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

Objective Morality

To add to my argument after further thought: if morals are objective and they change with time, who/what is changing them? The gawd, aliens, your neighbourhood minks, or perhaps humans themselves? If humans are responsible for formulating morals, how are they objective?

Objective things like laws of nature don't seem to change in time, and if they do, it is a reason that is most definitely related to how they came to be what they are in the first place - and that's as objective as it gets. After all, the most "objective" anything is is how things run according to laws of physics. Morals qualify laughably low on this scale, as low as rules of law do - no need to debate whether those are subjective or objective, reight?
 
Even if there was objective morality given to us by a higher power outside this universe, nothing can be separated from subjective interpretations, so reality would still be subjective imo.


That said, I'm a moral constructivist, I believe the only morals we have are those we've created. I would argue that it makes them more valuable, because they come from inside each of us individually rather than some being outside the universe.
 
I would rather that morals are attained through reason and logic rather than religion or simply our feelings.

I think humans possess a sort of faux objective morality based on things we imagine being shitty to experience ourselves. We believe murder is wrong mainly because we personally really don't want to be murdered. Much of our so-called objective morality seems to be based on this most simple idea. I would love to imagine that we have some kind of nobility that no other animal has and that we inherently recognise right/wrong, but I think we are more likely to develop ideas at a very young age (through inference, experience or plain old conditioning) about what we do and do not like to experience ourselves and project that into a moral construct shared in by the rest of society.

Obviously, I do not believe that there is an objective right or wrong, or even the existence of such a concept, anywhere else in the universe but in human society. Makes me pretty sure its just a human construct.
 
Last edited:
That points to "the golden rule"... do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Simple and sensible. For highly social creatures who work together out of necessity, a rule like that is pretty necessary to avoid total chaos.
 
Oh yes, it is a highly utilitarian concept to adhere to, and highly effective in maintaining some semblance of order amongst hordes of strangers; it just isn't as noble as it can be made out to be.
 
I guess it could be construed as "selfish altruism" rather than true altruism... that is, I won't do something to you because it means you could do the same to me and I don't want that.
 
Let us pause this very interesting and sophisticated dialogue for a moment and observe nature.

Often in the course of animals being animals we will observe animals rewarded/punished for decision making. Generally, these decisions can often lead to death in the wild; poor decision making is quite literally the "wrong" thing to do, unless it's some sort of suicidal animal. This is the framework from which our concepts of morality arise, I am certain of this much. The human brain complicates this whole idea within the mind's concept of objectivity. Makes it a bit obtuse and convoluted.
 
A parent that takes care of their children is more likely to pass their genes on, so when a gene for innate altruism shows up it can propagate & flourish in the gene pool. The same goes for someone who takes care of their siblings, since they share 50% of their genes. That's pretty much why we care for our families so much more than anyone else, millions of years of evolutionary conditioning. Though I like to think that spending lots of time around people tends to give you real appreciation for them beyond the superficial instinctive level, it seems like it often does the opposite.
 
Moral reality is objective..which is why some actions are holy and others are not..
 
There is absolutely no such thing as objective right or wrong. Socially we construct and adhere to codes of ethics because mutualism supports us far more effectively than pure self reliance, we are social creatures, but that is it. What humans do matters very little in the grand scheme of things.

My opinion :)
 
For example killing an innocent person is morally wrong.

If you think it's ok then you are immoral.
 
What if the person is trying to kill you? What if you accidentally kill someone? What if you think the person is trying to kill you even if they aren't?
 
Yeah I specified innocent. Intent matters, but also doesn't change the immorality of an act.
 
take away religion, morality, laws and everything else and your left with less than a handful of things.

one says it's wrong to kill because you throw up after your first one. you get where i'm going with this even though it's a lil sloppy (pun intended).

in a sense, you kill a small piece of yourself morally and also another human being which in another sense is a part of you yet removed.
 
Top