I believe morality is based off the general consensus of the Society you're confined to. Most developed societies see canabalism as a terrible thing. While tribes in Papa New Guinea see it as a divine ritual to release their God from a prison of flesh. Truth is that reality is chaotic, and that we try to bring order and understanding into this chaos. But ultimately in the end we are just creating subjective and social constructs that hold little to no bearing as to how things should be. Because what is is something we fundamentally have no control over. And what matters to us ultimately does not matter in the grand scheme of things.
I believe morality is objective. If morality has something to do with right and wrong, and right and wrong are tied to well-being, then surely there are correct and incorrect answers to what constitutes a positive or a negative well-being. For example, who would agree that perpetual suffering of all infants for no reason, is good? Wouldn’t we all agree that this isn’t a positive state of well-being? I think morality can have wrong and right answers.
wouldn't we agree that when a policeman is just 'following orders' and proceeds to violate someone by detaining them and taking their shit, then arresting them if they have the wrong plant in their bag, that is immoral? Apparently not. Some of us think it's okay to commit gross injustice if we are following orders.
Here is some objective morality. If you violate someone, a. k. a, if you initiate violence against them when they have done nothing to you or anyone else, that is immoral, no matter what stupid fucking uniform you're wearing.
Subjective. We base laws on the way the majority view morality. This is why the law is always contested and questioned in general- because it cannot fit all perspectives, so it can only find middle ground and stick there. Morality isn't objective, because good and bad are opinions, not facts or concrete things. They can be taught, concluded, etc, but the same ones aren't going to exist for everyone as a whole from the beginning. This is why different cultures have, as a whole, differing views and practices- some which another group may find morally wrong or right or middle of the road... and vice versa.
It is both. Think about different things and the consequences. We can all objectively say that inflicting pain in those who cannot protect themselves is immoral, but but other things like having sex before marriage is subjectively moral or immoral. We sometimes like to put the construct of morals into black and white but it’s not always there’s a lot of grey area.
This^ I'll maybe add that there's some subjectivity to the objectivity since different societies/groups have different objective rules when it comes to morality.
If you base it on religious dogma, then that is objective, but the logic behind it is "because someone said so".
If you base it on something like fundamental human rights, then you can also come up with objective morality. A fundamental human right is something that can be exercised by everyone without violating someone else's fundamental human right, noting that those who violate someone else's human right has forfeited his rights.
For example, everyone has a right to live. However, everyone also has the right to property. It is immoral to take someone's property by force in order to take positive action to support someone's right to live.
And if someone attempts to take another's property by force, then the former has forfeited his right to live.
Morality is objective. Interpreting actions and applying them to a moral code is subjective. For instance we can say human suffereing and needless death is morally wrong. And in our actions we can try and limit the suffering. Wheather the actions taken are moral is subjective. Development of modern medicine has saved millions of lives. Looks good, could be morally justified. But it has come at the cost of antibodies grown in animals that had to be caged and they had to die to harvest the blood etc... less good right? But also bigger picture. Now people live longer and there are too many of us and the planet is struggling to support us and we farm millions of caged animals that suffer. Less economic countries suffer as they can’t support there population and now those people suffer. they Don’t get the medicine they need but it is available. Is that moral?
Morality is objective, but has many subjective components. There are basic principles of morality that are objective, but sometimes, the subjective application of these objective principles changes, because of the practical situation in the culture. For instance, it moral to sit in a chair, and point your toes outward. There is nothing wrong with it. But if you are in some cultures, if you point your toes at someone, it is an insult. So, the subjective application, is that toes should be pointed away from people, in cultures where it is an insult to point toes at people. The moral thing to do, it to not point toes at people, as otherwise, you are insulting them.
there is no clear answer . for it depends on who or what vision or version of morality is in question . the new testament . the torah. islamic . buddhist . htiler's . mjk's . putin's . the kkk . the nra . trump's . monsanto . well fargo . tyson foods .
Morality is subjective, of course. There is no act that at some point in history was not considered moral. It would, of course, be comforting to see it objective, but that's a lie we tell ourselves to make us feel better.
Worse, morality can be situational. Acts that are forbidden in one case may be mandatory in another. In the end, concepts such as "right or wrong" and "good or evil" are not useful, without the surrounding social framework.
Yeah, morality can be objective too if, the person has strong views about a certain thing. Although, the opinions of a person can change but, they can stay the same if, the person has given something a lot of thought. Well, I'll say, we should think of someone's morality as, their opinion and, we can look at moralities of different people and, listen to ourselves and, then decide what's correct. Like, in my opinion, the best punishment for rape is, donating the organs of the convict to the ones in need.
Morality is subjective and depends on the person. (e. g. someone thinks that it's immoral for a business to deny a gay person service)
Ethics are objective and can be proven through first principles. (e. g. it is ethical for a business to deny a gay person service as they have property rights)
It depends on your worldview. People with specific religious beliefs might consider morality to be objective, whereas others might consider it to be subjective. I personally believe morality to be objective.
Always subjective Because one might believe that sex out of marriage is immoral, while the other might believe that having sex with every person who asks it isn't immoral.
That depends if you believe in a set of "rights" and "wrongs" and if you believe that someone or something wrote those laws or right and wrong. If you believe that morality, as I've heard many argue, is simply what is practical for society then it is subjective to the era and the culture. However, if you believe in a deity of some sort then for most religions it would be an objective fact that never needs any amending.
Most Helpful Opinions