Morality: Subjective or Objective?

I was just rereading Hamlet and came across a certain line:

"...for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

What do you think of this line, in relation to morality? Then the age-old question: Is morality a set of principles merely created by the individual thought, or is it a universally binding law that holds true for every person without exception?

I think a great deal of morality is subjective. I can't say what's moral for another person.

However, I do think that morality must have an internal consistency, or it's based on air. For example, if someone is against people kicking dogs because animals are innocent and don't deserve abuse, and then they run over turtles on the street for fun, I'll question their morality and if they have no logical reason why it's wrong to abuse innocent dogs but not kill innocent turtles, then I will not longer respect their moral code because it isn't consistent.

It's an interesting question though, and I could be on the wrong side of it with "mostly subjective". I'm not really sure myself.

Morality is a human construct. There isn't anything that is moral or immoral. It depends on the person's personal experience and culture.

"... For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Honestly, that's just an accurate observation of the nature of reality. You cannot even define 'good' without defining 'bad'. Both are products of reflective thought, and mutually determinant.

But to answer your second question, morals - good vs bad - are neither objective nor subjective. A question that is enduringly unanswerable should always be suspected of a question being asked in the wrong way.

Morals, when defined as 'what is good vs what is bad', are intersubjective in nature. Typically, the word for this is "ethics", while morals refer to your own personal ideals of justice. Or maybe those terms are reversed, I can't recall. But the principle is that subjective judgement is different from intersubjective agreement, and both are different from "objective" observation (pure objectivity doesn't exist since all human experience must be interpreted and filtered through the human mind/body).

Beautiful:Good:True = Subjective:Intersubjective:Objective = Art:Morals (Ethics?):Science

In other words, these are three different (but interrelated) domains, each with different types of truth.

Tek said:

"... For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Honestly, that's just an accurate observation of the nature of reality. You cannot even define 'good' without defining 'bad'. Both are products of reflective thought, and mutually determinant.

But to answer your second question, morals - good vs bad - are neither objective nor subjective. A question that is enduringly unanswerable should always be suspected of a question being asked in the wrong way.

Morals, when defined as 'what is good vs what is bad', are intersubjective in nature. Typically, the word for this is "ethics", while morals refer to your own personal ideals of justice. Or maybe those terms are reversed, I can't recall. But the principle is that subjective judgement is different from intersubjective agreement, and both are different from "objective" observation (pure objectivity doesn't exist since all human experience must be interpreted and filtered through the human mind/body).

Beautiful:Good:True = Subjective:Intersubjective:Objective = Art:Morals (Ethics?):Science

In other words, these are three different (but interrelated) domains, each with different types of truth.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to contribute at the moment because I'm doing something else, but this:

Beautiful:Good:True = Subjective:Intersubjective:Objective = Art:Morals (Ethics?):Science

I learned in my political philosophy class, how the ancients perceived truth. Could you elaborate a bit more on the meaning of intersubjective? The word seems to indicate some kind of in-between of subjective and objective, but I don't have a clue otherwise.

Kanzler said:

I have nothing to contribute at the moment because I'm doing something else, but this:

Beautiful:Good:True = Subjective:Intersubjective:Objective = Art:Morals (Ethics?):Science

I learned in my political philosophy class, how the ancients perceived truth.

Click to expand...

Right. It's been around at least since the Greeks got slaves to do their manual labor and had time to sit and ponder deeply about human experience. Thank goodness for machines (?).

The reason that these are differentiated is that you can't accurately describe "truth" without making these distinctions. It's true that "I think goth girls are hot" send pics plz, but that's not true in the same way that "cells have membranes" is true. Furthermore, you must have different methods to verify these different types of truth.


EDIT: What's intersubjectivity? Good question.

A subjective truth requires only a single "I". Intersubjective truth exists in a "We" space, which emerges from an interaction between two "I's", but has properties not found in the "I" space. Put differently, intersubjectivity is mutual agreement rather than personal judgement.

As to evaluating truth in these two domains: I can say that I had fun making this post, and I don't need anyone else to verify that. It's how I feel; it's subjective.

But the claim that we had a good time together requires a communication between the two of us. I cannot verify that by examining my own mind, and I cannot verify that by physical/objective/external means. I can only verify that via an interaction with another subject. And, of course, accurate verification requires that we are both interpreting our own depth accurately.

The basis of all morality is what we value. While there are differences between what people value, there are some things that nearly everyone believes are valuable, such as human life and the freedom to pursue our interests.

I don't think there's going to be any perfect system that works for everyone, but I do think that there are going to be some common aspects and that there is a difference between a poorly thought-out system for a given set of values and a well thought-out one.

Morality has to be objective or else the whole concept has no meaning. Things you consider moral aren't therefore moral, they're personal preference. Arguably, anything a society considers moral or amoral are not therefore moral, but societal preference. My view is that morality cannot therefore truly exist in the sense most people think of it in, unless you assume some higher power from which objective morality comes from, and even then such morality could still be considered the preference of whatever being or force it came from.

General Bravo said:

Morality has to be objective or else the whole concept has no meaning. Things you consider moral aren't therefore moral, they're personal preference. Arguably, anything a society considers moral or amoral are not therefore moral, but societal preference. My view is that morality cannot therefore truly exist in the sense most people think of it in, unless you assume some higher power from which objective morality comes from, and even then such morality could still be considered the preference of whatever being or force it came from.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this at all. If morality is objective, then you should be able to point to its location in physical space. But it's a concept, a thought-form. It exists in mental space and does not have simple location.

Furthermore, were morality objective, wouldn't it be the same for everybody, and wouldn't it be independent of context? Yet neither of those things are true. It'd be nice if we could simply say things like "Abortion is objectively immoral" or "Divorce is objectively moral". But that's not how it is, precisely because morality depends on cultural context and personal perspective (which are far more than mere preference).

Moralities are objective- to a certain point. Example: most people agree murder is wrong. Not everyone thinks abortion is wrong.

I follow the Bible, so my morals are objective. When I make my own moralites, bad things happen. I think everyone should follow the Bibles objective morals, but we have free will and can make our own decisions. :)

My personal opinion on the matter of morality can be summarized by putting together bits and pieces from what others have already been said. Basically, if you take the definition of the word "moral" you'll probably come across one that defines it as being individually constructed. In that, a person's morality will be based on their standards regarding what they believe to be acceptable. That in itself is subjective. If you want to approach morality from an objective perspective, perhaps looking at cultural "norms" would probably be better suited.

There are some who would contend that I cannot be a moral person because I am both an Atheist and gay. And yet, many more believe otherwise.

So where do our morals come from? How do we truly know right from wrong? Can a person who does not believe in God be a moral person?

I think Christopher Hitchens says it best:

BadPokemon said:

Moralities are objective- to a certain point. Example: most people agree murder is wrong. Not everyone thinks abortion is wrong.

I follow the Bible, so my morals are objective. When I make my own moralites, bad things happen. I think everyone should follow the Bibles objective morals, but we have free will and can make our own decisions. :)

Click to expand...

Objective means that it's true outside of yourself, true for everyone. If you believe that everyone can have different morals, you just choose to align your moral code with Christianity's, then you believe morality is subjective.

Are we using objective as a synonym for impartial, unbiased? Cause that's not the sense I was using it in...

It's subjective. Many cultures have different view points on what's moral. Betrayal of the simplest things can get you beheaded and most cultures thought it was justified.

Dr. Wiggles said:

It's subjective. Many cultures have different view points on what's moral. Betrayal of the simplest things can get you beheaded and most cultures thought it was justified.

Click to expand...

It's funny you should mention capital punishment, because, correct me if I'm wrong—which I don't think I am—but does the U.S. not still practice capital punishment as well? And do not, in the comments sections on most news websites, you hear call for criminals convicted of violent offences to be hanged, shot, tortured, and all manner of horrors visited upon them in retaliation for the crimes they committed? And I bet you every single one of those people calling for such violence would consider themselves a moral person.

Unequivocally subjective, as is everything as we know it. The roots of things like morality take genesis in insticts, and are furthered into emotions and later into cognitive thoughts. Every ounce of it is all in our heads.

Morality is subjective.

What's defined as moral is decided on by particular societies, which is why there are different ideals of what's right and wrong.