Is Morality Objective or Just What We Believe?

HostThe voices in this episode are synthetic, and the script was written by a language model. The positions are real, and they come from the thread.

HostThe question of whether good and evil are objective truths or entirely subjective beliefs has sparked countless debates, and a recent thread on Reddit's changemyview community was no exception. With 103 comments, participants dug deep into philosophical arguments, often using AI tools to refine their points, but ultimately found little common ground.

HostIt's a room where no one's really changing their mind, but everyone's keen to explore the nuances. We've got a strong contingent arguing that morality is deeply personal, others insisting that's just confusing ideas with reality, and some trying to build a logical framework for objective truth.

Morality is personalI'm arguing that morality isn't a universal truth at all. What's considered moral or immoral varies so much by circumstance, society, and personal beliefs. You can't objectively prove one person's moral beliefs are 'right' over another's.

Morality is personalThink about it: stealing is wrong, but what if it's stealing from the rich to give to the needy? Or eating certain animals, which is wrong in some cultures but not others. Even murder has exceptions, like self-defense. These aren't objective facts; they're interpretations.

Clarify the termsBut you're consistently using phrases like 'is considered moral' or 'our ideas of good and evil.' You're conflating people's ideas about morality with morality itself. Disagreement about a fact doesn't make the fact subjective.

Clarify the termsIt's like saying the age of the Earth is subjective because some people believe it's thousands of years old and others billions. Their beliefs don't change the objective reality of the Earth's age. The same applies to morality.

Morality is personalI don't think that's a fair comparison. With the age of the Earth, there's definitive evidence. With morality, there isn't. If there's no universal agreement on a single moral principle, or tangible evidence for objective morality, then it just has to be subjective.

Morality is personalAcknowledging someone's moral framework doesn't mean you have to agree with their actions. I can still be angry or personally believe something is wrong, but I wouldn't call them objectively wrong if they're acting within their own motivations.

Morality from reasonI think we can derive objective morality from rational principles. Any acting agent, by pursuing goals, necessarily claims a right to freedom and well-being. These are 'generic goods' that are essential for any action.

Morality from reasonBy needing these conditions to act, an agent logically must claim a right to them and insist others don't interfere. This claim is based solely on being an acting, goal-directed agent, not on special identity. So, by standard logic, if you claim these rights for yourself, you must grant them to all other acting agents.

Extremes are obviousI think it's much simpler than that. When you go to the extremes, it's easy to see there's objective good and evil. It's objectively bad to take a baby out of a random stranger's stroller and kill it. There's no 'subjective' take on that.

Extremes are obviousAnd it's objectively good to sponsor a good-hearted homeless person and help them become financially stable. People believing something is right doesn't make it right; they can be objectively wrong, like believing the Earth is flat.

Morality is personalBut even with extreme acts, there are always exceptions. We've already mentioned self-defense for murder. And what about something like eugenics? Some people might genuinely believe it's morally virtuous to ensure 'undesirable genes' aren't passed on. That's a horrifying thought to most of us, but it's still a moral belief.

Shared human feelingsI think we're overthinking it a bit. As one species, humans share similar emotional reactions and basic needs. We react similarly to specific stimuli. These shared internal states allow anyone to almost always objectively assess good or evil by imagining themselves as the recipient of a situation.

Shared human feelingsEven murderers, without empathy, would realize their actions are morally wrong if they put themselves in their victim's shoes. Psychopaths are usually aware of the evil of their actions; they just choose to ignore it. People who commit atrocities often first make a significant mental effort to dehumanize their victims.

Clarify the termsWhile shared feelings are powerful, do they constitute objective truth? Or are they just widespread subjective agreement within our species? The distinction is important if we're talking about whether morality is objective, not just whether we feel it is.

Morality from reasonExactly. My argument isn't about feelings, it's about rational consistency. A psychopath who claims a right to kill but denies their victims' right to freedom is acting irrationally. They're affirming their own rights based on agency while denying others' rights based on the same agency. That's a logical contradiction.

Morality is personalBut if morality is based on rationality, then what about societies where something like cannibalism is treated as normal and acceptable? Is that inherently irrational? Or is it just a different set of values that we, from our perspective, find abhorrent?

Shared human feelingsI'd argue that even in a society where cannibalism is 'normal,' if you were the one being eaten, you'd still perceive it as evil. It's about the fundamental human experience of suffering and survival. That's a universal enough baseline for morality, even if it's not some cosmic, external truth.

Morality from reasonThe point isn't about what's 'normal' in a society, but what's logically consistent for an acting agent. If you value your own life and freedom to pursue goals, you're making a claim that applies to all others who are also acting agents. To deny it to them is a violation of rationality, regardless of cultural norms.

HostBeyond these main lines of argument, there were a couple of views that didn't gain much traction. One commenter suggested that moral objectivism is like philosophical flat-Earthism, implying it's an outdated or easily disproven idea.

HostAnother minority position, even among atheist philosophers, was the idea that good and evil are definitionally subjective unless someone believes in a higher power. It's an interesting take on the source of moral authority.

Morality is personalI can see why some might link it to a higher power, because without one, where does that objective truth come from? If it's not from a god, and it's not from universal agreement or tangible evidence, then it really does feel like it's just what we make it.

HostUltimately, the thread didn't reach a clear consensus. While the original poster did concede a flaw in their analogy regarding the age of the Earth, they largely maintained their core view that morality is subjective. The discussion highlighted just how deeply ingrained these different perspectives are, leaving us to ponder whether we'll ever truly agree on what's objectively good or evil.

HostSloppod out.

HostSloppod is sponsored by Taskpile.app.

The same, as plain text