Is all morality subjective?

Yep. That (legal) slavery existed up until 160 years ago is a sure indicator that slavery, as despicable as it is, is a normal human behavior, controllable only by law.

As the world has become more accessible, "smaller" if you will, we increasingly see ourselves not as competing tribes, but members of the same tribe.

I believe we all still retain this tribal instinct, but it has been tempered by enlightened thought, which unfortunately, we all don't have the capacity for.

 

We used to know less about math, too, but that doesn't make math subjective.

 

And the dude went to jail. Jeffery Dahmer went to jail. The plain Crash in Central they ate those already dead.

 

Where there is no victim, morality is subjective. I recommend this book on the subject.

 

It is a continuation of what I had already said and to which you responded. Using others, even if you have their best interest at heart, is always immoral. Immoral is not the same as illegal. It is a far higher standard, a perfect one in fact and one of which no human being is truly capable. It is not so much that we are evil as it is they we are not capable of being good enough.

 

Which is why morality is an entirely different standard than mere survival. Morality is doing the right thing even when no one is looking or when it may not benefit you.

 

Sorry, nobody's going to bite that hook and waste their time arguing about something off-topic like that in this thread.

(You want the talk about it? Start another thread and post the link in this thread)

 

And it's also true that the more walls disappear between different countries, the more walls will start appearing within individual countries.

But to get into that, we would need to start a separate thread.

 

Walls don't build themselves.

 

Yeah, but there are reasons for those walls existence.

People in the US don't want to move to South Africa or Nigeria, which should tell you something.

 

Short answer: Yes.

Morality derives from the wants of the influencers of a given discourse community. Therefore it is wholly subjective. That said, it does intersect at several points with its counterpoint ethicality, which is decidedly objective. It is easy to confuse the two — especially given the inclination of moral influencers to assert their dominion over the influenced — but ethics are caliche-bound to a simple litmus: harm. Harm is always unethical, but only sometimes immoral. And something can be both ethical and moral; unethical and moral; ethical and immoral; unethical and immoral, again dependent solely on the perspective of the influencing class. In a given system, the ethics are mostly immutable where the morals are mostly fluidic.

Example: We recently observed the 20th anniversary of 9/11 to pomp and circumstance. To some, it was an immoral act, while to others practically a moral imperative. However, it remains wholly unethical, and distinct thereby from moral surveillance through the lens of ethical calibration.

 

Objectivity is the only true measure.

 

Moral, immoral and/or neutral behavior can be put on a spectrum based on the quantity of humans that agree/adhere/support such behavior(s), disapprove/shun/reject such behavior(s) or are indifferent to such behavior(s). Add or subtract from that the historical length of time such behavior(s) have been practiced, admonished or ignored. Some moral, immoral and/or neutral behavior is more objective. Some is more subjective. Some is entirely neutral.

 

Morality doesn't change it is not a synonym for expediency. The notion of variable morality is simply sinful man's attempt at self justification apart from God. When the standard is unattainable human nature is not to strive harder to reach the standard but to change the standard to suit them.

 

A good question you pose regarding morality.

Do we as a country know the difference between right and wrong anymore?

As a country we have supported torture and murder of innocents by drones done by our government. That suggests to me we do not know the difference between right and wrong.

 

The fundamental flaw in your thinking and theirs is blaming the people individually for the situations in these countries, as though allowing people from there to live here will somehow ruin this country. That's not how it works, though. All of us who are not Native American are the children of relatively recent immigration to these shores, or are immigrants ourselves, and the vast majority of us love this country and participate in it in a constructive way. The same is true -- perhaps even more so -- of immigrants coming here to seek opportunity to succeed and have a better life and future for themselves and their kids. In fact, it's mostly them who do the dirty jobs under a baking sun, etc., because they're more accustomed to hardship and less entitled in their mindset. If anything, they're better Americans than a lot of us privileged citizens who have grown up fat and spoiled.

 

Is all morality subjective?

Of course. It doesn't exist in nature. It's purpose is to control society to insure peace and survival. We don't always achieve those goals but, without morality, we would descend into chaos. Law itself is guided by the goals and relates pretty well to the common concepts of morality.

 

No, it's beliefs that are subjective.

Morality is objective.

For example, slavery was always morally objectively wrong.

That the Yahweh-thing and the Jesus-thing busted a nut over slavery and people thought it was cool does not alter the fact that slavery was always morally objectively wrong.

Morality is objective because it's rooted in logic and/or economics and doesn't require religion or god-things.

 

Not at all. It just shows ingrained cultural habits. Muscle memory, if you will.

 

Not ALL humans operate that way. What you're talking about is primarily an afliction of the First World.

 

Nope. Again morality and expediency are not synonyms however much human beings might wish it so.

 

Wrong, expediency, not morality is the primary governance of all humanity. 8000 years of recorded history says so

 

Morality is just the codified and enculturated expression of expediency. There is nothing more to it.

 

You missed the point. It's only the first world which has abandoned expediency in the belief that the construct of 'morality' alone will somehow curb their instincts.

 

Uh nope everything currently being done by the government right now is about what is expedient once you understand their goals.