Is morality objective or subjective?

[Belinda]

I believe that is the difference.
In terms of morality [especially in the present state] I believe Nature is 80% critical while Nurture is 20%.
It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

In this case, when the cultural and conditions changes we can adapt to the changes more effectively if we understand the foundations, i.e. NATURE.

At present we have the problems related to morality and ethics arising from cross-cultural situations due to the 'too quick state of globalization'.
This issue with 'cross-cultural' element is a hot-topic within morality at present.
I believe this is a serious issue within the UK where there is a quick surge of immigrants into UK ingrained with their own relative cultures and morality.

The problem in such a case is, whose culture and morality should prevail or how to compromise?

I believe the clash of culture and morality in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and US is very problematic for the respective governments because they are so ignorant of the NATURE elements of morality and culture.

Longitudinal studies of identical human twins bear you out, if I am not mistaken.

Not sure of your point.
Re twins, both will have the same DNA/RNA but during RNA expression, changes and defects can happen which could lead to variations in their moral competence in later life.
However I don't see this twins example has any relation to cross-cultural problems within morality?

It is critical we understand the foundation of morality so that we can construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

(VA)

Yes. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about the human potential for atrocity. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about intervention of Providence.

Rule of thumb would be : the more we are pessimistic abut human nature and/or God's kindly intervention the more we should construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

The devil is in the details.

Perhaps that is your pessimistic view of pessimism about human nature.

My views are that the more we know about human nature, the more optimistic we are with the potential for individuals to be more moral competence in the future [not at present].

It is the same with the more we know about the human genome, the more optimistic we are of the possibility of preventing critical diseases and developing other potentials for humanity sake in the future [not now nor immediately].

You missed my point regarding 'constructing effective ethical systems' to something else.
What I stated is this " ..construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence .."
What I meant is, if the average moral quotient is 100 at present, then the self-development programs will increase the average moral quotient to say 500.
This will not happen to the present individuals but to those of future generations within the next 50-75 years.

Maybe, but I'd rather keep my hopes to what is politically possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Longitudinal studies of identical human twins bear you out, if I am not mistaken.

Not sure of your point.
Re twins, both will have the same DNA/RNA but during RNA expression, changes and defects can happen which could lead to variations in their moral competence in later life.
However I don't see this twins example has any relation to cross-cultural problems within morality?

(VA)

Yes. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about the human potential for atrocity. Less risk if we have pessimistic attitude about intervention of Providence.

Rule of thumb would be : the more we are pessimistic abut human nature and/or God's kindly intervention the more we should construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence in alignment with the inherent NATURE moral properties.

The devil is in the details.

Perhaps that is your pessimistic view of pessimism about human nature.

My views are that the more we know about human nature, the more optimistic we are with the potential for individuals to be more moral competence in the future [not at present].

It is the same with the more we know about the human genome, the more optimistic we are of the possibility of preventing critical diseases and developing other potentials for humanity sake in the future [not now nor immediately].

You missed my point regarding 'constructing effective ethical systems' to something else.
What I stated is this " ..construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence .."
What I meant is, if the average moral quotient is 100 at present, then the self-development programs will increase the average moral quotient to say 500.
This will not happen to the present individuals but to those of future generations within the next 50-75 years.

Maybe, but I'd rather keep my hopes to what is politically possible.

In the past, it was the political dictators who dictate to the citizens.

Towards the future what is political will likely flow with the psychological states of the majority individuals.

It is evident the moral potential of the human individuals has been unfolding slowly since 10,000 years ago to the present and is gaining momentum towards the future.

As such what is politically possible re morality is dependent primarily in the individuals' unfoldment of their moral potentials to the point politics will be reduced to the background rather than being prominent like the present.

[Belinda]

Not sure of your point.
Re twins, both will have the same DNA/RNA but during RNA expression, changes and defects can happen which could lead to variations in their moral competence in later life.
However I don't see this twins example has any relation to cross-cultural problems within morality?


Perhaps that is your pessimistic view of pessimism about human nature.

My views are that the more we know about human nature, the more optimistic we are with the potential for individuals to be more moral competence in the future [not at present].

It is the same with the more we know about the human genome, the more optimistic we are of the possibility of preventing critical diseases and developing other potentials for humanity sake in the future [not now nor immediately].

You missed my point regarding 'constructing effective ethical systems' to something else.
What I stated is this " ..construct effective ethical systems to enable each individual to self-develop their moral competence .."
What I meant is, if the average moral quotient is 100 at present, then the self-development programs will increase the average moral quotient to say 500.
This will not happen to the present individuals but to those of future generations within the next 50-75 years.

Maybe, but I'd rather keep my hopes to what is politically possible.

In the past, it was the political dictators who dictate to the citizens.

Towards the future what is political will likely flow with the psychological states of the majority individuals.

It is evident the moral potential of the human individuals has been unfolding slowly since 10,000 years ago to the present and is gaining momentum towards the future.

As such what is politically possible re morality is dependent primarily in the individuals' unfoldment of their moral potentials to the point politics will be reduced to the background rather than being prominent like the present.

Well, democracy will not survive unless people of goodwill make an effort to fight for it.

[KLewchuk]

Much of this discussion has been "non-sense". Before one discussion whether morality is objective or subjective, one needs to define what the term "morality" means.

I believe that morality is objective, based on my definition of morality.

This is particularly significant because the term "moral" is so widely used.

[FlashDangerpants]

objective, based on my definition

That definition is likely to be .... contendable ... untestable ... definitely not provable ... so, a matter of subjective choice even?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Much of this discussion has been "non-sense". Before one discussion whether morality is objective or subjective, one needs to define what the term "morality" means.

I believe that morality is objective, based on my definition of morality.

This is particularly significant because the term "moral" is so widely used.

I thought that is very obvious.
Before anything is discussed all terms must be defined or implied to be understood by all those who discussed it. If not, then consensus must be obtained.

Unfortunately in this OP, Peter Holmes do not have a good grasp of what Morality-proper is supposed to be.

I believe we have already discussed this point here;
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

[Belinda]

Much of this discussion has been "non-sense". Before one discussion whether morality is objective or subjective, one needs to define what the term "morality" means.

I believe that morality is objective, based on my definition of morality.

This is particularly significant because the term "moral" is so widely used.

I thought that is very obvious.
Before anything is discussed all terms must be defined or implied to be understood by all those who discussed it. If not, then consensus must be obtained.

Unfortunately in this OP, Peter Holmes do not have a good grasp of what Morality-proper is supposed to be.

I believe we have already discussed this point here;
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

In the context of whether morality is objective or subjective, morality is any system for collaboration between groups of creative individuals. By "creative" I rule out creatures like bees and ants the individuals of which species cannot learn from experience, and are amoral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Much of this discussion has been "non-sense". Before one discussion whether morality is objective or subjective, one needs to define what the term "morality" means.

I believe that morality is objective, based on my definition of morality.

This is particularly significant because the term "moral" is so widely used.

I thought that is very obvious.
Before anything is discussed all terms must be defined or implied to be understood by all those who discussed it. If not, then consensus must be obtained.

Unfortunately in this OP, Peter Holmes do not have a good grasp of what Morality-proper is supposed to be.

I believe we have already discussed this point here;
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

In the context of whether morality is objective or subjective, morality is any system for collaboration between groups of creative individuals. By "creative" I rule out creatures like bees and ants the individuals of which species cannot learn from experience, and are amoral.

How can that be?
The Nazists, the fascists, communists and other evil doers also collaborate in doing evil deeds. Surely that cannot be related to morality.
Humans also collaborate in a wide range of non-moral activities.

Morality is specifically doing good [virtues] and cultivating plus maintaining a state of non-evil; this moral system is represented by a moral function within the brain/mind of each individual.
To achieve the above humans engage in collaboration between groups of individuals.

[Belinda]

I thought that is very obvious.
Before anything is discussed all terms must be defined or implied to be understood by all those who discussed it. If not, then consensus must be obtained.

Unfortunately in this OP, Peter Holmes do not have a good grasp of what Morality-proper is supposed to be.

I believe we have already discussed this point here;
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

In the context of whether morality is objective or subjective, morality is any system for collaboration between groups of creative individuals. By "creative" I rule out creatures like bees and ants the individuals of which species cannot learn from experience, and are amoral.

How can that be?
The Nazists, the fascists, communists and other evil doers also collaborate in doing evil deeds. Surely that cannot be related to morality.
Humans also collaborate in a wide range of non-moral activities.

Morality is specifically doing good [virtues] and cultivating plus maintaining a state of non-evil; this moral system is represented by a moral function within the brain/mind of each individual.
To achieve the above humans engage in collaboration between groups of individuals.

I too believe Nazis are immoral. I also believe Tory political philosophy is immoral.I believe President Trump and his acolytes usually behave immorally. However my opinions and those who share them are not the only opinions.
Social morality undergoes changes within societies. When a society is too much ideologically divided and people's feelings are much involved then collaboration is compromised.

There were conflicting ideologies in the 1930s and before which caused a world war.
'Morality' is neutral i.e. morality is not defined as that which Veritas Aequitas says is right.

[KLewchuk]

Much of this discussion has been "non-sense". Before one discussion whether morality is objective or subjective, one needs to define what the term "morality" means.

I believe that morality is objective, based on my definition of morality.

This is particularly significant because the term "moral" is so widely used.

I thought that is very obvious.
Before anything is discussed all terms must be defined or implied to be understood by all those who discussed it. If not, then consensus must be obtained.

Unfortunately in this OP, Peter Holmes do not have a good grasp of what Morality-proper is supposed to be.

I believe we have already discussed this point here;
Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737

In the context of whether morality is objective or subjective, morality is any system for collaboration between groups of creative individuals. By "creative" I rule out creatures like bees and ants the individuals of which species cannot learn from experience, and are amoral.

Exactly my point, that is a / your definition of morality but not mine.

[RCSaunders]

I believe that morality is objective, based on my definition of morality.

Safe to say since you never bother saying what your, "definition of morality," is.

Do you really have one, or is it just, "not what anyone else means by morality."

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the context of whether morality is objective or subjective, morality is any system for collaboration between groups of creative individuals. By "creative" I rule out creatures like bees and ants the individuals of which species cannot learn from experience, and are amoral.

How can that be?
The Nazists, the fascists, communists and other evil doers also collaborate in doing evil deeds. Surely that cannot be related to morality.
Humans also collaborate in a wide range of non-moral activities.

Morality is specifically doing good [virtues] and cultivating plus maintaining a state of non-evil; this moral system is represented by a moral function within the brain/mind of each individual.
To achieve the above humans engage in collaboration between groups of individuals.

I too believe Nazis are immoral. I also believe Tory political philosophy is immoral.I believe President Trump and his acolytes usually behave immorally. However my opinions and those who share them are not the only opinions.
Social morality undergoes changes within societies. When a society is too much ideologically divided and people's feelings are much involved then collaboration is compromised.

There were conflicting ideologies in the 1930s and before which caused a world war.
'Morality' is neutral i.e. morality is not defined as that which Veritas Aequitas says is right.

The followers of Nazism, Tory and Trump believe your beliefs are immoral.
So who is right?

This is why we need a definition for morality-proper.

I don't pick up my definition of what is morality & ethics willy-nilly.
I had abstracted what I believed to represent 'what is morality-proper' from a survey of hundreds of definition from various sources, books, articles, internet, etc.

The common terms within those definitions are;

• good & evil, bad, right vs wrong, proper, well-being, acceptable, rightness, wrongness, virtues, benefits, no harm, happiness, avoid pains,
  
  system of rules, codes, standards, norms, normative, guiding principles, precepts, positive values,
  
  conduct, behaviors, actions, thoughts,
  
  prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, nonauthority dependence, and being about objective facts.
  
  personal, communities, humanity,

From the above I had defined 'morality' generally and in the widest sense as something to do with doing good and avoiding evil. If there is a need for details I will bring in the above elements accordingly.

I believe morality is an inherent function within the brain/mind of each individual person and this functions is expressed variedly with the above terms and they are all reducible to doing good and avoiding evil.

Do you have any counters to the above?

[Belinda]

How can that be?
The Nazists, the fascists, communists and other evil doers also collaborate in doing evil deeds. Surely that cannot be related to morality.
Humans also collaborate in a wide range of non-moral activities.

Morality is specifically doing good [virtues] and cultivating plus maintaining a state of non-evil; this moral system is represented by a moral function within the brain/mind of each individual.
To achieve the above humans engage in collaboration between groups of individuals.

I too believe Nazis are immoral. I also believe Tory political philosophy is immoral.I believe President Trump and his acolytes usually behave immorally. However my opinions and those who share them are not the only opinions.
Social morality undergoes changes within societies. When a society is too much ideologically divided and people's feelings are much involved then collaboration is compromised.

There were conflicting ideologies in the 1930s and before which caused a world war.
'Morality' is neutral i.e. morality is not defined as that which Veritas Aequitas says is right.

The followers of Nazism, Tory and Trump believe your beliefs are immoral.
So who is right?

This is why we need a definition for morality-proper.

I don't pick up my definition of what is morality & ethics willy-nilly.
I had abstracted what I believed to represent 'what is morality-proper' from a survey of hundreds of definition from various sources, books, articles, internet, etc.

The common terms within those definitions are;

• good & evil, bad, right vs wrong, proper, well-being, acceptable, rightness, wrongness, virtues, benefits, no harm, happiness, avoid pains,
  
  system of rules, codes, standards, norms, normative, guiding principles, precepts, positive values,
  
  conduct, behaviors, actions, thoughts,
  
  prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, nonauthority dependence, and being about objective facts.
  
  personal, communities, humanity,

From the above I had defined 'morality' generally and in the widest sense as something to do with doing good and avoiding evil. If there is a need for details I will bring in the above elements accordingly.

I believe morality is an inherent function within the brain/mind of each individual person and this functions is expressed variedly with the above terms and they are all reducible to doing good and avoiding evil.

Do you have any counters to the above?

We don't need a definition of 'morality', we need a definition of how to live a good life, but we will never get it from man or God because each of us lives his whole life trying to define good unless brutalised so he could not care less.

I believe morality is an inherent function within the brain/mind of each individual person and this functions is expressed variedly with the above terms and they are all reducible to doing good and avoiding evil.

If you had a historical and anthropological perspective on moral systems I might agree with you as it appears your ethics are much the same as my own.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I too believe Nazis are immoral. I also believe Tory political philosophy is immoral.I believe President Trump and his acolytes usually behave immorally. However my opinions and those who share them are not the only opinions.
Social morality undergoes changes within societies. When a society is too much ideologically divided and people's feelings are much involved then collaboration is compromised.

There were conflicting ideologies in the 1930s and before which caused a world war.
'Morality' is neutral i.e. morality is not defined as that which Veritas Aequitas says is right.

The followers of Nazism, Tory and Trump believe your beliefs are immoral.
So who is right?

This is why we need a definition for morality-proper.

I don't pick up my definition of what is morality & ethics willy-nilly.
I had abstracted what I believed to represent 'what is morality-proper' from a survey of hundreds of definition from various sources, books, articles, internet, etc.

The common terms within those definitions are;

• good & evil, bad, right vs wrong, proper, well-being, acceptable, rightness, wrongness, virtues, benefits, no harm, happiness, avoid pains,
  
  system of rules, codes, standards, norms, normative, guiding principles, precepts, positive values,
  
  conduct, behaviors, actions, thoughts,
  
  prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, nonauthority dependence, and being about objective facts.
  
  personal, communities, humanity,

From the above I had defined 'morality' generally and in the widest sense as something to do with doing good and avoiding evil. If there is a need for details I will bring in the above elements accordingly.

I believe morality is an inherent function within the brain/mind of each individual person and this functions is expressed variedly with the above terms and they are all reducible to doing good and avoiding evil.

Do you have any counters to the above?

We don't need a definition of 'morality', we need a definition of how to live a good life, but we will never get it from man or God because each of us lives his whole life trying to define good unless brutalised so he could not care less.

I believe morality is an inherent function within the brain/mind of each individual person and this functions is expressed variedly with the above terms and they are all reducible to doing good and avoiding evil.

If you had a historical and anthropological perspective on moral systems I might agree with you as it appears your ethics are much the same as my own.

In Philosophy the first thing to do is to ensure there is at least some consensus or conditional consensus before one proceed to discuss the issue or the implementation of any practical strategies.
If there are no consensus, at least each party must understand the other party's terms and agree to disagree.

Morality and Ethics is one of the major subject of Philosophy. There is no way one can get going with a proper discussion of 'morality' without consensus or qualified consensus on the term.

Otherwise everyone will be on a rudderless boat and going in all directions in a haywire condition.

[Belinda]

Right.

'Morality' has at least two usages.
1. Cultural systems of personal and political governance.(Sociological, historical, and anthropological)

2. Evaluation of the above, especially personal morality of people other than oneself.(Gossip)