Morality is subjective, therefore no moral code is better than another.

Asked by: Woeler1
  • There is no ultimate judge.

    There is no ultimate entity that can decide what is right and what is wrong. Our interpretations of right and wrong are subjective, and since there is no way to determine what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong all moral codes are equally valid (or invalid if you will).

  • Morality always depends on the victim. You suffer because you desire.

    The Buddha was right, for example, suppose you kill someone, and his/her brother watches it. Now although it is unlikely IT IS possible, that the brother could defy evolutionary and society-created idea's about morality and be perfectly okay with it, carrying out his normal life, unaffected by it. Now of course, most people would hate it because of their DESIRE to keep that person alive. Now, lets say you get something stolen from you. IT IS YOUR FAULT that you are unhappy because of your desire to keep that object in your possession. Not the robbers fault. Therefore, the morality of an action will always depend on the victim. Now, because we are all conformists or should I say, puppets of society, everyone seems to have the same sort of desires, and it this that allows laws to be created. Got got your desires because of society and media, in other words; information that you thought was true. Well, from a logical standpoint just because someone tells you or, you read something in a supposedly holy book, it does not make it true. E.G. Did the bible ever use reason and logic to justify the 10 commandments? Apart from the fact that a man in the sky didn't want you to do something? No. It didn't. So then, our morals are far from the 'truth' and they were made up. Now, that doesn't mean we should go and break all laws, by all means play the game of morals. But it is absolutely pointless to be upset, worried, or even anxious about moral problems because in reality, there is no such thing as good or bad. Imo

  • The difference between being intrinsically wrong, and being judged to be wrong by consensus

    We cannot simply dismiss something as inherently wrong due to its abhorrent nature as this would imply that it was judged to be universally wrong by some "moral code deciding machine." We judge things to be wrong as a group due to the fact that they violate our sense of morality however these things are not simply wrong by default: there is not a certain "make up" that they share that makes them wrong, it is us as humans that judge them to be wrong. We cannot dismiss moral codes as right or wrong; we as communities and civilizations must decide on these moral codes as equally valid choices to be considered, with the downfall that some are considered by us to be wrong, rather than them simply being wrong.

  • Morality is not objective

    Objectivity is all about facts.
    Morality is all about desirability. And desirability is subjective so morality is also subjective. There is no objectivity in the moral words good/bad/must/should/ought to/right/wrong. They are all relative to the particular morals of the speaker. If you want me to expand on what I said, reply to me.

  • Every society and person has there own morality.

    Yes I know this will sound weird but... As you know we all have our own idea of what evil is and what good is. Some might think euthanasia is bad and some not. Some think murdering people in the name of the law is good and some don't. Its all relative.

  • Morality is a concept that depends upon perspective.

    As Nietzsche so elegantly states, the perception of any action or principle is dependent upon one's perspective of the situation. Every society and culture from the inception of humanity to contemporary society of the 21st century has evoked the existence of a creator in order to rationalize a decision that, in reality, may be culpable. Religion distorts morality by assuming the existence of a god that determines what is good and what is right. The problem with this is that god, if there is such a thing, is not a human, and therefore should not have the ability to determine an action or decision as reprehensible in all circumstances due to the fact that humanity and its existence is fickle. The whimsical nature of our actions tend to create scenarios where one action is deemed acceptable when the cultural perception is that the aforementioned action is wrong. The discrepancy cannot be reconciled because every human is equal in the sense that no individual's opinion exceeds that of another's. Any moral principle can be misconstrued and contorted in order for it to be applicable in a society or culture that may be deemed unacceptable in another, thereby creating a difference in opinion, and ultimately a difference in moral implementation. Arguing whether or not "subjectivity" exists in regards to morality is futile unless one truly understands the essence of subjectivity in the first place.

  • No, no no!!! Absolutely not true!

    If a person had a moral code that consisted of raping children, murdering women, as moral good, I'd hope that the consensus of people would reject their code as being wrong and less moral. To equate that moral code to loving your neighbor is flirting with nihilism. Morality is objective and everyone deep down believes this to be true.

  • Simply Wrong, Simply.

    As A Kantian, I know that the neophytes that are all around us constantly get in the way of finding the truth. (Freaking utilitarians). It is obvious that intentions are the grounds for morality, and even if not, The morals of out own are based on protecting that which others (Freaking Utilitarians again) seem to not care about. In other words, Internationalism Beats all y'all.

  • Morality is subjective, but still there are moral codes that can be more beneficial than others.

    Morality is a difficult subject because it is subjective, e.G. A moral argument can be turned upside down depending on the person who is judging the situation. For example somebody can say:

    "it is necessary to kill somebody if he/she is in too much pain".

    But you can always argue that the definition of "too much pain" depends on a subjective experience. Is it too much pain for the deceased or for the family?

    Therefore, any moral argument can be shown to be contradictory due to poor definitions. For example how can you define what is good or bad? Maybe it is good for you and bad for somebody else, or worse it can be both good and bad for you and rather be in a gray undecided area.

    Still from a practical view point society needs behavioral rules. This rules can come from culture or religion, and here is a point that most atheist just overlook (I am an atheist). Religion has been here since ancient times and it actually evolved inside the human brain to provide hope in desperate times and to relieve the pain of the lost ones. Also religion is the fabric of morality and behavioral rules. Although morality is subjective it provides a framework to live within a society. These moral codes can be seen as approximations to reality. Some moral codes can be good approximations while others can be really bad. That is why some moral codes can be beneficial while some others can be detrimental to a society. A good comparison can be made between the moral code of the catholic church versus the moral code on the protestant side. While the catholics condemn the rich, the protestants promote hard work. This philosophical difference can explain the development difference between north america and latin america, or between north and south Europe. Half of the western world promotes hard work and develops very fast (USA, Germany, England), while the other half lags behind under very conservative rules, and a religious belief that being poor is a way of going to heaven. For example take Colombia, Mexico, Argentina or even Spain.

    Maybe in the not so distant future people are going to start

  • Moral code is the fram that limits reasoning

    If through reasoning we decied how to act, then we can reason any and everything... I can reason why someone should be killed for example... But a moral code is the way in which a person sets the definition of what is logical and what is not... So if one makes killing to be an illogical action in it self, then you cannot find a reasonable cause to take an illogical action!

  • "Better" indicates an objective, not subjective, pragmatism

    This question says that since the mores of a community depend on that community, that none of them work any better than others as a matter of practicality, which is silly. For example, social mores that make slavery seem awful to a society also prevent slave revolts. Thinking that human waste is gross prevents disease.

    Some community norms are more healthy, and work better than others.

    Besides, some mores are almost universal. Even if they are subjective, they are still overwhelmingly preferred over the alternatives.

  • Some moral codes have practical significance.

    Some moral codes, like that of murder, have objective reason to them. While most people would say that murder is bad, some of those people do simply have that standpoint from religious doctrine, however others would note that murder leads to incarceration, and therefore has a negative outcome on the murderer. Even if you were to take out the legal system from the equation by saying that the legal system itself is derived from morals, you can take a look at nature. In nature, animals don't inherently want to murder other like animals, because that would decrease the likelihood of the species itself surviving.

  • Morality has varying subjectiveness, not one and all

    I think practically everyone on earth believes that something as heinous as murder is wrong in principle. It's how you justify it which can be misinterpreted (eg they are criminals and so deserve to be killed, that person is bad so its good they got killed, I don't care, ect), but I think all cultures and people agree murder is generally wrong.

    When you get to things that are less serious than murder then subjectiveness comes more in to play. The core morality of murder is as clear as day. Even the most evil of warlords, gangsters, and tyrants know that murder is wrong even if they couldn't care less about doing it. I don't think a single person on Earth knows any less. You kill another human being and that has to mean something no matter how desensitized you become to it.

  • Subjectivity is still under norms of the globe

    More than 99% of every so called fact we talk about is more so a social truth. A true fact is 2+2=4. So yes a lot of stuff is subjective and can thus be interpreted and implemented on different scales and contexts. However, in a world like today, with the ever increasing state of globalization, the entire globe is under an umbrella of norms that no moral code can escape from. Of such: murder, larceny, and rape. Now obviously certain people and populations give these acts different magnitudes of disturbance, but there is not a single person on this planet who has not aware of norms dictating all of the above noted acts as immoral.

  • Life is the basis of Morality; Objective Morality is like Objectivism but more progressive

    You might as well say "Medicine is subjective" whether its purpose to try to save the person's life or create a piece of performance art using surgery is entirely up to human agency.

    Humans need morality because not only do we live but we think and through thought (essentially through our processing of symbols) this can move people towards goals that go against life. Life as a standard for morality is not just about survival although survival is paramount. It is also about pursuing and promoting those things that help life. Expanding our skills and capabilities is for the most part conducive to supporting life. Increasing your exercise would be good morality in that you are improving your life in many ways, increased chance of future survival and increased capabilities to expand the things you are able to do with your life. Since humans are sentient beings we naturally can enjoy doings and so improving access to choices is moral. In short, morality and reason are the same thing. This is objective. Ayn Rand said something to this effect although I'd argue that if we're going to be serious about supporting life and hence reason as the basis of morality this means we shouldn't shun social welfare programs, particularly if you and those you know (since happiness is generally a good indicator for "life" protecting those around you including by using the voting booth makes rational sense) would benefit as far as their lives go. This doesn't mean government should be giving everyone everything as that leads to laziness and sloth and hence isn't good for life. But this just means objective morality has shades of gray and won't answer every little detail. But you didn't really think it was going to be that easy did you?

    Another stipulation. By "Life is the basis" I'm not talking about abortion. I mean "life" as a more general standard of morality. I would argue that a fetus not having any capacity to know itself as a "life" does not get protections and the life of the woman (which is more than her simply living or dying) takes precedent.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.