Objective vs. Subjective Morality

[Hanyou]

Another way of expressing this is "absolute vs. relative morality." Where do you stand on this issue? Is there an overarching moral order, or is the concept of right and wrong wholly manufactured by society and family?

I believe there are absolute moral laws, and I'm willing to defend that extensively as necessary.* Where do you stand?

*Well, it might take a week, since I have some big projects, but I will do so as soon as I can.

[Kinokokao]

[Hanyou]

[Seniwac]

subjective morals != non-existent morals

[ZetaBladeX13]

I believe that "Right" and "wrong" decisions, in terms of society, were creations of humanity.

[UltimaPi]

[Kalth]

For the standards of society as mankind has made it, moral values are needed to keep everything in check.
There are two ways you could look at it. The first is this: standard society of the modern human in most situations across the globe has some form of moral standards or another. So using that argument, you could say that it is merely a figment of philosophical creation.
But.
Humans are, perhaps via evolution or divine creation (I'll leave that debate for another day) programmed as social beings. It's a natural instinct for survival, and since society needs morals to function properly, it could also be considered something passed along via the base instinct to survive.

Still. People showing signs of no conscience or guilt are labeled as "psychopathic" (yes, that's the correct definition) and are henceforth considered 'wrong' by society. Yet another sign that humans root out others that do not follow the same standards as they do...
But do they follow these rules so loyally because they feel they need to do so, or because they are genetically programmed to for survival?...

All in all, it comes down to genetics versus mind. If the first one is correct, then a situation where morals need to be put aside may also arise when survival comes out on top of all other objectives.

[Seniwac]

[Hanyou]

[Seniwac]

[Hanyou]

I'll do my best. Skip to my last "paragraph" if you'd like to avoid explanation. While I'm not an advocate of all of Kant's ideas, there are some with which I agree. One is Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative...to an extent.

Really, I think the idea of acting only in accordance with what you would will to be universal law is nice, but incomplete. There are some cases that introduce moral ambiguity. Kant was an avid opponent of lying; I think that lying to protect runaway slaves, if it is the only option, is perfectly alright, and perhaps a morally superior option to simply handing them over (although finding a way to protect them without lying may be best). So what you have here is a matrix of possibilities. You may avoid oversimplification while still endorsing an absolutist view.

Some think that saying "lying is sometimes the right thing to do" makes one a moral relativist. Not any more than saying "dividing some numbers by some other numbers may result in a decimal" makes one a mathematical relativist. Because depending on the situation, there will always be a morally superior choice; there will always be a morally inferior choice; there will often be a gray area that tilts one way or the other--just as in math, there are better and worse approximations, and answers that are simply wrong.

In short, then, morality is a priori right or wrong, based on action or intention, not solely on results. Superior moral decisions will result from adherence to that pre-existing moral code as best as possible. Whatever that view is, it's certainly not utilitarian.

[Seniwac]

[Hanyou]

[Hanyou]

[SAL]