Morality Subjective

[Crusader_4]

Gentlemen and Ladies of Phatmass,

Is morality subjective I beleive not but i will defer my opinion here for a few minutes. I have a blog where I analyze modern culture and after reading an article that stated this "Morality is subjective and existing laws on the topic seem to be totally arbitrary" So i would like to debate this and prove that morality is not subjective. I would appreciate if I can use anyone who posts arguments on my site. If you would prefer i do not use your arguments please let me know in your posts thank-you.

Pax Christi and God Bless.

P.S. now just to spam my blog where it will appear click [url="http://www.coleridgepark.blogspot.com"]here [/url]

[blovedwolfofgod]

if only i though morality was subjective...

[DAF]

Perhaps seeing the article would yield some fruit?

And what sort of arguemts are you looking for? Pro? Con? Both?
I assume it's alright that the arguments be from the Christian proposal.

I think I'll wait before giving my thoughts. How does the saying go? 'Tis better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"? (Mark Twain?)

in Christ

[Crusader_4]

The argument was talking about how the govt of Canada intends to change the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years old. The article was then arguing how the govt can rule over what happens in the bedrooms and promote morality as it is subjective.

[DAF]

Well right out of the gate I take issue with government trying to regulate-or have anything to say about for that matter-morality.

Secondly, the American Heritage Dictionary defines morality as: "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."
I'm inclined to say that if some nancy in canadian parlaiment thinks he is able to redefine morality as anything other than objective and absolute (with obvious exceptions of course, mental retardation for example, the clinically insane for another) then he's cut his own legs out from under him. Morality by its very nature is objective (it being the case that all humans, being made in the image of the nature of God is able to differentiate right form wrong). Trying to argue it as otherwise is arguing about something altogether different from morality, it's...well I don't know what it is, but it certanily isn't morality.

That's my two cents. If I need to clarify or need to be corrected by all means I invite constructive criticism.

in Christ

[hierochloe]

I'm not a scholar in these things but here's what I think. There is only one case in which a subjective morality would be defensible, and that is if one were to accept as a premise that God does not exist. [Even some atheists will argue there is objective morality.] Nevertheless, if people can agree that God exists, one can then produce a solid case for objective morality and reduce most support for the subjective alternative.

[jswranch]

(answer in sarcasm)

Who are we judge the actions of others? Who are we to tell the Germans not to gas the Jews? Who are we to tell parents that bruises and broken bones are not effective parenting techniques? Are not morals subjective?

[frozencell]

It's really as simple as this. They continuously lower grade expectations in public schools to afford the students a better-looking report card and GPA. Now, even though their GPA states they graduated with a 3.0 does NOT make them smart. Lowering expectations and standards does not redifine morality - it just hurts the people it is trying to "help".

[DAF]

[quote]There is only one case in which a subjective morality would be defensible, and that is if one were to accept as a premise that God does not exist. [/quote]
Yes, you would be correct to a degree, but again, morality by its nature is objective, so you could try to argue subjective morality, but it would better for an athiest to argue that there is no such thing as morality at all. After all, without God, you have no reason at all to respect your fellow man, to care about him or his welfare. As Peter Kreeft says, "You can preach subjectivism, ou can never liv eit consistently." And as Frank Sheed says "if you remove God, you don't see anything as they are, but rather as they are not, which is the definition of insanity."

[frozencell]

There are really only two reasons to treat others with dignity and respect. God and self-preservation. But without God what's the point in self-preservation?

[hierochloe]

[quote name='DAF' post='1016904' date='Jul 3 2006, 07:35 PM']
Yes, you would be correct to a degree, but again, morality by its nature is objective, so you could try to argue subjective morality, but it would better for an athiest to argue that there is no such thing as morality at all.
[/quote]

Good point. That's what I was getting at. I will state it like that next time, since it's a lot more accurate. :

[Semalsia]

[quote name='DAF'] After all, without God, you have no reason at all to respect your fellow man, to care about him or his welfare.[/quote]

If your reason for respecting someone is any other reason than the person himself, then you don't really respect him. If your reason for caring about someone is any other than the person himself, then you don't really care about him.

And I fail to see how God could be a reason to care about someone. You care about people because you care about people. Not because someone tells you to.

[quote name='hierochloe']There is only one case in which a subjective morality would be defensible, and that is if one were to accept as a premise that God does not exist. [Even some atheists will argue there is objective morality.][/quote]

The existence of God doesn't make morality objective. How could it? Those are completely separate issues.

Besides, there are plenty of theists that believe morality to be subjective.

[DAF]

[quote]And I fail to see how God could be a reason to care about someone. You care about people because you care about people. Not because someone tells you to.[/quote]
You can't use a circular argument like 'you care about people because you just do.' You would care about (or at least respect) other people because of the fact that they are a creation. Why respect creation when there is no creator? There's no pragmatic reason to care about anything (with exception for self preservation, generally at the expense of others) if it's all by chance of "luck."

[quote]The existence of God doesn't make morality objective. How could it? Those are completely separate issues.[/quote]
We observe around us that the world (and the universe) obey a certain order. Something that makes it predictable. If this Divine Creator is the cause for all this order and predictability, aren't we then compelled by reason to say that the creator of this supreme law, and in fact all things, is then in fact the creator of reality? Isn't reality objective? Perhaps one's view of reality is subjective, but reality itself is objective.
That itself would be sufficient to argue your point, but if we carry this logic one step further we can say that to follow this supreme law is objectively right, and to disobey it is objectively wrong (read "disordered" "perverted").
Therefore, the two are not two separate issues, but a radically united.

Edited July 4, 2006 by DAF

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1017158' date='Jul 4 2006, 11:53 AM']

And I fail to see how God could be a reason to care about someone. You care about people because you care about people. Not because someone tells you to.

The existence of God doesn't make morality objective. How could it? Those are completely separate issues.[/quote]
Without God, what is there to determine which is moral vs that which is immoral? There is nothing to determine such a thing. If God does not exist, then humanity's "morality" is reduced to a product of evolution that is the vehicle through which we survive as a collective, a mechanism that allows the phenomenon of society to function. To call that specifically "morality" would be somewhat of a misnomer imho. Yet even if one were to insist it is indeed morality, it would be nigh on impossible to demonstrate it is truly objective.

With regard to caring... Did you ever wonder why you would care about someone? What is it in you that makes you want to do such a thing? Maybe even so much that you would sacrifice something important for them? Maybe even your own life? Why would a person act with such lack of selfishness if not driven by either evolutionary instinct and/or a morality imbued in them by a creator? Since I propose such questions, I believe the answer is both, because I think they are the same or at least share the same origins. Even if you don't accept the concept of a creator, this feeling of caring is definitely more involved than someone having a nice smile or cool shoes or having scratched your back a few times.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1017158' date='Jul 4 2006, 11:53 AM']
Besides, there are plenty of theists that believe morality to be subjective.
[/quote]
Belief in God isn't the only prerequisite for an objective morality. Indeed some theists (as in some pantheists) don't even believe that God conciously interacts with His creation and that the creator and the universe is "amoral" (as opposed to immoral). In such a "created" reality, if you will, one might make a case for subjective morality, although it would fall under the same situation as "uncreated" that I described above, a sort of misnomer.

I do believe God is the first premise (although not the ONLY premise) required to demonstrate objective morality. Furthermore, as Catholics (along with many developed religions), we find morality to be static or anchored external to human perception in reality (ie objective), as DAF described. With that principle, there cannot be any subjective morality, rather only incorrect perceptions of the one true and real morality.