RE: Morality: Only Subjective Or Objective?
"Objectivity" is impossible, it is an absolute. Or more precisely, it is a limit which like lightspeed costs more energy the closer you try to get.
Morality is really about understanding the laws of cause and effect within human society. Utility is the only metric of effectiveness and even in this, the subjective utility can obscure the general utility, which may mean that a subjective view from some perspective is accepted though more information would reveal the better utility comes from a broader perspective.
Ultimately all life feeds other life. What may seem wrong from one perspective is necessary in another. Better understanding brings us the ability to make judgements about morality that yield better outcomes for more people.
Murder is said to be immoral, but why is that? What reason supports the concept of private property versus no property?
I say the answer is simply that what is moral has the greatest general benefits to all involved. Utility, results. It takes a long time and struggle as some people benefit from persuading people to adopt morals that in fact destroy, and produce bad results, impoverishing all, this makes it harder for the right prescription to be discovered.
I firmly agree simply because we cannot be 'objective'. We are a part of the human experiment and so all that we sense, determine, believe, observe, is the result of our individual and shared perceptions. Granted, there may be an 'objective' reality and even an 'objective' morality but we can never fully determine that to be the case since we cannot step outside of our perception, as persons or as people.
However, I added to this thought, as can be seen above, in which I came upon the idea that there could be an 'objective' morality if we consider morality to be a question of 'harmful vs. non-harmful'. That which is harmful is immoral. That which is non-harmful(or beneficial) is moral.
If we place this standard then we now have an method to 'weigh' the morality of actions 'objectively'.
If the action is necessarily harmful to unconsenting persons, it can be seen as 'objectively' immoral regardless of the relative 'morality' perceived by the actor. If it is not necessarily harmful(even if it may be perceived as 'harmful' but without any evidence to that perception), then it is not objectively immoral and is subject to the perceptions of those judging it one way or another.
Subjectivity makes such criteria dangerous because of their absoluteness. The right way is based on the simple ruleset that establishes property rights and then you inspect the evidence to determine who violated who.
This is why most rules are wrong, also, because they start from elastic definitions that can render the opposite of justice. Needing rules is the least reason for government. Most simply legitimise what would otherwise be considered wrong.
To me, moral means to respect legitimate claims and make those who violate make reasonable efforts to return what is taken.
Again, I agree. However, this is still the realm of perception and not a matter of objective reality.
You can believe that your legitimate claims should be respected, but I have no reason to accept that other than because I choose to accept that. Perhaps I see my claim over what you have claimed as legitimate and I believe it supercedes your claim. How then do we resolve this? We both believe we are morally claiming something and that the other is immorally claiming what is ours.
Our belief in the morality of our claims is, honestly, irrelevant. Either we will appeal to a person or persons to mediate the dispute or we will engage in some sort of conflict in which one of us eventually cedes or becomes unable to continue to make our claim.
But does this make the 'victor' more moral than the other? If you manage to get our mediators to side with you, does that mean you're claim was moral? If I manage to make you cede claims or injure or kill you to end your claim, does that make my claim moral?
Not at all.
At the end of the day, it's about the result. Moral or not, the result is the result. And it can be contested in the future. But for the present, it changes nothing and that will still be true even if it is contested in the future.
Essentially, I think that every person should try to develop a sense of morality that is most beneficial for them and least harmful for others and I think that is the best way to determine morality but, at the end of the day, it's a non-point. Morality aside, what results from conflict and non-conflict is completely independent of morality, ethics, principles, legitimacy, or even 'rights' and freedom.
So, yes, that morals may be relative is a dangerous notion, but does that make it any less true? Freedom is a dangerous notion... If anything, it seems the more true something is, the more risk there is in believing and adhering to it. But that's just my opinion? lol