Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Is it objective or subjective or something else completely?

    Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?

    Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No evidence to suggest there is a such thing as objective morality....I'll let you figure out the rest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Is it objective or subjective or something else completely?

    Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?

    Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?
    Well I've heard that anything evil is what comes from the ego, and anything not evil is what doesn't come from the ego

    that doesn't mean we judge and label, the labelling of good and bad is a human construct

    but, nonetheless, it's all about the ego, for example throwing litter on the floor, you're doing something for yourself at the expense of something else (the environment) and so that's not a good act

    I think therefore we're born with some connection to morality, but at the same time, morality does develop and evolve with human societies over time, if you compare us in the past to now, and we still have improvements to make, but of course also on an individual level

    this is also why atheists can have morals too, as many religious people think atheists have no morals, but I believe it doesn't take religion to have morals

    and finally, brain damage and mental health issues can ruin our sense of morality suggesting some kind of biological component, as can abuse and so environment also has some influence
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There are no such things as morals :moon:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILovePancakes)
    There are no such things as morals :moon:
    What an absurd claim...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Morals are both inbuilt into us as humans, shown by research whereby morals are shown in infants - often using liking/dislike of puppets which do actions which are judged as good/bad.
    It involves empathy whereby you feel what others feel - which is rather complex and tied in to brain functioning at a deep seated level, I think.
    Morality makes humans what we are. We would never be what we are if we couldn't co-operate with each other. But I suppose in this way I suppose other animals with complex development have morality too (dogs, cats, apes etc.).
    Its completely subjective - in that it is both defined on a personal level with your beliefs, and influenced by societal beliefs (and associated belief systems).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNotReallyMe)
    Well I've heard that anything evil is what comes from the ego, and anything not evil is what doesn't come from the ego

    that doesn't mean we judge and label, the labelling of good and bad is a human construct

    but, nonetheless, it's all about the ego, for example throwing litter on the floor, you're doing something for yourself at the expense of something else (the environment) and so that's not a good act

    I think therefore we're born with some connection to morality, but at the same time, morality does develop and evolve with human societies over time, if you compare us in the past to now, and we still have improvements to make, but of course also on an individual level

    this is also why atheists can have morals too, as many religious people think atheists have no morals, but I believe it doesn't take religion to have morals

    and finally, brain damage and mental health issues can ruin our sense of morality suggesting some kind of biological component, as can abuse and so environment also has some influence
    Yeah the idea that without religion there are no morals is absurd.
    if anything, the cognitive flexibility of defining your own morals rather than having (often imperfect) ones dictated to you, allows for greater morality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    What an absurd claim...
    I actually think the word is rather void as there are no consequences to your actions if you so choose to do an action which society deems as "morally wrong". It just is, it's an action based on human nature, not morals. That's if you don't believe in karma or god, then morality has no right or wrong, it just is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ya Dunno)
    I actually think the word is inept as there are no consequences to your actions if you so choose to do an action which society deems as "morally wrong". It just is, it's an action based on human nature, not morals. That's if you don't believe in karma or god, then morality has no right or wrong, it just is.
    Inept doesn't really make sense there, but I know what you mean...

    Anyhow. Why do you think that there being moral facts means that your actions will have magic consequences if they are bad (or perhaps too if they are good)?

    What does it mean to say "morality has no right or wrong, it just is"? This is pretty incomprehensible to me. What is this morality that you are talking about? Do you mean, what we should do in terms of how we act has no right/wrong?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I believe morality is entirely subjective; our perception of moral right and moral wrong is moulded by our life experiences, social influences and interactions.

    It is not a conscious creation by any means; our moral compass is merely an inherent byproduct of our species' superior intellect and cognitive capacity. The human ego seeks to simplify what it is capable of comprehending, and does this by categorising certain actions and beliefs across a spectrum of right and wrong—and we use this as guidance to justify our decisions in day-to-day life. We refer to this as our "conscience", and this could be considered a subconscious creation of the psyche.

    Our ability to comprehend our surroundings and experiences is interdependent upon our capacity for empathy, ultimately affecting our conscience; brain damage often leads to limited comprehension, which reduces our capacity for empathy and therefore hinders the effectiveness of our conscience (or nullifies it entirely).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Inept doesn't really make sense there, but I know what you mean...

    Anyhow. Why do you think that there being moral facts means that your actions will have magic consequences if they are bad (or perhaps too if they are good)?

    What does it mean to say "morality has no right or wrong, it just is"? This is pretty incomprehensible to me. What is this morality that you are talking about? Do you mean, what we should do in terms of how we act has no right/wrong?
    I mean inept as in void.

    Okay take for example I decide to become a cannibal over night, western society may see this as being "morally wrong", whereas some tribe in Papua New Guinea will see this as perfectly feasible. Now Western society may see adultery before marriage as a normal part of everyday life, but someone in the Middle east will shun upon you as " morally wrong". But the truth is there is no right or wrong, as if you feel that there is no purpose to our life or that we are here for no just cause other then to just live and die, then what's to say what you persevere as being bad to actually just be a normal human action that just accord like say murder for instance? Morality has no middle ground into what is wrong or right, we do what we do out of human nature, making the word "morals" rather empty and desolate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ya Dunno)
    I mean inept as in void.

    Okay take for example I decide to become a cannibal over night, western society may see this as being "morally wrong", whereas some tribe in Papa New Guinea will see this as perfectly feasible. Now Western society may see adultery before marriage as a normal part of everyday life, but someone in the Middle east will shun upon you as " morally wrong". But the truth is there is no right or wrong, as if you feel that there is no purpose to our life or that we are here for no just cause other then to just live and die, then what's to say what you persevere as being bad to actually just be a normal human action that just accord like say murder for instance? Morality has no middle ground into what is wrong or right, we do what we do out of human nature, making the word "morals" rather empty and desolate.
    Which isn't what inept means, but I'm being pedantic and it doesn't change your argument at all so whatever :P

    So, different societies have different perceptions concerning what is wrong, therefore nothing is wrong? It doesn't follow. Of course, I understand your point though - if I were to say it is wrong to murder, you would ask why and I would say because it creates harm and you would say so what and I would say we ought not to harm others. At which point you go, well, according to what basis? And unless I infer here "God told me to" or "mummy said so" what can I say to suggest why we ought not?

    How about I say the following - rationality tells me that certain actions are wrong insofar as they possess attributes that make them such. The property of wrongness is such that any rational human being is able to realise that they should not commit the action. Why? Because it is wrong! That's the whole point of the notion of this property of wrongness. If someone is wrong then we should not do it. If something is right then we ought to do it.

    This is not to say that the notion is 100% accurate when it comes to our intuitions. And it is not to say that there will be universal agreement considering it. What it is to say is that it is possible for some actions to be wrong and some to be right and some amoral. What we must do, is figure out which are what. That takes empirical evidence, quite a lot of theorising and rational introspection. I don't see why it means there can be no right or wrong concerning morality.

    I think personally, it is intuitively quite obvious without further explanation that murder and other near-universally immoral actions, are not ordinary human actions. Hence morality is serving its job there in telling us what we ought to be doing, no?

    If the murderer says "I believe murder to be morally permissible" I can simply retort, and justifiably so I would think (but perhaps you disagree) - That's a wonderful opinion you have Sir Murderer, but it's wrong, because murder is not morally permissible (in this scenario). Under your view of morality if you were to say he did wrong, what are you actually saying to him?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Which isn't what inept means, but I'm being pedantic and it doesn't change your argument at all so whatever :P

    So, different societies have different perceptions concerning what is wrong, therefore nothing is wrong? It doesn't follow. Of course, I understand your point though - if I were to say it is wrong to murder, you would ask why and I would say because it creates harm and you would say so what and I would say we ought not to harm others. At which point you go, well, according to what basis? And unless I infer here "God told me to" or "mummy said so" what can I say to suggest why we ought not?

    How about I say the following - rationality tells me that certain actions are wrong insofar as they possess attributes that make them such. The property of wrongness is such that any rational human being is able to realise that they should not commit the action. Why? Because it is wrong! That's the whole point of the notion of this property of wrongness. If someone is wrong then we should not do it. If something is right then we ought to do it.

    This is not to say that the notion is 100% accurate when it comes to our intuitions. And it is not to say that there will be universal agreement considering it. What it is to say is that it is possible for some actions to be wrong and some to be right and some amoral. What we must do, is figure out which are what. That takes empirical evidence, quite a lot of theorising and rational introspection. I don't see why it means there can be no right or wrong concerning morality.

    I think personally, it is intuitively quite obvious without further explanation that murder and other near-universally immoral actions, are not ordinary human actions. Hence morality is serving its job there in telling us what we ought to be doing, no?

    If the murderer says "I believe murder to be morally permissible" I can simply retort, and justifiably so I would think (but perhaps you disagree) - That's a wonderful opinion you have Sir Murderer, but it's wrong, because murder is not morally permissible (in this scenario). Under your view of morality if you were to say he did wrong, what are you actually saying to him?
    I agree with you that there has to be some form of justice in the world that separates what is right or wrong. But I also believe morality is not intrinsic but governed and installed in us through our environment and upbringing. We justify our morality on a subconscious level based on our teaching and values not that someone else might interpret that in the same manner.

    Morality is subjective, and even if you see murder from sleeping with another mans wife as "morally wrong", based on your teachings from this society, someone in the Middle east may see this as a terrible sin and under the law of that country sentence him or her to stoning, now you may say how "disgusting", how could they be so barbaric, but someone in his/her shoes who has been brought up to believe that adultery should be dealt with in death, and that is what is considered "morally right", then who are you dictate or oppose his/her opinion? this is how he/she was brought up to conceive as the correct form of treatment.

    I still feel morality has now place in society and is just a form of one's own interpretation and which can be altered to fit another persons agenda.

    I think we should just agree to disagree on this one? as you feel morality fits in this world and I am against that based on my review and analyzing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think there are two ways of viewing morality, subjective and objective. I'm a Christian, but at the same time, there are views that if someone doesn't follow them, that doesn't label them immoral. But to many Christians, it would. But there are objectively moral things like the laws we govern with...it's immoral to murder, to steal, to kidnap, etc. Objective to me, is when we all can pretty much agree on what is moral.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MAINE.)
    No evidence to suggest there is a such thing as objective morality....I'll let you figure out the rest.
    This sounds like a fallacious argument from ignorance: "There's no evidence for it, so it must be false."

    There's no evidence for any form of morality (or lack of morality such as nihilism); so your point here is vacuous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Morals are both inbuilt into us as humans...

    Its completely subjective - in that it is both defined on a personal level with your beliefs, and influenced by societal beliefs (and associated belief systems).
    These are contradictory claims. Either morals are 'built in' or they're subjective. Make up your mind.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ya Dunno)
    But the truth is there is no right or wrong. Morality has no middle ground into what is wrong or right, we do what we do out of human nature, making the word "morals" rather empty and desolate.
    These are some very large meta-ethical claims for which you're not offering any sort of supporting argument. It could be the case that "morality" has no truth value, but is a statement of emotional feeling (in which case morality wouldn't be 'empty'); it could be that moral statements have subjective truth value, that their truth depends on the beliefs of the speaker or of the society; it could be that there is objective morality; Error theory whereby all moral statements are false could be true. But in none of these is 'morality' 'empty' or 'desolate'.

    You seem to be of the opinion that (1) morality isn't objective and (2) non-objective morality is 'empty' and 'desolate'.

    There is no evidenitary reason to believe that (1); and (2) is false.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Is it objective or subjective or something else completely?

    Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?

    Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?
    Mostly subjective, but I think there can be some tenuous links to objectivity (which it's best to appeal to, again, subjective in whether we should appeal to objectivity.)

    I'd say a lot socialisation, but also conscious and independent, varying between different people.

    I think there are (quite a few) biological bases to morality (more core principles), again differing between different people, but very much of it is environmental (socialisation), like determining the (quite big) nuances.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    take away the feeling of being wronged and there is no wrong

    morality is feeling
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    take away the feeling of being wronged and there is no wrong

    morality is feeling
    Why would morality be feeling as opposed to rationality? Subjective truth? Objective truth? Etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.