Is Morality Objective or Relative?

Question

Do you think morality can exist outside of what men have penned. Is morality something that man explores and discovers but does not create. Like 2+2=4 is morality a constant among all peoples?

Or Is morality only true to your own person? Is what is true for you independant of what is true to someone else?

If morality is relative, then does it follow that the idea of justice is inherently a paradox? How could we condemn Stalin, Hitler, or the KKK if we don't have a standard to condemn them by?

Arguing the golden rule is in itself arguing for an objective moral

If morality is relative, then does it follow that the idea of justice is inherently a paradox? How could we condemn Stalin, Hitler, or the KKK if we don't have a standard to condemn them by?

Arguing the golden rule is in itself arguing for an objective moral code

Answer 1

I believe that there are absolute morals, independent of human beings, just as there are absolute physical laws independent of us. These absolutes are no more dependent on a "higher being" than they are on a lower one: they're objective, not "god-given".

Answer 2

Morality is relative. How many spiritual systems (or individuals) have the same moral code? And where does it come from? Even if you believe it was handed down by god, then god obviously didn't hand the same moral code to everyone.

However, people will passionately argue that morality is objective...that's why we fight over it so much.

UPDATED: We can judge the KKK, or Hitler, or anything those things because we have invested in a social contract. Our culture and our society has standardized our "norms" and those things are reflected in our laws. But morals change - for instance slavery was once legal, moral, and encouraged. That is not longer the case. If morality was OBJECTIVE and unchangeable then slavery would still be legal, moral, and encouraged. Our morals evolve in conjunction with our social norms.

Answer 3

Inherently relative.

The definition of morality, is a set of rules about what is right and wrong. Right and wrong are judgments. Therefore, it is inherently subjective.

When we look at an object and say, "That object is good", that is not because of any characteristic of that object. It is because of a characteristic of our judgment of the object. There is no "goodness" in the object that is in any way measureable. Another person can come by and say the object is bad, and be just as valid.

When we say something is good or bad is it with regard to a standard. The choice of that standard as a model for goodness or badness is subjective. For example, lets say I have two apples, a McIntosh and a Red Delicious. Two people walk up and one says "The McIntosh is good. It's tartness is perfect for apple pies. The Red Delicious is bad. Too sweet for cooking." The other person comes up and says, "The Red Delicious is good to eat raw. The McIntosh is too tart to eat. It's bad". Neither are wrong. Both are using different arbitrary standards for determining the goodness or badness of the apple.

The same holds true of morality. We may arbitrarily set measuring sticks for how people should act, but they are inevitably in relation to some pre-conceived notion we have of an ideal way people should act.

Answer 4

i'm curious as to why you ask approximately morality interior the R&S, it somewhat is a philosophy question. faith is merely rule following. As to 'purpose .v. relative', that's relative by using fact it must be. There are some rules which all societies have i.e. no longer killing of their very own - yet kill others. a factor from that, each and every society / lifestyle set up their very own ethical desires to proceed to exist of their environment. by using fact of this such a lot of religions have rules approximately what you are able to and can't eat. Islam started interior the deserts and there blood is going off very at as quickly as so the ought to bleed out the animal.

Answer 5

In the absence of laws morality would be independent but these days morality is legislated here in the United States so that makes it relative(as everyone must follow same set of moral rules).

Answer 6

If morality was completely objective, we'd have a heck of a lot less crime in the world. (Then again, what about the man who steals to feed his family? That can't be an objective question in morality...)

Answer 7

Morality is objective. To have morals, we need to look to a "Higher Power". If left only to man, we would have been extinct many years ago. Look at Noah. He was saved because of his morals. If man hadn't been stopped, then murder would have gotten hold and no one would have survived. The one that set the moral standard was Jesus.

Answer 8

Morality is entirely relative, but people will try to pose it as objective, saying that morality comes from god, and god is an absolute, therefore morality would be finite. But it's not. It is still relative.

For example, you could say "is killing immoral? what about in self defense? what about when spreading democracy? what about when spreading christianity?"

Relative.

Answer 9

It's objective if you consider morality to be only The Golden Rule and dismiss the idea of "sin" on one's own body, blasphemy and the rest of the man-serving rhetoric.

Answer 10

Morality is subjective, in that it is decided upon by humans as a group. I believe it is easiest to define as being what is best for the group without being harmful to the individual (murder is immoral because it is harmful to the individual and society).

Morality is relative in that it is changeable, but we as social creatures learn to accept the morality that is decided upon by our society. As a group, we can change it.