Do you believe morality is objective or subjective?

Morality, from a human standpoint, is subjective according to person and society. However, in a spiritual sense, it is a set thing; God is 'perfect' because whatever he is is 'perfect' for us. He sets the bar for what we consider 'moral'.

In my opinion at this time: There could also be an objective morality but no one has developed it but. Such an function morality would, as a generalisation, relaxation on high of subjective morality. Hence, to discover function morality, one desires to undertake a be trained of subjective morality, and spot how might two or more subjective moralities cooperate. Without a doubt, one wishes to position to paper all of the subjective moralities, and then run a computation over them to find essentially the most effective synthesis, each realistic and respectful. One such likelihood is a morality of practicality and utility that respects others to the factor that they appreciate practicality and utility, and that make sure a relationship that's exceptional and that respects and allows the precept of the unconditioned intellect(free intellect), but in addition the energy of mind(able mind).   I would go and on about what I in finding to be objectively and measurably to be the excellent morality. It's complex for the reason that there are beneficial outcomes and effects that a morality will have to goal to supply. A excellent morality is to the person and society what a nutritious breakfast cereal is to the physique. The benefit of a nutritious cereal is function and measurable; so too will a good morality be goal and measurable. Goal morality is a meta-subjective morality, it is looking on the morality we every have and the one we select, studying them and judging or assessing the one that is objectively and measurably the exceptional for us each and for society.   however, any such foremost morality will have to be incorporated into an highest quality morality of adjusting our innate morality toward that optimum morality. You cannot just say this is ethical and assume it to instantly occur, it needs to incorporate and be centered on an working out of human change and learning, as a technique of its implementation. Truely when I believe about it, I might say:   that morality is:     1. The gain knowledge of of behaviour, and -( what we in reality do and why we do )     2. The be taught of satisfactory behaviours, and -( what in an top-quality world, we should do )     three. The study of how people might learn best behaviours. -( how could humans gain best behaviour ) best behaviours could be people who maximise towards a strategically most desirable play of the sport on existence-board, on which all of us play out life, such that we all find our future strategic positions foremost strategically.

I would disagree. I see morality as objective.

But, I do agree there are circumstances where is is acceptable to kill, lie, etc. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. Those who hold an absolute view of morality would say one can never kill or lie, etc. There is a definitional difference.

I believe that you would agree that the following statements represent immoral acts:

It is OK to lie, for the fun of it.

It is OK to steal, for the fun of it.

It is OK to rape, for the fun of it.

It is OK to kill, for the fun of it.

If morality is truly subjective, then no one can argue against those statements because the rightness or wrongness of the act is dependent on the subject doing the act - even for the fun of it.

The above statements are objectively wrong - or immoral.

The difference is in the motive behind the act being done. For instance, it is wrong to kill someone for the purpose of advancing your self interests. That is murder. On the other hand it is perfectly fine to kill someone in self defense or the defense of others. Such is not murder but justified homicide.

Morality is a fascinating subject. Feel free to write if you want to discuss.

Subjective, as is shown by the different interpretations of moral stances either as rules or in relation to variable standards based upon the importance of the options.

Neither (or both).

There are objective moral codes, and subjective moral codes. It depends on which type you subscribe to.

A subjective moral code is defined arbitrarily, by a society, an individual, a god (or one's perception of a god), etc.

An objective moral code is one in which the morality of an action is dependent upon merits inherent to the action rather than by the determination of an individual or consensus of individuals. A moral code based upon harm (or consent) is objective, because the determination of whether an action is moral or immoral is dependently solely upon whether an action meets a certain objectively-defined criterion (e.g.: whether it causes harm or violates the consent of another party).

I subscribe to an objective moral code based upon the Objective Logical Moral Default, the Imposition of Wills, described here:

"Atheism and Morality: Being Good Without God": https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/atheis...

Addendum: Another example of an objective moral code would be, "All actions performed on weekdays are moral; all actions performed on weekends are immoral". In this case, whether an action is moral or immoral is not determined by consensus, but rather by merits inherent to the action itself (when it is performed). The *basis* for this moral code, however, is still arbitrarily defined. A moral code based on the Imposition of Wills, however, is truly objective, because the issue of consent provides a natural, self-reinforcing default upon which an objective moral framework can be constructed.

A guy feels very strongly that it's necessary for him to steal your car because he totaled his in his last dope & booze spree and the cops are hot on his tail and he doesn't have an escape vehicle and you have two. So he steals the brand new car that you've been saving for for 6 years. He doesn't feel too bad about stealing it. I mean he really needed wheels and, after all, he did leave you with a car. That is subjective thinking. It's for lazy brains.

Given that h. sapiens are a social species, there is an objective(-like) morality built into us; we are hardwired to cooperate with others to succeed and thrive in life. This will, obviously, have an impact on any subjective ethical-blueprint we devise for society.

What matters is that people try to live in harmony without hurting each other. If you live the "Golden Rule - treat others the way you want them to treat you", you will be exercising good moral behavior (unless you love getting hurt). It's a reasonable way to coexist with others.

Is this the way you think under any, or all circumstances. Tell me yes or no and I will answer you question.

As evidenced by every single reply here, it's obviously subjective.