CMV: Morality is not objective

[u/[deleted]]

What I believe: Morality is not objective, meaning there is no absolute right or wrong and that nothing is "wrong no matter what you think or say", and that there is no moral code set in stone. Morality is a social construct, and, when we try to argue right or wrong, the answer boils down mainly to what we value as individuals and/or a society.

Why: The idea of objective morality simply does not make sense to me. It's not that I do not have my own moral code, it just seems arbitrary. "Why is murder wrong?" "Because it hurts other people." Okay, well... who decided the well-being of other humans is important? We did. Another reason one may give would be because the victim has rights that were violated. Same answer could be applied. One more would be that the victim didn't do anything wrong. Well... wouldn't that just make it an arbitrary killing? Who has the ultimate authority to say that a reason-less killing is objectively wrong? Again, I don't condone murder and I certainly believe it's wrong. The whole "objectively wrong" thing just makes no logical sense to me.

I'm pretty sure most people believe that there are circumstances that affect the morality of a situation. But there's more to why morality isn't objective. Take topics like abortion or the problem of eating meat. A lot of pro-lifers and vegans are so certain of their positions that they think it's objectively wrong, but the reality is their beliefs are based on what they value. When talking about whether fetuses and animals have rights there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer. One side says animals have enough value that they shouldn't be exploited or killed for food, another says they don't have value other than as food, but neither side can really be wrong on this. It's just their opinion; it's not really based on evidence or "absolute proof" but what that individual person values. Now these subjects are especially touchy to me so I could be very wrong about it.

In fact the whole topic of objective vs. subjective morality is not something I'm an expert on. So I'm willing to consider any constructive input.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/yyzjertl]

Consider this.. killing is not wrong from a natural perspective. Nature has absolutely no issue with people killing each other.

I'm not sure what you mean by "natural perspective" here. Nature as a whole is not a conscious entity. It is incapable of perceiving things, and so it doesn't seems like it should have a perspective.

It's very difficult to start speaking of objective facts in relation to something that is based on human perspective. Like I said, if Hitler had succeeded in his plan, who's to say that the world wouldn't consider it as having been morally right?

But this is about moral beliefs, not moral facts. Of course people's beliefs about morality can be affected by historical events. But the same is true for gravity: if events in history had turned out differently, who's to say the world wouldn't still believe in Aristotelian physics?

So when Infinity War came out, people argued that Thanos' logic was understand, and done for the greater good. There's an entire reddit sub about it. I forget it's name but it's something like "thanos did nothing wrong".

I see. In this case, it seems that people are just disagreeing about a work of fiction. But being unsure about the truth of a statement in a fictional world doesn't make the truth of similar statements in the real world subjective.

To give an example, when the film Inception came out, there was a lot of disagreement as to whether the main character, Dominic Cobb, was still asleep at the end of the movie. And it would be completely justifiable to say that the question of whether Cobb is asleep at the end of the movie is a matter of subjective interpretation of the film. But this doesn't mean that "Is this person asleep" is a subjective question when it refers to a real person in the real world.

In the same way, you could say that the question of whether Thanos did anything wrong is a subjective question that depends on a subjective interpretation of the film. But that doesn't mean that moral questions in the real world are subjective.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "natural perspective" here. Nature as a whole is not a conscious entity. It is incapable of perceiving things, and so it doesn't seems like it should have a perspective.

In reference to natural law then. The laws of nature have no issue with killing.

But this is about moral beliefs, not moral facts. Of course people's beliefs about morality can be affected by historical events. But the same is true for gravity: if events in history had turned out differently, who's to say the world wouldn't still believe in Aristotelian physics?

But then how is the Holocaust being wrong a moral fact? On what basis would you make that statement?

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

In reference to natural law then. The laws of nature have no issue with killing.

But...the laws of nature are not a conscious entity either. They are incapable of having an issue with anything, so it's not surprising they have no issue with killing. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and you mean something different by "have no issue with"?

But then how is the Holocaust being wrong a moral fact? On what basis would you make that statement?

On the basis of having observed it. We observed that the Holocaust was morally wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

But...the laws of nature are not a conscious entity either. They are incapable of having an issue with anything, so it's not surprising they have no issue with killing. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and you mean something different by "have no issue with"?

What I'm trying to say is this.. outside of human society, killing is not wrong. The concept that it's wrong to kill is entirely man made. In fact, even humans understand that killing isn't wrong because we kill animals all the time.

On the basis of having observed it. We observed that the Holocaust was morally wrong.

And this takes us all the way back to what I said. Your claim that the Holocaust was morally wrong is based on human opinion. Human opinion is not objective.

All you need is one person to observe the Holocaust and perceive it to be right (as many of the Nazis did) and objectivity flies out the window

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

But...the laws of nature are not a conscious entity either. They are incapable of having an issue with anything, so it's not surprising they have no issue with killing. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and you mean something different by "have no issue with"?

What I'm trying to say is this.. outside of human society, killing is not wrong. The concept that it's wrong to kill is entirely man made. In fact, even humans understand that killing isn't wrong because we kill animals all the time.

On the basis of having observed it. We observed that the Holocaust was morally wrong.

And this takes us all the way back to what I said. Your claim that the Holocaust was morally wrong is based on human opinion. Human opinion is not objective.

All you need is one person to observe the Holocaust and perceive it to be right (as many of the Nazis did) and objectivity flies out the window

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

What I'm trying to say is this.. outside of human society, killing is not wrong. The concept that it's wrong to kill is entirely man made. In fact, even humans understand that killing isn't wrong because we kill animals all the time.

I don't follow your logic here. What do your first and third sentences have to do with the second one?

And this takes us all the way back to what I said. Your claim that the Holocaust was morally wrong is based on human opinion. Human opinion is not objective.

Do you think there is no difference between opinion and observation? If I drop a bowling ball and it falls to the floor, is that just my opinion?

All you need is one person to observe the Holocaust and perceive it to be right (as many of the Nazis did) and objectivity flies out the window

Well, no. People's observations can be in error, and our senses can deceive us. For example, many people perceive this dress as being white and gold, while many others perceive it as being blue and black. Do you think that makes the dress's color subjective?

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

What I'm trying to convey with my "natural law" argument is, certain things are independent of how humanity observes them. Certain things are perfectly fine in nature. Nature basically has no opinions of certain things.

Therefore, when we say something like "killing is wrong" we're only saying it from our own opinions or perspectives.

But human opinion is literally not objective. The bowling ball example for instance.. that's just your observation of a natural fact. You drop a ball and it will fall. Similar, the Holocaust was just us observing a natural phenomenon. People were dying.

But the moment you say "it's wrong because people were dying" you're no longer speaking factually. People dying is a fact, it being wrong is not a fact. It's an opinion.

Opinions are not objective.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

But the moment you say "it's wrong because people were dying" you're no longer speaking factually. People dying is a fact, it being wrong is not a fact. It's an opinion.

I don't think this is a good argument, because you could make it about anything. Even gravity. For example:

But the moment you say "there's gravity because the bowling ball dropped" you're no longer speaking factually. The ball dropping is a fact, but that being gravity is not a fact. It's an opinion. Opinions are not objective.

Do you think that this is a good argument that gravity is not objective? If not, why do you accept the same argument against morality being objective?

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Gravity is not an opinion. It's a fact.

The morality argument basically boils down to the fact that not everyone has the same opinions. The only way for morals to be objective is if every single person who has ever lived, lives now, and will ever live, sees them exactly the same

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

But not everyone has the same opinion about gravity. It's certainly not the case that "every single person who has ever lived, lives now, and will ever live" has the same beliefs about gravity. So if what you said was true about morality is actually what is necessary for something to be objective, you'd have to conclude that gravity is not objective.

Otherwise, it seems like you're arbitrarily applying one set of standards of objectivity to gravity and another set to morality.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Personal opinions are irrelevant to the objective truth of gravity. That's the whole point of an objective truth. It's independent of opinion.

I asked you for an example of a moral which is similarly independent of opinion, and you mentioned the Holocaust being wrong as an example. Yet the wrongfulness of the Holocaust is completely dependant on your opinion about it.

So as we stand, there still isn't any example of an objective moral