Do you believe in absolute morality, or are you of the opinion that morality is always subjective? At the heart of it, are there fundamentally right and wrong ways to live life?
Absolute morality
- Thread starter TinyBubbles
- Start date
- Aug 9, 2009
- 1,339
- 180
- 0
- MBTI
- IEI
- Enneagram
- 6w5 sp/sx
I think we all have a basic shared morality, but since I think it arises from a normal functioning human brain, I'd still call it subjective; but even then I'd still be inclined to say that any life going against that is just wrong.
This probably only includes things like killing people of your social 'tribe' or something like that though, considering it would stem from our socialness.
This probably only includes things like killing people of your social 'tribe' or something like that though, considering it would stem from our socialness.
i think it's subjective and "right" and "wrong" are just conceptions but i don't think they're meaningless conceptions, we do the best with what we have to work with.
- Aug 9, 2009
- 1,339
- 180
- 0
- MBTI
- IEI
- Enneagram
- 6w5 sp/sx
Hmmm. What does it mean to just pass something off as a conception anyway?
We have classified trees, for example, into many smaller and smaller groups of things which are similar to one another, but really every tree is unique. Does that make the idea of a tree a conception?
We have classified trees, for example, into many smaller and smaller groups of things which are similar to one another, but really every tree is unique. Does that make the idea of a tree a conception?
*grins* pretty much. our whole categorizing individual entities into groups and describing individual events as reflections of trends is probably in large part an abstraction - absent everywhere except within us. a shared, accepted myth.
it's pretty confusing! i would find it meaningful to rebel against the meaninglessness though, as a sort of negative meaning, and to evaluate and develop codes of right and wrong balanced against that. a lot of things in life are artificial, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying them, and it doesn't mean that they harm me. i believe that a human conception is meaningful.
i would probably have to actually read philosophy though. to say something meaningful.
i would probably have to actually read philosophy though. to say something meaningful.
- Aug 9, 2009
- 1,339
- 180
- 0
- MBTI
- IEI
- Enneagram
- 6w5 sp/sx
*nods* this gets into my argument for the superiority of subjective experience (in regards to meaning, not truth).
And the idea of human conception comes straight out of philosophy of language, though you might be surprised at how much of it you'd come up with on your own.
The only absolute is change. Mortality changes with emotional bias. All I can do is to make sure I help people come to see that by making peace with themselves they can make peace with others.
Last edited:
heheh what right do the sheep have to tell the birds of prey that they are wrong to follow their nature?
(Good ol Neitzsche) Poor guy wrote a bunch of books in a hurry because he was going insane.
Last edited:
- Aug 9, 2009
- 1,339
- 180
- 0
- MBTI
- IEI
- Enneagram
- 6w5 sp/sx
heheh what right do the sheep have to tell the birds of prey that they are wrong to follow their nature?
Indeed. The birds of prey are not in the wrong, but neither are you if you decide to kill them in favor of the sheep.
I suppose in that sense I have difficulty deeming much of any specific behavior as plainly wrong, despite my common strong dislike for whatever it is.
Isn't belief the whole sum of the argument? You know, that whole "choice" thing we humans have going on. Absolute or flexible morality depend upon the individual even when society has created laws to govern behavior. Only you know the price of your own sense of right or wrong. How much value you place in your honor depends on the choices you make or the choices you refuse to make.
Morality is neither purely absolute nor purely subjective.
Morality is subjective - but refers to objective goods/things.
Murder, for instance, is objectively wrong. Insofar as a person can grasp that, their subjective morality is in conformity with objective right/wrong. For those who cannot grasp the objective immorality of murder - their subjective morality is called immoral - or in the example given, complacent to murder, or even murderous.
Morality is subjective - but refers to objective goods/things.
Murder, for instance, is objectively wrong. Insofar as a person can grasp that, their subjective morality is in conformity with objective right/wrong. For those who cannot grasp the objective immorality of murder - their subjective morality is called immoral - or in the example given, complacent to murder, or even murderous.
Etymologically speaking, morality is not about right and wrong, it is about customs or habits of individuals or groups. Ethics is the same, except that is is from Greek instead of Latin, and that it is often taken as an abbreviation of Ethika Arete, Good habits. I tend to think we need to place more emphasis on the Arete and minimize the Ethika.
I believe there is an absolute right and wrong, but that so such absolutes can be properly expressed though the relativistic tool of language and may never be fully understood by mortal man. Furthermore, there are areas where the absolute right is silent, suggesting only a duty to respect the relative moralities to avoid offense to others when said offense serves no greater purpose.
I believe there is an absolute right and wrong, but that so such absolutes can be properly expressed though the relativistic tool of language and may never be fully understood by mortal man. Furthermore, there are areas where the absolute right is silent, suggesting only a duty to respect the relative moralities to avoid offense to others when said offense serves no greater purpose.
I believe in absolute morality. Each person defines their absolute morality, so I also believe that morality is subjective. Morality is both at the same time.
True immorality occurs when a person goes against their own beliefs about right and wrong. When they do this, there are two paths they have before them, acceptance or denial. Immoral people will go against their personal morality and use defense mechanisms to deny what they have done is wrong. Moral people realize what they have done is wrong, accept it, and do their best to improve. Evil people are those who trample their morality, but were unable to accept their actions were wrong. The more they do this, the less moral they will become, and the more blind to their true morality they will be. They may create a new morality for themselves that is evil, a justification for their actions. This new morality is not a true morality, it is a defense mechanism.
Also, I believe in God and I believe in Heaven and Hell. I believe God may send certain people to Hell for following their morality (especially if it is a perverted personal morality as described above.) Anyway, to me, having God define a morality doesn't mean this should necessarily change who you are as a person. I view it more like a divine justice system. Just because there is a divine justice system doesn't necessarily mean you are going to decide to behave in accordance with it. I choose to, but that's a choice I make. So even with an all-encompassing absolute morality defined by God, there is a personal absolute morality defined by individuals.
You see, the people with really screwed up moralities that are not defense mechanisms, are likely brought up in a bad environment, or they are mentally inhibited. The mentally inhibited aren't going to hell. As for those brought up in a bad environment, I like to think God is understanding of that. God knows what they've gone through and how harshly they should be judged for their actions.
Last edited: