• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Objective Morality

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
5,495
Is morality objective? A kind of natural law, not dependent on human perception?

Or is morality subjective, and decided on by humans?
 
Most humans operate on subjective moral law which is governed by their dualistic perception of self, group, society, etc.

On the level of brahman or non-duality there is objective law that is merely a product of emptiness and universal true nature, requiring no real abstract thought process to justify. It's simply evident, as codified in most of the basic commandments of religions worldwide.
 
Morality is definitely subjective. There's a reason in the rest of the animal kingdom, there are no laws or societal structure in place to punish those who murder, rape, steal, i.e. what the western civilized world sees as moral. Morality is not an objective truth to be observed, but rather an almost archetypal Abrahamic imprint.
 
Agreed. I think morality is subjective, there does not exist an independent, external truth of it. It depends on the species, and the society, and the individual. I think as humans we can generally agree on what is and is not moral with the big things... like, don't murder people, or to take it further, treat others as you would like to be treated. It just makes sense. But some humans don't believe that or follow it. When you get to more complex issues, like drug use/intoxication, it's even more subjective. For some people, intoxication is absolutely immoral, but for many others, probably almost everyone on Bluelight, we see it as not being a moral action one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I think morality is subjective, there does exist an independent, external truth of it. It depends on the species, and the society, and the individual. I think as humans we can generally agree on what is and is not moral with the big things... like, don't murder people, or to take it further, treat others as you would like to be treated.
Exactly, seems like a good description of objective morality.

It just makes sense. But some humans don't believe that or follow it.
They could be considered immoral?

When you get to more complex issues, like drug use/intoxication, it's even more subjective. For some people, intoxication is absolutely immoral, but for many others, probably almost everyone on Bluelight, we see it as not being a moral action one way or the other.
That's different though and definitely seems more subjective. You're only potentially harming yourself
 
do what thou wilt, (as long as you're not hurting anyone) .... just do what feels ok to you, and try to treat others well.... don't get all tripped out on hell or guilt or sadomachism etc
 
There is some objectivity to morality, I think. It feels to me that all animals have it - a lot of times animals would help each other instead of eating weak ones. I have also met bears in a wild and they never wanted to hurt me but neither I was scared of them.

With more tools and brain power comes more responsibility and it is only natural to feel the need not to perverse everything and make more suffering in this world. So that's the objective morality - if you are conscious enough to realize the suffering, you would naturally avoid making more of it.
 
^^ What about something like a moose, which is the most dangerous animal in North America. They're not even meat eaters but they'll trample you for the hell of it, especially in mating season. What about cats, which like to torture mice to death, let them escape repeatedly, hurt them more each time, play with them while the mouse suffers in panic and pain. Are they evil? Or are they just following their nature? But yeah, some animals also display altruism, like dolphins for example who have been known to come to the rescue of humans against sharks, at their own peril.

I have my idea of what is right and wrong. To me, the thing that makes sense is this single rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (one of the really great messages from Christianity). And I think most humans feel this way, at least if they thought about it in isolation. But some people are sociopaths. To them, there is no consideration other than themselves. The rest of us consider that immoral, but is that person just following their nature and adhering to their own sense of morality?

JGrimez - I meant to say there is NOT an objective, independent absolute morality, I meant to say it's all subjective.
 
^^ What about something like a moose, which is the most dangerous animal in North America. They're not even meat eaters but they'll trample you for the hell of it, especially in mating season. What about cats, which like to torture mice to death, let them escape repeatedly, hurt them more each time, play with them while the mouse suffers in panic and pain. Are they evil? Or are they just following their nature?
Evil is just a label based on our human understanding of harm. But since most animals are not aware about the harm they cause they treat it as a life's necessity, so they are not evil and just following their nature.

When it comes to humans though, evilness is easily distinguished as vast majority of humans are highly aware of their actions, consequences and alternatives.

I agree on Christian approach, Xorkoth, but the topic question was about objectivity of morality...:)
So my take on it is I think there is an objective morality which exists in every life form as embedded mechanism that comes activated with specific circumstances.
 
Interesting, I like the idea of a morality inherent to each species, that differs in each. That kind of makes sense. It works best for us as a species for survival, to be benevolent towards others. We are an emotional species which has a high capacity for love due to how we evolved to reproduce and survive. We also are conscious, so we can extend that beyond ourselves. If we torture a mouse to death slowly, that's an abhorrent act because that's our nature, but if a cat does it, it's just following its own nature. So, there can be outliers among humans who either don't understand or care about our morality, but there still exists an objective morality that is what is best for our species.
 
Most intelligent people think that there is some objective quality to morality.

I have argued for moral subjectivism.
 
I think it's a bit of both. For the most part morality is subjective. But they have done studies on large numbers of diverse groups of humans and found that there are a core set of fundamental beliefs humans seem to be hard wired to share. That's probably the closest to an objective morality.

Not helping things is that out culture can shape our morality in a way that changes our innate perceptions of morality.

There are some things I think can be said to be pretty close to objectively immoral. Things like harming a random person for no reason. Killing children. Universal standards that all human societies agree with. How objective that really is is hard to say in the scientific sense. But as far as objective and subjective morality, it's definitely on the objective side.

But no, I'd say most morality is subjective. It reflects your surrounding culture, it isn't innate. And people argue about it.
 
Without duality there is only one morality.

Same as when mind is quieted and inner peace is experienced.

Modern philosophy believes morality is generated from the faculty of rationality/mind but it overlooks that morality can blossom from states of consciousness. The supreme, objective morality that most humans can agree upon has been handed to us by people in those states. The states are not "enlightened", rather they are states where the activities of mind are quieted and the natural, true nature of inner peace and contentment is able to be experienced by all humans.

It's this true state of ours that contains the conscious capacity for objective morality. If you live in a state of inner peace, compassion naturally arises for suffering, there is an aversion to abrasiveness and harshness, there is an empathy and respect for life, etc. Because most modern people have never quieted their minds nor even realized that their mind is a thing that can be quieted, they are not directly experiencing their own true nature of the heart. Most people believe everything their mind tells them. They believe that mind is them, and this is reinforced by society's higher placement of value on rational faculties.

Because we are a spiritually degenerate society at this time, we use the faculty of mind as the intervention for discussing the values and merits of morals. Of course this will be subjective. Mind itself is subjective. The mind is never the same one moment to the next so how can it be relied on as a conscious faculty to anchor anything? It's by quieting the mind rather than engaging with it that we see the true moral landscape of our human reality.
 
Without duality there is only one morality.

Same as when mind is quieted and inner peace is experienced.

Modern philosophy believes morality is generated from the faculty of rationality/mind but it overlooks that morality can blossom from states of consciousness. The supreme, objective morality that most humans can agree upon has been handed to us by people in those states. The states are not "enlightened", rather they are states where the activities of mind are quieted and the natural, true nature of inner peace and contentment is able to be experienced by all humans.

It's this true state of ours that contains the conscious capacity for objective morality. If you live in a state of inner peace, compassion naturally arises for suffering, there is an aversion to abrasiveness and harshness, there is an empathy and respect for life, etc. Because most modern people have never quieted their minds nor even realized that their mind is a thing that can be quieted, they are not directly experiencing their own true nature of the heart. Most people believe everything their mind tells them. They believe that mind is them, and this is reinforced by society's higher placement of value on rational faculties.

Because we are a spiritually degenerate society at this time, we use the faculty of mind as the intervention for discussing the values and merits of morals. Of course this will be subjective. Mind itself is subjective. The mind is never the same one moment to the next so how can it be relied on as a conscious faculty to anchor anything? It's by quieting the mind rather than engaging with it that we see the true moral landscape of our human reality.

I like this answer a lot Foreigner.

An interesting question to explore is whether through careful observations and consideration of moral values — looking carefully at what works and what doesn't — whether a set of optimal guidelines can be developed that will take a person right up to the edge of what objective morality is so that an experience of objective can arise that 'bridges the gap.'

I too take the view that objective morality can only be understood experientially through states of consciousness and cannot conveyed in its entirety as a set of rules and guidelines. That said, I don't think examining questions of morality is a futile endeavor just because the precise definition of objective morality is beyond what can be adequately communicated with words. I believe such a process will reveal higher truths and bring us closer to experiencing these higher truths. I'd be weary though of anyone who claims to have found the truth above all others when it comes to morality.
 
I like this answer a lot Foreigner.

An interesting question to explore is whether through careful observations and consideration of moral values ? looking carefully at what works and what doesn't ? whether a set of optimal guidelines can be developed that will take a person right up to the edge of what objective morality is so that an experience of objective can arise that 'bridges the gap.'

I too take the view that objective morality can only be understood experientially through states of consciousness and cannot conveyed in its entirety as a set of rules and guidelines. That said, I don't think examining questions of morality is a futile endeavor just because the precise definition of objective morality is beyond what can be adequately communicated with words. I believe such a process will reveal higher truths and bring us closer to experiencing these higher truths. I'd be weary though of anyone who claims to have found the truth above all others when it comes to morality.

The guidelines have been granted to us already by the many wisdom traditions around the world. Every major religion has the same primary tenets, like the 10 Commandments, more or less. For people who are engaged in the heart wisdom practices, the commandments become a natural unfolding of consciousness. It's not about obeying at all but rather just living a very self-generating, self-evident truth. In other words... we all have the exact same moral blueprint residing in us, universally, through an ineffable spiritual core. The values arise with the inner practices and the discursive, argumentative mind is quieted. It goes back to that whole thing of... we already have all the answers we need inside of us.

For people who don't have clear insight, aren't understanding yet, or they live a more mundane rational reality, the guidelines become a set of rules to guide them through the chaos of linear rationality. I call it chaos because the rationality of mind is in a constant state of quantum flux which imparts coercive pressure on values to be constantly reassessed, criticized and changed, even unnecessarily; whereas, a state of consciousness based on inner peace really is fixed. The inner peace that arises even from the most basic breathing meditation is a basement level consciousness... there's no going 'under it', coercing it, or making it into something else. It is its own field.

No, there's nothing wrong with implementing morality through those guidelines. There are many roads to Rome. Sometimes we become the part by playing the part. That's what most religions, underneath it all, are trying to give us... though unfortunately they are subject to the politics of mind. It takes true seekers to get back to the essence of the religion, which is really just the essence of their own inner being.

I'm trying to find a really good link I read a while back... a revised version of the 10 Commandments, based on a cross-study of the world's many wisdom traditions. It reframes them in such a way that we can under their universality, through heart consciousness.
 
Oh here it is...

"The 10 Commitments", from Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch

1. You shall love God with all your heart, all your mind all your soul. And there shall be no other God set before Me. No longer will you worship human love, or success, money, or power, nor any symbol thereof. You will set aside these things as a child sets aside toys. Not because they are unworthy, but because you have outgrown them.

And, you shall know you have taken the path to God.

2. You shall not use the name God in vain. Nor will you call upon Me for frivolous things. You will understand the power of words, and of thoughts, and you would not think of invoking the name of God in an unGodly manner. You shall not use my name in vain because because you cannot. For My name-the Great ?I Am? ? is never used in vain (that is, without result), nor can it ever be. And when you have found God, you shall know this.

And, I shall give you these other signs as well;

3. You shall remember to keep a day for me, and you shall call it holy. This, so that you do not long stay in your illusion, but cause yourself to remember who and what you are. And then shall you call every day the sabbath, and every moment holy.

4. You shall honor your mother and your father ? and you will know you are the Son of God when you honor Father/Mother/God in all that you say or do or think. And even as you so honor the Mother/Father/God, and your father and mother on Earth (for they have given you life), so, too, will you honor everyone.

5. You know you have found God when you observe that you will not murder (that is, willfully kill, without cause). For while you will understand that you cannot end another?s life in any event (all life is eternal), you will not choose to terminate any particular incarnation, nor will not change any life energy from one form to another, without the most sacred justification. Your new reverence for life will cause you to honor all life forms ? including plants, trees and animals ? and to impact them only when it is for the highest good.

And these other signs will I send you also, that you may know you are on the path.

6. You will not defile the purity of love with dishonesty or deceit, for this is adulterous. I promise you, when you have found God, you shall not commit this adultery.

7. You shall not take a thing that is not your own, nor cheat, nor connive, nor harm another to have anything, for this would be to steal. I promise you, when you have found God, you shall not steal.

Nor shall you?

8.Say a thing that is not true, and thus bear false witness.

Nor shall you?

9. Covet your neighbor?s spouse, for why would you want your neighbor?s spouse when you know all others are your spouse?

10. Covet your neighbor?s goods, for why would you want your neighbor?s goods when you know that all goods can be yours, and all your goods belong to the world?
 
I'd be weary though of anyone who claims to have found the truth above all others when it comes to morality.

I'd actually extend this statement into a more general version of it. Any time anyone is insisting that they have the answer to something above all others (I mean like other than objectively empirical things like the answer to 2+2), it should be a massive red flag.
 
do what thou wilt, (as long as you're not hurting anyone) .... just do what feels ok to you, and try to treat others well.... don't get all tripped out on hell or guilt . . ."

The above can be found at, motiv ch.3 5-7 Keep the faith.
 
Morality is definitely subjective. There are no "morals" that everyone can completely agree on. Don't kill another? "yeah but, that guy did this and that, he should be put to death" "yeah but, that guy is coming to attack our women and children and/or country, fill 'em with lead". Don't steal? "yeah but, he's so wealthy and there are people starving, fuck 'em". You can do this for anything, including rape and torture. I mean, torture used to be a viable tool for extracting information from "the bad ones", nobody complained then. Were they immoral, or have "morals" just changed with time?

If morals were objective, then any species anywhere, even outside the Earth, would have to abide by them. Guess what species would be considered the most "moral" (as in following the most morals)? H00mans. IMO that says quite a lot about how objective morals are.

1. You shall love God with all your heart, all your mind all your soul. And there shall be no other God set before Me. No longer will you worship human love, or success, money, or power, nor any symbol thereof. You will set aside these things as a child sets aside toys. Not because they are unworthy, but because you have outgrown them.

Yeah, the most important and moral commandment.
 
Top