On the most fundamental level, moral values are universal and objective. Of course there are also subjectives views on certain, moral issues and defining something as personal as morality in an universal manner is generally very hard.
However, I think it is remarkable that ALL societies on this planet, regardless of culture or geography, prohibit certain actions, such as murder, rape or theft. In fact, even some of the higher developed animals (such as apes, dolphins, wolves etc.) seem to perceive these things as wrong on a very basic level. Certainly not consciously, since they don't have a consciousness, but there seems to be some kind of "feeling" or "intuition" that these actions are "wrong".
Besides all the cultural differences, I believe there exists one central idea that guides all humans' thinking. We could call this the "smallest common denominator" of morality - and this idea is fundamentally universal.
The idea I'm talking about has nothing to do with a God or Gods, as some people may say. In fact, it is a deeply secular concept that has been around for thousands of years and has been formulated in many different ways. Probably the best-known formulation is that of the "golden rule", which says that: "thou shalt not do unto others what thou don't want to be done unto thyself". This was later famously reformulated by 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his "Categorical Imperative", which said: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Perhaps you've noticed that Kant put a little extra spin on this whole idea by taking it away from the individual level and putting it in perspective with the whole world. Instead of just saying that you should do things to other people that you want to be done to yourself, Kant says that you should ONLY act in a way which you would support to be a universal law. So unless you want murder to be a universal law - which not only means that you may be murdered but also your family, friends etc. - don't do it yourself.
This I think, despite the fact that morality is generally a bit of a minefield, is something we can confidently call universally and therefore objectively true.
It seems that OP has forgotten to include a definition of objective as used in the question. Why does it matter?
(1) There are methods to establish ethical rules which are objective, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative being one of the most well-known. Yes, many arguments may be made against it that range from being arbitrary to failing to adhere to its own principle by looking at the consequences of a consistently applied Maxime. Yet, it is an objective set of rules, whether one agrees with it or not.
(2) I do not believe that philosophy or any part of it may ever be solved. This is based on the fact that the greatest minds of our species tried it but failed (at least we all can agree that everything is made out of water, we got that one right from the get go). If any mind is to ever solve philosophy it would be a feat incomprehensible to us in its very nature. I hence believe that different non-empty subsets of humans will disagree on ethics. In this sense there may be no objective ethics in the sense that objective ethics would be something everyone could agree on, which (a) has not yet been observed and (b) would only show that everyone currently alive can agree on it but that doesn't show that it is indeed the solution to ethics. In this sense it is part of the nature of philosophy to remain subjective.
Everything is subjective. All human perspectives are valid to the self but society overall values certain perspectives more than others based on majority-rules, class and other power structures.
For a situational example, abortion. To a woman who has a (non medically necessary) abortion, she isn’t doing something bad. It’s a hard thing to do but she believes it’s necessary for her situation for one reason or another. Another person who deems abortion as evil might see her as a bad person and if that perspective is supported by the state (such as Chile before August of this year), then that woman could be prosecuted by the justice system which is a tool for the enforcement of the agreed upon definitions of good and bad. However, to her (and the majority of the rest of the world), her act of aborting the fetus wasn’t evil.
I believe that everyone does things that suits them based on their own morals. That’s why of all the options they have, they choose to do things they do. So because of that, two things are true: 1) Everyone has two spheres of what they believe is okay and what is not 2) in a society, the ones who’s definitions of good and bad deviate from the nation’s law end up being considered deviants.
I don’t believe there is any crime that is objectively evil, because there are cases where the person who commits the act doesn’t have awareness of it’s evilness. Sociopaths have no concept of conscience, how can we blame them for doing something they are naturally unaware is bad? In their mind, they’re just doing something that suits them. Although I agree that harming others warrants jail-time, I don’t believe in anybody ever being innately criminal or “just evil”. Because no matter how fucked up the deed, they have a backwards logic to why they did it.
What is 'right' and what is 'wrong' varies from subject to subject, from case to case, and from one perspective to another. The concept instigates further misunderstanding and dilemmas, hence subjectivity.
I have thought of some instances:
(1) Sharing answers on tedious assignments may be regarded as 'right', especially among friends; customary reasons for this revolve around the concept of, 'Sharing is caring'. However, a teacher might think that sharing answers is wrong and that academic dishonesty should be duly sanctioned. Students might concede that they are indeed executing academic dishonesty and they may understand their teacher's reasons as to why it is wrong; however, there is a likelihood for these students to argue that responding to 'calls for help' is never wrong.
(2) Suppose you and your friend plan to buy new phones; your phone broke after years of utility while your friend recently lost his phone to a pickpocket in one unfortunate situation. You surf for deals on the Internet for used phones for more affordable deals, and found one deal that you deem to be reasonable in all aspects— the phone's price, the phone being not too close to obsolescence, the 'specs', as well as the location of the seller. You and the seller agree to meet up in a public area to test the phone, only to find out that the phone the seller is offering you is the lost phone of your friend; you happened to tell it from the case and from the available apps. You tell the seller that the phone of interest is stolen and you express intent of returning it to the owner (your friend) as the 'right' thing to do. As a counterattack, the seller contests that falsely accusing him of selling a stolen phone is 'wrong'.
Objectivity exist in all things, its like the skeleton; subjectivity are the varying things according to situation like how different DNA produces different appearances on the base skeleton.
Like some people think everything is subjective always; did you catch it? To say its an absolute 100% that all things are subjective, is an objective statement, which means objectivity exist always, even if we try to make a 100% subjective world.
Morals and Ethics are more like the DNA, which produces various appearances within morality itself. The objectivity of morals and ethics is the concrete occurrence itself, ie, a part of life we did not make or determine. The subjective parts are the ones that shape the societal reality we live by.
Ex:
Objective - Killing
Killing itself is just stopping another living thing from continuing to live. It in itself is not bad or good.
Subjective - The nature in which the killing is done
War?
Good killing
Euthanasia / medical?
Good killing
Intentional cold blooded?
Bad killing
So its like the main ethic is objective, but the nature/situation is subjective.
I feel the line gets blurry if the objective ethic is forgotten. Like some people claim soldiers commit murder for the act of killing - but killing is an objective natural part of life. We kill bugs, our food etc - its the nature of the killing that determines ethics according to what that particular reality sees as feasible.
Opinion
60Opinion
Absolutely. Most of everything is subjective.
If morality is truly subjective than it is truly illusory.
I'm a Christian, so I see morality as objective on a cosmic scale but twisted by our sin. There is objective good and evil, but our desires and thus our morality tend towards evil because of sin. Sin has hindered our free will and skewed it towards self-destruction.
That being said, we are not incapable of making moral decisions and we are living in a messed up world that has us respond with destructive means. We kill to save others from being killed, for instance. It is not moral to let a serial killer kill a hundred people before your eyes when you have a gun in your hand to stop him. It is not moral to tell a man the truth about where his wife is when you know he has the intent to kill her. In that sense we have the closest remnants of our true morality still being poisoned by its simple existence in this messed up world.
Personally I still use two standards when talking about morality - the first being in respect to God and the laws of this creation (an objective morality), and the second being in respect to each other and our relative good behavior in comparison to relative evil behavior (a subjective morality). The latter really is illusory though and only serves as a scale of "moralitycas well because I don't have a better term to use
I do not feel that right and wrong it's self is subjective. We always want to do what is right. So I feel it is safe to say that the idea at least of right is purely objective. What is subjective is how we are going to get the job done. For instance we have a general moral tendency to protect innocents from harm. But , there are times when it is necessary to kill innocents in aught to achieve a moral goal such as the preservation of society. A good example would be in war. If you have an enemy hiding behind children firing at you and you know that if you do not fire back, you will be over run, you will loose that battle and very possibly the war guaranteeing that your entire society and way of life will be destroyed and replaced by a repellent and oppressive system such as for instance communism. In such a case, you are left with 0 choice but to open fire and take out the enemy while they are still vulnerable , the children they hide behind are sacrificed but future generations of children can grow and live in peace. So you have done the right thing but you have had to go about it in a convoluted manner based on a subjective decision.
Morality is ancient. People have had morality as far back as when they were hunter-gatherers. Göbekli Tepe was built by those sorts of people in the 10th millennium BCE. We have no idea where morality comes from, it predates language itself. You're talking thousands and thousands of buried knowledge that's inaccessible to us.
If you go with the utilitarian stance of "it's subjective," the only meaning you can extract can only take place at the level of individuals - try putting a cap on that.
If you go with, "it's objective," you're grouping yourself with the narcissistic folks - who may or may not know they're narcissistic. And let's not forget the false monopoly that obsolete religious points of view have to say on this matter.
If you're going with, "it's illusory," like the self-proclaimed rationalistic Sam Harrises and those people, you're liable to be stumped by newly emergent facts down the road.
Disregard all certainty that you see in this answer and others. Take the scientific findings with a grain of salt, and be aware of the mystery surrounding morality's origins.
This is a pretty long and complicated philosophical discussion.
First of all you would have to define what is right and/or true? Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had a really interesting debate about that this year where Harris found that true is what reliably works. Laws of physics essentially. Peterson debated that true is more in the realm of what sustains life is true. For example even if you can repeat the functions of a nuclear bomb, it essentially makes it wrong since it only has one purpose. Both have a point.
After solving this definition - next would be the argument itself about ethics, what to consider ethics and moral, how much elements of critical theory you want to involve, etcetcetc.
So yes, it is somewhat subjective. Yet, at the same time it can be pretty objective biologically/evolutionary as well as within certain set parameters. For example the most fundamental ethics would be to sustain life as much as possible and only take it, if absolutely necessary. This is a biological truth and thus morally and ethically the right thing to do.
This: "Moral is a false illusion" there's way too many liars and hypocrites and corrupt motherfuckers in this world either way. "Morals" are merely a human concept.
As somebody once said "They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out - like a leper. See, their "morals", their "code"... it's a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these, ah, "civilized people"? They'll eat each other."
It's just the way we are, we're greatly flawed and divided as a species altogether.
If only we were a complete perfect organism that is "pure" then we'd be ALWAYS be "survivors that are unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality." IN WHICH WE SIMPLY AREN'T.
E, but I believe it is both. The standard that we choose is subjective, but in regards to that standard there are ways to objectively do better or worse at achieving that goal. If for example you and I can subjectively agree that when we are talking about morality we are talking about the well-being of sentient creatures, then we can demonstrate (for example) their are positive ways to move along that line (minimizing needless suffering) and negative ways to move along that line (maximizing needless suffering). If you believe however that the morality is actually about maximizing suffering, or following orders then you and I simply aren't talking about the same thing.
It shouldn't be subjective, but most people make it that way.
There is an objective approach, which is that everyone has the right to do anything that doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights. All those actions which do not infringe upon others' rights are moral and right.
But if someone has a different philosophy, such as morality comes from a tradition of religion, or Marxism, then their morality cannot be correct because in the former, only those that believe the same would subscribe to it, and the later necessarily requires some people to have more rights than others.
Most moral issues are subjective and drastically influenced by the situation as well as the perspective and the environment.
There might be universal morals but I haven't found any that is intrinsic.
Overall, my view is fairly utilitarian. Everything boils down to a few choices. A bystander opinion isn't going to matter. It's the person who make the decision that do.
So the moral questions are all about choices. The how's and the why's. The risks, the failures, the success, the chances, the consequences, the methods... etc. it's all about what you choose to do.
Everyone wants to make the best choice with the information they are given. Few know the consequences beforehand. Even fewer know their 2nd best choice they didn't take.
Morality (the basis for deciding if something is right or wrong) is part cultural, and part experience. What may be forbidden by one morality may be compulsory in another. Some things appear universal, until you look at individual acts. Murder, for example, is universally loathed; but what it means varies widely. Honor killings, for example, are not seen as murder by those who commit them. Nor is killing in war. Same with theft; some "takings" are not seen as wrong. Taxes leap to mind. :) So while there is a great deal of overlap, nothing is truly universally right or wrong.
your own personal views are entirely subjective to you. in this case your morals can be anything or they can be nothing. the problem is when you enter a society. this is a problem, because the society imposes morals on you and everyone else on the society. as for what is write and what is wrong. well consider where those terms make sense. they have to make sense in a society, but if you think by yourself then right and wrong mean nothing. Really this state of have no moral views is only particularly useful in deep philosophy.
I believe in many definite certainties such as murder against natural law. Social morals also seem to cross all boundaries and are definitively wrong. Stealing, adultery, assault, being a liar. Even among criminals they have a respect if you lie or steal among themselves. Now if you want to pull the usual argument about cannibals eating each other their are the usual agreements about inferior races or ignorance. But even among such groups there is still a belief that indiscriminate killing is wrong. few things are subjective in the world of right and wrong. If I am wrong about this then a made a inaccurate subject choice.
As long as one individual believes the opposite of what you consider a consensus, that belief is subjective, not objective.
I don't deny that the vast majority of human beings believe murder is morally wrong, but it's not farfetched to claim there's at least one guy who sees no problem with it. I'm convinced that this applies to every idea, belief, or philosophy that humanity has ever conjured up.
My conclusion is that everything in existence is objectively subjective.
The fact that people have different views on what is rifght and wrong and that those views have changed over time proves morality is subjrctive.
Christians would kill gays for being gay because they believed that was right because their book says so, but they don't do that nowadays because it's no longer socially acceptable.
The very fact of the way out world currently is and how differently people from other places see each situation leads to some disturbing thoughts: are only a small part in individuals in the world right about the state of our planet? Or are our morals relative to our raising? Which would be worse or better?
I do not think only a tiny fraction of "special people" can know the truth and understand our world. The very geographic analysis of the spread of religions around the world shows how local cultures are more important to develop a set of values than a global truth.
As Nietzsche said: truth is like a woman. The day you assume you got her, that's when you lose her 😉
It is either subjective or an illusion. Morals and ethics are defined differently by each culture with some overlap. If you look closer you'll also find that the culture's morality was orifinally defined by religion. So if you believe in God, it's subjective to your religion and if your an atheist you'd believe it's an illusion
Yes what's subjective basically means it has different definition and exceptions to different people like if suicide is wrong or right. What's objective is standard for everyone so its factual as opposed to opinionated like things that have to do with the law or medicine etc.
You could also think of subjectivity as something that is not proven (yet).
subjective, but reinforced by peers.
for example, in a country it may be acceptable to stone someone to death for being gay. this is considered morally correct in this area, and reinforced as correct by the majority. elsewhere it is barbaric and monstrous for the same reasons.
the only scenario where right and wrong is objective is maths, and sometimes science. in these cases there is only one correct answer 😊
Depends on how you view the whole world really. If you think you're better than most people then morality isn't really going to be much of an issue for you, but it leads to a very dangerous ideology. As for right or wrong, well that depends on a lot of factors really, where you grew up, your parents teachings, religion, and those are just the few examples. But to conclude, I would say the best solution would be to meddle with both the light side of the force and the dark side as well.
There were three men in a restaurant with three pieces of bread sitting in front of them. Each man took a piece of bread and left without paying. The first man took his bread to sell for money. He was wrong. The second man took the bread because he was starving and too poor to pay. He was right. The last man took the bread because he owns the restaurant. He was also right.
We cannot always know when someone is right/wrong based on their actions. Unless those actions harm an innocent person.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions