Stealing is wrong in every part of the world. Therefore stealing is objective wrong. Breaking an oath is wrong in every part of the world. Therefore breaking an oath (promise) is objectively. Kidnapping a minor is wrong in every part of the world. Therefore, kidnapping is objectively wrong.
Giving to the poor is right all over the world. Therefore giving to the poor is objectively right.
The something is objectively right or wrong concludes that we have objective morality.
To say that there are no moral truths is in of itself a moral truth claim. If morals are relative, then no one can truly know what is morally good or morally evil. So, the moral relativist can not say that Hitler, for example, was morally evil in exterminating the Jews because that would be making a truth claim about morality. This is why Moral relativism is self-defeating.
I'll admit I'm perplexed by what is objective morality or even if morality exists. However, throughout history in moral arguments the argument about what was moral or not was not based off of "I conducted this opinion so that proves that this is what is moral" hence people did NOT generally in their daily discourse define "morality" as meaning what people call moral, think of as moral, or treat as moral.
It was understood that if something was moral then generally it was moral regardless of anyone's opinion. The vast majority could believe something good was bad or vice versa and it would be as meaningful to the question of what was moral and what was not as whether the vast majority thought the moon was made of green cheese.
And even today nobody ever says "X is currently immoral/moral (respectively) but I'm trying to make it moral/immoral (respectively) by changing your minds". No they put forward arguments to try and explain why right now and since the beginning of time X was actually moral (or immoral) but we were making a mistake in thinking it was the other one.
If you want to argue that morality does not really exist then that's one thing but it's redefining morality altogether if you conflate it with what people think of as moral. That's called "belief" or "preference" not "morality".
I agree with Sam Harris when he says that science can tell us right from wrong IF we define morality as the well-being of sentient creatures (such as us), which I think we should do. However, defining morality as well-being is not objective; on could say that morality is simply following God's command or something of that sort.
Our world is defined by absolutes. This includes the moral realm. We as human beings have ingrained morals deep within us. For instance, we know in our minds that stealing is wrong.
If there were no absolute morals then I could do whatever I wanted to. Without parameters on what is right and what is wrong, society falls apart. Without absolute morals there is no basis for the law, and consequently no reason to enforce it. If we lived in a world where absolute morals didn't exist then, no one would follow the law, no one would care if one person murdered another person.
The very act of saying there aren't absolute morals, is reenforcing the fact that something is either right or wrong. Either there are objective morals or there aren't, there is no middle ground.
Moral absolutes are an intrinsic part of society. Without a doubt, Morality is objective.
We are born with conscience. Some people cherry pick ideas which then they claim to be moral. Stealing is immoral,kidnapping is immoral, and killing without reasonable intention is also immoral. And like Pastor mentionedgiving to the poor is considered moral of the world therefore it is objective moral, and etc. You can also use the ten commandments and the Bible as your guide for morals.
Today morality is only ACCEPTED as being subjective however simply basing something on an opinion doesn't change what is actually true. For example, the sky is blue, that is an objective fact. Now suppose I say the sky is green or red, you will not accept this because it is factually wrong. So then the next question is what makes something objectively right/wrong? As I stated in the headline, if these things are based solely on the majority of societies opinions (so basically doing a survey) then you have to really ask the question where do we draw the line? The law is supposed to determine what is right and what is wrong, but unfortunately, even the law changes based on popular vote. Murder is accepted as morally wrong, because it is taking another person's life, involves suffering for the individual and the families and even for the suspect. But let's remember, if morality is subjective then why are we locking up a murderer? Why do we lock up child molesters? They're just doing what they think is morally okay. No, it's not okay but is that because the rest of society doesn't think it is okay? Or do we all agree that there are just some things which are fundamentally wrong? Now I am not saying in any way we should let said people get away with these things but I am trying to open your eyes to see the fallacy in having a subjective/majority opinion based moral standard because it supposed to respect peoples autonomy but the reality is not everyone uses their autonomy properly. So does that mean we constantly change the law/moral codes to fit how people use their autonomy? Then it's only a matter of time before we get to a point where committing a crime is morally okay if we go down that track. I would like you all to really think about this next point. If we base our moral compass on what society tells us to do, then what will you do if society is already screwed up? If society consisted of drug addicts, molesters, murderers and thieves what kind of moral codes do you think they would have? And would you accept them? Would you even want to live in that society in the first place? I would imagine probably not, but you would have to because that's the popular vote. Do you see the fallacy? Do you see how society slowly degrades itself? Do you see how society can so easily manipulate you? Tell you what to believe? You lose your individuality, your values, and your autonomy and instead are given some boxes to fill and that's it. These are your options and that's it you have to fill one these socially acceptable options (boxes). Remember, what is socially acceptable is constantly changing, so again I ask you, where do we draw the line?
What Proatheismprorealism got wrong was that we don't "believe" morality is objective, for that would be subjective. Rather, moral objectivism is INDEPENDENT of human belief or opinion.
Oh, sure, morality in different cultures deviate. But look closely and you'll see that it's not the values that are different, it's the opinions of values. The absolutist can distinguish between truth and opinions about truth, just as he can distinguish cultural values from opinions of cultural values. It does not follow that what is really right in one culture is really wrong in another. Opinions about values do not change them. One could believe there is no hell, and therefore save himself. That is absurd. Values like killing old people is THOUGHT wrong in many countries and THOUGHT right in a few.
The similarities of values are greater than the difference. There cannot be a morally relativistic society. How long would it last?
Subjective morality suggests that moral "right" is obedience to cultural values. But the absolutist does not always obey his culture's values--there are radicals and progressives who want to change their society. Changing society is disobedience to some extent, so is he right or wrong? WAIT. Don't answer that.
"Subjectivism guarantees tolerance." Is tolerance something used to avoid something bad, like intolerance? If it is, then there really is an objective good or bad, if tolerance is good and intolerance is bad.
"Subjective morality implies freedom." Again, is freedom a good thing? Subjectivists can only say yes.
"Subjective morality extinguishes guilt." Guilt is a necessary pain so we can avoid worse pain in the future. I'd rather read instructions NOT to drink poison, so I can live.
Why does subjectivism exist?
Because we sin.
GOD help you all.
First, I will define Objective from MW
"philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world" + "involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>"
Using these two definitions (though either alone would suffice) we can assess morality through concrete phenomena meaning that there is objective data for their basis, with that in mind I will define Ethics:
"The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.", from the IEP
Taking note of this Ethics is objective in the sense that it must be reasoned for; it is not something everyone can create, it is not something that is created through a singular entity, and it is a higher level of morals that transcends the basic concepts of the individual. Morality is therefore objective, it has objective components, it has an objective philosophy, it has rigid schools of thought, and there have been schools of thought that have been discarded as a basis for social norms. Ethics is and subsequently morality are not subjective.
The myth comes from the idea that personal morals encompass all morals when in fact this is simply not true; most of the reasoning for why something is wrong comes with or aligns with one of the major ethical schools of thought whether it be outdated (Divine Command Theory) or widely accepted even if ill-understood (Utilitarianism) but these are all objective vantages.
The term "subjective" is being misused; I will provide for that with it's definition from MW:
"philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind" + "peculiar to a particular individual", I believe is the most common understanding of how this works. However it fails to account for the fact that most humans do not likely form most of their own morals but instead pick them up as they go and discover the world listening to others who have listened to those before them. A more proper definition would be:
"philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind" + "arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes", this is because what you acquire on your life journey is indeed differential so it can be said to be subjective however that does not make what you acquire subjective but instead only the acquisition itself. To make that clearer you may not be born in Italy so you may not know Italian, does that make Italian subjective? No. It just makes your experience a different variable. If you move to Italy will you likely learn Italian? Yes. That just solidifies that while Italian did not change, you did.
Morality, in large part, is based off of what hurts a society. That is why things like rape, murder, and robbery are viewed as morally wrong. But to pretend that morality is the same everywhere is ridiculous. If we look at Afghanistan, for instance, it is punishable by death to be an atheist. In the U.S., something like that would never fly today. But is an accepted behavior in Afghanistan, because the majority believes it's moral.
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.
The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times.
Most of the objective morals promoted today in the West are grounded in Christianity. Among Christians, it follows from the ideas of inherent human sinfulness and original sin that one's subjective moral instincts must be categorically classed as evil. Thus, say the Christians, one needs an external, objective source for morality. And — speak of the devil — there is such an external, objective source to be found at a nonspecific location in the sky, sitting on a throne.
The Catholic Church originally admitted several sources for such morality, including human reason; but at the Protestant Reformation, when the principle of "total depravity" was promulgated to an unprecedented degree, human reason became very dodgy and the Bible became the only source that was not suspect. Hence, we see creationists arguing that there are no meaningful morals if Genesis 1 is not true to the letter.
The fact that people disagree about if abortion is moral or not and that most people believe killing is immoral but there are murders show the not all people have the same morals. There's nothing that could cause every person to have the same morals. Our morals are influenced by the surrounding culture and our brain chemistry.
It is essentially self-refuting to adopt a moral system which divorces morality from the well-being of the sentient beings involved. As such the consequence is morality becomes subjective depending on how those sentient beings are built. It might be the case that one set of humans might find rape highly enjoyable and productive, and as such rape is a moral action. These sorts of things mean that while there may be an objective answer to whether or not an action is 'moral', morality itself is still subjective.
My headline is one of the few really true things we know for sure, actually, it leads to it's only one: you don't know anything is true is the only truth we know to be absolute. To a certain degree, given that we only have or senses to interact with the world, with are bound to a limited perception that his impossible for us to validate beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Objective morality is a lie, it's either subjective, or a claim to objectivity applied subjectivly.
What do you think of someone who would build his life on the moralities on the brother Grimm's fairytales, believing them to be the absolute proof?
Now think what could happen if he believed that it was objectivly good to murder anyone who do not share is delusion?
Most of the good that has ever come of the brutal dogma of religion, has come from a subjective interpretation forced by the global rise in critical thinking, and it's not making much waves in the sea of corpses it has left in the last century alone, all in the name of a uncriticly thoughtout subjective god, which apparently couldn't make a book that didn't contradict himself in the first page (i.E the problem of evil)
The lobby of religious agenda in the modern world as to end, and it begins by debating the non-sense they indoctrinate. 99.9 percent of scientists understand that there is no such thing as objective moral, why can't you. (Over 400,000 scientist, only 700 believe that the bible is true, and still they have no proof. There are more scientist named Steve than scientist who believe in creationism or intelligent design) and yet we can all see what the idea of objective morality does, some are simply in denial of the evidence to the contrary (The whole of human history, that his a lot to deny, which has daily consequences on all our life).
The belief in objective morality is the definition of subjective immorality, and a subjective understanding of morality is the best we will ever have.
The problem with discussing morality is the word can be ambiguous.
In this discussion, I'll assume that objective morality most simply means an underlying individual understanding of right and wrong that blankets the entirety of the human species.
There's compelling evidence to believe that morality develops naturally within social animals based on their need to survive together and cooperate, and historical evidence that morality DOES in fact change and evolve as our understanding of the world grows.
Transcendent morality is problematic in that there is no known source from which it comes. This doesn't mean that it can't be true, but leaves it wanting.
Another issue with objective morality is typically (not always) it comes from a "higher power" in the form of divinity. This is problematic in that divine beings typically vary in their claims of absolute right and wrong, and they themselves change over time.
Either of these factors would imply that laws passed down from these beings is subjective as well, leaving us with subjective morality.
Morals can change over time and during different circumstances. Your view of right and wrong may be different from that of another person. Because their point of view is made from their experience in life, as are your. Which is why you have your own point of view, on how you view thing in this world.
In the book the Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli states that in a government it is not important to have morality in your nation. He also stated this. Would you rather be feared or loved? He than stated it is better to be feared than loved. That is my statement on morality importance.
Morality/Ethics evolved with our being social animals that required group dynamics for survival. If the group was weakened, it had less chance of survival. Killing other members in the group, weakened the group, upsetting other members weakened our position in the group and the group as a whole. Thus killing others and upsetting others, such as stealing from or hurting, all threaten group harmony/dynamics and thus the group's survival. Thus we evolved group Ethics/Morality from necessity. This varies from tribe to tribe as their requirements are often different. A tribe in a region with no enemies nor predators do not require such tight group cohesiveness, so they have less stringent morality requirements.
Thus they appear less moral to those which need tight group adhesiveness.
Thus Morality/Ethics is entirely dependent on need and environment, it is thus subjectively determined by the group.
Morality is no way objective. All morality is subjective and determined by what we want from the world. Morality is decided by feelings and emotions and dreams and hopes, which are/can be decided by the universe's underlying nature. But morality itself is subjective. For those of you that yearn for an objective morality, I'm sorry to let you down.
Morality cannot be objective as if it was morals would never change. However, through history we have seen that morals do change. This means we actually have testable evidence to show that morality cannot be objective. The only way it can be objective is if you do not understand what objective and subjective morality is, and are confusing the two.