Poll: Is morality objectively real?

[Kapol]

I think a person's answer would mainly fall on the question if they believe in universals, like universal good or evil. Someone who belives in universals would likely say yes, as they think that there are some things that just are and always will be. I think that morality is based upon the opinion of every individual.

Let me give an example with one of the biggest 'evil' things that someone can do, commit murder. Would it be evil of someone to kill another person if killing that person meant that millions of lives would be saved? Or another example, is it evil to steal if you need to steal to survive? Would it be evil to steal if it meant you survive and another person died? Everyone has an opinion on what is and is not evil, and they normally aren't the exact same.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

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.

I've always felt "flamewars" are the fault of those involved lacking the ability to operate on a level beyond petty insults. Not to imply trolling doesn't exist, but like con artistry, its only as effective as people are susceptible to it.

Not to mention, morality and religion are inextricably linked, as all ideas of morality are rooted in religion of some sort. Especially the idea of objective morality.

Of course, I just like the idea of jesus walking around jerusalem thinking, "Ya know, someone has got to think some of this is wrong..."

 

[Ganthrinor]

Morality is in and of itself subjective.

Objectively, anything that is subjective exists only for those experiencing it.


...or something.

 

[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.

Perhaps. But that measurement will differ for differing individuals, so really isn't of much use.

At the bottom line, someone's health is either going to be increased or decreased by an action you make, morality prevents you from doing too many actions that decrease the health physical or emotional) of your peers. It can be as simple as being an asshole is slightly objectively morally wrong because it increases the stress levels of your peers or as dramatic as killing someone is extremely wrong because it puts them in the worst state physically and emotionally and it causes great emotional trauma to those attached to said person.

So although the vast majority of the morality we perceive is subjective, there is some objective value to morality.

That's my view on objective morality in a nutshell.

 

[Oh That Dude]

Your poll options are flawed. Morality is not an illusion; it is a concept. I don't believe in an absolute morality, because right and wrong are also just concepts, they are not rigidly defined and vary from person to person.

 

[Oh That Dude]

You are missing the point. Religion is subjective. We uphold morals becasue we fear retribution from some higher power.

Nice assertion you got there bro.

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.

Not when your opening statement was that morality is based on religion we aren't.

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

No. I don't kill people because I would feel bad if I killed someone. I don't believe in God, I have no fear of him.

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."

No issues with that, it's a pretty nice insight.

 

[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.

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?"

Ok perhaps "thrive" was the wrong choice of words, maybe "endure" would've been a better choice. Regardless the Universe still relies on balance, however we (ie the human race) are cosmically so insignificant that there is literally nothing we could do that would upset that balance. Even if we totally fucked over this planet the most it would register as in terms of the Universe is a cosmic mosquito bite.

 

[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.

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?"

Ok perhaps "thrive" was the wrong choice of words, maybe "endure" would've been a better choice. Regardless the Universe still relies on balance, however we (ie the human race) are cosmically so insignificant that there is literally nothing we could do that would upset that balance. Even if we totally fucked over this planet the most it would register as in terms of the Universe is a cosmic mosquito bite.

No way, the universe is all of existence. Whatever all of existence consists of, it will be the universe. everything is still everything, even if some of it has changed slightly.

I'm not sure I understand you, but isn't that essentially what I said?

 

[LordWalter]

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. {snip}

I'm something of a partisan in this particular area, but here is my (summarized) reasoning:

1. Any moral system practiced by humans but not based on human psychology is (at best) a waste of time or (more often) actively immoral.
2. The best example of a moral system we have in this respect is Humanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
3. So, while Psychology (especially Evolutionary Psychology) alone does not answer Hume's is/ought, Humanism, the system which is based on Psychology (again, especially Evolutionary Psychology), does.

 

[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. {snip}

I'm something of a partisan in this particular area, but here is my (summarized) reasoning:

1. Any moral system practiced by humans but not based on human psychology is (at best) a waste of time or (more often) actively immoral.
2. The best example of a moral system we have in this respect is Humanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
3. So, while Psychology (especially Evolutionary Psychology) alone does not answer Hume's is/ought, Humanism, the system which is based on Psychology (again, especially Evolutionary Psychology), does.

I may be misconstruing your position, but that sounds like circular logic. You are attempting to prove that Morality is objective, with the assumption that some actions(your example being espousing a moral system which is not based on the psychology of ones species) are actively immoral, which itself cannot be true without objective morality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swfItnTUFvY&feature=related I basically agree with the written description of this video, but beware it is verbose and abstract.

 

[Fbuh]

You are missing the point. Religion is subjective. We uphold morals becasue we fear retribution from some higher power.

Nice assertion you got there bro.

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.

Not when your opening statement was that morality is based on religion we aren't.

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

No. I don't kill people because I would feel bad if I killed someone. I don't believe in God, I have no fear of him.

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."

No issues with that, it's a pretty nice insight.

Perhaps I am wrong on all of this. I debate like this so that I might delve further into my own introspections, seeking new challenges so that I might further try to understand life.

 

[HonorableChairman]

There is objective morality if there is objective truth. There are several proofs for and against objective truth.

Although there are several pseudo-objective moral standards like "Killing someone without cause is bad" and such.

 

[Slaanax]

I always viewed morality something that in some ways are just part of our genetics.

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

ethics and morality, everything tends to differ from culture to culture, person to person. In the end it is a set of ideas meant to help society well exist and thrive, basic laws are the same. (don't steal, kill, ect.)Like someone stealing food, many will say its wrong and the thief should be punished but the person stealing, in this example, was doing it to feed their younger siblings/children. The world itself tends to be very grey, whats right to you might be wrong to someone else. But there is room for black and white answers, like would this action benefit the species as a whole? food for thought.

 

[JayDub147]

Morality is a subjective reality.

 

[LordWalter]

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.

snip

That...was probably the GREATEST example (or examples) of a non-sequitur I have ever read. Paraphrase: "If you aren't a theist, you are a nihilist. Why? METAPHYSICS! DUH! So basically atheists/agnostics believe helping an old woman across the street is morally equitable with raping her to death, skinning her, and then wearing her pelt as a mask." < You'll forgive me for being a tad skeptical of this claim.

Sewblown, you strike me as a bit confused. Or at least your writing is unclear. Morality (or concepts of moral behavior) IS (are), as a matter of fact, objective (given you are a human) by virtue of certain precepts being GENETICALLY HARD-CODED into our psychology. How is that even a debate?

Now my PREFERRED ethical system(Humanism) has precepts largely based on an OBJECTIVE understanding of human psychology and behavior (i.e. avoidance of suffering) instead of arbitrary nonsense (Don't eat shellfish.) I think you're also misusing Hume's work (himself an agnostic) to imply theism is required for morality.

The assumption that atheism/agnosticism=nihilism is laughably absurd in practice (*looks around, doesn't see any atheists raping and skinning people to death*) and nearly as absurd in theory.

That said, if the Joker asked me to shoot an RPG at the Batmobile, I'd be so in.

 

[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.

snip

That...was probably the GREATEST example (or examples) of a non-sequitur I have ever read. Paraphrase: "If you aren't a theist, you are a nihilist. Why? METAPHYSICS! DUH! So basically atheists/agnostics believe helping an old woman across the street is morally equitable with raping her to death, skinning her, and then wearing her pelt as a mask." < You'll forgive me for being a tad skeptical of this claim.

Sewblown, you strike me as a bit confused. Or at least your writing is unclear. Morality (or concepts of moral behavior) IS (are), as a matter of fact, objective (given you are a human) by virtue of certain precepts being GENETICALLY HARD-CODED into our psychology. How is that even a debate?

Now my PREFERRED ethical system(Humanism) has precepts largely based on an OBJECTIVE understanding of human psychology and behavior (i.e. avoidance of suffering) instead of arbitrary nonsense (Don't eat shellfish.) I think you're also misusing Hume's work (himself an agnostic) to imply theism is required for morality.

The assumption that atheism/agnosticism=nihilism is laughably absurd in practice (*looks around, doesn't see any atheists raping and skinning people to death*) and nearly as absurd in theory.

That said, if the Joker asked me to shoot an RPG at the Batmobile, I'd be so in.

I never contested that empathy is not genetically hard coded into human psychology, I merely meant to articulate that this fact alone does not prove that human beings should value those traits above any of our other genetic traits, since egoism and destructive traits are just as natural to humans as altruism and constructive traits. And being a moral nihilist does not necessitate behaving like The Joker, a moral nihilist can still chose to not skin or rape anyone for emotional reasons, but that is not morality in the sense that I was referring to.