. Keep in mind that I did not say that all of morality is copied directly from religion, but that it is based upon it. Also keep in mind that we just got over slavery not too long ago. 200 years is nothing in the span of history. Even still there is a huge racial prejudice gap.

 

[Dags90]

Remember that those ancient laws were written in a time when society did not have the advances in medicine and science that we do now. Rules were laid down to keep a struggling society stable and healthy. If everyone was screwing around back then, they risked the spread of disease.

This is the basis of subjective morality. Because religion and morality both predate history, it's incorrect to state whether or not religion was the basis of morality as fact at this time. Also, Ancient Greek philosophers wrote on secular morality. So Yeah.

 

[Fbuh]

Remember that those ancient laws were written in a time when society did not have the advances in medicine and science that we do now. Rules were laid down to keep a struggling society stable and healthy. If everyone was screwing around back then, they risked the spread of disease.

This is the basis of subjective morality. Because religion and morality both predate history, it's impossible to state whether or not religion was the basis of morality as fact at this time.

You are missing the point. Religion is subjective. We uphold morals becasue we fear retribution from some higher power. Of course it is impossible to prove it as of now, that is why we are speculating on it. Certainly morality and religion may have been different and separate then, but we are talking about now. The whys of yesterday are forgotten, and so things change and evolve. We do not kill now becasue we fear retribution from a higher power, though originally it could have been because we didn't want to bring down vital members of the population. People are inherently stupid. Individuals are intelligent, but people are stupid. It is much easier to tell a group that God will damn them if they kill than it is to say "Don't kill, we need as many people as we can get right now."

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

I think it's obvious what i think from my username

 

[Mad World]

I'm a Christian, so I believe that there is absolute good and evil/right and wrong.

 

[Turbo_Destructor]

To an extent, morality is subjective, in that certain things may be considered 'just' or 'good' in one situation, but in another set of circumstances, that same act is 'unjust' or 'bad'. But there are certain situations where everyone in the world I think would agree are 'right' or 'wrong'. This tells us that there HAS to be moral objectivity - or at least a set of inherent moral standards by which we evaluate certain acts, or the intents behind them. Moral relativists are complete idiots who try to hold an indefensible position, and if you try to defend the position of moral relativism I will shoot you down (verbally).