Are morals objective or subjective?

[AndrésC64]

Do we decide? Are they objective or subjective?

[genericname85]

what is "a moral" and what isn't is objective. but which morals you choose to prefer is subjective. "a moral" is any sort of distinguishing between good and bad. but everything can be seen as good or bad.

[thegreenyogi]

Definitely subjective. I think we choose what moral code to follow throughout our lives based on what feels right and what is more important to us in life overall.

[AndrésC64]

I agree. But in regards to that subjective opinion, we can use objective standards to measure or rate actions and see if they match. Murder is objectively wrong if our subjective standard is the health and well-being of others.

[thegreenyogi]

Agreed.

[XXblack88]

Objective. but I'm not sure why this is in religion / spirituality since morals is in everyday life not just religion

[AndrésC64]

This was the gag suggested section. They've changed where I put questions so often that I just go with whatever they pick.

I think morals are subjective at the core, but we can agree on what we're trying to achieve and then use objective measures for them. As a society we can make the subjective determination that the health and safety of members of our society is a good goal, even if not everyone agrees with that. We can then use objective standards to determine what actions are good / bad for achieving that subjective standard. For example, it is objectively true that smoking is bad for people, even if some people have a different opinion which is subjective. If that makes any sense. I'm not sure I explained to that very well.

[AndrésC64]

And gag just moved my question from one topic to another yet again. I just go with what they say because they're going to do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

[AndrésC64]

*One of my questions

[NathanDavis]

mostly subjective... and definitely a matter of perspective

[Genie23]

It's not that easy to decide whether morals are objective or subjective. Some morals are universal so (objective) but many are also subjective.

[jahaims]

It sure is. Just understand what words mean.

[Genie23]

Who hurt you? I've noticed you leaving comments like this all over the site as if you're just pissed about something in life and come on GaG just to take it out on people.

[AndrésC64]

Can you name one moral that is universally agreed upon?

[Genie23]

Sorry! Missed your comment notification (have a habit of leaving tabs open)

I'd say Stealing. I don't think anyone could justify stealing.

[jahaims]

You don't know what moral means if you have to ask. Morals are factually objective.

[jahaims]

Factually subjective *

[MrJMM]

There’s nothing wrong with asking deep questions. And morality isn’t “factually” subjective, it’s philosophically debated. That’s the fact.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM can you name one moral that is universally agreed upon?

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 Unjustified killing of innocent people is wrong. Every culture, even ones with brutal practices, has taboos against unjustified murder. The details vary, but the core idea that life has value is nearly universal. But also Universal agreement isn’t the same as objective truth. People disagree about gravity too, but that doesn’t make it subjective. Morality can be objective even if people don’t agree on every rule because people can be wrong, biased, or raised in systems that distort their thinking.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM and people could be wrong about it being morally bad. There is not one thing in the world that everyone agrees on.

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 Disagreement doesn’t disprove truth. If it did, science, history, and justice would all collapse. Some people are wrong about morality, but that doesn’t mean morality is subjective; it just means people aren’t perfect moral thinkers. People can be wrong about morality. That’s the point. The fact that people disagree doesn’t prove there’s no truth; it just shows people are fallible. If no one agreed gravity existed, we’d still fall off a cliff. Truth doesn’t depend on everyone voting yes.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM Tell me how you decide what is true in regards to morality.

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 Well… I decide what’s morally true based on reason, empathy, lived experience, and understanding human dignity and well-being. I don’t think truth comes from feelings or majority opinion, but from whether something respects life, causes unnecessary harm, and can be justified universally.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM so if you decide, that is by definition subjective.

[MrJMM]

@AndréaC64 Umm… You’re confusing epistemology with metaphysics. Just because we use our minds to discover moral truths doesn’t mean our minds invent those truths. That’s like saying science is subjective because scientists use observation and logic.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM no, it's completely different. Science is based on testing, repeatability, and falsifiability.

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 Hmm… okay, let's see. Morality, like science, begins with observation, but instead of testing atoms, we examine suffering, justice, and human dignity. The repeatability of human pain, the universal reaction to cruelty, and our shared biological empathy provide a falsifiable basis for moral truths. If burning a child alive causes irreversible trauma in every culture and every time, then morality, like gravity, is not an opinion. It is a pattern. And patterns, when consistent, form truths. If you need a lab experiment to believe torture is wrong, you’re not arguing for science; you’re just excusing apathy. Morality may not fit inside a test tube, but reflects observable harm, healing, and human worth patterns. If your worldview denies that, it’s not objective, it’s broken. If you think morality can’t be absolute unless it behaves like physics, then you’ve already admitted it’s real.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM observations involving humans are entirely subjective what you may think is outrageous others may not.

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 Subjectivity of perception doesn’t erase the objectivity of patterns. People experience heat differently, but thermodynamics still exists. Likewise, people may interpret harm differently, but sustained cruelty still causes measurable trauma, neurochemical damage, and breakdowns in social systems. That’s not a vibe, that’s data. Your logic implies that because reactions vary, truth can’t exist. That’s like saying starvation is only a problem if people agree it’s painful. You’re not arguing for reason, you’re arguing for nihilism disguised as skepticism. The fact that observations involve humans doesn’t make them invalid; otherwise, medicine, psychology, and social science wouldn’t exist. Pain is not an opinion. Trauma is not a preference. Empathy is not a cultural quirk; it’s a measurable, evolutionary adaptation rooted in mirror neurons and observable across all mammalian species. When a child screams in agony, no culture on Earth interprets it as pleasure because biology precedes ideology. If you believe all human observation is subjective, congratulations: you’ve just invalidated every moral, legal, and scientific principle ever applied to human life, including your argument. That’s not skepticism. That’s intellectual nihilism in a cheap lab coat. And let's put this in the way… If your worldview treats genocide, kindness, slavery, and consent as equally “subjective”, then your problem isn’t moral complexity it’s that you’ve mistaken apathy for intelligence.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM you may think that abortion is murder. I don't. You may think that destruction of habitat like rainforest is just fine, I don't. We both probably agree that child marriage is wrong, some other countries don't. I think we can both agree that slavery is wrong, some countries disagree.

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 You’re proving my point. The fact that people disagree doesn’t mean there’s no moral truth; humans are still grappling with it. Morality isn’t strictly subjective or objective. It’s both: it evolves through culture and emotion, but it’s also rooted in consistent patterns of human well-being, suffering, and justice. Slavery wasn’t morally okay in the 1800s, just because some societies justified it, it was still wrong. They were just wrong about it. Questioning morality doesn’t make us lose. It makes us human. If we didn’t question deep things, we’d still be burning witches and calling it righteousness.

[AndrésC64]

@MrJMM nope. Try all you want, but somebody has to decide what is and isn't right. That, by definition makes it subjective.

[MrJMM]

@AndrésC64 Morality isn’t objective or subjective; it’s both. We discover certain moral truths (like the wrongness of slavery), yet we interpret, construct, and apply them in ever-evolving ways through reasoned reflection and social engagement. Questioning deeper isn’t a bug; it’s a feature that refines our moral compass.

[Anonymous]

The big sins like rape and murder for no reason are objective. Everything else is subjective.

[jahaims]

That's not how it works. Use a dictionary.

[Opinion Owner]

@jahaims what do you mean? And the dictionary is not the authority on morality. It’s tainted by the patriarchy and it only tells you what words mean literally anyway.

[AndrésC64]

Either everything is objective or everything is subjective. You can't just pick and choose. When you pick and choose you make it subjective.

[Opinion Owner]

Some things are objective, some are subjective

[AndrésC64]

So who is the authority on morality? And if there is an authority, this authority can decide whatever it wants, therefore it is by definition subjective.

[Opinion Owner]

Its objective because most civilized societies agree on it

[RageBabe]

Subjective.

[MrJMM]

A mix of both, really.