The Student Room Group

Morals and Values

I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".

Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.

Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
Original post by The Dictator
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".

Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.

Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.


But if right and wrong are as subjective as many different values of our society - and that's it in my opinion - the morals are subjective as well, as they are defined by wrong and right, aren't they?
Reply 2
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Morals are simply an extension of value and both are heavily influenced by our families and wider society in addition to ones personality themselves. I'm much more concerned with values (both my own and other people - perhaps i'm just more judgmental) in my mid twenties than i was a decade ago.
Reply 3
Avatar for Asolare
Asolare
20
This is essentially the foundation of a lot of non-cognitivist ethical approaches in a nutshell, is it not'? :tongue:
Reply 4
Avatar for NutE
NutE
12
I agree with OP

Posted from TSR Mobile
Yup. Can't dispute that. Seems like an accurate interpretation.
Original post by The Dictator
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.


So morals are objectively set by the universe?
I think that there is and indeed must be an objective right and wrong but that morality is not the right description for this. Morality is subjective as we are not born into a vacuum.

in this I broadly agree with Kants categorical imperative.
Original post by Davij038
I think that there is and indeed must be an objective right and wrong but that morality is not the right description for this.

Why do you think that 'there must be an objective right and wrong'?
Reply 9
Avatar for NHM713
NHM713
4
Original post by The Dictator
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".

Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.

Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.


Anything that tells you how to be is pointless.
Any idea you have about yourself is fake.
I too am interested as to why some of you think there is an objective right and wrong and what determines this.
Original post by Law-Hopeful
Why do you think that 'there must be an objective right and wrong'?


Because otherwise there is moral relativism and therefore that there are no universal rules only belief.

I think that there are universal rules which can be rationally seen and applied. These can generally be seen as laws of nature which I see as truth: if you hurt somebody they will feel pain- this can be rationalised in any which way but the truth of the matter is that they are in pain.
But the argument 'I think there must be objective morals because if not then it's moral relativism' isn't a strong one.

1) Just because you dislike the idea of moral relativism it does not mean it is wrong.

2) Accepting there are no objective moral facts doesn't have to lead to chaos. Moral Fictionalism suggests that most moral discussions have no factual basis (are false), but advocates that we need a theoretical system of morality to keep 'the world in order' etc.
Original post by Inexorably
But the argument 'I think there must be objective morals because if not then it's moral relativism' isn't a strong one.

1) Just because you dislike the idea of moral relativism it does not mean it is wrong.

2) Accepting there are no objective moral facts doesn't have to lead to chaos. Moral Fictionalism suggests that most moral discussions have no factual basis (are false), but advocates that we need a theoretical system of morality to keep 'the world in order' etc.


The issue though is that there aren't any particularly strong arguments for any meta-ethical positions. Preferring relativism or nihilism isn't somehow 'better'.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
The issue though is that there aren't any particularly strong arguments for any meta-ethical positions. Preferring relativism or nihilism isn't somehow 'better'.


It might not necessarily be better to outright claim that morals don't exist or that morality is completely subjective (though I would not agree with this - I don't think we need morality. Simply saying something has dire social consequences or legal consequences would be enough in my eyes), but once again this doesn't mean they are incorrect :tongue:

Do you really believe all meta-ethical positions are weak? I would say that Prescriptivism certainly has its credits.
Original post by Inexorably
It might not necessarily be better to outright claim that morals don't exist or that morality is completely subjective (though I would not agree with this - I don't think we need morality. Simply saying something has dire social consequences or legal consequences would be enough in my eyes), but once again this doesn't mean they are incorrect :tongue:
I didn't say they were incorrect.
It may not be necessary to have morality but that, similarly, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Do you really believe all meta-ethical positions are weak? I would say that Prescriptivism certainly has its credits.


I would say that no meta-ethic has a 'particularly strong' argument. It doesn't mean that positions are weak per se but ultimately none can be proven over another as there can be logically valid and sound theories for all of them. Really it seems to just come down to which assumptions you prefer.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I didn't say they were incorrect.
It may not be necessary to have morality but that, similarly, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


Ah okay sorry for the misunderstanding :tongue:

I would say that no meta-ethic has a 'particularly strong' argument. It doesn't mean that positions are weak per se but ultimately none can be proven over another as there can be logically valid and sound theories for all of them. Really it seems to just come down to which assumptions you prefer.


I am more inclined to agree with you here, but isn't that how it is for ana awful lot of philosophical theories :tongue:
Original post by Inexorably
Ah okay sorry for the misunderstanding :tongue:


:smile:

I am more inclined to agree with you here, but isn't that how it is for ana awful lot of philosophical theories :tongue:
Hm...for meta-ethics certainly. Other areas less so. It is part of why I think some people do like prescriptivism for meta-ethics. It is an attempt to get around making grand assumptions (I say attempt because I believe it still does). Personally I think it is more useful as a logical consistency tool for dealing with normative ethics than a meta-ethical theory.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you