Subjective Morals
It might not be what you think is moral, be that doesn't make it any less moral to them, and that is precisely the point.
- A Gay Ghost in the Gym!
- Is morality subjective? | www.newyorkethnicfood.com.
- Samarcanda (Italian Edition).
- Time to Move On (Carter High Senior Year).
- Cookies on the BBC website.
- Ambition (Legends of Graham Mansion Book 2)!
If morality was objective there would be at least one rule throughout every society that has ever existed that was believed as this is not the case. Morality MUST be subjective.
A popular argument against this is murder, but what constitutes murder is itself subjective for example soldiers during a war or human sacrifices to a god. For anyone to argue that morality is anything beyond individual beliefs is not only a liar, but a coward. A coward because that person is in denial of self and hides behind a veil of "truth". The murder argument is also flawed as it appeals to emotions of a collective, not the individual. In a broad sense I am voting that, yes, morality is subjective.
Morality is a result of outward sense how we perceive it and an inward sentiment our internal thoughts of it. If morality was truly objective, then humanity would all recognise certain instances as 'good' and others as 'bad'; there would universal agreement towards it. However, that simply isn't the case because while I might find one thing as being 'good' others might consider the same thing as being 'bad', this is the case because we all have our own principles and values that govern what we see as good and bad but rationally speaking 'good' and 'bad' are nothing more that words we associate with things that we get an emotional response from.
For example, person A and person B are in the park enjoying a pleasant day when suddenly they see a man being beaten and robbed by another. That evening, they are in a pub and discuss what happened, person A believes it was morally bad while person B believes it was objectively speaking neither good nor bad. Now, the event itself can't be good or bad at the same time as one negates the other. Perhaps the man who was beaten and robbed did the same to the other, perhaps the person who committed the act was in desperate need of money to buy medicine.
- Subjective Morals?
- PABELLON DE JIM PATTISON Y DESPUES / JIM PATTISON PAVILION AND AFTER.
- What is wrong with subjective morality? | www.newyorkethnicfood.com.
- Subjectivism.
- Brotherhood Of The Bag, A Wholesalers Handbook.
- Linear Algebra and Its Applications (Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Wiley Series of Texts, Monographs and Tracts).
- Due colonne taglio basso (Questo e altri mondi) (Italian Edition).
If morality was truly objective, then there would be no disagreement between people on what is 'good' or 'bad' but there is. I am not saying we should completely negate morality and discard it from out judicial systems or ways of life, but it is important to understand that life is simply the way it is and what we may perceive as good another can perceive as bad and vise versa.
Moral values are assigned individuals who often contradict each other.
The term "morality" encompasses two concepts: Ethics are the objective component while morals are subjective. If morality consisted exclusively of principles imposed by a social system ethics , there would be no room for personal interpretation. So morality requires individual perception along with objectivity. I am a firm believer in freedom of conscience.
Morality is a personal idea. A person has to really search for answers inside themselves with posed with issues concerning humanity. Answers to morality questions are rarely straightforward and each person is entitled to their own opinion about what is right and what is wrong. Therefore morality is a very subjective thing that has nothing set in stone.
The statement 'Killing innocent people is wrong' doesn't mean 'I don't like killing innocent people' or 'I don't think innocent people should be killed', it means 'killing innocent people is wrong'. The word is 'universal', not 'absolute'. The difference is that 'universal' simply means 'applicable to all people' whereas 'absolute' implies that it applies regardless of any circumstances. Killing innocent people is wrong, as it inherently results in harm to an individual, and as this individual is described as an 'innocent' they obviously have not warranted this harm.
The act of killing this individual inherently infringes on their rights to self-determinate and to live their own life, both of which will be ended immediately if they are killed. A large majority of sane individuals, at least, will agree that they do not want to be killed, themselves, so it is easy to apply 'one shouldn't kill innocents' as a universal rule rather than a circumstantially applied one.
Thus, the act of killing innocents is wrong. One can disagree with this, of course, but in order to do so one must apply the rule 'despite having done nothing to warrant it, it would not be wrong to kill me', or 'killing others who don't deserve it is okay, as long as it isn't me', both of which are patently absurd as ethical stances. Both deny basic human rights on some inherent level, and apply the principle that only some, or no, people have or deserve 'rights' in the first place.
No moral absolutes huh?
What is wrong with subjective morality?
So if I came to your house, beat your mother and sisters to death, beheaded your father and brothers, raped your wife and ate your baby on the basis of what I think is right and okay for me, are you telling me that you wont judge me and hate me because you must respect my subjective morality? That you have no right to feel disgust of disapproval because my wrong and right doesn't apply to you? Are you saying that nobody else in the world will feel the same way you would if I did it to their family?
You cannot judge any act as being 'evil' because it was simply another's perspective. You can hate their tastes and hate them for their views But 'evil' would become a meaningless term. Everything would become about 'disagreements' not 'right and wrong'. I might hate someone's taste in music But it seems to me that the disagreement I have with THAT kind of a 'taste' is quite different to judging their moral standards. You wouldn't judge a shark If evil is subjective, you shouldn't judge another human being. This would mean that nothing is right or wrong morally. It would mean that there are only preferences and opinions regarding actions such as rape, theft, sacrifice, nurturing, lying, stealing, etc.
Without absolute rules and one has to follow, chaos follows. Without absolute morals, subjective morality can easily lead to all sorts of problems. But subjective morality would only work in a world where everybody behaved properly. Then again, what would constitute proper behavior? If everyone were nice, then subjective morality would work. But, not everyone is nice.
Are Morals Subjective or Objective?
We live in a world full of pain and suffering inflicted at the hands of moral relativists who think that raping someone is acceptable to them, where robbing is a viable alternative, where embezzlement is okay if you don't get caught, where lying is permissible, etc. History has shown that those in power and have the authority to carry out their own moral preferences, sometimes become mass murderers. Here are a few statistics taken from the article on CARM: If these men had believed that there was a moral standard outside of themselves that rested in God, and not their own preferences, perhaps millions of lives would've been spared.
Generally speaking, those in opposition to the Christian worldview, often say that reducing harm is the universal moral standard because that is what people want.
Are Morals Subjective or Objective? | HuffPost
They don't like being harmed. But, we have to ask what makes what people want morally right? If they say that that is just the way it is, then we can say that it's just the way it is that there are moral absolutes. For the moral relativist, all that is left is for him to chase his own tail and never get anywhere. Furthermore, when reducing harm is the standard all that people have to adhere to, then the moral relativist is appealing to a universal moral standard. But that means they are appealing to something outside of themselves which contradicts their subjective morality.
All that is left for them is to continue chasing their own tail and never solve the problem that subjective morality necessitates.
On this page
University Press of America. He is the author of Morals, Reason, and Animals and numerous scholarly articles and the editor of Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. Starting with the Eye of the Beholder 1. No value without feeling 2. The primary argument 3. Three supporting arguments 4. Answering six common objections 5. Summary of categories 6. Imperatives and priorities 7. Varieties of Truth and Justification 1.