Objective Morality

• Iljimae wrote on 2013-03-09 23:10
  I've been doing some fun reading so I figured it'd be interesting to bring the discussion here to nation.
  
  A universal objective morality, do you believe it exists without god? Also going to ask that thoughts regarding religion be set aside for this as I'd rather see this stay a debate of thoughts stemming from things such as Objectivism, Nihilism, etc, rather than a religious argument.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2013-03-09 23:16

  Quote from Iljimae;1045553:

  I've been doing some fun reading so I figured it'd be interesting to bring the discussion here to nation.
  
  A universal objective morality, do you believe it exists without god? Also going to ask that thoughts regarding religion be set aside for this as I'd rather see this stay a debate of thoughts stemming from things such as Objectivism, Nihilism, etc, rather than a religious argument.

  
  
  Depend what you consider real and not real, religious or not religious.
• Cynic wrote on 2013-03-09 23:24
  I've met a good number of people who have almost completely unbiased, objective morality, so yeah, it definitely does. A belief in God (or any other being for that matter) has nothing to do with morality. The only reason why people seem to think the two coexist is because worshiping God usually means including all of his teachings/rules/whatever you wish to call them. However, I'm sure we all know that many beliefs stemming from the bible itself are the complete opposite of moral, hence why morality and a belief in/worship of God could never coexist unless you decide to throw out all of those immoral beliefs.
  
  What's more is that completely objective morality is impossible for the human race either way. Similarly to how complete perfection is also impossible. Although that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to be as objectively moral as possible. (even though a certain degree of subjectivity is needed in order for "true" morality to be achieved simply because the world is and never will be without subjectivity)
• Iljimae wrote on 2013-03-09 23:42
  I suppose my question is being misinterpreted, so let's see if I can clarify this a bit more.
  
  When I say objective morality, I'm not referring to being objective in your actions but rather do you believe that there is a universal code of morals? A code that dictates the right way to live your life, a morality that exists outside of humans thoughts, wishes, fears etc. This can be thought about a few ways in regards to evolution, nihilistic approaches and other things.
  
  So what I'm curious about is, in the absence of a higher power, do you believe that there is an objective morality? Or is morality purely subjective?
• Aubog007 wrote on 2013-03-10 10:13
  I believe there is a universal set of morals, but in the end, everyone dumps those as you progress in age.
  
  People stop caring for others and instead cares about what gets them to where they are, i have met people who were objective, and they have "changed" their morals to suit themselves.
  
  
  
  I may have confused the question, however.
  
  You need to not ask people in their teens and twenties, you need to dive into a higher age group to find your answers.
  I asked this very same question to the people that work for the government, and the answers... Are colorful.
  
  
  In the end, morality is twisted, the sooner you understand this, the sooner you can adapt and bend their morality back at them.
  The universe does not operate on one unified morality theory, if it did, utopia would be now, unfortunately, until everyone is "identical", this is currently impossible as stated earlier, morality is corruptible.
  
  I really hope i understood the question right. I proooobably didn't since abstract thought is not one of my strong points, i see only what is front of me and apply simple logic to each individual person, hell i try to be as objective as possible, but if i succeeded, i wouldnt be as miserable working around my co workers, because they would understand that doing what they are doing is wrong, and these are the older co workers, who before they were actually nicer people, but as an influx of "new generation" employees started rolling around, they outright decided to call themselves bitches, and intend to make our lives as miserable as possible, and they genuinely think this is to give "life experience" to the new workers.
  
  
  This is what i view as "morality" whether it is objective, or subjective, no one thinks the same as another person.
• Yakumo Yukari wrote on 2013-03-10 10:26

  Quote from Iljimae;1045553:

  I've been doing some fun reading so I figured it'd be interesting to bring the discussion here to nation.
  
  A universal objective morality, do you believe it exists without god? Also going to ask that thoughts regarding religion be set aside for this as I'd rather see this stay a debate of thoughts stemming from things such as Objectivism, Nihilism, etc, rather than a religious argument.

  
  
  This will not end well.
  
  While philosophising is good and all, in the end it really doesn't lead anywhere except for total brain failure because everyone disagrees.
  
  IMO it can't exist because from each person's stand point, they ARE the world, and it can be influenced by certain things. I don't think anyone tries to do what they think is the wrong thing blah balh blah *falls asleep*
• Iljimae wrote on 2013-03-10 21:17

  Quote from Aubog007;1045903:

  
  I may have confused the question, however.
  

  
  
  No worries, your input is very much appreciated. I enjoyed reading what you had to say and you seem to have understood what I'm asking. Thanks for sharing. [x
  
  

  Quote from Yakumo Yukari;1045914:

  This will not end well.
  
  While philosophising is good and all, in the end it really doesn't lead anywhere except for total brain failure because everyone disagrees.
  
  IMO it can't exist because from each person's stand point, they ARE the world, and it can be influenced by certain things. I don't think anyone tries to do what they think is the wrong thing blah balh blah *falls asleep*

  
  
  I understand the controversial nature of the subject that I'm asking, although I don't foresee many people participating in this discussion - sadly. Even if more people were to give their input I would hope that if things were to be debated that it would be done in a matter of respect and for the sake of better understanding, because as you said, this sort of question can lead into endless discussion. I've actually been keeping up with quite a few discussions on the topic and of course none of them so far have been able, even after years, to come to any conclusive answer.
  
  My main curiosity with the subject stems from hopes of understanding the more objective point of view along with being exposed to a wide variety of perspectives. I seem to have fallen into a more nihilistic perspective.
  
  “Once set in motion, the process of questioning could come to but one end, the erosion of conviction and certitude and collapse into despair”
• Yoorah wrote on 2013-03-11 01:46
  Morality, like most things in this universe, is relative rather than absolute. A moral authority is formed by society over a long period of time--a byproduct or an essential component of civilization, I suppose. Hence different cultures have developed slightly different codes of morals over the ages.
  
  I believe that the moral way to lead your life is one which lets society advance and prosper. For instance, why do you think is it widely accepted since ancient times that murder is bad? People want to be able to live in a society where they don't have to worry about being casually murdered by somebody. This lets people focus on more productive matters, and society in turn prospers. I suppose the Golden Rule also ties into this, and is probably the closest thing you'd have to an objective moral authority--and even then, it's still relative.
• Chiyuri wrote on 2013-03-11 01:58

  Quote from Iljimae;1045569:

  I suppose my question is being misinterpreted, so let's see if I can clarify this a bit more.
  
  When I say objective morality, I'm not referring to being objective in your actions but rather do you believe that there is a universal code of morals? A code that dictates the right way to live your life, a morality that exists outside of humans thoughts, wishes, fears etc. This can be thought about a few ways in regards to evolution, nihilistic approaches and other things.
  
  So what I'm curious about is, in the absence of a higher power, do you believe that there is an objective morality? Or is morality purely subjective?

  
  
  In that case, I would say Yes there is.
• Locke wrote on 2013-03-11 05:49
  Right is right, wrong is wrong. There's no black or white about it though, besides what you bring yourself to believe. Religion doesn't mean shit in regards to this. Religion is the excuse people use to justify why they think something is right or wrong.
• GODZILLA wrote on 2013-03-11 06:09
  Evolutionary. What one race can see, and has grown to believe it, as wrong, another can see as right.
  
  For example on our planet, for the most part its wrong to, say, murder another human being.
  
  On another planet, that kind of stuff doesn't really matter so much. It might even be encouraged.
  
  
  I hope I understood the question correctly?
• Lie wrote on 2013-03-11 13:41

  Quote from Iljimae;1046262:

  I understand the controversial nature of the subject that I'm asking, although I don't foresee many people participating in this discussion - sadly. Even if more people were to give their input I would hope that if things were to be debated that it would be done in a matter of respect and for the sake of better understanding, because as you said, this sort of question can lead into endless discussion. I've actually been keeping up with quite a few discussions on the topic and of course none of them so far have been able, even after years, to come to any conclusive answer.

  
  
  This is usually how a lot of "objective morality" discussions turn out, from what I see.
  
  In my opinion, the term "objective morality" contradicts itself. Morality, at its roots, is formed from instinct, and instinct is dependent (probably even subjective) on the species in question.
• Drizzit wrote on 2013-03-13 01:27
  Awww yeah, a philosophy discussion!
  The short answer is no; there is simply no way to have a universal objective morality without a higher moral authority. The closest you can get is some sort of natural law that stems from society, and can only apply to everyone within that society. Other types of morality, such as utilitarianism fail because they are inevitably subject to the differing moral perspectives of individuals.
• Prae wrote on 2013-03-13 08:12
  It's late at night, and I feel like seeing what I can type out while half awake.
  
  One man's trash, is another man's treasure. In much the same one, one person's success, is probably another person's failure. To be universally objective, I would think that one would have to be aware of all potential consequences of an action, and take all of these into account. Because of all these possibilities, I could see objective morality as some sort of cost-benefit analysis: what is beneficial/detrimental for ...
  
  For who? You? How selfish! Your family? What about your neighbours?! Oh, why not your city then? Well, some cities aren't as fortunate. Then your country? But so much of the world is suffering! Then the world? [S]What about the aliens![/S] There would just be so much disagreement.
  
  I suppose over time, we've developed patterns of what is/is not accepted in many societies. Even then, who is to say that these trends will continue on forever? Perhaps the value of a human life may actually be detrimental in the grand scheme of things, and perhaps murder may be the effective solution to it all.
  
  TL;DR
  At best, objective morality is probably a cost-benefit sort of mindset, wherein you specify a set of people (or other organisms?). Beyond that, we simply don't know enough about every single consequence to make a true statement of what is "right", and what is "wrong".
• Shanghai wrote on 2013-03-13 09:07
  There's a book that makes a pretty positive view on what you're describing. Not very long, about 80 pages in a small paperback novel called "The Alchemist" by Paul Coelho. I highly recommend reading it. Gonna go off on some tangents in my post related to the book, but they're relative.
  
  Anyway, yes. There is some sort of language that everyone understands, but like Aubog said it's clouded by human desires. We're brought up to it at a young age when we learn of dreams and hopes, but we lose that fluency when people see how one-sided the world can be. For them, it turns into a race of trying to shark your way to the top, eating the competition and caring little for those that stand in your way or simply do not help. They still want to achieve what they'll want to be, but there's no way for them to experience true satisfaction once they've reached the end. Money can buy a lot of things, but it surely cannot score a good deal like someone's life or happiness.
  
  A lot of what we do is trying to score a major goal we've established in life from the get-go. But it's hard to do that when everyone else is racing to do the same, and that there are those that have set the bar to where it is today, and have held it there. We let out when things aren't going our way. It's easy to drop the pain and go for something lesser and still be successful within our society. The rules and stereotypes our memes have wrought in stone limit us from truly reaching for what we want.
  
  The people that conspire to break that stone are those who truly know that universal language. It exists because we're all in all the same species. We exist so we can represent us as a species. It's only nature taking place that we help get others back up when they fall down. Our free will simply throws that out of the window and throws an objective view that can nullify the instincts we've learned to build up in the past, creating the "morality is subjective" view. It is our free will that makes us want and bash down all opposition in our way.
  
  Has there been a form of undeserved help you've received along the way? The people that bend a few rules here and there to let you through; the people who pay it forward. That's what the universal language is in full display, that we all understand each other at a certain level. That level is enough to grant our aid to those who are shooting for something great. They're there to provide that inch of support that helps them get there when they're not able enough to provide that inch themselves. It's surely not established or created via religion, because it's been there since the world's been created. We're all crazily connected by a strange empathy to help each other even though we're all mapping out our own roads. The people that help in grand ways may never be recognized for their good deed. They may make it onto someone else's map like a fork or good turning point, but rarely do we ever take someone else's good into account.
  
  Retaining this universal view takes a lot of effort; only a few of us know it well today. Besides, why would anyone want to do something that gives little output or material reward in return? The people who can get beyond that are those who know that their input can contribute heavily to another person's life. The people that do it for show and personal recognition are horrid amalgamations that mar the simple beauty of it all. The people that truly understand are those who know success and failure; to balance both the gems in life from the vast sands of emptiness. People who are able to see the things in life that make it better, while also keeping a clear and open view on things that do harm in our way. Those who know the universal language aspire to make people understand that by eliminating some of the grains strewn across our way. They act to prevent the spark from dying out. To save us from truly giving up our dreams and desires, our personal legends.
  
  They say when "when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it." I truly believe that. Universal morality exists in the language of the world; something we all share and simply lose track of because of the way we've built up civilization. There are those who employ it, and those who don't(Probably more so on the don't). But it's definitely there.
  
  EDIT: I don't think I was clear enough on some points. Basically, people that have a clear understanding on how good AND bad the world can be are capable of giving grace to those who need it. They know when people fall short and fail, but they also know how to get back up because they've done it too. They've achieved their dreams through hardship, dedication, and persistence. They lend aid and break the rules within their power to help others do the same. The people who view the world as a bleak reality are those that have given up their true hopes in view that it's not worth living for. In tandem, they give up on helping on others since they see it not being worth it. These are simply my own thoughts, so forgive me if I've offended some of you who see the world another way.