Morality Subjective or objective

I think we may be in a disagreement as to what objectivity means, hence my request for you to define it.

But lets follow your logic here. If all things humans know is objective to humans only (I still think this is not the right use of the term objective) and if murder is an objective truth along side mathematical truths like the pythagorean theorem, are we to deduce that squares of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is no longer equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides without humans?

If not why?

 

As far as we know humans are the only beings able to perceive a right triangle, or even numbers.

 

And why does this mean it will cease to be a mathematical fact in the universe if the earth were to implode?

I'll share the philosophical definition of objectivity.

You are trying to say murder is wrong is objective while subjective to humans. Its nonsensical.

 

you said rather unanimous.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=412413&p=1065100007#post1065100007

 

Ok, let's focus on one aspect of your reply: When it comes to morals, no one thinks or believes the same

Isn't this literally true of facts as well as morals? Why is it an issue in the realm of morals but not facts?

 

Ok, one more time: HOW does it make the concept of morality subjective? Disagreement on matters of fact do occur which proves that you are wrong.

 

Because the species that developed that language would cease to exist.

All things we know are subjective to humans than. Thus nothing is objective.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for admitting your mistake.

 

So the only reason the pythagorean theorem is a fact is because humans think it should be?

Now you are starting to catch on.

 

No facts only exist in human perception

I disagree with that concept of objectivity.

 

It may not be. It depends on what Nth degree one wants to take an issue to. For the most part, facts are the same, but if one digs deeper and deeper to gain more accuracy, then subjectivity can come into play. Mostly because measuring techniques and instruments differ.

But for a philosophical view, each is up to the person's own environmental factors and life experience. And morals, are mainly philosophical in view. No concrete or physical data involved. Mostly one' opinion.

 

What absolute fact is there with morality? It's philosophical.

 

All things in our world are based on human perception. We are human.

Please give something in our world that isn't seen through the prism of an individual perception and means exactly the same to every human.

 

So you are saying all things are subjective?

 

That's easy, we will not even touch the idea of science and religion where God did it or in science tells us there are many worlds where every conceivable event has or will take place. Ok you ask something in our world that isn't seen through the prism of an individual perception and means exactly the same to every human. There are many but lets take one that everyone knows. In ancient days some people who watched the sun 'come up' at dawn thought the sun really rose and went around the earth. Today most people say the earth not the sun rotates and moves around the sun. How is that? Morality without god is subjective if God exists morality is objective. So as I said in another post, the real question is about God, because God is totally objective, the standard 'absolute'. reva

 

Not necessarily. It's just that in my opinion the question (is morality subjective or objective) can not be answered accurately until existence of an 'absolute standard' equal to the christian definition of God is proven found or created. I can imagine in the future an quantum tunneling superHalputer', call it InfiniteHal or IH being created that knows everything about everything in our physical universe, which would make it a standard of absolutism, ie an equal to Gods knowledge about the physical universe.

Also, I haven't seen anyone touching on whats known as 'natural law' which does say even humble man has an inherent knowledge of right and wrong, kind of. Natural law, which was back in the days of Plato and before, was the 'go to' standard for Western political thought, is today considered a quaint relic by most of those that study such things. Well correction natural law is obsolete unless you happen to be a Roman Catholic. The reason natural law is ostracized in the modern world is because of two lines of thought. I happen to beleive we should have retained much more natural law in our modern supporting systems of civilization.

God by 99% of all definitions is a absolute because God knows everything including what is moral and what isn't, lol, sorry for the almost painful simplification but for brevity I can tolerate it.

I think you are confusing God and religion. God is perfect by most definitions (not mine but that's another thread), but religion is FAR FAR way FAR from perfect. Religion is mans construct where the religion attempts to describe and define God. My belief is not one religion on earth is 100% accurate in their description of God etc. However because of the evidences of various forms of science evidences of history and other reasons I think Christianity is more correct than the others. Again religion can not be an absolute but God is, therefore God can define morality as he does in the bible. reva

 

As a recovering atheist, naturally I had some of the same obstacles to belief that you and others bring up here. When I had the NDE it was the tipping point that pushed me to change from atheism agnosticism to religion to non denominational Christianity. I too wondered if God existed why were there so many types of Christianity. I came to the conclusion that all Christianity is mostly the same in the core message and what Jesus said it takes for salvation. So although a Baptist, Pentecostal and others would disagree I feel that if we accept Jesus as our lord and savior, and we truly repent for our sins we are born again as a spiritual being fit to stand before God. The little details we disagree on are just gravy. Eh? reva

 

But the fact is demonstrated. You can't test, demonstrate or repeat morality. It's a man made concept, which changes from culture to culture. Which is why it's subjective.

 

One could argue that is the case. Taking something to an nth degree out to infinity.

 

God, if he exists, may be totally objective. But has left its existence as totally subjective to each individual. Many many people have their own perception of God. A vast many in the world care nothing for the Abraham God.
So if God is objective, it hasn't spelled it out to mankind. So from man's perspective, it's subjective.

 

I like to never use the word never, but in this case I will. We will never have an absolute standard. Absolute meaning 100% without a doubt agreement. If there is a God/Jesus, they've done a poor job of showing and guiding. Perhaps by design.

Don't know much about this natural law. But for the most part, humans are kind and know right from wrong. Else, it would've been difficult to expand population.

Absolute to me means 100% without a doubt. 99% doesn't cut it. And if you're referring to the God of Abraham, roughly 50% of the world believe in it and that is divided into 3 major groups, which get divided further. So 99% you say, isn't even in the ball park.

Religon is man's interpretation of what God supposedly left behind for man in the form of books. Some of which are put into the bible. If God is perfect, he sure can't convey that to his creation.
As a mostly life long Christian, I'd say christians got it wrong.

 

Perhaps. Unless Jesus was just a man who came to teach and not be 'the savior'. Christianity had to distort passages to try to prove Jesus is the messiah. If you view it objectively from outside, it's hard to pin Jesus as the messiah.

 

Objectivity and subjectivity is a never ending semantics debate. Accept that first, and then look for rational arguments that you can reasonably communicate.

In fact beware of semantics altogether if you want to have any form of clarity in your philosophy. Keep it simple and ignore the absurd.

I agree with the video mostly, but suspect a slant in it due to a few repetitive phrases.

 

The highlighted part is not correct. That is not the reason it is subjective if it is. Leave that part out.

 

Of course that part is correct. Man invented morality. Different cultures have different morals. This is a demonstrable fact.

 

Actually, humans didn't come up with the laws of physics. We did some math and came up with some equations which do a pretty good job of describing reality. But they are not laws in the sense that moral rules would be.

He is saying that no moral rule is absolute. All morality must be taken in the context of its time and culture.

P.S. And yes, there were cultures in which some infant sacrifice was not only morally acceptable, but compulsory.