Discussion Objective Morality Vs Subjective Morality

[Death Diviner]

Where Objective Morality is defined as moral facts that are independent of human opinions, experiences, beliefs and cultural contexts, and Subjective Morality is defined as moral values that are determined by individuals or societies rather than them being universal truths, which view do you take?

 

[Forever Sleep]

There clearly aren't morals in nature. Some animal parents will kill and eat their offspring. Animals will gang rape and murder one another. It seems clear to me- that morals are a human creation. Also- that our own moral codes are very individualistic. Some humans will happily break laws and violate other people's rights- seemingly with little guilt.

The universe- as I see it- is governed by forces- like gravity, natural selection, chemical reactions etc. Those forces don't have feelings. Weather fronts don't care if they will kill things. They just happen- surely? A tornado doesn't think- Hmm- I better try and miss that school...

But then- I tend to doubt there is a God. Or at least- a God with the morals humans have been taught to have- by religion for one- ironically.

 

[Hvergelmir]

It seems clear to me- that morals are a human creation.

While definitely subjective, I refute the idea that is would be strictly humans.
Morals are just what 'feels right' - a way to regulate behavior, and many animals has that. For evolutionary reasons animals tend to not eat members of its own species. I'd argue that the emotional mechanism enforcing that is what we describe as moral.

Animals will gang rape and murder one another.

Just like humans... but usually they don't. It's not pleasant, and it's not a good survival strategy.

 

[Forever Sleep]

While definitely subjective, I refute the idea that is would be strictly humans.
Morals are just what 'feels right' - a way to regulate behavior, and many animals has that. For evolutionary reasons animals tend to not eat members of its own species. I'd argue that the emotional mechanism enforcing that is what we describe as moral.


Just like humans... but usually they don't. It's not pleasant, and it's not a good survival strategy.

I'm not so sure survival strategy has all that much to do with morals though. It's simply whatever means by which that animal will most likely survive. Most animals will avoid fights where they may well be injured. So- they likely only provoke other animals when their need is most great.

Cannibalism is recorded in over 1,500 animal species (apparently.) It's simply that animals like fish and insects have likely evolved to have hundreds of offspring to compensate for so many of them being eaten. Sometimes by their own parents. I doubt they feel all that bad about it either. They likely just see them as food rather than their children. But- they've evolved to still be able to survive that way.

I suppose certain things are instrinsic. Richard Dawkins argued that we inherit altruistic genes because- we are a social species. We've done so well because we thrive in groups. So- perhaps empathy comes in handy then.

It's difficult- of course to judge whether other animals have equal, less or more empathy to us but- observing behaviour would seem to suggest that ants and wasps say- see the world differently to the way we do.

I suppose a higher or lower capacity for a natural empathy or callousness can be inherited. But then- I also believe we are taught or develop our own moral codes. I'm sure a lot of how we end up is down to nurture as well as nature.

Do you believe people or creatures that perform 'immoral' acts are born bad? Is there even an 'immoral' act in nature? Do wild animals feel guilty when they behave in 'immoral' ways?

Certainly, animal parents will berate their young when they do something stupid. But, I imagine it's mostly when they do something that risks their own safety.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Do you believe people or creatures that perform 'immoral' acts are born bad?

I think some are. All kinds of mutations and birth defects can occur. Some of those create bad individuals.
I think that holds true, regardless of how one choose to define "bad".

Is there even an 'immoral' act in nature?

If we agree on morality as a subjective term, we must ask; immoral according to who, or what?
I think that there's usually very little value in judging nature according to morality. There are plenty of exceptions though, where I think we're morally obligated to step in to reduce suffering, prevent extinctions, etc.

Do wild animals feel guilty when they behave in 'immoral' ways?

Yes, I think social mammalian species feel guilt in a similar way to humans. This based on behavioral similarities, and how similar the underlying mechanics and biology is.

The more distant the species is the harder it is to put their drives in human terms, though.
I don't think fish feel bad about eating their own. But I also think that humans could learn to do the same. History is riddled with bizarre cultural and societal practices.

 

[Forever Sleep]

But I also think that humans could learn to do the same. History is riddled with bizarre cultural and societal practices.

I guess that's what I mean though. Morality can't really be intrinsic or universal if it varies according to culture and society. There again- if certain practices turn out to be beneficial enough to allow a species to survive and thrive- it's no wonder they become hard wired into our genetics.

Again though- I suspect it's an individual species that defines its own morality. Think about the Cuckoo. That's a pretty weird behaviour- to con another bird into raising your own child. For that child to then murder that new surrogates own children- and to do all of that via instinct. It's bizarre- the ways these patterns of behaviour must repeat themselves until they become the way the majority of that species acts.

Humans are very weird though. When you consider the types of bodily mutilations that happen- either because of religion or fashion or- whatever else. What have they got to do with morality? Yet- to challenge them can also be seen as immoral.

I suppose I would agree though- that empathy is a strong human trait. And, I think it's empathy that informs our natural morality.