Is Morality Objective or Subjective? | The Essence of Morality and Ethical Reasoning
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 бер 2024
- In this lecture, we'll compare and contrast two notoriously conflicting claims: that morality is objective/absolute and that morality is subjective/relative. I'll help elucidate some examples of how both sides of this debate would explain what morality is, where it comes from, and how we can know it, as well as help clear the air regarding some of the sectarian confusion between the two positions. Enjoy!
Music is Richard Strauss' Also Aprach Zarathustra: Das Tanzlied by Gustavo Dudamel and Berliner Philharmoniker • R. Strauss: Also sprac...
Join the channel for $5/month to gain access to, among other things, a monthly philosophy Zoom tailored to your educational needs!
/ @gavinyoung-philosophy
I think it's wrong to think of ethics as static molecular. I mean in our meta analysis of it, in 2024 a person can be an expert on some branch of ethics. There may have been many prior, discursive instances of works on ethics, but until even 50-75 years ago, you couldn't really study a flow of academic-literati, experts course for 8-10 years, as a syllabus or curriculum
Would love to see a video on race! In whatever context that looks like I think it would be good to hear!
You’re in luck, I’m covering Fanon’s “Black Skin, White Masks” next!
Its just a word game. Theres no testable moral facts.
It is a fact that we have moral claims. It is a fact that we can predict what those claims are and how they relate to each other in a system. We can alter people’s ethical responses to situations in labs using outside stimuli. We have a field (ethics) dedicated to the systematic study and integration of moral beliefs. Seems pretty testable to me.
@gavinyoung-philosophy That's not testing a moral fact, that's testing all the things you listed.
How could we test that punching babies was morally wrong?
@@someonesomeone25 Gotcha gotcha, of course we can’t test morality in that manner. But we also can’t test for race or gender roles in the manner you speak of. Plenty of things are social constructs yet still influence our lives profoundly.
@gavinyoung-philosophy Agreed. Moral opinions are social constructs, and as such have impact. Their ontology is intrasubjective rather than objective.
But when people usually talk and think of morality they think in terms of objectivity, moral realism, and libertarian freewill, things that are highly unlikely to be true. I think it is more accurate, then, to talk about desires and preferences and emotions rather than Morals or ethics, because that language game is mostly an obfuscation.
@@someonesomeone25
Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without a pre - agreed desired goal / outcome ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate.
If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
The Abrahamic religions teach both an objective and subjective dimension to morality. God is the absolute source of all good. He has gifted to humanity an internal conscience which reflects that ability to differentiate good from evil. Because humans have also been gifted with choice, they can however resist the call of their consciences.
So, to Abrahamic theists, when anyone says they can do without God because people are capable of morality on their own, they are actually relying upon the gift that God gave, but not giving God the credit or the gratitude.
Technically the subjective dimension of morality is just an illusion, though, in Christianity. Ultimately morality is posited as objective for Christians (thus the reason it’s claimed one cannot *actually* fair well without God as your moral anchor). Thanks for this nuance to the conversation.
@@gavinyoung-philosophy There is truth in what you say. Christians indeed live in a realm where there are behaviors which are deemed an objective good. But many behaviors involve simply social norms or inconsequential, neutral choices. There are many things which the scriptures leave up to freedom of individual conscience.
So, an abstraction called morality in all of its variety of applications would even for Christians include both objective and subjective dimensions. It's simply the complexity of life.
The focus of Christianity isn't on thematic generalities. It is on practical living, on relations between God and people, people and people, people and the gift of the natural world around us.
@@stephenbailey9969 Individual choice doesn’t mean that morality can be understood subjectively in a Christian paradigm. Even if people choose to act in a variety of ways, it is nevertheless the case that an action can only be one of two things for a Christian: objectively good or objectively bad. Now there may be a continuum here, but there is no subjective spectrum here, since it is a matter of whether or not an action accords with the divine moral law. There is no possibility for morality to be subjective in a Christian paradigm since Christian ethical claims are absolute and binding across time and place (at least so the take goes…)
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Behaviors can be good, bad, or neutral. Neutral is the majority of human behaviors.
God leaves a large portion of our behaviors up to us. Whatever behaviors he discusses, either to encourage or to discourage, it is specifically for our good.
It's not about an abstraction called morality.
It is about practical living.
The vast majority of Christians in the world are navigating the world knowing that God has delegated large areas of freedom to human choice.
As Jesus said, 'Come to me you are burdened. My yoke is kindly and my load is light.'
@@stephenbailey9969 So if an act can be neutral, that means one can act freely without the need for God. Seems like we don’t need God to have morality then since there’s a whole neutral category that God is inconsequential to.