Objective or non-objective morality

Another thread inspired this topic. Is morality objective, or non-objective? Is there such a thing as universal absolutes when it comes to "good" or "bad"?

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as objective morality or universal absolutes in relation to morality. What do you think?

For instance, one could say that pain and suffering are universally and absolutely bad. But look at where we are today, from an evolutionary standpoint. Without countless individuals dying from innumerable diseases and circumstances, and therefore removing themselves from the genepool, we would not have the overall state of health we have now. So would you say that all of those individuals suffering and dying was good or bad?

I don't think there is absolute morality. I think that however hard you try to avoid it, it always stems back to moral relativism so there are no objective morals.

I don't think there is an absolute reality or universal absolutes. I think that everything is circumstantial. Our individual circumstances determine the perceived reality.

Death from disease - in terms of epidemics in the past - was mainly arbitrary due to circumstances, not any idea of evolutionary 'fitness', lol.

There are certainly things most of us wouldn't do - and I think most of us would choose not to do them in most cultures.

My opinion is that morals change from year to year and from country to country.
I suppose that's why different countries have different laws. To encompass the mind set of the majority of any given population.

Morals stem from individual or group values. Since most groups do not see eye to eye on some things, I would say that specific moralities cannot be universal.

Morality as a concept; Wherever there are social beings, there are values, therefore moralities will always apply, whether or not they are the same as anyone else's.

'Most' isn't cause enough to say it's universal though. Universal means there is no other way to think about an issue. Upbringing, quality of life and various other factors differ so vastly across that the world that I'd say it would be extremely difficult to find one certain moral absolute that is universal.

Ok, that's everyone agreed on that one. Good night.

What differentiated those who got sick and died from those that got sick and survived? It could have been any number of things - different hygiene habits, different taste in food, stronger immune system, closer social bonds, etc. Any of those things can be tied to genetic differences. The genes that correlated with the behavior or tendency that resulted in that individual living instead of dying would get passed on to future generations. Sure, there is as lot of randomness in there too, but over time, those slight advantages in individuals add up to genetic changes in the population as a whole.

I think all morality is subjective.

One man's good is another man's bad.

What about those living in isolation? They would have no basis with which to build a moral compass as they would not have experienced social interaction. Does this mean that they have morals at all?

I'm aware that's unlikely, think of it like a thought experiment kind of thing.



If only every philosophical issue was solved like that. It'd be a lot easier. Good night.

Yeah I know, I said 'most' deliberately coz it's about as near as you get to absolutes in practice.

That's an interesting question, but not without interfering variables. Complete isolation causes psychological stress, and abnormal psychology. That in itself can warp a person's moral compass from what it would be had they not been put in isolation.

What implications does this have for the legal system though?

One could claim that they personally believe it is morally right to murder someone, whereas in accordance to the Government's morality it would be deemed wrong.

Does this person deserve to go to jail?