Ls morality objective or subjective?

[Alba-Hernández]

What's your opinions on morality? Personally l believe in objective morality.

Objective

Subjective

[Deathraider]

What do you mean when you say something is moral or immoral? It would seem saying an act is moral imply there is an obligation to such action, that such act must be done. There is a problem. For any argument that argues something you ought to do, there is a normative statement as a premise that can be contested.

Ex.
1. Donating money to charity can help reduce world hunger.
2. Reducing world hunger reduces suffering.
3. We ought to reduce suffering.
4. Therefore, we ought to donate money to charity.

Premise 3 makes a value statement which can’t be derived from any is-statement. The only way to have an ought statement be true in a moral system is to prove it with another ought statement within that system or to have it as a premise, a premise which may be contested.

If morality doesn’t imply any obligation, then the label of morality is a rather arbitrary label. One could then just ask why they ought to do something labeled as “moral”.

[AlexanderAnttila]

If you're going to call anything at all moral it has to be objective. Otherwise there's nothing that says that it is moral if it is for anyone's interpretation to say, and if objective morality does exist, which it does, it has to come from somewhere, that is, from a moral-giver, God.

[Alba-Hernández]

A very genius comment. Thank you

[AlexanderAnttila]

You're welcome!

[Deathraider]

Is an action good because this god says so, or is it good independent of what this god says? The former would mean that good actions are arbitrary, for instance if said god ordered for the execution of million of people, a “good” action would be to execute millions of people. What I’m saying is that there is no sort of obligation implied by this definition of what is moral. If we accept the latter, that means that this god isn’t a moral giver, rather these principles are independent of said god.

[CountessSarah]

The correct answer is subjective.

Objective morality doesn't exist. People who claim it does exist demonstrate that they just don't understand what 'objective' means.
Something being objective means that it is true, independent of a thinking agent.
Morality is just a concept - it has no objective basis, it /requires/ a thinking agent in order to exist. Secondly, there is no yardstick by which two people could objectively determine which of them was correct, if they got into a disagreement. It's just one persons subjective opinion versus another.

I often see theists assert that they get 'objective morality' from their god/holy text. But again, this is a failure to understand what objectivity is.
Even if you had a list of moral rules handed to you by a deity, those would still just be subjective rules. In that scenario, what you have is might-makes-right, not objective morality.

[Alba-Hernández]

Hoe do you explain harm principle? For instance, why do you think it's wrong to hurt someone?

[CountessSarah]

Empathy.
I wouldn't want to be the person getting hurt.

[Lillie_xo]

ehh
in my opinion there are things that are objectively moral (helping others for example) and immoral (beating your partner) but also some things that are subjectively moral and immoral (maybe smoking or drinking) ! so a bit of both in my opinion ! (^▽^＠)

[IveGotNoName]

Subjective for sure... If you had to save either your mother or a child from falling down a cliff, who would you pick?

[strateguy632]

circumstantial