Evidence for God from Science

What do people mean when they say morality is objective rather than subjective? When I think of something as being objective, I think of something that can be demonstrated. But how do you demonstrate moral issues? I can understand demonstrating math equations, the correct spelling of words, mechanics etc. but how do you demonstrate morality?

I can understand a person of a particular religion pointing to a particular page in their sacred holy text that address the moral issue at hand; and claiming that as a demonstration of something being right or wrong, but that would only make morality objective to that parson; not everyone else.

Do you suppose morality can be objective to those who have a specific standard of which they base all their moral beliefs upon even though these beliefs will vary from person to person? If not, what do you think is meant when a person says morality is objective?

Ken

In a nutshell:
Subjective means that it is right or wrong ( since we are talking about morals) depending on something:
Depending on WHO or WHAT or WHY, etc..
Objective ( or absolute) means it is right or wrong REGARDLESS of WHO or WHAT or WHY...etc.

EX:
Killing is wrong is a subjective view because there are correct reasons to kill, for example: Killing someone to save a life or lives of another/others.
In other words there are circumstances in which killing is acceptable/justifiable.

Now the issue is that even the vilest of acts ( like sexual molestation of an infant) can be justified in the mind of a person that is not well in the head, a person that has a deviant behaviour, BUT what does THAT mean?

Some can argue that the majority view makes something normal (the norm) and anything outside that is "wrong" and that is a good palce to start BUT that is simply stating a subjective moral view - subjective to that which the majority views as right or wrong.

The answer to this?

What can't be denied is the simple fact that through out history and cultures regardless of size or status or whatever, there has ALWAYS been a view of right and wrong and that view is remarkably consistent across the board.
What we should ask ourselves is why?

Why am I getting the feeling of déjà vu?


Kenny,

Here's a thread that a guy named Kenny started. It's very similar to the question you posed here in this thread. The Kenny in the other thread, and you, have a lot in common.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =Objective

PaulSacramento wrote:In a nutshell:
Subjective means that it is right or wrong ( since we are talking about morals) depending on something:
Depending on WHO or WHAT or WHY, etc..
Objective ( or absolute) means it is right or wrong REGARDLESS of WHO or WHAT or WHY...etc.

When a moral issue is objective, does everybody agree that it is objective? Or do some view the issue as subjective.

PaulSacramento wrote:EX:
Killing is wrong is a subjective view because there are correct reasons to kill, for example: Killing someone to save a life or lives of another/others.
In other words there are circumstances in which killing is acceptable/justifiable.

So is it your opinion that sometimes morality is subjective, and other times it is objective?

PaulSacramento wrote:Now the issue is that even the vilest of acts ( like sexual molestation of an infant) can be justified in the mind of a person that is not well in the head, a person that has a deviant behaviour, BUT what does THAT mean?

I would say that unless you can demonstrate why such a vile act is morally wrong; it is subjectively wrong; not objectively.

Ken

RickD wrote:Why am I getting the feeling of déjà vu?


Kenny,

Here's a thread that a guy named Kenny started. It's very similar to the question you posed here in this thread. The Kenny in the other thread, and you, have a lot in common.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =Objective

Cute!!! Actually I did start that thread. I knew I started a thread on the subject but I was unable to find it in order to add to it so I started another one. As you can see the thread quickly went off topic and I was unable to get my question answered to my satisfaction. When I attempted to get it back on topic, nobody would respond so it ended. I started a new one to see if I could get someone to answer my questions this time. Care to give it a go?

Ken

Kenny wrote:What do people mean when they say morality is objective rather than subjective?

I can understand a person of a particular religion pointing to a particular page in their sacred holy text that address the moral issue at hand; and claiming that as a demonstration of something being right or wrong, but that would only make morality objective to that parson; not everyone else.

Do you suppose morality can be objective to those who have a specific standard of which they base all their moral beliefs upon even though these beliefs will vary from person to person? If not, what do you think is meant when a person says morality is objective?

Ken

Your question of "objective to some but not to others" with respect to morality (or anything else for that matter) is absurd. That is to say, it makes no sense.

From my understanding, objective refers to the nature of a thing in and of itself simply being what it is.

A thing is what it is, regardless of what people want it to be.

You're basically asking if morals are, subjectively, objective to some yet not to others.

Though this denies any meaning to the word "objective." It's a contradictory question, as subjectivity is a matter of personal thoughts and likes, whereas objectivity by definition means that subjective things are irrelevant.

Objective morality is morality, a standard of good VS evil, that is independent of (i.e. not reliant on) human thoughts and likes.

In other words, the question of whether or not people agree on matters of what's right or wrong is simply not relevant to whether something actually is right or wrong.

This is why your questions are unanswerable. It's all nonsensical.
(Note: I'm using the word "thing" in a more vague and abstract sense.)

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Kenny wrote:What do people mean when they say morality is objective rather than subjective?

I can understand a person of a particular religion pointing to a particular page in their sacred holy text that address the moral issue at hand; and claiming that as a demonstration of something being right or wrong, but that would only make morality objective to that parson; not everyone else.

Do you suppose morality can be objective to those who have a specific standard of which they base all their moral beliefs upon even though these beliefs will vary from person to person? If not, what do you think is meant when a person says morality is objective?

Ken

Your question of "objective to some but not to others" with respect to morality (or anything else for that matter) is absurd. That is to say, it makes no sense.

From my understanding, objective refers to the nature of a thing in and of itself simply being what it is.

A thing is what it is, regardless of what people want it to be.

You're basically asking if morals are, subjectively, objective to some yet not to others.

Though this denies any meaning to the word "objective." It's a contradictory question, as subjectivity is a matter of personal thoughts and likes, whereas objectivity by definition means that subjective things are irrelevant.

Objective morality is morality, a standard of good VS evil, that is independent of (i.e. not reliant on) human thoughts and likes.

In other words, the question of whether or not people agree on matters of what's right or wrong is simply not relevant to whether something actually is right or wrong.

This is why your questions are unanswerable. It's all nonsensical.
(Note: I'm using the word "thing" in a more vague and abstract sense.)

Do you believe something objective is based upon fact? Something that can be demonstrated?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Kenny wrote:What do people mean when they say morality is objective rather than subjective?

I can understand a person of a particular religion pointing to a particular page in their sacred holy text that address the moral issue at hand; and claiming that as a demonstration of something being right or wrong, but that would only make morality objective to that parson; not everyone else.

Do you suppose morality can be objective to those who have a specific standard of which they base all their moral beliefs upon even though these beliefs will vary from person to person? If not, what do you think is meant when a person says morality is objective?

Ken

Your question of "objective to some but not to others" with respect to morality (or anything else for that matter) is absurd. That is to say, it makes no sense.

From my understanding, objective refers to the nature of a thing in and of itself simply being what it is.

A thing is what it is, regardless of what people want it to be.

You're basically asking if morals are, subjectively, objective to some yet not to others.

Though this denies any meaning to the word "objective." It's a contradictory question, as subjectivity is a matter of personal thoughts and likes, whereas objectivity by definition means that subjective things are irrelevant.

Objective morality is morality, a standard of good VS evil, that is independent of (i.e. not reliant on) human thoughts and likes.

In other words, the question of whether or not people agree on matters of what's right or wrong is simply not relevant to whether something actually is right or wrong.

This is why your questions are unanswerable. It's all nonsensical.
(Note: I'm using the word "thing" in a more vague and abstract sense.)

What do you think of my claim that objective is based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated?

Ken

It is called 'Objective Truth' and how shall any really know unless such truth is revealed through the law of pain?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Kenny wrote:What do people mean when they say morality is objective rather than subjective?

I can understand a person of a particular religion pointing to a particular page in their sacred holy text that address the moral issue at hand; and claiming that as a demonstration of something being right or wrong, but that would only make morality objective to that parson; not everyone else.

Do you suppose morality can be objective to those who have a specific standard of which they base all their moral beliefs upon even though these beliefs will vary from person to person? If not, what do you think is meant when a person says morality is objective?

Ken

Your question of "objective to some but not to others" with respect to morality (or anything else for that matter) is absurd. That is to say, it makes no sense.

From my understanding, objective refers to the nature of a thing in and of itself simply being what it is.

A thing is what it is, regardless of what people want it to be.

You're basically asking if morals are, subjectively, objective to some yet not to others.

Though this denies any meaning to the word "objective." It's a contradictory question, as subjectivity is a matter of personal thoughts and likes, whereas objectivity by definition means that subjective things are irrelevant.

Objective morality is morality, a standard of good VS evil, that is independent of (i.e. not reliant on) human thoughts and likes.

In other words, the question of whether or not people agree on matters of what's right or wrong is simply not relevant to whether something actually is right or wrong.

This is why your questions are unanswerable. It's all nonsensical.
(Note: I'm using the word "thing" in a more vague and abstract sense.)

What do you think of my claim that objective is based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated?

Ken

It is called 'Objective Truth' and how shall any really know unless such truth is revealed through the law of pain?
-
-
-

What is the law of pain?

K

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In a nutshell:
Subjective means that it is right or wrong ( since we are talking about morals) depending on something:
Depending on WHO or WHAT or WHY, etc..
Objective ( or absolute) means it is right or wrong REGARDLESS of WHO or WHAT or WHY...etc.

When a moral issue is objective, does everybody agree that it is objective? Or do some view the issue as subjective.

PaulSacramento wrote:EX:
Killing is wrong is a subjective view because there are correct reasons to kill, for example: Killing someone to save a life or lives of another/others.
In other words there are circumstances in which killing is acceptable/justifiable.

So is it your opinion that sometimes morality is subjective, and other times it is objective?

PaulSacramento wrote:Now the issue is that even the vilest of acts ( like sexual molestation of an infant) can be justified in the mind of a person that is not well in the head, a person that has a deviant behaviour, BUT what does THAT mean?

I would say that unless you can demonstrate why such a vile act is morally wrong; it is subjectively wrong; not objectively.

Ken

When it comes to humans, everything CAN be subjective.
In reality, however, that is not the case because we DO believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In a nutshell:
Subjective means that it is right or wrong ( since we are talking about morals) depending on something:
Depending on WHO or WHAT or WHY, etc..
Objective ( or absolute) means it is right or wrong REGARDLESS of WHO or WHAT or WHY...etc.

When a moral issue is objective, does everybody agree that it is objective? Or do some view the issue as subjective.

PaulSacramento wrote:EX:
Killing is wrong is a subjective view because there are correct reasons to kill, for example: Killing someone to save a life or lives of another/others.
In other words there are circumstances in which killing is acceptable/justifiable.

So is it your opinion that sometimes morality is subjective, and other times it is objective?

PaulSacramento wrote:Now the issue is that even the vilest of acts ( like sexual molestation of an infant) can be justified in the mind of a person that is not well in the head, a person that has a deviant behaviour, BUT what does THAT mean?

I would say that unless you can demonstrate why such a vile act is morally wrong; it is subjectively wrong; not objectively.

Ken

When it comes to humans, everything CAN be subjective.
In reality, however, that is not the case because we DO believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs.

I believe there are absolute rights and wrongs, but when you call it "objective" you are saying it is based upon fact; something that can be proven or demonstrated. Because I cannot think of a way morality can be demonstrated as good or bad, I call it subjective.
BTW when it comes to humans, there are many things that can't be subjective... math, measurments, volume etc.

Ken

Objective:
1ob·jec·tive adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

PaulSacramento wrote:Objective:
1ob·jec·tive adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

If something is based upon facts, it can be demonstrated; right? How do you demonstrate something as morally right or wrong?

Ken

Does Objective Morality Depend Upon God?

Link ~> http://www.strangenotions.com/does-obje ... -upon-god/

Lonewolf wrote:Does Objective Morality Depend Upon God?

Link ~> http://www.strangenotions.com/does-obje ... -upon-god/

Probably does. Which is why you only see religious people talk about objective morality.

K