Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:51 am ***
Let us set the record straight on this idiotc question that keeps coming up
"Is moraltiy sujective or objective", " "what would it take?" etc..
The whole problem seem to be a mischaracterisation of what the subject/object argument is all about.
Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.
SO it may not be asked "is morality objective" anymore than "is morality subjective".
What is morality but a collection of rules "decided" by society, or through normative association rules that it is claimed ought to be followed for society to work to minimises conflict and aportion rights. SOme moral systems claim to do this equally, others to reserve rights to special groups.

For any given "moral rule" it may not be said to be subjective or objective.
The utterance of the rule and its relationship to the person uttering it is where the object/subject argument lies.
It does not have to be absolute, it can be seen as a spectrum where the interests of the speaker amy or not be favoured; may or not favour their group, or favour their own society - all these are subjective showing a tendancy towards the objectness.
One might conclude that only rules that treat with all humans equally without excpetion are objective. But who wants a morality without mitigation?
As the years have passed I have asked these threads to NAME ONE OBJECTIVE RULE, yet never once has a successful attempt been made to achieve that.
Usually they go for the jugular: "It is wrong to kill".
Once they are showered with all the exceptions; Killing Hitler; euthanasia, just war; legal execuations; abortion of non viablee foetuses; killing to eat;use of insecticides; antibiotics....
Where is YOUR limit? And what appears is a subjective opinion about which forms of killing are morally acceptible, with a claim that they are being objective - they are not.
Each of us has a different reaction to these levels of killing - an there is not necessarily agreement about where on the scale each should appear.
Defenders of moral objectivism usuall end with something very extreme as an example; It is wrong to skin-alive human babies. WHilst it is possible to find rational objections to this rule, by then the argument has gone beyond the Hitler realm.
But the only and ultimate answer to why an action is immoral is "it feels bad", "it causes suffering", or "I don't like it" or the banal "life is sacred" - a rule they have already transgressed with their choice of acceptible killing. Whatever justification used, without mitigation no rule ITSELF is useful, or moral.

The objectivity or subjectivity lies between the reality and the perceiver. It is not inherent in the rule. Humans make up these rules, never all humans (that is impossible) but some humans who have taken the "moral highground" to demand that their personal choices are better argued, have better raison detre, serve better purposes.
But usually these do not suit everyone. Whilst other might try to judge the level of subjectivity in any given particular utterance, no one is without some bias. Bias in where we get our opinions.

Morality is objective is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.