Is morality something that is subjective?
0
Is morality something that is subjective? Or do we as humans have some kind of base line morality where no matter were we are, who we come from or how we're raised, certain things will seem morally wrong?
0
Well, I personally believe people as humans and people as a society result in different moralities/ethics. As humans, and barely "advanced" animals, we are a brutal, unforgiving and unrelenting species without any limits like right and wrong. However, as a society, people usually do end up having at least one common baseline moral law: Killing other people is wrong. Everything past that is very situational.
Humans can kill other humans, but people can't kill other people, so to speak.
Humans can kill other humans, but people can't kill other people, so to speak.
0
Misaki_Chi
Fakku Nurse
Mix of social, personal, and biological/environmental if you ask me.
Social meaning a consensus of what is considered moral/immoral and what is appropriate/inappropriate can affect impact the actions as well as influence how you perceive things. Some countries believe that a trial by jury is the correct way to handle certain situations where other countries may feel that slicing off your hands or just throwing you in prison (no trial) is morally sound. Societal morals are there for the good of the people (doesn't mean that they always work or are right).
Personal meaning that even if society have their preconceived notions on what is considered moral, that doesn't mean that you feel the same on everything (hence why I said consensus for the first part). When you look at people who are for certain rights and those who oppose them, you'll see the individual morals of those two sides which is basically "I am right and you are wrong". From there other's who see this will also take their own stance on the issue and will morally judge what they believe to be their own personal "right and wrong".
Biologically there are some people who are born with the ability to have stronger or less moralistic senses. There are some people who regardless of their upbringing will say "fuck the police" and just do their own thing. Other's are strictly moralistic and will follow a righteous path of justice and condemn those who stray from the path. The environment that people grow up in also affects this as well. If you look at people who are raised in convents, they are heavily influenced by the teachings of others. Some don't necessarily agree and some may rebel, but those who can be influence will be to whatever degree. Not everyone is as extreme as I make it out to be, but everyone is wired differently so everyone is unique in their perspectives (don't exclude the ability to change).
Social meaning a consensus of what is considered moral/immoral and what is appropriate/inappropriate can affect impact the actions as well as influence how you perceive things. Some countries believe that a trial by jury is the correct way to handle certain situations where other countries may feel that slicing off your hands or just throwing you in prison (no trial) is morally sound. Societal morals are there for the good of the people (doesn't mean that they always work or are right).
Personal meaning that even if society have their preconceived notions on what is considered moral, that doesn't mean that you feel the same on everything (hence why I said consensus for the first part). When you look at people who are for certain rights and those who oppose them, you'll see the individual morals of those two sides which is basically "I am right and you are wrong". From there other's who see this will also take their own stance on the issue and will morally judge what they believe to be their own personal "right and wrong".
Biologically there are some people who are born with the ability to have stronger or less moralistic senses. There are some people who regardless of their upbringing will say "fuck the police" and just do their own thing. Other's are strictly moralistic and will follow a righteous path of justice and condemn those who stray from the path. The environment that people grow up in also affects this as well. If you look at people who are raised in convents, they are heavily influenced by the teachings of others. Some don't necessarily agree and some may rebel, but those who can be influence will be to whatever degree. Not everyone is as extreme as I make it out to be, but everyone is wired differently so everyone is unique in their perspectives (don't exclude the ability to change).
0
Like Misaki said in her post, I think it's a mix of different elements. The answer is not exactly black and white.
I believe there are some universal morals that are shared by everyone. One of them would be murder. I think it is morally incorrect for one to take someone else's life. Which is why from what I know, there are no countries in the world that legally allows the citizens to kill one another without receiving any consequences.
At the same time, there are certain morals that are not clear cut like the example above. Take lying as an example. We all know that lying is bad, but what about white lies? Is it still wrong for you to lie with goodwill for the benefit of others? I personally think it is okay for people to lie at times and there is nothing wrong with it. However, I am sure there are people out there that think otherwise.
I believe there are some universal morals that are shared by everyone. One of them would be murder. I think it is morally incorrect for one to take someone else's life. Which is why from what I know, there are no countries in the world that legally allows the citizens to kill one another without receiving any consequences.
At the same time, there are certain morals that are not clear cut like the example above. Take lying as an example. We all know that lying is bad, but what about white lies? Is it still wrong for you to lie with goodwill for the benefit of others? I personally think it is okay for people to lie at times and there is nothing wrong with it. However, I am sure there are people out there that think otherwise.
0
Morality most definitely is subjective to every individual on planet earth, what is moral to you may not be moral to me or to somebody else. Morals most definitely are not objective.
Some people mentioned that we have few universal morals like murder being wrong, but that is just not true, because first of all many countries define the whole concept of murder totally differently than the western countries do for example. In some middle-eastern countries honor killings are okey or in fact a good thing, is that murder?
For those who don't know honor killing means that the family not only has the legal right, but also the moral right to kill for example their own daughter if she is marrying a man who is a christian or jew. The same thing applies if i publicly insult the prophet of muhammed in some middle-eastern countries or burn the qoran, people have not only the legal, but also the moral right to murder me on the spot.(And i am not talking about ISIS here, honor killings are totally ok in some of the other middle-eastern countries.)
Also what about war time? Do our morals go out the window when we engage in war with another country? Innocent civilians die because of war everyday, but nothing is done to bring "justice" to those who killed them. One person responsible for killing of innocents is USA president Barack Obama, i don't know the numbers on how many have died in the drone strikes, but many strikes have killed innocent civilians.
Morality and morals are entirely subjective. There are many things that effect our morals though, such as the society which you live in, your parents, your religion, your childhood, your genes, so on and so fort, but there is nothing that bounds you or forces you to act and behave 'morally'.
Some people mentioned that we have few universal morals like murder being wrong, but that is just not true, because first of all many countries define the whole concept of murder totally differently than the western countries do for example. In some middle-eastern countries honor killings are okey or in fact a good thing, is that murder?
For those who don't know honor killing means that the family not only has the legal right, but also the moral right to kill for example their own daughter if she is marrying a man who is a christian or jew. The same thing applies if i publicly insult the prophet of muhammed in some middle-eastern countries or burn the qoran, people have not only the legal, but also the moral right to murder me on the spot.(And i am not talking about ISIS here, honor killings are totally ok in some of the other middle-eastern countries.)
Also what about war time? Do our morals go out the window when we engage in war with another country? Innocent civilians die because of war everyday, but nothing is done to bring "justice" to those who killed them. One person responsible for killing of innocents is USA president Barack Obama, i don't know the numbers on how many have died in the drone strikes, but many strikes have killed innocent civilians.
Morality and morals are entirely subjective. There are many things that effect our morals though, such as the society which you live in, your parents, your religion, your childhood, your genes, so on and so fort, but there is nothing that bounds you or forces you to act and behave 'morally'.
0
This became a complex part the creationist debate. Pro-creationists argued that you cannot have morality outside of creationism and scientists and other opposition amusingly does get tripped up on this argument in debates.
Morality by its definition probably is subjective. Because what is right to some people, is wrong to others. Though I believe there is a point where it gets less subjective.
For that point, we look at "empathy". If something someone might do to you would hurt you, you may be less likely to want to do it to others, to save them from that pain, religious or not. Because you know you'd hate it, so empathy makes you know they'd hate it, and not want them to feel it.
On the other hand, religion has sometimes been the only thing keeping the wealthy from exterminating the planet for their gain. But not because of religion itself, just the way they use it.
Morality by its definition probably is subjective. Because what is right to some people, is wrong to others. Though I believe there is a point where it gets less subjective.
For that point, we look at "empathy". If something someone might do to you would hurt you, you may be less likely to want to do it to others, to save them from that pain, religious or not. Because you know you'd hate it, so empathy makes you know they'd hate it, and not want them to feel it.
On the other hand, religion has sometimes been the only thing keeping the wealthy from exterminating the planet for their gain. But not because of religion itself, just the way they use it.
0
baconlol wrote...
scientists and other opposition amusingly does get tripped up on this argument in debates.How exactly do scientists and other opposition get tripped up in this argument?
0
æ£ç¾©
Gone
Coconutt wrote...
baconlol wrote...
scientists and other opposition amusingly does get tripped up on this argument in debates.How exactly do scientists and other opposition get tripped up in this argument?
Wall of text, read at your leisure:
Spoiler:
0
baconlol wrote...
Morality by its definition probably is subjective. Because what is right to some people, is wrong to others. Though I believe there is a point where it gets less subjective.I'm pretty sure that killing someone is repulsive for both believers and non-believers.
0
Volaverunt wrote...
baconlol wrote...
Morality by its definition probably is subjective. Because what is right to some people, is wrong to others. Though I believe there is a point where it gets less subjective.I'm pretty sure that killing someone is repulsive for both believers and non-believers.
For psychopaths, sociopaths and religious extremest it is not.
1
Volaverunt wrote...
People with mental illness? Well, they are always the exception.Religious extremism is not a mental illness, its people with really strong faith and the belief that what they are doing is right.
-1
Coconutt wrote...
Religious extremism is not a mental illness, its people with really strong faith and the belief that what they are doing is right.Are you talking about those islamic terrorist groups? They are fucked up in their heads.
And how is being an extremist not having some sort of mental problem?
0
Volaverunt wrote...
Coconutt wrote...
Religious extremism is not a mental illness, its people with really strong faith and the belief that what they are doing is right.Are you talking about those islamic terrorist groups? They are fucked up in their heads.
And how is being an extremist not having some sort of mental problem?
So do you think that those hardcore anti-gay Christians have mental problems? They're not as extreme as Islamic terrorist groups, but their open opposition to homosexuality is considered ridiculous to many people.
Personally, I do not think they have mental issues. They just stubbornly refuse to accept a concept (homosexuality) that is not mentioned in the Bible. That's just something that they choose to believe in, it doesn't make them crazy as you seem to think.
0
Volaverunt wrote...
Are you talking about those islamic terrorist groups? They are fucked up in their heads.Just because you think they are fucked in their heads, doesn't mean they have mental illness.
Volaverunt wrote...
And how is being an extremist not having some sort of mental problem?How does being an extremist equal to having a mental problem?
Being an (religious) extremist just means that humans are willing to do and/or kill anybody for almost anything and any means necessary, but that doesn't mean you have a mental problem.
0
Misaki_Chi
Fakku Nurse
Volaverunt wrote...
Coconutt wrote...
Religious extremism is not a mental illness, its people with really strong faith and the belief that what they are doing is right.Are you talking about those islamic terrorist groups? They are fucked up in their heads.
And how is being an extremist not having some sort of mental problem?
A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. You have to be diagnosed with such an illness by medically trained professionals and it has to debilitate you in some fashion. Basically you are not fully in control of yourself to whatever degree and need help via medications and treatment to cope with such issues. One of the biggest reasons sentences for certain immoral actions are plead out via some form of insanity/mental disturbance. Usually the person will get some sort of reprimand as well as help.
Not all classified mental illnesses get the same degree of treatment, because the biggest issue relates to if the person knew or knows the difference between what is considered "right and wrong" in accordance to the areas laws and morals. Some other places in the world or religious groups consider mental illness to be a myth or even think its demonic possession. I know my one relative who suffers from bi-polar disorder had a manic episode where she locked her kids in the bathroom while holding a knife to their throats (her husband was divorcing her at the time with full custody to the kids.... probably for the best since even without the illness she isn't the greatest person). Anyways, even though she was off her meds, she knew what she was doing was wrong, thus she got some jail time. Due to her illness though, she also got treatment along with it. Basically if every person with a mental illness or issue was given a slap on the wrist due to their condition, there would be a lot of crazy shit going down.
Even though many people may not agree with the actions and mindset of various extreme groups, that doesn't mean that they have a mental illness. Their morals are something people with either agree or disagree with. If it is considered immoral by the majority then action will follow as suit (most people will think killing is wrong so people who kill will be taken care of in whatever way the laws of the place allow; or personal action if people morally feel like taking the law into their own hands).
0
erogamer wrote...
So do you think that those hardcore anti-gay Christians have mental problems?Yes. Being extremist over something means having a very weak mind, maybe having a trauma, fear of humillation, etc. Do you really think those people don't have problems?
Also, not all people against homosexuality are neither hardcore nor Christians.
You can belong to any religious movement and still act like a sane and normal person without going around telling people they are going to hell. After all that's not what Jesus taught.
Maybe I was too harsh when I said "mental illness" or "mental problems" but I hope you get my point.
Also, I was talking about killing people, not hating people.
Coconutt wrote...
How does being an extremist equal to having a mental problem?Being an (religious) extremist just means that humans are willing to do and/or kill anybody for almost anything and any means necessary, but that doesn't mean you have a mental problem.
See above.
Also, if you don't have a problem killing someone then there is something wrong with you.
Coconutt wrote...
Just because you think they are fucked in their heads, doesn't mean they have mental illness. They ARE fucked up.
Misaki_Chi wrote...
Even though many people may not agree with the actions and mindset of various extreme groups, that doesn't mean that they have a mental illness.I repeat, maybe I made the wrong choice of words.
0
Volaverunt wrote...
Yes. Being extremist over something means having a very weak mind, maybe having a trauma, fear of humillation, etc. Do you really think those people don't have problems?Although, i personally do think that people who are unwilling to change their minds in the face of evidence are the very least naive and weak minded, the things you describe to extremism don't make sense.
Having a trauma? Fear of humiliation? Even weak minded?
You just draw conclusions out of your ass it seems to me, for sure there are some people who fit into that description, but to every single extremist that is out there, i doubt it.
Volaverunt wrote...
Also, if you don't have a problem killing someone then there is something wrong with you.It depends on the reason, i don't have a problem killing another human being in self defense (at least i think i don't, never been and i hope i never will be in a situation like that).
I also don't have a problem killing enemy combatants of a attacking nation. (For example ISIS.)
But maybe you are talking about killing other people for pleasure and of coarse i am against that and think it is wrong.
Volaverunt wrote...
Coconutt wrote...
Just because you think they are fucked in their heads, doesn't mean they have mental illness. They ARE fucked up.
You see, this is the whole point of morality, you think and i think and most of the western world thinks that (for example) the terrorists of ISIS are fucked in the head and their doings immoral.
But there are probably millions of people who think that their doings are moral, that they are spreading the word of Allah in the form of Qoran, and who ever doesn't listen is an infidel that needs to be killed.
This doesn't mean that they are fucked in the head or have a mental illness. To them selves they are perfectly sane and logical, and they think what they are doing is morally right.
0
Coconutt wrote...
Having a trauma? Fear of humiliation? Even weak minded?You just draw conclusions out of your ass it seems to me, for sure there are some people who fit into that description, but to every single extremist that is out there, i doubt it.
You can go ask a psychologist his view on extremists and he will give a more detailed explanation. Or you can also search about it on google.
Coconutt wrote...
It depends on the reason, i don't have a problem killing another human being in self defense (at least i think i don't, never been and i hope i never will be in a situation like that).I also don't have a problem killing enemy combatants of a attacking nation. (For example ISIS.)
But maybe you are talking about killing other people for pleasure and of coarse i am against that and think it is wrong.
Of course I'm talking about that. And even then, killing enemies or killing someone on self-defense is not something that makes you feel good neither.
I don't think you have ever killed someone but you can ask a war veteran about those thigns and make your own conclusions.
Coconutt wrote...
You see, this is the whole point of morality, you think and i think and most of the western world thinks that (for example) the terrorists of ISIS are fucked in the head and their doings immoral.
But there are probably millions of people who think that their doings are moral, that they are spreading the word of Allah in the form of Qoran, and who ever doesn't listen is an infidel that needs to be killed.
This doesn't mean that they are fucked in the head or have a mental illness. To them selves they are perfectly sane and logical, and they think what they are doing is morally right.
THEY.
ARE.
TERRORISTS.
They are extremists too.
Not every Islamic person thinks that killing someone in the name of Allah is good, or that everyone who doesn't think like him is an infidel who needs to get his head beheaded.
You can already see that in news and articles, innocent civilians die and want this ISIS stuff to end as soons as possible.
On a side note, the Qoran doesn't tell you to go out and bomb yourself or behead people. Those are things that extremists islamic zealots came up with. Islam was a religion of peace. Many Islamic people who travelled around the world were always tolerant and even prone to teach everything they knew to other people (geometry, astronomy, even the numbers we use today)