Current Events > Do you believe in objective morality

(+) Yeah! (+)

If so, what are somethings you consider objectively good or bad things?

Wat

Ere wait nevermind I read that as objective mortality for some reason >_>

Objectively bad: child sex trafficking

Baha05 posted...

Wat

What don't you understand?

Wat

EmilyTheCEman posted...

Objectively bad: child sex trafficking

This line of thought was my instinct. Like you want to say no, but then there's things like trafficking, abuse, etc

Sure for most things you can, and likely should, delve into root causes, but ultimately the action is still objectively wrong.

No.

FolkenRawr posted...

This line of thought was my instinct. Like you want to say no, but then there's things like trafficking, abuse, etc

Sure for most things you can, and likely should, delve into root causes, but ultimately the action is still objectively wrong.

I would definitely agree with things along those lines being objectively bad.

Unlike Dennis Prager, I would classify any form of child pornography whether animated or not as objectively bad.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/290-philosophy-and-ethics

IHeartRadiation posted...

Unlike Dennis Prager, I would classify any form of child pornography whether animated or not as objectively bad.

source lol? I'm left wing btw

Yawn_Master2 posted...

source lol? I'm left wing btw

Oh gladly.

https://youtu.be/Xp8UaU7PboM?si=FFhRN9_knm7Azaaz
Time stamp is 33:56

Yawn_Master2 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/290-philosophy-and-ethics

Fair.

There are obviously things that are objectively right and wrong, but I don't know if there is any way to derive any specific principle of rightness or wrongness and know it in the same way we might know say, scientific knowledge.

Even if literally everyone is in consensus that something is bad, I don't think that proves objective morality. Because for objective morality to meaningfully exist, then 'goodness' and 'badness' are in some way inherent forces. It's a really big claim and I don't think the fact that 99-100% of well-adjusted agree with something being bad proves that claim.

Basically, it's feasible that morality is subjective and also that the shared experiences and essence of human beings lead us to agree among ourselves that certain things are good or bad from nearly all of our perspectives.

It kind of depends what you mean by objective morality.

Is it something that exists in the world independently of humans? No.

Are there some things that are unanimously agreed are good or bad by everybody who isnt batshit crazy? Yes.

IHeartRadiation posted...

Oh gladly.

https://youtu.be/Xp8UaU7PboM?si=FFhRN9_knm7Azaaz
Time stamp is 33:56

Fair.

thanks for the link.

I only share the philosophy board to bring more philosophically minded individuals that way. No problem discussing philosophy here though

All morality is subjective in that it requires a subject to exist.

Without anyone to judge morality, there is no morality.

No. As per Accolon's post.

It only works if you believe god exists and hes setting the rules.

Yawn_Master2 posted...

thanks for the link.

I only share the philosophy board to bring more philosophically minded individuals that way. No problem discussing philosophy here though

Fair enough I thought it was more of a dismissive post, glad you clarified lol

punkfanalways posted...

It only works if you believe god exists and hes setting the rules.

Even in this case, it's subjective. God is the subject making the determination.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Fair enough I thought it was more of a dismissive post, glad you clarified lol

yeah after posting it I realized I came off as dismissive lol. My B

The thing about being objective would have to mean there would never be a situation that can change the morality of the issue. For something like, abortion for example, people thousands of years ago might have claimed to be objectively immoral, but is obviously not as black and white anymore.

Like the whole point of shows like Star Trek was showing how seemingly objective morals to humans can easily be undone with a slight shift in how a society functions.

Some things like rape, trafficking, slavery absolutely are objectively wrong.

Most other things are very heavily context dependant.

Another thread of people not being able to grasp what objective actually means

No, morality is subjective.

I agree that the stuff some people are saying are objectively bad are bad though.

Meh, for the most part I find this leads to laziness and cop outs. Especially with the redcap variety. Love this train of thought... "It's just subjective bro!" As to try and excuse their shitty behavior. "I can do what I want, just an opinion bro!"

One can try to be objective as possible when able when coming to a conclusion. Like wearing masks, one can look at the factual data if one is worried about spread.

Again, for the most part "morality is subjective" tends to be used by the intellectually lazy right wingers, or edgy teens in my experience. In regards to politics and the like. Not so much in philosophy classes.

EthanSilver posted...

Meh, for the most part I find this leads to laziness and cop outs. Especially with the redcap variety. Love this train of thought... "It's just subjective bro!" As to try and excuse their shitty behavior. "I can do what I want, just an opinion bro!"

One can try to be objective as possible when able when coming to a conclusion. Like wearing masks, one can look at the factual data if one is worried about spread.

Again, for the most part "morality is subjective" tends to be used by the intellectually lazy right wingers, or edgy teens in my experience. In regards to politics and the like. Not so much in philosophy classes.

As somebody with a philosophy degree, Im going to have to disagree with that. The idea came up plenty.

The golden rule is objective morality. Anything that follows it is moral. Anything that doesn't is immoral.

Glob posted...

As somebody with a philosophy degree, Im going to have to disagree with that. The idea came up plenty.

I meant it's something that will be a genuine debate in a philosophy class, most likely.

When it occurs outside, say online boards, in my personal experience, it's just intellectually lazy rightwingers trying to justify their shit ways, or edgy teens. Cop out, nothing more.

Don't have to defend anything, if everything is "just an opinion bro!"

EthanSilver posted...

I meant it's something that will be a genuine debate in a philosophy class, most likely.

When it occurs outside, say online boards, in my personal experience, it's just intellectually lazy rightwingers trying to justify their shit ways, or edgy teens. Cop out, nothing more.

Don't have to defend anything, if everything is "just an opinion bro!"

Yeah, that bit I agree with. Thats why I only bolded the last part of your previous post.

Yes

Murder

Cocytus posted...

Yes

Murder

The term murder is subjective in itself. We have the death penalty. People dying in wars. Collateral damage. People with power shooting people and getting away with it.

Not everyone agrees 100% what constitutes a murder and thus I dont think it can apply.

Objective morality is easy as long as you don't encounter any conflicts.

That can be bad actions for a good cause, or good actions creating a bad result.

And it often breaks apart as soon as you have to quantify good and bad. Between two options, which is better, which is worse?

For that you can try to use some tools and rules to rank them, but in the end a lot of value is subjective.

Murder* rape theft.

Put a * next to murder cause their are cases where I understand but still think they shouldn't have done it. But those cases are cases where I feel it's highly unlikely they will do it again so perhaps shouldn't be locked up the majority of their life over it.

No. This is easy to demonstrate by pointing out the differences from culture to culture and even just over time within the same culture. In our lives alone, we've seen being queer go from literally punishable by death to somewhat accepted.

Accolon posted...

Even in this case, it's subjective. God is the subject making the determination.

Zeus tends to be chill with quite a few things.

reincarnator07 posted...

No. This is easy to demonstrate by pointing out the differences from culture to culture and even just over time within the same culture. In our lives alone, we've seen being queer go from literally punishable by death to somewhat accepted.

I think murder rape and theft should be pretty universal as bad when it comes to morals.

When I say murder though I mean you went out of your way to do it. Not things got heated and you got carried away. That's still bad but some people truly lack self control and in those situations the victim ain't always exactly innocent.

Like it's not murder but my mom called the cops on someone who assaulted me once and I got pretty much told since I was running my mouth instead of walking away I was just as guilty.

Side note: I didnt want the cops called my mom is just protective and he did bust up some of my teeth.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I think murder rape and theft should be pretty universal as bad when it comes to morals.

When I say murder though I mean you went out of your way to do it. Not things got heated and you got carried away. That's still bad but some people truly lack self control and in those situations the victim ain't always exactly innocent.

Like it's not murder but my mom called the cops on someone who assaulted me once and I got pretty much told since I was running my mouth instead of walking away I was just as guilty.

Side note: I didnt want the cops called my mom is just protective and he did bust up some of my teeth.

Murder gets justified all the time, to say nothing of military conflicts. On top of that, murder is just killing someone under specific circumstances.

Rape is obviously reprehensible, but what is considered rape has been fairly fluid. You and I would likely argue that the more recent changes have just been dealing with oversights and omissions but the fact that they exist at all shows that the concept is not quite so set in stone.

Theft is basically as old as the concept of ownership, from an altruistic lens (I need this more than you!), envy (You don't deserve this, it's mine), retribution (You've wronged me, so I'm settling the score) and even just straight up greed (I want this and I can take it from you).

These aren't heat of the moment or post hoc rationalisations, people can be perfectly calm and justify these crimes without thinking that they're doing a bad thing.

Everything subjective, but some things are so well agreed upon that they're effectively objective and arguing the distinction is mostly pointless.

For the most part No, Most people's morals are simply what they were taught or what their authority figures in life believe and allow.

They can also essentially change on a dime if challenged. Which could be for the better or worse. Andrew Tate is a good example. For the first time ever young boys were exposed to a alternative and they threw away 100 years of progressive teachings practically overnight for it.

As for what's objectively good or bad is hard to say. As many things we interpret as good could be bad or vise versa.

There's way too much in the way of context and nuance to flatly say morality is objective. I believe there are some hard and fast, objective rules like others have said; child abuse, rape, etc.. But most other things require a conversation and can't just be said to be good or bad - stealing, infidelity, taking a life, and so on. Different "sins" call for different levels of scrutiny.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

theft

Morally permissible at times. Not objectively wrong and honestly a joke to place murder and rape with theft.

Crimes against life are much more severe than crimes against property.

There is no inherent objective morality that exists in the ethereal plane of the universe.

We as self-aware and thinking agents attempting to create a society designate the standards of morality, and those can be arrived at through adherence to some fairly universal criteria like reducing harm, bodily autonomy, protecting the weak against predators, civil rights for all, and humane treatment of the disabled as examples.

Also this is a constant and evolving process, and it is pure arrogance to think we have the absolute standards of morality figured out now or that they can be derived from a single book or document.

Yes.