No Name

[Extensa5420]

*REMOVED*

[HystearicalParoxysm]

I think certain parts of morality are things that most of us can agree on: murder, rape, theft, child molestation, animal cruelty, etc. are things that 99.9% of people would agree are BAD, and I can't see any possible argument for those things having any logic or sense.

But there's a lot of other things that are a lot more vague, and are much more subjective - homosexuality, poly relationships, social nonconformity, particular religious/spiritual beliefs, eating meat, etc. which seem to be more subjective and can make for interesting debates. I don't know if you'd ever change anyone's mind arguing about them as they tend to be pretty polarizing subjects, but it's interesting to see peoples' viewpoints. I think in most cases, people base their morals about those things on how they were raised and what their experiences have been - in my case, more the latter than the former as I'm pretty live-and-let-live as long as someone's not hurting anyone else but was raised very hellfire-and-brimstone.

Regarding the example from Jane Eyre, I'd say punishment for "anti-moral" actions is a whole 'nother ball of wax from the actual right or wrong of the actions. Sort of under the same umbrella of "what is right and wrong" though.

[SimsLover50]

HystericalParoxysm hit the nail right on its head. A lot of morality seems to be nurture or cultural values. I think it is easy to agree on the big ones. That was a very interesting, thought-provoking post.

I find it interesting as person who loves Anthropology, to view how society's moral values of what is right and good has changed. Animal sacrifice in bible times was right and good, and is not a value most religions find acceptable. It was ok to beat your wife, own slaves, marry your daughter/son off against her will, usually younger than we consider legal, have concubines, kill someone from a different religion or tribe/etc.

In fact fairly recently slavery, sex with minors, murder for petty things, and preventing/banning women and minorities from participating in society was fine and dandy. Sadly, in some countries this still happens.

It will be interesting to see how our society evolves 100 years from now. Will we regress or progress?

[HystearicalParoxysm]

The purpose of a debate is not to reach a conclusion - it's to offer opinions and evidence and have an interesting conversation on important issues that may have multiple sides or aspects. You -may- reach a "conclusion" on certain debates but whether or not you do depends a lot on where you're debating - round these parts, homosexuality debates (just as an example) rarely go very far as most people are pretty accepting.

I think your assertion that those things are not "valid debates" are, well, just plain false - they'd all work as debates if phrased correctly. For example, "What do you think about poly relationships? Would you participate in one yourself? Do you think they are immoral or okay? What are the social and societal implications of poly relationships. And if you believe poly marriage should be legalized, how should it be handled, legally, in regards to things like life insurance, making medical decisions for an incapacitated poly spouse, and custody of children if the marriage should dissolve?" LOTS of aspects that could result in interesting conversation, based on subjective morality. In fact, the one debate we've had lately that -was- a pretty objective morality thing (should someone be burned to death for stealing potatoes) was pretty much doomed to boringness as nobody's gonna go, "Yup, totally should, actually, throw 'em in with the potatoes, it'll give 'em a nice flavor."

[~Dee~]

I believe that a debate here at MTS or anywhere else can't come to a conclusion because we all bring our different opinions to the debate.
You can't change other peoples minds unless they already sit on the fence or are undecided.

In my opinion you only can bring a debate to a conclusion if you have a group of people who are of the same mind, otherwise you go back and forth because of everyone's different opinions.

On the matter of morality, I don't ask myself if morality is objective or subjective, if I don't knowingly hurt a human being or animals I consider myself a moral person.

[unalisaa]

I think there's definitely some merit to the idea of objective morality. However, I also think people interpret and rationalise a lot. Very few people would hurt another human being -- the question is whom they consider human, and what they think counts as "hurting". Few people think stealing is actually a good idea -- but the degrees of what someone considers stealing differ.
It's often exemplified in debates where someone uses an analogy which results in a cry of "THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. What you said is clearly [good/bad/justified/unjust]"
Sam Harris made an interesting TED Talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww) about this.

[Whiterider]

Above, where you mentioned political debates, you're talking about coming to a conclusion in a personal sense - where do I stand on this matter. That is certainly a more common result of a debate than a conclusion in a group sense, where everyone ends up agreeing with each other: and it's also a more useful one. If political debates resulted in politicians all coming to the same conclusions and proposing the same policies, there'd be no point in voting for any of them; you might as well form the government by picking names out of a hat. The purpose of a political debate is to showcase and explain the views and positions of all the candidates, as well as giving those candidates a chance to try to convince individual voters to come down on their side, so that voters are more informed when they get to the ballot box.

Of course, that's not what usually happens in US politics, but the US is always at an extreme as an example regarding such a theoretical point.


As far as the question as to whether morality is subjective or objective goes, I think it sort of moots itself. As a matter of simple observation of human behaviour, there is subjective morality. People have differing, sometimes even opposite, views on all sorts of moral issues, and when they each hold their particular moral as a genuine, sincere sense of what is right and what is wrong, you can hardly claim it's not "real" or "proper" morality. There are indeed some issues on which most people share the same morals, such as killing - but even then there is variation: is it right or wrong for a soldier to kill his enemy? Is it right or wrong for a person to kill in self-defence? Is it right or wrong for a person to kill another as part of a state-authorised execution? All of these questions, and more, provoke a wide range of diverse responses, rooted in morality.
It could be said that this is a case of an objective moral point - that killing is wrong - being interpreted and rationalised, yes. But, at the end of the day, the result of that is that people hold various different moralities on the subject of killing - essentially, subjective morality. It's a question of whether you think of it as "Killing is wrong/not wrong, except in the following situations:", or as "Capital punishment is wrong. Self-defence killings are not wrong. Murder is wrong. Accidental manslaughter is not wrong.... etc." - and I think the difference is one of semantics; adding in the extra layer of complexity that says "there is a hierarchy here" is just needless overcomplication.

Various individuals and groups over the years have claimed that there is also an objective morality, the "one true way", and that those who do not hold this morality are simply incorrect. But then, what is the purpose of a morality which is not held by people? What is its value? What is morality, if not a set of rules which people either follow or believe they should follow - and so, how can a morality be objective, universal, if it is not the case that all people follow or believe they should follow it?
If objective morality could exist, how would it be defined? Where would it come from? God? Which one? How can a deity which cannot be objectively proven and unilaterally imposed be used as the source of an objective code of rules intended to unilaterally bind all men, unless all men accept the same god, which they do not?
Objective morality is simply a way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong"

Now, that's not to say that I think all moral codes are equal - not at all. And I will cheerfully fight my own moral corner, because I do not believe that a person's morality is innate, fixed, or unchangeable. Mine has changed - I have seen the moralities of others change, thankfully usually for the better - I believe everyone has that opportunity. Morality is in part based on nurture and on social conditioning. It is also, as HP has said, based on experience and, I would add, analysis and careful (one would hope) evaluation of experiences. A person's experience changes and evolves, and so does the morality that arises from it: and there is no reason why the experience of a debate or conversation cannot be part of that evolution.
Maybe it doesn't seem to happen often, but that doesn't mean it's a lost cause. ;)

[Whiterider]

In other words, if I understand your words correctly, the purpose of the debate is to win over X amount of people by making the arguments strong enough. If the arguments are not strong, then the debate is surely lost until more evidence can be gathered to win over some people. In other words, the debate is about winning.Yes. Taking these conditions for a win, you don't have to convince your opponent - or most of your opponents - that you are right, in order to win. Particularly in the setting of a political debate, both sides could win if they each won over enough undecided voters. That's not what I immediately think of when someone says "win the debate" - I would think of winning as presenting a conclusive, indisputable argument which makes your position the only tenable one. But, if you consider winning to be a matter of convincing some but not all others, then yes, the goal is to win. :)

If morality is so subjective, then do you think debating about them is even worth it? If the goal is to persuade X number of people to follow you and agree with you, and your opponent comes in and criticizes your points, implying that your points are immoral, then you may either clarify your points or conclude that your points are truly immoral and that the moral side is the opponents' side...Let me stop you there. To argue that a person's view, opinion, or argument "is immoral" is not debating. One has to explain why a particular argument is immoral - what is the moral rule breached? How does the argument in question breach that moral rule? And, most important of all, why should that moral rule be respected - why is it, itself, moral?
An argument based on morality which omits these points is no more worthwhile than sitting around going "Is TOO!". An argument based on morality which includes these points is most certainly not a dead end like the one you suggest, and can lead to very interesting and exciting debate.

Sometimes, the opponent side sounds more logical and sound than what one favored initially.Indeed. :)

[Mistermook]

If morality is so subjective, then do you think debating about them is even worth it?
Of course it's worth it - if you don't debate then you'll never know why you're all wrong for disagreeing with me.

[tongues]

Does anyone believe that if any two people were to write down a list of what they consider to be absolutely moral vs. subjectively moral that their lists would match? So long as there are individuals who come from different geographies and cultures and experiences and education there will be differences of opinion. This is why I assert that debate is valuable and that morality is effectively subjective. (maybe the more poignant question is should morality be objective?)

HP Correctly asserts that murder is an objective moral taboo. And yet, we have as individuals, not only the legal right to defend our lives even to the loss of an attacker's life, we have a subconsious stimulus that will provoke the defense mechanism for our own lives, or to give our lives (suicide is amoral too, right?) in defense of our family and offspring. Is this not the very example of a subjective morality?

Is being a pacifist in the face of an aggressor morally correct? What about the innocents killed that the pacifict might have within his/her power the ability to save? Is not proactively protecting the innocent morally sound? Is killing during a time of war amoral or immoral, or is killing in war a moral mandate (defense of property and lives) vs. a moral perogative (pacifism- the right to abstain from violence even at the cost of lives and property)?

@Extensa, I respecfully assert that you are taking a formative definiton of a noun/verb and microcosmically stating that the politico-academic context of the term provides for an adequate definition in every facet of life. Just as a single word might be a noun in one sentence and a verb in another, debate is not specifically, by modern definition, the arguing of pro or con to sway another. This is a good context of the definition in an academic or perhaps a political arena. But Websters (for example) does not offer a single context for the definiton of the word.

Put another way: The philosophy of debate is based on the art of argument- not the result of the argument.

The etymology of debate, on the other hand, is "to beat down" (O.Fr. "debatre": literally to fight, from the Romanic "desbattere"). From that point of view, I suppose to "sway another to your point of view" is a kinder expression of the literal.

[HystearicalParoxysm]

tongues - By "murder" I meant cases in which one was not defending their own life of another - I'd call that something like a defensive killing, but not murder. I think the word "murder" implies more of a malevolent intent.

This does make me quite curious, from an anthropological standpoint, what things (if any) are universally considered immoral.

[tongues]

I would like to think that any violence (and especially ANY form of sexual abuse) of a child would be universally condemned as a failure of morality at any level, by any substantiative measurement of humanity.

And I live for that day when we do not tolerate a single abuser of children to draw a free breath of air...

[Oaktree]

@HP: Well, the list of human universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm) lists incest (particularly mother-son), murder, rape, and "some forms of violence" as generally proscribed.

[Whiterider]

That list seems a little western-focussed. Rape, for example, is not proscribed in all cultures - see bride kidnapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping).

[Volvenom]

There might be some objective moral, but then all the rationlizaton people do breaks the objective moral. This is what courts do all day. Tell people "No, you're wrong". Some people are just less likely to rationalize on the moral they learned from their parents, and the people around them as children.

I think most communitys around the world have some rule about murder, basically because you can't really have people going around mordering each other all day. Lets take the example with the vikings. They had this retaliation if a man murdered some relative of you. Your people would go back to kill some of his people. Didn't matter who. So the moral says "no you can't kill, but ... ". So objective moral yes, but broken by subjects all day for some more or less ok reason.

The case about bride kidnapping. I think Amnesty had a case on this earlier. A man followed tradition in his own area and kidnapped a woman he wanted to marry. Raped her several days and believed he would get to keep her as wife after. She instead killed him. She says she thought he would kill her, so she did in self defence. That court case would be very interesting for the people in that area. In this story also belongs the police. They didn't stop these actions because it was a local tradition. So she made a choice. The courtcase could be a chanse to stop the "legality" of this tradition ones and for all.

I'm thinking, what a terrible way to start a marriage!

[SimsLover50]

I would like to think that any violence (and especially ANY form of sexual abuse) of a child would be universally condemned as a failure of morality at any level, by any substantiative measurement of humanity.

And I live for that day when we do not tolerate a single abuser of children to draw a free breath of air...

I wish there were so, as I abhor violence against children.

But it wasn't too loong ago children as young as 12 could get married in the US. And this occurs in other countries as well where children brides are practiced.

So I don't think it is a universal taboo, even though, I wish it were.

[Mistermook]

I subscribe to the practical. The practical allows for the possibilities of the unknown realizes that certain flavors of the unknown are proscribed qualities inconsistent with all other qualities. Am I biased observed because I am myself? Surely, but since I cannot ever be anything other than myself then the pretense of any other viewpoint is useless for me. Worse, if every person's viewpoint is, and should be, equally valid for me, no matter how contentious it may be with my internal dialog, then I'm forced to deal with an unconscionable amount of unknowns I'm not knowing. That's impractical as well. Therefore, regarding bias and subjective thought, the only real practical solution is for everyone to simply act as if their own viewpoint is the only viewpoint.

I think however, that it's quite important for people to take the next step of this conversation. Simple subjective observation for the sake of acknowledging such a thing's existence can lead to a certain distastefully shallow and selfish flavor of "I'm all alone/me against the world." That sort of thing suits hormonal teenagers and sociopaths very well, but I think that grownups must note that every observation we make inside our subjective bubbles dances within the context of billions of other people alive right now and hundreds of thousands of years of history. What other people believe doesn't just concern me by affecting how I live, it's often the basis for how and why I think.

That's not an argument for objective truth by any means, but it suggests that subjective thought doesn't inform itself solely through a vacuum. It's still worth attempting to sway the crowd, not purely because of what they can do for and to you in the here and now, but also because the direction of truth is in the legacy of our history - if I'm compelled by my vision of reality then I'm compelled to expand it to others. People who build monuments have no legacy compared to people who influence others.

[Nekowolf]

Alright, so... I've said it before in some... topic, I have no idea which one.

But I think morality is entirely subjective. It is a mechanism of human intelligence. Without humans, you wouldn't have morality. And if you were to take a human before they develop and isolate them, they will not develop the ideas of morality. The only way for it to be objective would be by dictation of some superior entity. A god, essentially. Even if we all end up agreeing on a moral position, even then, it's still subjective, because it is created by us as a species. I wouldn't be surprised of morality first started as a means of group survival. Don't do things to tear the group apart, to make the group fight against each other, because everyone relies on everyone else for survival. But that's not quite morality, either; that's more like the prototype.

[iCad]

Without having read the whole thread ('cuz I'm lazy), I'll chime in.

I think morality is a little of both. I think there are some things that are "hard-wired" into us. Like, for instance, killing other humans. Sure, we can justify it to ourselves. "We're at war, so we have no choice." Or, "He tried to kill me, so I killed him in self-defense." Or, "That tribe is trying to take over our hunting grounds and there's not enough for both of us, so we must destroy them to protect our food source." But it seems that unless one is a sociopath, most people aren't comfortable with the idea of killing someone else and they generally won't do it. The source of this "hard-wiring" is debateable. Some believe that it is instilled by/enforced by a creator-deity of some sort. Some say that without such an enforcing deity, people will have no morality, a concept that I emphatically reject. On the other end of the scale, some say it's evolutionarily-encoded. (i.e., it's Not Cool to destroy that which shares your genes. The more genes you have in common, the more Not Cool it is.) Whatever the cause, it seems to be there in our species. It seems to be in most species, actually. So, in that sense, it's "objective."

However, I believe that most moral issues are completely subjective and mostly grounded in culture. What is abhorrent in one culture might be de riguer in another.

[Oaktree]

That list seems a little western-focussed. Rape, for example, is not proscribed in all cultures - see bride kidnapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping).

Bride kidnapping probably makes it out of the rape classification on a technicality. I imagine that in countries where bride kidnapping is practiced, it is still illegal to rape a woman and not marry her. Some cultures consider the worst part of rape to be that it ruins a woman for marriage, so, if the rapist marries his victim, it makes it all better.

The proscription of rape varies in other ways, as well. In some countries, rape is illegal, but it is the victim who gets punished. This is especially true of times and places with fundamentalist governments and/or sodomy laws. Rape is still considered bad, but the burden of prevention lies on potential victims, rather than on potential rapists.

[Nekowolf]

"I think there are some things that are "hard-wired" into us. Like, for instance, killing other humans."

Now my thing, though, is I don't see that as morality. I see that simply as biology. Instinct, essentially. Because, we don't feed off our own (aside from some deviant groups who are still tribal people). Outside of things like combat, and in the throes of some other problem, I think we don't go around killing each other because there's no purpose to it, no reason to, so why even bother? Again, I think it comes down to a primitive survival instinct. I don't think of that as morality, not really, anyway.

Basically, if it's hard-wired, it's not really morality, then. It's at a different level then morals. It's... just different, because it's not created through behavior, like, "is this good or bad" or really any kind of conduct. Really, I think things like, "Thou shalt not kill" were included, basically, because its a good idea. Instinct will often supersede morality, because it's often something, oh how to say it... it's like, morals are basically to either enforce a good instinct, or condemn a bad one, like training a dog. But the instincts are independent of morals. It's just we either grow into certain ones and lose others. So really, morality is just a means to an end, based on social environment. That's why I say morality is entirely subjective.

Did that confuse anyone? Cause I found it rather difficult to explain. So I worry it might be rather awkward to understand.

[Oaktree]

Nekowolf: But then, at what level do you distinguish society from nature? Morality has some hard-coded elements, but may be influenced by social upbringing. The hard-coding not to kill those like you can be socially influenced to vary from those in your immediate family, to those of your nationality, to all of human life. There is very little of who we are that is not influenced by both biology and society.

[Nekowolf]

To be honest? There really isn't a difference between society and nature. We are creatures who seek groupings (usually) by nature. We are not solitary creatures, we are social creatures. Now the other factors of society; politics, culture, etc. Those are built upon by human intelligence and development, but are not inherently natural, as far as I know. Because, you are not born with a political ideology or a specific culture (although, you are born into it though). And I'm not saying we're not being influenced; I'm saying that morals in and of themselves are not inherently natural, because you are not born with morals, you grow into them, so to speak.

[DebbiDoo]

Morality can be both objective and subjective. It is objective when all people agree upon what is harmful, but subjective when a person or group of people force their concept of morality upon those who do not necessarily agree with them. The difficulty here is in the mere definition of the word morality.

[iCad]

Now my thing, though, is I don't see that as morality. I see that simply as biology. ...Outside of things like combat, and in the throes of some other problem, I think we don't go around killing each other because there's no purpose to it, no reason to, so why even bother?

Well, Neko, I guess the way I see it is this: I don't see not killing as "just" a survival thing. On a basic, primal level, if you're an individual who is a "have not" (meaning you have no food, no shelter, none of the basic things needed for survival), but your neighbor is a "have," meaning that he has not just the basics but luxuries as well, then outside of any evolutionary altruism kind of thing, it's actually to your own survival advantage to kill that neighbor and take what he has for your own. It wouldn't do to just displace him, because then he could come back and retaliate. If you kill him, all he has is yours, which, as I said, is only to your own survival benefit.

But people who aren't sociopaths don't generally do that. Even before there were codified laws, whether religious or civil, against such things, it appears that people generally didn't do that sort of thing, at least not on an individual level although things were/are occasionally different on the "civilization" level. It could simply be because we are, as you said, social animals; this kind of behavior tends to disrupt societal peace and harmony, and survivalistically speaking, there is strength in numbers so it's to a society's benefit to maintain peace and harmony amongst its members. Or, perhaps it was imposed on us by a creator-deity. I have my opinions on the subject, but they're irrelevant in this case.

When all is said and done, I suppose I just see morality differently than you do. Morality to me is simply an individual's or culture's behavioral code, the things on the "Thou shalt" and the "Thou shalt not" lists. Whether or not that code is ingrained or imposed, to me it's still morality all the same. Which I guess is why I see it as both objective and subjective. If I discounted any and all things that are or at least appear to be hard-wired, then I'd consider morality entirely subjective, too. But I don't so I...don't. :)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Morality can be both objective and subjective. It is objective when all people agree upon what is harmful, but subjective when a person or group of people force their concept of morality upon those who do not necessarily agree with them. The difficulty here is in the mere definition of the word morality.

yeah, but since when has everyone agreed on something forever and ever until the end of time? there IS no 'objective' morality, its just the trademark of the time. need i mention...nazis? the majority of germany at that time thought it was perfectly ok to do horrible things to the jewish people.

personally, i think morality is a mixture of what we've been brainwashed to believe as children, what we believe as adults, and what society bludgeons us over the head with from day 1 and on. you might ask, 'why SP, you sound bitter, are you bitter?' and the answer would be yes. yes, i am bitter. i am bitter because none of these people tell you to QUESTION what silly things you hear. most people dont think what's good/right is good/right for any personal reason other than that they've been told it is since they were tots and now that they're adults they still havent taken any time out to poke any holes in it and so of course it appears still as shiny as the day they heard it. *gulp of air before continuing....*

i suppose in order to really address its apparent subjective/objective nature, one must ask themselves, 'what is morality'?
we could go by the dictionary or we could go by personal definitions, but i like to think that morality is a set of inner rules that modify one's behavior according to their outlook on the world and/or personal needs.

for example, in a situation where a person has ample food or availability to food, stealing food may appear 'wrong' or 'bad'.
whereas if food were tough to come by, stealing it might not seem such a 'wrong' or 'bad' thing.
in a community that is thriving with denizens, having frivolous unprotected sex may be 'wrong' or 'bad'.
in a community that is on the brink of dying out (not for lack of resources in this situation), having frivolous unprotected sex may be encouraged or honored.

so lets take a look at these words we use to describe what is moral: good & right, bad & wrong.

are these words subjective? entirely.
there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong. and i know i'll get a crapload of thumbs down for it, but its true.
what makes a thing 'good' or 'bad' is our PERSONAL standing with the thing, our emotional input.
what we define as 'good'ness is typically either beneficial to others or something that generates positive feelings for the do-er, done-to, or generates positive feelings from the object/entity in question. benefits include emotional and physical. an act becomes 'right' when we identify these things within it for one or more of the involved that we favor...particularly if it involves personal gain.
what we define as 'bad'ness is typically either unhelpful physically/emotionally to the majority of people involved, and generates negative feelings. an act becomes 'wrong' when we identify these things within it for one or more of the involved that we favor.
say for example, i say 'spiders are bad'. does that make spiders, by nature, inherently evil and out to do harm to all things enjoyable? absolutely not. but it does tell you, in an instant, how i feel about spiders. i may not like how they look, i may not like what they do, i may have personal unsavory experiences with it, but the things themselves always are and always will be just spiders. that is the 'is'ness of the situation.
the same can be applied to actions.
a lot of people cry 'bad' and 'wrong' about murder, but murder is and always will be just murder. situations change, and it can be helpful or destructive, but the act will always remain as an act. it is the people involved (not just directly, either) who give the emotional input as to whether it is condonable or not, and spread it.

however, things large and small can be branded as 'good' or 'bad' simply by personal input. people have different general standards for what they consider 'good' or 'bad'--some say something is 'bad' simply because they would not choose it for themselves. does that really make the thing, the person, or the act, itself, 'bad'?

ive noticed a fair bit of people here have mentioned that if a lot of people agree to it, it must be so. need i mention that at one point we mostly agreed that the earth was flat, we mostly agreed that another group of humans were not as capable as we, one gender was inferior to the other, and that if you bathed frequently you would get sick and die? did those all stop being stupid ideas the minute we all agreed on them? could it be that we still hold stupid ideas en masse, both scientific and moralistic?
or as my favorite offensive comedian once put it: in that case, eat shit. 20 trillion flies cant be wrong.

in short; all things are what they are. the very nature of the acts, objects, or entities in question are what they are regardless of what we opine of them. whether a thing is good/bad, right/wrong, etc. depends on the people who look at it, agreement or not. we use words like 'good' and 'right' to communicate in an instant what we find enjoyable/encouraging in others and ourselves, whereas 'bad' and 'wrong' are tools to communicate what feelings/acts we choose to discourage. reasons vary from person to person which adds another element to the mess that is morality.

and if morality were objective, why does the whole world not share the same moral code regardless of different ethnicities, cultures, and locations? surely more than one culture, one country, would be able to recognize the objectivity of a moral thing and abide by/adhere to it...unless someone out there truly believes in their most arrogant of hearts that theirs is the only culture/society/country with the 'right' way of living.

id say that the only true objective morality is that there is no morality and/or we create it for ourselves. take a peek outside your personal species' bubble and you might see it too, nature doesnt judge itself. certain machines do not kneel at an altar and offer their regret for being what they are. the sky does not mourn rain, no matter how slick the roads get and how many people die from their car sliding into another.

i think morality is just another example of a plausible idea we created and ended up taking way too seriously. much like religion.

[leo06girl]

I think certain parts of morality are things that most of us can agree on: murder, rape, theft, child molestation, animal cruelty, etc. are things that 99.9% of people would agree are BAD, and I can't see any possible argument for those things having any logic or sense.

But there's a lot of other things that are a lot more vague, and are much more subjective - homosexuality, poly relationships, social nonconformity, particular religious/spiritual beliefs, eating meat, etc. which seem to be more subjective and can make for interesting debates. I don't know if you'd ever change anyone's mind arguing about them as they tend to be pretty polarizing subjects, but it's interesting to see peoples' viewpoints. I think in most cases, people base their morals about those things on how they were raised and what their experiences have been - in my case, more the latter than the former as I'm pretty live-and-let-live as long as someone's not hurting anyone else but was raised very hellfire-and-brimstone.

Regarding the example from Jane Eyre, I'd say punishment for "anti-moral" actions is a whole 'nother ball of wax from the actual right or wrong of the actions. Sort of under the same umbrella of "what is right and wrong" though.

I was just about to say the exact same thing.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

nobody has more to say on this? bummer, this topic interests me...