Many people seem to think that morality (or at least, part of it) is objective. For a start, all people who believe that God is a moral being: after all, for the creator of the universe to be moral, morality necessarily needs to be objective.

Personally, I think all morality is subjective. I don't believe there are such things as 'good' and 'evil' in the universe. Those notions have been invented by the human mind to oversimplify the world.

In those few sentences right there you have singlehandedly defended slavery, murder, torture, and let's not forget the little thing called genocide... you know, every facet of human suffering.

On the contrary, would not eliminating the concepts of good and evil oversimplify the world? If there are no moral obligations, then we are free to do whatever we please with no restrictions other than our physical capabilities, whereas if the universe does consist of a moral force, we as humans must constantly be looking at and questioning values, truth and morality in the search for "The Good."

I absolutely believe in a universal morality. Although we may never know it beyond the shadow of a doubt, that does not mean we should not be in the pursuit of this ideal.

Here's a question (no, it doesn't relate directly to my previous comments, although I will respond to it in another post-- it's just an "out of curiousity" question): if someone were to make a moral/value judgment, would you tell them not to make such judgments? If so, why?

I use to believe this, but this means that you have no criteria for placing the ethical nature of one intent, action or consequence over another. It kind of leaves you in nihilist or relativist state. But clearly we operate on some values, because I don't beleive we operate without any reasons at all.

Objective morality? yeah I think there is objective morality, certainly there are duty-based ethical systems which are very objective, Ulititarianism and Kantianism for example. The question to me is not whether morality is objective, but rather are supposedly "moral" people objective in their moral applications?

So your grounds for asserting that we operate on some universal value system is because you believe it?

Having examples of groups that follow an objective set of moral codes does not inherently merit that there is a universal morality that exists beyond human perception.

Why are you more interested in the application of a universal morality than whether or not there is such a thing (seeing as that putting a conception of objective morality to use without there being a universal set of morals to begin with would rander the former interest moot)?

Not to say I don't agree with you, I'm just trying to get you to add more clarity to your ideas (and, you know, think more about them).

To answer the thread's question: Probably not.

While you could ask folks if they believe in love, they'll answer yes quite often. Yet asking them how they know for certain they are in love and how to qualify it... that is a whole new ballgame.

Morality is a human aspect. Religion has skewed things to try to affect the overall picture. The Church(es) and Clergy want to define the rules of what is and isn't good, (which is the same as saying what is "allowed").

It is very subjective. Yet it exists as an idea from the very beginning of human understanding beyond the need to survive at all costs. Higher level thinking, especially by philosophers, brought out that the conflicts are so ethereal and ill-defined except in some people's minds. Yes, when people think they side with right and good, they tend to get a little to zealous/righteous. They want to tell others how to live and what the "situation" is.

So how can a person say they know what is good or evil without having taken some kind of stance on where they are? After all, isn't the universe defined by a person's expanding enlightenment? Anything that exists, from the abstract to concrete... can be used in multiple ways. Those can be judged as good or bad, depending upon the results or how it affects others.

For instance, God created the earth and heavens... and he saw that it was good. WIth no countering, opposing opinion, who is to say it wasn't good or that it was evil? Some believe evil began with the fall of Satan from the heavens while others believe it was created in man. Therefore God had to have an element of evil within his likeness, since he created us in his image. Also, was not Satan one of those angels "created" by God? Or are we going to go with the idea that they had always existed on some level, eons before the creation of our "known" world?

Apparently Satan disagreed with God and fell from favour. If you oppose "good", that is automatically evil by many standards. So is "evil" a direct opposite from the rightly goodness? Or is it that it has but one of many other choices available on how to act/think? It is a trap to think there is only a single, good and right way of doing things. Since we can't foretell the future reactions to our actions, it isn't really important except for the motivations involved. Helping people to feel good about ourselves is selfish. Is it subconscious? Or is it a reward for doing something good or useful? Does that "justify" our existance, doing something useful?? TO say that it was a "goodly work"?

Even the most touted artists have been considered evil at various times. The most powerful emporers were supposedly good when they had a Church's blessing. Yet do we want to live like a St. Benedict or try to emulate a Charlemagne, Alexander the Great or even Julius Ceaser? Is it good to look to saving your own soul or to save other souls, even at the point of a sword?

If the ends suit the proper authority, that is often what is considered good. Countless lives are lost in military conflicts and in their aftermath: starvations and disease.

So vaguely discuss what is "objective morality" and then find a good example. Don't simply look for a yes or no answer. Even without a moral metric, the acts of mankind would still occur.

Not exactly. From a human point of view, things such as slavery, murder, torture and genocide are almost universally bad (just almost, because some people still commit them). Yes, those things are wrong, but only from our perspective. My point is that there are no things that are "good" or "bad" by nature. The ideas of good and bad come only from our minds and do not exist by themselves in the universe.

Very well, I will clarify my position as best I can. The question "Is there such a thing as objective morality?" is a strange question.

"Objectivity" is a perception that was created over time to examine external events and realities, using non-anthropormorphic means. That is, it is the non-human/non-subjective way of look at things. For example, Hurrican Katrina hit New Orleans because global warming is causing more frequently large hurricanes in current weather patterns, not because god wanted to punish the homosexuals living there.

"Weather patterns" is an objective explanation for a hurricane. While "God's will" is a subjective explanation.

So, when I say that objective ethical systems exist, I mean that these systems attempt to make "rules" that are not subjective in their judgements of intentions, actions or consequences.

Now, the question as to whether or not "morality" exists in of itself? Then ofcourse not. Morality is a purely human invention...Nothing is good or evil by nature, it is only good or evil in its relation to something else, by human definition. For example: "Slavery" is good for masters, but bad for slaves.

The Universe does not act in accordance with any concept of right or wrong, nature is amoral! And morality only exists in the context that one beleives that one can make freely willed choices, which is a highly questionable position, but one that is conveniently followed for reasons that should be discussed in another topic discussion.