Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Is there such a thing as objective morality?

Debate opens 7th February 2013 and will close when any meaningful discussion has died away.


http://www.iaza.com/work/130208C/iaza15942425434900.png

Often in debates, especially those that go into political territory, we will label an idea or an action as 'wrong' - but never do we think why are they wrong outside of the world we live in. In ancient times, especially the Greek and Roman civilisations for example, homosexuality was widely accepted as a moral good - just as in the Incan and Aztec Empires (which had never had contact with Abrahamic religious notions of right and wrong) forced sacrifice was seen as a moral good, something to be encouraged and celebrated. In recent times we've still heard stories similar to this, one uncontacted tribe is known to bury their children alive as a sacrifice - something that will repulse us, but which is perfectly normal and morally in their culture.

So what is morality objective? that is to say, is morality fixed for all time and that certain rights and wrongs are universal for all cultures and all peoples for all time? or is morality simply based on the circumstances of that given culture and thus there really aren't any moral rights or wrongs outside of a given culture? Here's a devils advocate quote to get you started...


You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

A thank you to Chippiewill; for suggesting this question and topic, and a summary of the incentives to be won are listed here..


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you, you can debate from any angle - personal, religious, philosophical, social.. any.

[FlyingJesus]

Morality is a mix of instincts and interpretations which nearly all to do with survival, be it individualistic, clannic/tribal, species-wide, or global. In fact, I can't think of any commonly followed ethical code that doesn't come under preservation of life in some way

[Gibs960]

I just thought of it as kind of like medicine - in some countries certain practices are thought of as normal and in others they are not. Over time different medicines are replaced by more efficient methods (or more humane methods). And in a way that's kind of like morals, our morals will have to change at some point due to our society changing, but it is also our duty as humans to respect other cultures' views and opinions.

[Inseriousity.]

Firstly disagree with Rand, you don't need morality on a desert island. Morality is a social construct, both used for preserving the status quo and creating change. It's more about how human beings co-operate with each other than being universally fixed. That is not to say that a man on a desert island will not have any morality. If dumped there, it is logical that the values and morals of where he came from could not just be tossed aside but I do think, over time, preserving the morality of a society he is no longer a part of will be destructive rather than helpful to his cause. The example of the plane crash survivors eating the victims is repugnant to us and unethical and it is silly to assume that before the crash they would not have held this anti-cannibalism sentiment as well but it does highlight that the line of morality isn't fixed, it can be rubbed away and redrawn somewhere else. I think most people find this a scary thought and prefer to stick to rigid rules of morality.

The problem with the idea of universal morality is that it ignores that ethical decisions are not done in a vacuum. There is a context to each and every one that needs to be examined and judge whether it was right or wrong and take the consequences for that decision.

[peteyt]

To me morality is understanding what you are doing but still doing it.

For example while things like religious sacrifices do disgust me, to many it is simply there way of life something they where born into. They know no different.

However if someone chooses a certain path e.g. decides to take up necrophilia, trying to do so secretly then this is when something becomes morally wrong in my opinion because they know deep down that this this is not liked but they have decided to take part in it by choice. A criminal, a murderer for example, many know what they are doing is wrong (obviously there are some mental ones) but they do it by choice some for fun and kicks etc.

[GommeInc]

Interesting debate :P Lots of different responses and ways to interpret morals. Using the examples you've provided in some respects it depends if there is an objection to the action which questions morality in some cases. Take ritual sacrifice. If the "sacrifice" is of sound mind and an ordinary human being (not bred to be sacrificed, but brought up as like any other), then perhaps sacrifice can be considered (objectively) morally sound.

Sacrifice as a concept isn't moral (or immoral), but the people involved can be considered morally right or wrong. Rand has an interesting view on morality, because his example of a desert island involves only one individual and that individual's own moral code. It is only when we involve more individuals into the mix do we see how morals develop - either as an observer, looking at collective or individual behaviour or within the mix creating a community or society.

There's quite a lot of scope involved in discussing objective and subjective morality. The morals of an individual can be considered objective to them until they start debating their actions and it's only when that individual is questioned to we begin entering the dark spaces of subjective morality and what cultures, societies, groups etc find right and wrong.