Is all morality subjective?

I was reading a good post someone made about this (not on here). Personally I can’t really say I believe that. But I would say that I’m a bare minimum moralist. I do see how morality can get dogmatic and have no more meaning other than whatever those in power tell us to believe. But there is some stuff that still can hold true in the face of that. Like I don’t want to be murdered or get robbed. I think one thing I can think of is how ridiculously long prison sentences people get for doing marijuana or having sex with a girl who’s maybe like 17 when it’s a legitimate age of consent in most places. I guess I believe in a free-er society than that.

 

Yes it is.

 

Philosophically, it may first depend on whether there is a God.

Things like relativism are not necessarily an either/or thing, yes or no, neither do they necessarily have a clear line. Rather they take on a certain "shape".
If you are familiar with graphs of statistical probability.

There will not be pure non-relativism or pure relativism but rather there will be domains, where something is almost entirely relative or almost entirely non-relative, and some things that are less obviously clear.

There is the argument of extremes, if anything is even the slightest bit relative in any way than it is really completely relative, but that type of argument can apply in both directions.

But it's hard to tell in this discussion whether you were specifically asking about philosophically or politically.

 

It has nothing to do with superstition or ideology.

"Morals" are simply codified survival behaviours. Most social mammals have such codes.

 

I believe there should be a freer society too.

There is the concept of natural rights and morality. That some laws may theoretically be for the greater collective good but still be very morally wrong and violate rights.

Also, I think if people only avoided doing things because they were illegal and not because they were morally wrong, the society would fall into chaos, or at least be very bad and very different and the only way people could be controlled is through fear, harshness and totalitarianism. It would be a dystopia, comparable to North Korea.

 

^^^ this here

Mother orangutans cradle and kiss their infant young (identical to mother humans.) Mother guppies eat their infant young.

Both are evolved survival traits. Therefore, both are "moral."

I think "do no harm" is probably the best way to view human morality, though even that falls way short.

 

How many laws would be eliminated if we only kept the laws against individuals causing harm to others?

Do I think society could probably go on just perfectly fine without these extra laws, not that much different than usual? Yes I do.

There would be some costs, but they would overall be small. Probably fewer people in prison as well.

 

Pretty much agree with this (except for the god part), and correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you're saying morals are subjective.

Speaking of extremes, let's compare ancient Mayan human sacrifice and WWII Japanese kamikaze pilots. Moral or immoral? Universally held belief, or only within the respective groups? How would the captives and the sailors view this?

 

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying there is at least some small aspect of subjectivity in all moral issues, but there is also an aspect of absolute morality.

It's not really a yes or no question, it is or it is not.
Some issues might be more morally absolute than other issues.

This answer may sound very frustrating and unsatisfying but I believe it is the closest we would be able to come to the truth.

 

Philosophically, I agree completely. Realistically, it doesn't work that way (which is why I added "though even that falls way short.")

As crank and I mentioned, "morality" is a concept that describes evolved behavior. "Do no harm" isn't always an option. As the saying goes, the first war started because a neighboring tribe's crops failed.

 

Okay, how do you separate the two? Give an example of absolute morality.

 

For the sake of argument one extreme example: If you were to make someone suffer intense pain and torture who is completely innocent just because you enjoy watching them suffer, and there were no other possible reason.
That would be a clear example of absolute moral wrong, if there was one.

 

And who defines what "harm" is?

 

As long as we don't play games twisting and stretching definitions.

The harm would include stealing; and obvious forms of sexual harm (though the devil might be in a few of the details on that one).

 

It would always be possible to go back to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

 

That would depend on circumstances. If it's being done sadistically, then the offender is surely a sociopath. Luckily, sociopathy is a defect, not an evolved survival trait. Sociopaths don't have our "morals." (Which should tell you morality is an evolved trait.)

There are other circumstances where this act would not necessarily fit into the moral/immoral continuum: Mistaken identity of the victim; the offender may have thought his victim was not innocent.

What if the victim slept with the offender's wife? What if the offender caught them in the act? In such a situation, where do we draw the line from immoral to moral to extreme? Torture may seem extreme, and we may agree on that particular "absolute," but where does the action taken go from being "expected" (moral) to immoral?

 

But according to your argument, wouldn't that just be relative?

Sociopath sounds like a made-up word that would not be relevant to your philosophical argument here.

 

That's why I claimed that a clear line does not necessarily exist.

That does not mean things cannot be right or wrong, however.

 

.

No. Mental stability is always a factor. If we humans hadn't learned how to protect and raise most all our young to breeding age, mental illnesses would probably not exist. Indeed, it's because of our "morality" concerning human life that we "let" mentally ill people live. In a wild environment, mentally ill humans would not survive, killed by their own delusions or other humans in self-defense, and would eventually be removed from the gene pool.

The philosophical argument works only in philosophy, and I discount it for that reason. It would be nice if we treated each other better, but when a human is hungry, all bets are off.

 

Agreed. But is the right and wrong absolute or subjective?

If I catch you in bed with my girlfriend, would it be immoral for me to kick your ass? Shoot you? Shoot both of you? Is it immoral for you to sleep with my girlfriend in the first place?

And there lies the conundrum. In such a case, the actions of everyone are subjective (except for torture, though a slim case can be made for that as well.)

 

Exactly. As social animals, we don't hesitate to sacrifice individuals for the good of the tribe. It's all coded for survival in our DNA, and as social animals, our survival instincts transcend the individual.

It's all subjective; depending on circumstance, era, local tradition, etc.

Is conscription immoral? Many Vietnam vets would say yes. What if we were attacked by China? In such a situation, our definitions may change.

 

You're adding a moral requirement - that moral behaviour must be driven by the construct of altruism, rather than by survival - predicated upon your own safety and privilege, and the access that gives you to the luxury of demanding moral perfection. Moral perfection is an option for very few of the seven billion, and saves no additional lives.

You call it 'fear and harshness' because from your immensely safe position, survival pragmatics are perceived as a grave insult against your comforts and freedoms. There is very little of the moral to be found in such an attitude. When you step back and look at this with clear eyes, it's easy to see that moral perfection is actually found in that 'fear and harshness', because it places survival of the many ahead of the comfort of the few.

 

And up until the 20thC we had that old 'fear and harshness' to keep the mentally uncertain in line, and not acting against their own and their community's interests. It was only quite recently that the West abandoned 'fear and harshness' - imagining ourselves evolved beyond such peasantish stuff because we have indoor plumbing.

 

Well into the 20th century over here, with institutionalization. And here we can examine morality further.

Is institutionalization moral? Should a human be "punished" because of mental illness? If we ignore the cost factor, would institutionalizing skid-row drunks, addicts and other "crazies" be beneficial to society as a whole? I think it would, but is it moral to lock people up for their human condition?

 

In a healthy society (one driven by the code of survival of the majority over the comfort of the few), the drunk would not be tolerated, and the brain injured/birth defected etc are cared for by family. A family might restrict the movement of such an individual if the individual is at risk of harming themselves or others, but that would be something the family decides. The use of institutions arose out of the abandonment of the 'fear and harshness' necessary to reduce the likelihood that a neuro-atypical person will act out. When we decided the comfort of the indoor plumbing set was far more important than making life tolerable and relatively normal for 'crazies', we effectively licensed the proliferation of craziness. Families could enable mental illness, because there were no repercussions on them - and society at large didn't need to do a thing because the Govt would keep the crazies off the street.

To illustrate a healthy example, the subsistance village demands that their crazies still abide by the rules, and also that they contribute in any way they can. They're still obliged to participate and behave. That's exactly what keeps a lid on the kind of mental illnesses that arise out of excess and dissolution.