What do you think of my thoughts?

Question

I recently received some very informative answers to my last question (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070829053513AAl0GH0).

I'm going to try to dig at this subject a little deeper. Let me start with where I think we agree: there are some things which would be moral for one person to do, and immoral for another. For instance, it is immoral for an American to drive on the left side of the road (unless he is in England) but moral for an Englishman (unless he's in the states). The moral principle of not placing yourself and your fellow man in needless danger remains. This isn't really what a moral absolutist, such as myself, means by "moral absolutes".

Now, I've had people tell me morality is subjective, which seems odd to me; because as soon as you say "morality" you seem to be treating it like an object, assuming I know what the object you are talking about is. Any thoughts?

Answer 1

It is called a social norm, but it is not immoral, as you say, to drive on the left or right side of the road depending on which country you live in. It is simply a norm sanctioned by a law.

In sociology, a norm, or social norm, is a rule that is socially enforced. Social sanctioning is what distinguishes norms from other cultural products or social constructions such as meaning and values. Norms and normlessness are thought to affect a wide variety of human behavior.

Violations of norms are punished with sanctions, possibly enforced by law. Violators of norms are considered eccentric or even deviant and are stigmatized.

Answer 2

The link did an "oops" message.

But I think you got hooked by a different definition of the term "subjective." It's not like subject and object in a sentence, it's like subjective being a matter of individual decision, where as objective is something agreed upon by the society, such as the laws of the state.

Your point that obeying the rules of the road is a moral decision (not to put people in danger needlessly) is a good one. The concept of morality being subjective is akin to the hippie dictate to "Do your own thing." Or the new age pop psychology thing of "Don't judge people."

Of course we have some normative rules, and we need them. Rules against murder, rape, theft, vandalism, and so on. But there is much that is subjective, especially moral decisions regarding personal behavior such as sexuality and tidiness.

There are practical matters, such as whether or not you cause diseases by not cleaning for an extended period of time, but they may not fall into the realm of morality for you. Similarly with drug use, except for the fact that illegal drugs can mess with your freedom and cause problems for your family while you twiddle your thumbs in San Quentin.

Basically, people need to make their own moral decisions, and accept the consequences of those decisions. If the consequences include other people (including authority figures) reacting in ways that are not good for you and/or your family, you have to factor that into your decision-making process. But you may decide to go ahead and break the law anyway, as civil rights protestors did, and Henry Thoreau did as he reported in "Civil Disobedience." Your choice, your consequences.

Answer 3

Morality, as a whole, is indeed subjective, because the same group of ethical codes don't apply to all people through all cultures. The Spartans sincerely believed that it was moral to abandon sick or deformed infants and leave them to die on top of a mountain. "Thou shalt not steal" doesn't apply to Bushmen of Africa or other tribes that have no concept of personal possessions or ownership in the first place. And we still have people today who thought that flying planes into buildings on 9/11 for Allah was a good deed.

If any morals seem common to many different cultures and time periods (don't kill people around you for no reason, don't steal from your neighbor, etc.) you can understand where they come from if you study sociology and biology. Each person has a carnal survival drive, and additionally we're social organisms in that we need to depend on the group for some things. So it's really no surprise that we want to do things to watch out for ourselves, watch for the people we care about, and keep our environment safe (and those last 2 points just reinforce the first one). Still, I don't see the point or reason in having a detailed "objective moral" code.

Answer 4

It is moral for the head-hunters to eat their enemies. That is an absolute no-no for us. Their morals are subjective to the things they have been taught, as is that of everyone. Every person does not see morality like everyone else.

Answer 5

Thumbs up on this one!

My own philosophy of moral absolutism stems from two primary sources, the bible and the writings of Ayn Rand.

In an article entitled "The Cult of Moral Grayness", Ayn Rand wrote:
"One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today's culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: "There are no blacks and whites; there are only grays.""

In the same article, she went on to say:
Before anyone can identify anything as "gray," one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture. There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil."

In a different article, she said:
"Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil".

While Ms. Rand would no doubt turn over in her grave, I find her philosophy entirely consistent with the bible and specifically with the instructions of Jesus who commanded his followers to strive for holiness and to judge the teachings of others by their behavior instead of their words.

I agree that what is moral for one person to do can be immoral for another. To me, that explains the so-called inconsistencies in the bible. While one man might read God's instructions about drinking and think that he shouldn't drink to to point of losing control, another person, an alcoholic with a history of immoral decisions related to drinking, could read the same instructions and know that it isn't right for him to drink at all!

In the second article mentioned above, Ayn Rand wrote:
"There is no escape fromt he fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his vicitms."

To say that morality is subjective is to express your own moral cowardice and lack of understanding about the nature of moral principles.

Answer 6

What is really meant by the "moral relativists" is that all points of view are true except for the views that teach moral absolutes!

Of course!

It is, therefore, inherently hypocritical and self-contradictory. And if you oppose it, you will be labeled intolerant.

Therefore, they are "tolerant" of EVERYTHING except those who believe in moral absolutes...! So, in the end they are EXTREMELY intolerant of Bible believing Christians who declare that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

Check this out:
http://www.carm.org/relativism/whatisrelativism.htm

-

Answer 7

What drivel. Driving on the correct side of the road is not a question of morality, it is a question of obeying the existing law.

Answer 8

your analogy of left vs right in driving is way off, it's not immoral, it's wrong, it's not how it's done. Morality is the guide by which you view right and wrong.

For instance:
I do not find it immoral to kill an illegal intruder in my home, I do find it immoral to kill someone for having an opinion different than mine.

I find it immoral to seduce young girls into situation that are beyond their understanding, but I don't find it immoral to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Answer 9

Driving on the wrong side of the road is just self destructive. Big ego thing. We have a choice to do right or wrong. We have a chance to tell our wrongs and try to do well. It's all about love, treat others as you want to be treated and ask for forgiveness when you have hurt someone..

Answer 10

Sorry, morals have nothing to do with traffic laws. Common sense possibly, a drivers license for sure.