Position:Home>Philosophy> Why do you think morality and ethics is subjective?
Question: Why do you think morality and ethics is subjective!?
I've noticed most people answer questions dealing with morality and ethics in a trite, "Well morality is subjective" kind of way as if that were the final say on things!. How do you justify this subjectivism!?
Do you really think that when comparing different moral statements such as,
"To kill an innocent person for no particular reason is morally right" and
"To kill an innocent person for no particular reason is morally wrong!."
that there is no objective reasons for answering that one is closer to the truth than the other!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
I think the question turns on what we believe an objective standard to be!.
Two possibilities occur to me:
1) Standards that are accessible to all persons equally, and those standards are independent of human reason!. They are viewed by everyone from a god's eye point of view, so to speak!.
2) Standards that can be understood equally by all parties as competent language users!. The standards are public, external rules or criteria dependent on human reason!.
1 is a very old POV and I won't go into the reasons other historical periods have accepted it!. It's of interest now because some people conceive of objectivity this way intuitively and recoil from it because what they are really recoiling from is a particular set of behavioral guidelines that are backed by some authority!. Embracing a subjective viewpoint allows them to entertain alternative guidelines and points of view!. This is useful for the purpose just mentioned and All of us to some extent embrace it as children!. The problems begin when we, as adults, try to maintain an extreme subjectivity, or relativist position!. As noted above, extreme relativism fails miserably and it is quite easy to show why!. (see above)
the only reason to maintain subjectivity, and why people are so reluctant to reject it is that the only alternative seems to be to retreat to the very behavioral guidlines that the person initially rebeled against!.
The solution is quite simple!. To reject both the extreme subjectivism and the notion that a god's eye POV is even possible!.
Personally, I reject subjectivism !. If the only truth is my personal subjectivity, not only do I become the only standard whereby I justify my obligations to others, I can't even have access to other's POV!
Secondly, there is no POV whereby I can compare my beliefs about an external object with the object itself!. As Richard Rorty often pointed out, there is no way we can stand outside our own skins!.
So, I am left with the second possiblility of concieving objectivity!. Now, I am not claiming that there are no alternative ways of conceiving of objectivity!. (frankly, I don't think about ethics very much; it bores me) I am simply suggesting that objectivity conceived in this way solves the problem quite nicely!. We don't worry that the morals we have are the right ones, because they are simply the ones we have, and we can change them as we see fit!. Of course, for those who want a simple world with simple answers or someone who is interested in a particular set of standards to lord over others this is not a good solution!. But, I couldn't care less about the needs and wants of stubborn children or despots!.
Morals are objective for the simple reason that in order to know what our obligations to others are, we need to understand what the rules are in the first place!!.
Yikes! Sorry this was so long!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Morality is relative!.
First u must define morality: "manner, character, proper behavior"
So, u could say that:
1!. Killing is morally wrong!.
2!. Killing is morally right!.
Obviously, #1 is true and #2 is false!. I hope we can all agree that killing is not proper behavior!. Therefore, it is not moral!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
subjectivism can be justified/everything is subjective because we are all a product of our own experiences, and can never escape our own values!. Our experience of the world constitutes our being, and everything we see is seen through out own eyes/values/experiences/opinions, and we cannot see something completely unbiased from these experiences!.
When comparing moral statements you cannot say one is more right that the other if you want to take a completely unbiased stance, however because we cant escape our own values many believe the latter to be correct!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
If your underage daughter has premarital sex, should u kill her!?
If a thief steals bread, should u cut off his hand!?
Is slavery acceptable!?
In different times and different places on earth, you will get radically different answers!.
Morality is subjective!.
read up on the trolley conundrum!.
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Trolley_pro!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It's simply because morality and ethics are things that we, as humans, simply made up!. Since everyone thinks differently, that means that everyone's morals are different, and thus, that also explains why they're so subjective!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Both depends of your education at home, at school your culture and also your religion!. In some countries they killing an other person, child, women, old people are for them morally wright because of some believes that their serve their country or their religion!.PatriotismWww@QuestionHome@Com
It is a philosophical platitude that morality is dependent upon culture alone!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
But you've even used subjective examples in your explanation!
What does innocent mean!? Free of wrongdoing!? Who gets to decide right from wrong!? You!? Me!? The answer is no one and everyone, and since no single set of rules can be universally accepted as "right", the issue is subjective!.
Some cultures used to believe in human sacrifice!. They would sacrifice men and women for what we would see as "no particular reason!." But for civilizations like the Aztecs, these sacrifices had the power to save their people from the wrath of the gods!. Sacrificing these people served what they saw as a greater good, and some of the sacrifices were even willing participants!.
It's easy for you and me to sit here today and say, "Oh, that's barbaric!. What they did was WRONG!" But you and I live in a society that can't even begin to understand the thinking of that time period!. For the Aztecs, killing an innocent person was not only justifiable, it was sacred and necessary!.
Someday people may look back on our time and say, "How could anyone ever think that abortion was okay!? They were barbaric and twisted people back then!." But today, abortion is still a hotly debated issue with both sides of the argument claiming to be "right" on both moral and ethical grounds!.
Morality is not a fixed set of ideals!. Ethics evolve from place to place and from day to day!. The only thing that we can say is "right" is what we believe to be moral here and now, and we may think differently tomorrow!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
It's still subjective!.
There are no universal moral 'truths'!.
Killing an innocent person is amoral in a civilized society!.
You ask the question from a subjective standpoint!. As a civilized human, it is obvious!. But it's still subjective!.
You can't separate yourself from being a civilized human!. Therein the problem lies!.
Does a tree care if you kill someone!? No!.
Does a fly care if you kill someone!? No!.
Does nature care if you kill someone!? No!.
Does the earth care if you kill someone!? No!.
Did a 12th century Viking care if you killed someone!? No!.
Did The Catholic Church care if you burned a witch!? No!.
The only beings that care are civilized humans!.
The only negative result of killing an innocent person, comes from other civilized humans!.
There have been many uncivilized societies that have killed innocent people for religious reasons, for sport, and for revenge!. There were often no negative repercussions because those societies subjectively viewed those acts as moral, according to their own moral standards!.
EDIT: No, there is no objective way to rank moral statements!.
Gravity is not a moral statement, it is a scientific one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
well, apparently saying that morality is subjective is trite, so what do you call justifying morality as objective!? trite indoctrination!? or the attempt thereof!.!.!.
how can there be any truth to either of the two statements you present!? what is your reasoning for saying that there is an absolute truth that holds for both me and you!? we have differing psychological desires and needs as separate individuals!. our life experiences only hold constantly true for ourselves!. we may share most fundamental biological needs, but that hardly defines an answer to whether it is right or wrong to kill
and youre right that 'everything is subjective' can be a contradiction if it is stated objectively!. obviously it too is subjective seeing as how there are those that do believe in universals that should govern everyone!. that statement will not apply to them!. and someone may say that there is gravity while another says its the hand of god, but the truth of the matter is in the reality of the beholder
all i can be sure of is that there is no way i myself can objectively rank the morality of others!. i also know that what i hold as my own moral standard cannot be objectively ranked by another!. this truth of mine may not apply to you, in which case you can disregard this if you like!.Www@QuestionHome@Com