Morality is Subjective

stuff:

stay connected:

projects:

[matiaskoivulehto]

You did not bring up any moral ontology, only epistemology. So how would you argue for the REALITY of moral obligations? Where are they founded?

[cajunking]

Yes. Morality is subjective.
Morals are human’s beliefs of what is right or wrong. It’s right there in the definition. Beliefs.

[namelastnamefirst]

“Nobody believes that morality is subjective”

This is projection. The point of moral subjectivity isn’t that you can’t call something morally unjust or just, but instead that you can’t factually prove that you are right or wrong about those claims.

[filipnilenius]

Morality is a man-made concept; hence intrinsically subjective. Any argument for, or against, eating animals will ultimately be subjective.

[pablosearth]

Be Vegan, spread Vegan, embrace vegan as the only future we have! The only answer to a long term future is to give Love, Peace

[filipdilmaghani]

Morality is subjective. Laws are there to enforce the morality which is subjective to the majority of people, but there will always people whose morality will differ from those laws.

[lolzerd]

Okay, he often makes fairly reasonable arguments but this is truly the point where it shows that he has no depth when thinking about ethical issues. There's so much very basic reasoning that is very questionable here:

1.) The argument is not just that meat eating is okay because morality is subjective. The argument is that morality is subjective, meaning that any set of not directly contradicting moral statements can be implemented in a moral system if axioms are set to that end. This then also applies to the inclusion of meat eating into common moral codes. Everything he is saying is completely and utterly missing the point of this. He is merely presupposing without any explanation as to why that we "understand the value of animal life" to an extend where we should not end it unless necessary**. All he is saying here amounts to the immorality of eating meat follows because he has the vague inkling that everyone's feelings conveniently match his own feelings on the matter in such a way that it confirms to his ideology. It's nonsense.

2.) Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't have prisons. People's subjective views on morality can overlap which they very often do regarding some basic principles. There might even be a biological/evolutionary cause for this. Either way these overlaps can then be codified into law and the minority who doesn't adhere to these principles (e.g. "harming other humans is wrong") can be punished independent of it being subjective.

**Even if everyone agreed with this statement it would be subjective, everyone agreeing with a basic principle doesn't make it not dependent on the personal feelings of each individual. Perhaps it's clearer when we use the term mind-dependent.

[bertobrb]

That’s why meat eating is legal, because morality is not subjective.

[-meo-dmt]

Morality IS subjective, but most of us have a relatively similar understanding of morality. Most of us think that it is immoral to needlessly kill humans. But still most of us think that it is moral to needlessly kill animals. If you believe in logical consistency, wich means you don't want people to choose their morality arbitrarily, then you have to justify needlessly killing animals (or go vegan). What is the difference between humans and animals that justifies needlessly killing animals? If you find a difference, for it to be logically consistent the difference has to, if present in humans instead of animals, justify needlessly killing humans.

[chinochasin]

You saying having a victim makes it wrong, is still subjective, your opinion, millions have opposing opinion, hence subjectivness

[chrisarmon]

Here is your problem is are you claiming morality is objective ? If so based off where did it come from and from who. Only people who believe in God can make that claim. So what’s your basis.
I would also ask. Your logic is when we kill a cow for example is that murder ? And if so you would have to come up with a system to punish the murder right.

I would also say if morality is objective with other mammals when a animals kills another animal. Do we punish the murder ( other mammal?

[benward]

You *feel* morality is objective? That doesn't make it objective. Feeling something is not an absolute. I could say 'well I feel that animals love being killed and eaten'. It doesn't mean anything,

[enegetics]

I'm vegan because I *feel* that morality is objective, but I *know* better. I know that morality is absolutely factually subjective. Your reasons for disagreeing amounted to "then we wouldn't be able to engage in our traditions". Our behaviours are not evidence of moral objectivity - just of similar feelings. Politically, it is a poor tactic to argue against veganism simply because 'morality is subjective' but that doesn't stop the fact that morality IS subjective.

[crocoshark]

If we're talki9ng about the need for prisons and the justice system, it's to protect members of society, which animals are not. When you say "morality should be easily defined by", that's where the subjectivity of morality comes in. It's a philosophical debate what the purpose and definition of morality is. The real challenge to the vegan argument is any competing theory about the purpose of morality.

[T_Armstrong]

Can someone educate me on this? Here (as far as I'm aware) Ed is talking about Moral relativity, as opposed to Moral subjectivity.
If morality is objective, then when we say 'do not kill', there is no situation where someone would be morally justified in killing.
However if morality is subjective, then their might be some situations where someone could be excused from the idea that their act was immoral (for example killing an attacker who is about to kill a loved one).
Can someone correct me on this idea?
In the vegan example, we should not exploit animals. But there might be a subjective situation that in order to survive, animal exploitation is necessarily required.
To me, objectivity is immovable, its either right or its wrong. The inclusion of the word 'practicable' in the vegan definition would imply subjectivity. Because what is practicable for one person (who lives in a small remote fishing village) will not be practicable for another (someone who lives near a supermarket). This is subjectivity.
Love to be educated :)

[agentsamuelson]

"Morality is subjective is not a good enough excuse to morality justify taking the life of an animal." The justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. "Not good enough" What is good?

[shlokhoms]

Yeah morality itself is subjective but at the moment you're interested in the right thing to do (morality) you have to at least trying to do the right thing, therefore, if you believe your suffering is bad and you believe that others experience that in a similar manner, you're believe that suffering is wrong, therefore you should prevent it from happening.
if you didn't you're didn't even trying to do the right thing at all.
if you're replying for suffering is: morality is subjective, you're doesn't saying that morality roles are subjective, you're saying that morality doesn't exist at all.

[AuthenticGadzooks]

I'm sorry, but this video shows a lack of understanding on the subject. If morality weren't subjective to some degree, then therefor there must be someone or something that can evaluate morality in a completely objective manner, but alas there is not and has never been.

[chrisking]

Morality is indeed subjective. Morality is a human made concept. There is no intrinsic moral code. Merely asserting that there is because you feel like there is isn’t a sufficient argument.

What is moral/immoral cannot be defined unless we set a common goal such as well being. Then we can say a certain action is immoral/moral.

Humans disagree on the basic principals of what mortality is. Ask a Christian what’s immoral. They’d say being gay is immoral. Ask an atheist the same thing and they’ll say the opposite. Abortion is another topic. Human rights. Whether or not food or health care is a right. Everyone has a different take. There is no moral objectivity.

Morality exists in our heads because our complex minds are able to conceive of the concept that is morality. That in and of itself demonstrates that morally is subjective. It’s a product of our brains. If morality was intrinsic animals would be able to abide a moral code. But they can’t can they? Why? Because they can’t conceive of the concept.


I recommend calling The Line with Matt Dillahunty and presenting the view that morality is objective.He’s debated philosophical issues surrounding theism/atheism and morality for almost 20 years. Many theists claim morality is objective and that we have an intrinsic moral understanding. That is basically your argument as well. And Matt perfectly illustrates why that is wrong. I encourage everyone including you to call in or watch his videos on this subject.

[Rekaert]

The argument that morality is objective insofar as there are set standards for what is good and bad unfortunately fails at the first hurdle if we can step outside our little bubble for a moment.

For it to be objective, we must hold morality to be universal and not a matter of interpretation. We can perhaps make a religious argument and claim God made a strict moral code which exists regardless of humanity, and 'that' is morality, but we quickly run into problems.

Morality is not the same for everyone. Different people have different moral standards. Just look at the Vegan assertion. A Vegan will say it is immoral to eat meat. A person with a balanced diet will say no, it is perfectly moral to eat meat. You have a string of videos arguing the case for your morality over others, so how can you then claim morality is objective?

Today we have a moral consensus that slavery is wrong, but it's one we slowly arrived at. Throughout most of history, slavery was not immoral by the moral standards of the day. Even if we use today, this very moment, there are different moral views on gambling, abortion, alcohol use, divorce, homosexuality, you name it.

As far as we can tell, morality isn't independent of humans, and if we put all the humans who have ever existed into a poll, we'll find that what they consider to be moral varies widely based on the individual and on the culture. Where is the objective nature of morality in all of this?