Is Morality Subjective?

[Shadowed reality]

So I was sitting in class this morning batting around ideas from a book I had recently read about morality when I noticed a classmate taking a pencil from another person while the owner of the pencil had their back turned. Now this sparked my interest and I contently studied the whole situation whilst analyzing the motives and morality of the student who took the pencil. You see the kid who took the pencil obviously didn’t have insidious intentions they simply saw a pencil and decided to take it and use it. But no matter their intentions they had still stolen the pencil and used it. This means that not only was the pencil stolen but it was also used and therefore cannot be given back to the owner in the same condition it was in before. This made me wonder why we cannot see the immorality in stealing a pencil but yet we see it in stealing a person’s wallet. What makes one action petty and immature and the other evil and wrong? Does this suggest that morality is simply subjective and that morality does not exist in the sense that I have been taught that it does? Curious to hear your guy’s opinions

[Verosa]

I think it could be both subjective and objective. While I want to say it is completely subjective, there are certainly morals that are accepted as correct by almost everyone in the whole world. Things like, murder, cannibalism, rape, torture etc. Obviously things like this happen but society generally looks down upon it. I think things like this are considered wrong for everyone for purely selfish reasons. We ourselves do not want to be murdered, raped, have our resources/money stolen and since we are social animals we kind of make a deal with everyone else. You don't murder me, I don't murder you. Murder is bad.

In the case you mentioned, I think that pencil has so little value compared to a wallet and that is why people see it as wrong. Wallets have money in, a resource that we need to live. It is like stealing someone's food shopping or something but pencils are disposable and have little value. That's where I think that subjective morals come in. Some people think it is bad to steal a pencil and others do not.

[Ambauer]

I am surprised this topic is not getting more attention. I agree with Verosa, pencils have significantly less value when compared to a wallet. In most cases one would commit a greater harm by stealing someone else's wallet than if one stole someone's pencil. In fact, I think this idea of "harm" is a good place to start for non-religious morality. I say non-religious because religious folks and non-religious folks get into a great deal of debates on whether this is wrong or that is wrong. Bygones. However, I am sure that everyone would agree that "harm" is an objective standard for morality. To commit a harm is to: 1) Violate someone's rights. & 2) Set back someone's interests.

So say Hyde clobbers Carew to death in the street. Hyde harms Carew because he sets back Carew's interests (e.g. Carew probably had plans for that night), and Hyde violates Carew's rights (i.e. the right to life, the pursuit of happiness, etc.). So Hyde clobbering Carew to death in the street is morally wrong. On the other hand, stealing someone's pencil is not a harm, or morally wrong, because it is hardly a set back to her/his interests. This is at least a good start toward "objective" morality. Any other ideas of how we could get to objective morality?

[Lagayscienza]

I'm a consequentialist so, yes, I think harm is a good place to start. There are big harms (murder) and little harms (pinching a pencil) and, naturally, we care more about the big harms. That does not mean taking someone's pencil is not morally wrong. But in the grand scheme of things it probably will cause very little harm whereas stealing someone's wallet will likely cause much more harm. As well as money, a wallet is likely to contain a drivers licence, credit cards and other things that it is a great inconvenience to have to replace. The things in my wallet are so important to me that I would use violence to protect it whereas I'd hardly think it worth my while to risk violence over a pencil. Although I would ask the person who took it to return it to me if he or she was sitting next to me I wouldn't take the bother to hunt the person down to retrieve a pencil because its loss would cause me very little harm.

[Spiral Out]

Morality must be relative in order to be consistent and functionally meaningful and effective.

There are critical flaws to consequentialism, utilitarianism and even, to some degree, intentionalism.

Is morality subjective? Morality is a concept that relates to a society as a whole as in the interaction of many different people and does not apply to individuals in isolation, so the answer is no, morality cannot be subjective.

[Wilson]

In my opinion, Spiral Out, morality is subjective, and individual. Of course it all depends on one's definition of "morality". For me, morality is conscience - that inner voice that tells us what's right and wrong. Since most people within a community or group agree in general with what's right and wrong, there's also a "zeitgeist" or "spirit of the time" which includes a group-agreed-upon morality. But since each person has his own ideas, and nobody agrees 100% with the zeitgeist, and the consensus morality isn't well defined, it makes more sense to me to think of morality as individual.

Even if morality is defined as the general consensus, that varies greatly from one society to the next, so even in that case, morality is subjective, in my view.

[Lagayscienza]

There are critical flaws to consequentialism, utilitarianism and even, to some degree, intentionalism.

That's true, Spiral, but there are critical and well known problems with relativism. Consequentialism works best for everyday purposes in my opinion.

Cheers

[Spiral Out]

In my opinion, Spiral Out, morality is subjective, and individual. Of course it all depends on one's definition of "morality". For me, morality is conscience - that inner voice that tells us what's right and wrong.

I semi-agree with that, Wilson, but what impetus does any individual in isolation have for acting morally, as you have defined it?

>>>

That's true, Spiral, but there are critical and well known problems with relativism. Consequentialism works best for everyday purposes in my opinion.

Consequentialism, as a moral system, allows for unjustified murder and other crimes.

"If that "harmful" something in the murder scenario was the death of the person, then you have thus deemed death itself immoral.

In what way is death immoral?

What's the difference if someone is killed in their sleep or if they simply die in their sleep?

For Consequentialism, the consequence does not change, it is a constant. For Utilitarianism, the utility of pleasure increases without any suffering taking place.

As far as Consequentialism and Utilitarianism are concerned, the act of murder, if committed in carefully constructed ways, is completely ethical, just as you have applied it to the act of rape."

Thread: A Hypothetical Question Concerning Rape

[Mgrinder]

Morality must be relative in order to be consistent and functionally meaningful and effective.

Relative to what? Relative to culture? Relative to what people think? Relative to the situation? When someone supports "moral relativism", I'm never sure what they think it is relative to?

Please elaborate.

[Wilson]

In my opinion, Spiral Out, morality is subjective, and individual. Of course it all depends on one's definition of "morality". For me, morality is conscience - that inner voice that tells us what's right and wrong.

I semi-agree with that, Wilson, but what impetus does any individual in isolation have for acting morally, as you have defined it?

In my opinion, our moral sense is largely based on empathy - feeling ourselves in the position of others, even experiencing a tiny part of another person's pain, feeling bad inside for the suffering of others. I believe that both our capacity for empathy and our sense that some things are morally right and others wrong were instilled in our brains by evolution because they allowed us to cooperate with others in our group and not always act selfishly.

[Spiral Out]

In my opinion, our moral sense is largely based on empathy - feeling ourselves in the position of others, even experiencing a tiny part of another person's pain, feeling bad inside for the suffering of others.

You're speaking in terms relating to the interaction between people, as in a society. There's no need for morality in isolation of others, therefore there's no individual morality, and thus no subjective morality to speak of.

I'll reiterate my question to you, what impetus does any individual in isolation have for acting morally, as you have defined it?

[Misty]

In my opinion, our moral sense is largely based on empathy - feeling ourselves in the position of others, even experiencing a tiny part of another person's pain, feeling bad inside for the suffering of others.

You're speaking in terms relating to the interaction between people, as in a society. There's no need for morality in isolation of others, therefore there's no individual morality, and thus no subjective morality to speak of.

I'll reiterate my question to you, what impetus does any individual in isolation have for acting morally, as you have defined it?

Spiral Out, Since an individual in isolation would already have ingrained moral ideas from childhood, and isolation is deemed from other humans, one would still have other life forms, be it a mouse or ant etc., to exercise moral behavior over, and in addition a moral code about oneself in regard to suicide.

[Spectrum]

As I have always proposed Morality must work in complementarity with Ethics within a System. So there must be a Moral-Ethical System.

Moral within the Moral-Ethical System is absolute and independent. Because all humans has generic DNA, 'absolute' moral principles can be abstracted from humanity to act as a guide.

Meanwhile Ethics is relative and deal with the varying conditions within humanity. Ethical rules and maxims are adapted from the absolute moral principles and provisions made to accommodate varying human conditions.

[Wilson]

I'll reiterate my question to you, what impetus does any individual in isolation have for acting morally, as you have defined it?

I took your question to mean, what causes individuals to act morally. And my answer was that we feel empathy for others, meaning that we feel their pain, and we don't want them to experience that pain, and we don't want to endure the lesser version of it in ourselves. And most of us want to behave morally, we want to feel that we are good people, we feel an obligation to act in moral ways and a duty to act in socially responsible ways. I think all those drives to act morally are the result of tendencies that evolution implanted in us. Of course some of us are more inclined to feel that moral obligation than others. Some don't feel it much at all.

[Atreyu]

Yes, morality is subjective. That's why we have different moralities, and is why people often fight and battle over conflicting moralities.

But, of course, "subjective" is a relative term as any other. Thus, some moralities could be considered "more objective", or "closer" to the absolute truth. But the more proper way to express this would just be to say that some moral principles have a more sensible and practical basis, while others are less sensible and practical, either because they're outdated and inapplicable to the new conditions in which they now exist, or else because they were originally based on mindless superstitions and taboos.

But whether more or less sensible/practical, they are all subjective constructs. If you want objectivity in relation to 'right and wrong', you will have to acquire conscience.