What people say about the nature of morality?

Add your comment for the common good

By kasu

January 2002

1
Introduction
The meaning of Morality is not clear to many of us especially to those who is
interested in philosophy. This paper is prepared to give a clue about the meaning of
morality taking its nature and the factual existence from our universe.

The article is mostly covered the individuals’ opinion given on the nature of morality
based on their own reasoning about its nature by proposing the facts they perceived in
their own sense.

The up loader of this document is he himself is in the dilemma about the nature of the
morality so that he requested the reader to share their opinion both with their own feeling
and well based logical reasoning.

2
Is Morality Subjective or Objective?
Question: Is Morality Subjective or Objective?
I've always found this topic extremely interesting. Do you think that morality is
subjective or objective? In other words, do you think that morals vary between societies,
and that there is no universal morality that should be applied to all societies, or do you
think that morals are universal and there is really only one main set of morals?

Take for instance the Donner Party. This was a group of emigrants who made the fateful
decision to take a newfound shortcut through the Sierra Nevada Mountains about 150
years ago. History shows that the party became trapped by the winter snows and 41 of the
87 members died. The ones that survived were accused of resorting to cannibalism.
Do you think that this was morally correct? Was it ok to resort to cannibalism as a means
for survival?
Also respond to the general question, please, is morality subjective or objective?
I believe it is subjective, but I will post my views as to why later.

Reply 1

morality is a social construction, so it is subjective, also cannibalism to survive is fine, as

long as the person your eating died naturaly then do what you have to, its also my opinion
which is also socialy constructed
so yeah

Reply 2

I believe it to be subjective. Not everything across cultures or even in the same

neighborhood will be perceived the same.

"That man killed someone". I think the majority of people would agree killing is bad and
would also agree that it is a universal ethical belief that the man committed a terrible act.
But the change the sentence to say "That man killed someone who was about to kill a
woman after raping her. The man stopped it by killing him first", then the issue of killing

3
becomes gray and subjective because the "killer" was protecting someone else from being
murdered. Does this scenario hold the same as the first one?
Ethical dilemmas are never clear and are rather subjective depending on an individual's
perception of an issue.

My favorite one is the values of security and privacy and the debate on which value is
"more important". There is no clear cut answer. We want to remain safe in a world that
has threatening aspects to it, but at the same time we want our privacy. Can't always have
it both ways, finding a happy medium isn't always clear-cut.
Here in the U.S. there are many volatile issues that are forefront in the political debates
(stem cell, abortion, illegal immigration for starters), most of which are rooted within
moral issues. Based on the division we have in the nation on soo many issues, this further
illustrates that morality is not universal, but subjective.

Reply 3

Mark me down as Objective.

Differences between cultures and civilizations may exist, but the big stuff is non-
negotiable.
Lying, cheating, stealing, rape, murder, etc., are bad. If the Hmongaliwis of South
Timbukutotoooland believe otherwise they are wrong. Plain and simple.
Although I agree things are not always clear cut -- stem cells or the death penalty or
abortion --- that does not mean that cultural sanction given to the oppression of women
via forced clitorectomies (spelling?), etc., are not wrong.
Some cultures and civilizations are backward and need civilizing. That's what I believe
human rights is all about - even if it is more focused on the political aspects of rights.

There are plenty of countries in this world where political rights are lacking for people
due to the prevalence of civilization/cultural practice and custom.

Reply 4

Opponent to reply four

4
Though I agree that our culture is nice and I do like it over most others, that does not
mean that those who do not do things the way we do are "backwards and need civilizing"
that is a very ethnocentric approach. What is right for us may not be right for everyone.
Some cultures the women do prefer to stay subordinate, and do not want to change. i
know that is hard for many people to understand, but it is true. And it is not right for
anyone to say they are wrong. no one is this world is still ignorant of the way we do
things, so they know they have the option of being in more control of their lives.
Anyways, morality is culturally based. If a culture believes something is immoral than it
is immoral in that culture, and if they feel it is moral than it is moral in that culture. We
view things from our culture, and our morals are taught to us by that culture.

Reply 5

I think our culture is superior to say, Islamic culture, which I consider backward and even
barbaric in many key respects.

Not only do I believe I have the right to make this judgment, I believe it is a moral
imperative that we all do so.

That's not to say that I think Western/American culture is perfect (far from it) or that we
get everything right (we don't).

In fact, I do think that virtually every culture has positives and negatives.

But on balance, Western civilization is superior and I'm not sure how one can believe in
fundamental human rights without recognizing the vast differences between how various
cultures measure up.

They are supposed to be universal rights. Cultural or moral relativism is fundamentally at

odds with some of the most basic human rights - whether dealing with women,
minorities, sexual preference, politcal rights, organized labor, etc.
Reply 5

5
I believe it is a combination of both objective and subjective.

As stated earlier there are some basic morals that are inherent in every society. It's as if
it's written deep down in our "programming" (if you want to call it that). Here's a few that
i've seen to be pretty cross cultural. All of these are very general and might be interpreted
differently from culture to culture. Murder, Adultery, Stealing, Worshiping a God that is
not accepted your culture.

But then there are morals based on the environment your in. These morals can greatly
differ from one culture to another.
Reply 6

Western civilization is superior and I'm not sure how one can believe in fundamental
human rights without recognizing the vast differences between how various cultures
measure up.
I guess on the one hand we can judge other cultures as being inferior to us, but on the
other hand, we'd better not bitch if someone comes along someday and proclaims that
THEY are the superior ones and they're going to force their moral values down our
throats whether we like it or not. Screw that sh*t! I'd be pissed if some other country
decided to be judge and jury of our affairs. We should butt out of other country's business
because that's what gets us into trouble. There's no need for us to take on the role of the
World's Police. We may be superior when it comes to respecting basic human rights, but
it's not our job to patrol other cultures and steal their opportunity to rule themselves and
evolve on their own schedule.

Reply 7

Kindness is universal.

Reply 8

I don't believe I advocated for using force to make people accept our values. I just said
some human rights are non-negotiable.

6
You either believe women are equal or you don't.

If you believe they should be murdered for disobeying their father or kept from voting,
owning property, having their clits cut off against their will, treated like second-class
citizens, etc., you might be a real moral Saudi Arabian cleric. But you won't be a human
rights enthusiast and you'll disgust the hell out of me.
Reply 9

I might add, by the way, that this question is fundamental to a proper understanding of
our current conflict with religious extremism.

Many critics of American foreign policy point out how some of the things we do in the
world cause people to hate us, oppose us, or in extreme scenarios, commit acts of
terrorism against us.

All of that is true.

Yet the same can be said of the exportation of modern values (both good and bad) that
takes place in a shrinking world where everything we take for granted from "Sex in the
City" and rap videos to more mundane cultural assumptions and values about women,
homosexuals, freedom, etc., are also exported directly into the living rooms of people in
very different societies all around the world.
Reply 10

" Lying, cheating, stealing, rape, murder, etc., are bad.

If the Hmongaliwis of South Timbukutotoooland believe otherwise they are wrong. Plain
and simple."

^ I will have to disagree with you here. That's why morality is subjective...you think it
isn't moral maybe they do for whatever reason. That's your opinion, not a fact. How can

7
you call that objective? I agree with Lee on this. It's not so clear cut. There are many
different perspectives that can change a situation drastically.

Reply 11

To clarify, I don't condone those things but it has to be looked at in context. Everything,
from the bible to the koran is a human's interpretation of it. " should be murdered for
disobeying their father ..." I can't say that is explicitly stated anywhere in the koran, since
I'm not quite as familiar with it, but somehow I don't believe it is. Maybe some people
believe in doing that for the religion but not all, perhaps only a minority does, so I don't
think that you should condemn the entire religion or culture. From my understanding of it
some laws about women grew out of protecting the women, not oppressing them. Maybe
it grew into that? I don't know.
Reply 12

I understand what you are saying. I remember having these discussions in college too.
Objective truth doesn't seem to be popular anymore - but I still believe in it.

Just because some people - even millions of people - believe otherwise, doesn't mean
their belief is equally valid.

It's hard for me to understand how people can really justify the brutality shown towards
women, political dissidents, homosexuals, etc., in many Muslim countries.

How many of you think segregation and discrimination towards blacks was ok in the
1950s?
A lot of people thought that was right back then. You even heard slavery justified on the
grounds that it was in their own good. I don't see the difference.

Reply 13,… bla bla

Add your comment with out altering the main document

8
9