RE: Being Individually Moral but Forced to Live Among Collective Immorality
But what do you propose as a tool to define objective and subjective morality? I think morality is also a construct of the collective consciousness of society like law except law is clearly defined, whereas morality isnt.
And morality to a large extent dictates laws in a given country which is why in theocratic countries, one would consider religious text to be law and moral code both.
Morality and law would part ways when the law isnt clear and legal loopholes exist for immoral conduct to occur and still be legal. But law is such that it largely needs to be interpreted. That interpretation can be affected by the moral code of the person interpreting it. Which is why legal outcomes are always debated first.
Well defined law can be argued, so I think morality can also be argued. And that brings me to the first line again. How does one distinguish between objective and subjective morality and how does one define both?
If you refer to not culture-specific moralities (for those are objective in a sense), but a personal morality, then I believe you've already shown one way of distinguishing subjective morality from objective morality. If subjective then morality is unstable, changing with the mood and desire of the person, and consequently always unclear, never certain; and because in effect he is subject to himself, rather than to an higher authority, this morality therefore is not a morality at all, only a self-conceited capriciousness.
Yeah, that could be a tool. But only few people i think can achieve it. Those that have the independent thought to see whats wrong with society. Most people tend to fit in and seek societal validation and their morality overlaps societal morality.
Thank you for responding
Harm as related to stealing/theft is the basic position to start with. Don't steal life, sexual preference, bodily integrity, property. Actions are objective, they happen. Their effects upon others can be objectively discerned.
A codified law by an authority can confirm moral law, but can also go against it. Writing it down is a way to convey it to others who haven't figured it out ;) A way to explain it to them ;)
The term morality, moral law, moral truth, get obfuscated, because societies make "moral codes" so to speak, and laws, based not on moral truth, but on whims.
Objective morality is when harms is incurred. Then there are nuances, like a doctor harming to save, or speaking the truth that can hurt, or self-defense or stopping an evil person with "harm"/"aggressive due force not violence. Unjustified harm is immoral.
i often use a similar tool to decide right from wrong. If my actions hurt someone including myself, that's wrong. but if my actions do not affect anyone else around me, then I am ok to do it. can be used to define morality as well, i guess.