Opinions: Is morality objective or subjective?

@WassimBerbar said in #9:
> Why are you getting angry? I wanted opinions, I get provocations.
>
> I said it's for informative purpose. Stop doing as if I will start a debate.

Notice how I've retaliated by giving you one of those obnoxious thumbdowns back.

I'm merely exploring the muddy terrain, my friend.
I'm sorry that my individual style of doing so doesn't agree with your taste. Maybe you should have this "informative" chat with others, then.

@WassimBerbar said in #1:
> What's your opinion on morality? Subjective or objective?
>
> Give only your point of view and do not critique others' opinions. This is for informative purpose.

The flow chart of human choices are subjective in life, but certain moral truths, I think can be objectified, like a Chess game, where sometimes to obey the commandment thou shalt not kill (for example) - checkmate has to be achieved first, because of your responsibility for your chess pieces where the opponent would have them killed in real-life. In real-life Nation leaders are the kings of chess, while we are the pieces (soliders) expected to obey our leader, at their command. So, its less of a matter of personal responsibility for not killing (for example), but rather a matter of which authority you obey and what moral principles they understand in the long-run to achieve the best morality for civilization. The same parallel can be said about other moral truths (commandments) in life too. Life is a Chess game!

@Approximation said in #12:
> Life is a Chess game!

Morals should be felt. From the inside.

So thou shalt not go around murdering people.
You know, if I did actually just go around murdering people, I'd probably die from the inside. People wouldn't even have to come and arrest me.

And now for the trillion shades of grey.
How many commandments will we end up with this time? Can this truly be more than just an other bon mot contest?

"Morals is how we act currently, Ethics is how we should act." -R. C. Sproul

It depends. If we think Morals and Ethics are the same, it's objective. But if we make this distinction between Morals and Ethics, Morals is subjective. But Ethics remain objective.

@WassimBerbar said in #4:
> Do you believe moral values are subjective and change from one person or another, or do you believe moral values are fix and objective like rules?

18th century European philosophers thought there was some "universal" moral, then in the 19th century they discovered the rest of the World existed and sometimes had different values, religion and culture.

Said that, I think abstract moral is highly dependent on cultural values, but in my experience it is nevertheless amazing how little these differences are when individual human beings meet in our normal lives.

subjective since it depends on the culture of each person, even if there are certain objective moral values, of universal scope

@OctoPinky said in #16:
> 18th century European philosophers thought there was some "universal" moral, then in the 19th century they discovered the rest of the World existed and sometimes had different values, religion and culture.
>
> Said that, I think abstract moral is highly dependent on cultural values, but in my experience it is nevertheless amazing how little these differences are when individual human beings meet in our normal lives.

interesting but you will have been able to develop your point a little more: the philosophers of the Enlightenment in France in particular, had a certain knowledge of the world around them, since great explorers like Cook and Bougainville explored the world. aside from the poles, Enlightenment philosophers knew roughly what the physical world of the continents looked like and that they were not alone. their objectives were philosophical in scope and there again, the dogma changed from one philosopher to another, morality according to Voltaire was not the same as that of Rousseau, despite common values. it is interesting to note that philosophers of this period saw in a utopian way in certain ancestral societies what modern society had lost: simplicity, contact with nature and according to the philosophers of the Enlightenment, these people being far from the Christianity, they would live in a society where human values would count more than a cult. it was only a literary utopia to show and support their ideas, and that makes me smile, since many explorers reported testimonies of fanaticism and sacrifice that would make your hair stand on end. and philosophers began to be aware of it. but don't blame them, the best liars are philosophers))

@WassimBerbar said in #1:
> What's your opinion on morality? Subjective or objective?
>
> Give only your point of view and do not critique others' opinions. This is for informative purpose.

Depends on your definition of morals. Morals are shaped by your country, culture, family, life experiences, etc. And those might not align with other people's morals.

But the question is, does that mean morality is subjective? Or does that mean morality is objective, and we're just ignoring that? Are we all supposed to be following "universal morals" - but due to what we've been taught - we've muddled the waters more than we should have?

Oh, and I'm curious what informative purposes you are using this for, is it a project by any chance? :)

@greenteakitten said in #19:
> Depends on your definition of morals. Morals are shaped by your country, culture, family, life experiences, etc. And those might not align with other people's morals.
>
> But the question is, does that mean morality is subjective? Or does that mean morality is objective, and we're just ignoring that? Are we all supposed to be following "universal morals" - but due to what we've been taught - we've muddled the waters more than we should have?
>
> Oh, and I'm curious what informative purposes you are using this for, is it a project by any chance? :)

philosophy exam? @WassimBerbar if you need help this is one of the areas where I got excellent marks as I am known as a serious arguer and open to debating ideas