Morality Is Completely Subjective

J

Jade Squirrel

Impassioned Atheist
Registered Senior Member
I think morality is completely subjective. There are no moral absolutes. Morality is simply the standard of what is right and wrong in a particular frame of reference (Einstein was on to something with the whole concept of relativity). It is determined by the values of a society. For example, in our society we place a great deal of importance on individual rights, which is why we have laws protecting people from the whims of the majority (although these laws still need improvement).

However, consider a completely different kind of society that may have evolved on a different planet, a society of sentient insect-like beings who think in terms of what is best for the collective. In this society, individual rights are not valued among its members. What is considered moral is whatever is best for the whole. And lets say that in this society, overpopulation is a constant threat to their survival because of their prolific nature and the fact that resources are limited. In this context, murder is considered a moral act (and even considered honourable) since it is necessary for the survival of the species and accepted by all as a means to ensure the greater good.
 
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel


However, consider a completely different kind of society that may have evolved on a different planet, a society of sentient insect-like beings who think in terms of what is best for the collective. In this society, individual rights are not valued among its members. What is considered moral is whatever is best for the whole.
Click to expand...

One needs not to look so far to find such examples....plenty are avaliable on our Earth with some slight variations.

India, Japan, China etc etc etc..

There is a saying in Japanese

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down
 
Re: Re: Morality Is Completely Subjective

Originally posted by sargentlard
There is a saying in Japanese

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down
Click to expand...
As an aside, I don't think this type of mentality is necessary given the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. But that's just my personal opinion that is the result of my own values, which have developed in a society that tends to focus more on individual rights.
 
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
However, consider a completely different kind of society that may have evolved on a different planet, a society of sentient insect-like beings who think in terms of what is best for the collective. In this society, individual rights are not valued among its members. What is considered moral is whatever is best for the whole. And lets say that in this society, overpopulation is a constant threat to their survival because of their prolific nature and the fact that resources are limited. In this context, murder is considered a moral act (and even considered honourable) since it is necessary for the survival of the species and accepted by all as a means to ensure the greater good.
Click to expand...
In my opinion those insectoids would have a far more logical set of morals than we do.
I'm sure they would laugh at ours, possibly pointing at us while doing so.
I would join them, and then get some hot insectoid lovin;)
 
In my opinion, morality is at least partly determined by genetics. Because all humans share a common ancestor, all human societies tend to share certain specific moral positions.

The morality of an alien species may be quite different, if for no other reason than a lack of shared evolution.
 
Originally posted by James R
In my opinion, morality is at least partly determined by genetics. Because all humans share a common ancestor, all human societies tend to share certain specific moral positions.
Click to expand...

Elaborate on that please. I find morality to be a social construct....not inscribed in one's genetics....a social idea that differs from society to society. It simply depends on which idealogy you were brought up in.

As an aside, I don't think this type of mentality is necessary given the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves. But that's just my personal opinion that is the result of my own values, which have developed in a society that tends to focus more on individual rights.
Click to expand...

It's funny since i have seen the jist of both social systems i prefer the individual one even though i like some parts of such socities where individual rights take a back seat.
 
"Elaborate on that please. I find morality to be a social construct....not inscribed in one's genetics....a social idea that differs from society to society. It simply depends on which idealogy you were brought up in."

But yet you dont deny that people have moralities, its just that htey are a bit different in each society?
 
Originally posted by guthrie

But yet you dont deny that people have moralities, its just that htey are a bit different in each society?
Click to expand...

Yes...that's why i said one's morals depend on which ideology one was brought up in. People have morals....i just don't find them to genetic and instinctual.
 
But surely if they exist worldwide in all cultures etc, you would be amenable to the suggestion that htey are inbuilt?

(I feel shades of the fabled experiment whereby two childrne were left on an island to grow up without other humans [or with a mute nurse] to see what was the first language.)
 
Originally posted by sargentlard
Elaborate on that please. I find morality to be a social construct....not inscribed in one's genetics....a social idea that differs from society to society. It simply depends on which idealogy you were brought up in.
Click to expand...

Yes, but all humans tend to share similiar morals about stealing, murder, adultery, etc. I believe that there is a strong argument that since urvival of the species is dependent on cooperation, humans are social by genetics. As such, the tendency to be of the same moral could be viewed as genetic.

I believe that the basics of morality are the direct result of the experience of being human, the struggle for survival, you know... that kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by wesmorris
I believe that there is a strong argument that since urvival of the species is dependent on cooperation, humans are social by genetics. As such, the tendency to be of the same moral could be viewed as genetic.
Click to expand...
Well put. I personally think that, as wesmorris said, the basics of morality can be found in genetics with the rest being filled in by social factors. It always seems to be a balance with nature versus nurture.
 
As we do not know of other moral codes existing beyond humanity, we should not speculate. I think human morality is partly genetic simply because I think all morality essentially stem from one code: survival of the self/species. I have mentioned this many times, but essentially in the quest to survive, once humanity grouped into societies/tribes, it had to develop codes that were at least shared and not individualistic, for a group would otherwise cease to exist; and since humans needed cooperation to survive, grouping was a must.

The first moral code probably developed was: thou shalt not kill another human of the group. This is a direct relation of survival of the species/self. The rest of the moral codes resulted once humans didn't kill group memebers and thus could coexist. Thus, thou shalt no kill can lead to no stealing to no adultery and so forth. It is genetic because it evolved from a structure of adaption that so far as we know, is only of earth and human.
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
Yes, but all humans tend to share similiar morals about stealing, murder, adultery, etc. I believe that there is a strong argument that since urvival of the species is dependent on cooperation, humans are social by genetics. As such, the tendency to be of the same moral could be viewed as genetic.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but observer error. If in your opinion survival is dependent on an aversion to murder or stealing, then the only reason that you don't see so many people who find these things to be moral would be because they don't last very long. It's like saying that you've read in a text book that the majority of combatants in such a such a war were killed in combat, yet you think that the book is wrong because every veteran of that war you've ever talked to was alive.

Short of over qualifying what counts as morality such that the term practically loses whatever vague meaning it had to begin with, I don't see how it could be genetic.
 
i completely agree with everything Jade said

our morals are the result of our "conditioning" in our society.
think about it, if you were born in a society where chopping off hands for theft of an apple was an everyday occurance, and has been happening for longer than you're alive, you'd think it's "normal" and moral too.

re: nature vs. nurture,
unlike other animals, humans inherit very few "instincts" from nature. everything they are able to do is from nurture. in comparison, if you take a kitten for example, they know by instinct what they're supposed to do with the cat's nipple, and they're "potty trained" after 2-3 weeks. also, they know how to hunt instinctively, as opposed to humans that need to be taught everything.
 
Originally posted by thefountainhed
As we do not know of other moral codes existing beyond humanity, we should not speculate. I think human morality is partly genetic simply because I think all morality essentially stem from one code: survival of the self/species. I have mentioned this many times, but essentially in the quest to survive, once humanity grouped into societies/tribes, it had to develop codes that were at least shared and not individualistic, for a group would otherwise cease to exist; and since humans needed cooperation to survive, grouping was a must.

The first moral code probably developed was: thou shalt not kill another human of the group. This is a direct relation of survival of the species/self. The rest of the moral codes resulted once humans didn't kill group memebers and thus could coexist. Thus, thou shalt no kill can lead to no stealing to no adultery and so forth. It is genetic because it evolved from a structure of adaption that so far as we know, is only of earth and human.
Click to expand...
Very interesting post. However, I think that using "thought experiments" is a useful way of demonstrating an idea that might not be fully understood without an example to illustrate the point.

Originally posted by Mystech
Short of over qualifying what counts as morality such that the term practically loses whatever vague meaning it had to begin with, I don't see how it could be genetic.
Click to expand...
Certainly morality is not genetic in origin. However, I think it is reasonable to presume that genetic factors do play a role in how a society may develop a code of morality, as nicely illustrated by thefountainhed.

Originally posted by otheadp
re: nature vs. nurture,
unlike other animals, humans inherit very few "instincts" from nature. everything they are able to do is from nurture. in comparison, if you take a kitten for example, they know by instinct what they're supposed to do with the cat's nipple, and they're "potty trained" after 2-3 weeks. also, they know how to hunt instinctively, as opposed to humans that need to be taught everything.
Click to expand...
While our level of cognitive development has certainly decreased our need to rely on instinct, I don't think it can be argued that humans have no instincts whatsoever. I also don't think it is unreasonable to presume that some of these instincts (e.g., survival) have a role to play in the complexities of developing a code of morality.

Originally posted by disposable88
Call me stupid, but isn't this what "Beyond good and evil" is all about?
Click to expand...
I've never read it, but I think one of the points Nietzsche was making in that book is that one moral code cannot be applied to all, which is relevant to our discussion here.
 
I think morality is at least partly based on common sense. It makes sense that people shouldn't kill each other, for instance, because a society where murder is allowed puts everyone in danger.

I think that subconsciously we are all idealists. We develop moral standards that make sense on an intellectual level, but are nearly impossible to implement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top