Opinions: Is morality objective or subjective?

@CSKA_Moscou said in #18:
> 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.

Yes, they were mainly interested in Nature and Geography but got some information about foreign cultures. Just not that much as they were basically explorers.

I think the real knowledge of foreign cultures come from first half of 19th when railways and steam ships made travel viable (until then, travel speed was essentially the same as in Herodotus' time) and European colonialism the main paradigm. Then, Ottomans, Egyptians, Chinese or Hindus stopped to be just "exotic" and became a reachable target... not always for good. That difference can be seen in the way Oriental art influenced European art just after ca. 1825. That would have been impossible in 1725.

You can still argue that Portuguese and Spanish empires were similar, but I think Spanish Empire was a very different idea, and anyway they were two basically Christianity projects, so they would do anything to fit foreign cultures into the Iberian Christendom framework. European 19th colonialism, on the contrary, was a totally Capitalist project (like Dutch or Venetian before) and so nominally secular. I don't know for Dutch, but Venice was indeed heavily influenced by its colonies.

I think I got these ideas mainly from "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West", by John Ralston Saul. If you can get it, it is a very interesting approach to that 18th-19th paradigm shift.

@CSKA_Moscou said in #20:
> 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
No it's not a philosophy exam, it's just to information about the Lichess forums about how users understand the world, through the title question, nothing important. Thanks for the request.

@OctoPinky said in #21:
> Yes, they were mainly interested in Nature and Geography but got some information about foreign cultures. Just not that much as they were basically explorers.
>
> I think the real knowledge of foreign cultures come from first half of 19th when railways and steam ships made travel viable (until then, travel speed was essentially the same as in Herodotus' time) and European colonialism the main paradigm. Then, Ottomans, Egyptians, Chinese or Hindus stopped to be just "exotic" and became a reachable target... not always for good. That difference can be seen in the way Oriental art influenced European art just after ca. 1825. That would have been impossible in 1725.
>
> You can still argue that Portuguese and Spanish empires were similar, but I think Spanish Empire was a very different idea, and anyway they were two basically Christianity projects, so they would do anything to fit foreign cultures into the Iberian Christendom framework. European 19th colonialism, on the contrary, was a totally Capitalist project (like Dutch or Venetian before) and so nominally secular. I don't know for Dutch, but Venice was indeed heavily influenced by its colonies.

interesting. even if precisely, the loss of exoticism and the isolation of certain cultures has broken the utopia of the Ideal world. I find Montesquieu's critical point of view in Persian letters interesting, since he is aware that the East has a different point of view from the West. it's interesting because the fashion of the time denigrated this Ottoman Orient through farce, comic spectacle or exuberant drawings, while certain thinkers already had a critical and more ethnological idea.

on the other hand, the philosophy of the 19th century focused more on the place of the individual in society while the philosophers of the Enlightenment sought the ideal society by fighting against "obscurantism". the philosophers of the 19th century, notably through artistic romanticism, thought more about the suffering of the individual in relation to the outside world and the chimeras of enlightenment.

I think Morality is both subjective and objective , because every living creature has right for his or her morality, and everyone who has it, can't be sure enought it's absolute(except Me xD)

@OctoPinky said in #21:
> Yes, they were mainly interested in Nature and Geography but got some information about foreign cultures. Just not that much as they were basically explorers.
>
> I think the real knowledge of foreign cultures come from first half of 19th when railways and steam ships made travel viable (until then, travel speed was essentially the same as in Herodotus' time) and European colonialism the main paradigm. Then, Ottomans, Egyptians, Chinese or Hindus stopped to be just "exotic" and became a reachable target... not always for good. That difference can be seen in the way Oriental art influenced European art just after ca. 1825. That would have been impossible in 1725.
>
> You can still argue that Portuguese and Spanish empires were similar, but I think Spanish Empire was a very different idea, and anyway they were two basically Christianity projects, so they would do anything to fit foreign cultures into the Iberian Christendom framework. European 19th colonialism, on the contrary, was a totally Capitalist project (like Dutch or Venetian before) and so nominally secular. I don't know for Dutch, but Venice was indeed heavily influenced by its colonies.

I would say this is because Dutch had a more established commercial and political system than Venice. Venice was not very influential through its "colonies" and Venice had influence over Europe but had shortcomings in the management of its possessions. The East India Company was the commercial and armed hand of the Dutch. However, in the 19th century, there were a huge number of Christian missionaries who left for Asia and Africa, since North and South America were already largely Christianized. I would say that colonialism evolved in the 19th century into an ideological "paternalism" dangerous for most cultures. the goal of the commercial powers was to create a hypothetical "trust" to justify the "theft" of wealth.

Morals are subjective and based on the consensus of the times. Someone once said, "there is no good or evil, only thinking makes it so".

You might not agree with something that went on in the past, but for the times it was the agreed upon norm.

Humans can do horrendous things to others if they feel they are justified.

All that really matters is that your family, friends and neighbors agree with the actions. And mostly...can you live with yourself.

Governments give soldiers a uniform and weapons and say, "go kill strangers in far away lands".

Now, take away the governments, "okay" and uniform and you are a c common murderer.

Kill millions like Gengis Khan and distance yourself by several centuries and history paints you as a conqueror.

When it comes to morality, we all kind of know it when we see it.

> @WassimBerbar said in #1:
> What's your opinion on morality? Subjective or objective?
Is killing bad because god said so or
God said so because killing is bad?

If you hold the first opinion, then it is subjective to an amoral entity.
If you hold the second opinion, which is my case, it can be objectively measured (and you dont need a god to understand it).

Wtf is this thread, easy direct answer on this is close to difference between a zoo which won't pass mankind bottlenecks and developed modern society!

Subjective, weak definition of morality was done in Ancient Egypt - The Eloquent Peasant 1850 BCE is the first mention of Golden Rule. It's weak because it supposes good acting of others by default.

Objective, strong definition was done by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative: it's bla bla bla about Maxim's, but to put it simple and practical: if someone is doing harm* to other people or society he must get this harm perfectly reflected back in the face as if everyone created the same harm to him.

Examples of this:
- if someone likes to punch city trash bins for fun - he must live in the area where everyone punches them = where there are heaps of garbage on streets permanently
- if someone likes to bully, he must study in the class where all bullies from city study
- if someone is unreasonably aggressive, he must** live in the area where everyone is
- if someone posts too smart, forum posts like he knows better, good luck beating this with properly proved answers :P. No, you can't just post an opinion "you lame". I made like 5 references to advanced wise sources here - do at least the same or it's not a mirror. In fact, if everyone on the internet did the same, it works fluently except annoys.
- If some country attacks other weak countries, it must get somehow similar result when everyone who is stronger attacks it. Warn: country level is trickier because countries are not fundamentally same while people are same. Consider lifetime, for example.***

It's all not perfect, but you get the vibe here. Imagine an area / city / island / continent where everyone declares/breaks the same rule and acts accordingly.
Anti-example: a rule to leave the picnic area at least as clean as before your visit. If everyone does this, all is perfect, no problem.
Focus on switching rules/behaviors, for example, in the bully example absolute majority will suddenly cry now they don't want to consider bulling acceptable after they put together.

* Only about harm, not about good deeds. Also think about indirect declaration that breaking some rule of not doing harm is acceptable.

** Of course, "must" means here that's an obligation (not a fun or option) of society and surrounding people to ensure "harmer" gets the necessary experience. They will never bother themselves to act morally. Usually police is supposed to do this, of course.
Practically, for kicking a trash bin example - a person who is caught doing this consistently as a punishment must not be allowed to visit clean cities / places for some time. He must eat the result of his actions, not get away with a fine.

*** It's fine to consider that people can be considered same because of practical bottlenecks: 2M years ago our first possible ancestors, 200k years ago migration from Africa cradle, i.e. our roots are common enough to suppose we consider the harm same way.
In fact, multiple SOCIAL behaviors of humans are similar with dolphins, with whom we diverged 60M+ years ago! Even this was too small-time to make everyone "unique and special".

Sidenote: this definition of moral does not depend on opinion, fluent, universal, and awesome. It creates harmonious society where no one need to switch rules and waste mental powers on already solved questions. Supposes that people are rational, irrational behaviors by definition of irrationality will always create problems.