# Is morality Relative or Objective? (with poll)



## fulgoreakuma (Sep 1, 2014)

I am currently doing my own study of differences in Gender. I am trying to see if there is a difference in how each gender perceives reality. Does one gender see morality as relative while the other see's it as objective with a universal morality existing that isn't based on culture?

I am testing all 4 personality groups. My expectation with you NT's is that you may be split 50/50, because our high intuition might make us a little disconnected from reality possibly? I as an INTJ however I have always believed morality and truth were objective realities to be sought after, in the same vain as science is not relative from person to person.

You can also discuss your own understanding and reasons for believing one or the other, I would love some extra input


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

@fulgoreakuma

I know I may be wrong here but bear with me.

* *




Wouldn't the term subjective fit better(since it relates better with the subject of morality, due to whether or not it is subjective or objective tends to be a more commonly asked question, and makes more sense since objectivity and subjectivity are antonyms of one another, meanwhile relative does not relate to objectivity in any kind of way) ?

Objective


> (of a person or their judgment) *not influenced by personal feelings or opinions* in considering and representing facts.
> "historians try to be objective and impartial"
> 
> synonyms:impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
> ...


Relative:


> considered in *relation or in proportion to something else*.
> "the relative effectiveness of the various mechanisms is not known"
> 
> synonyms:comparative, respective, comparable, correlative, parallel, corresponding"the relative importance of each factor"


Subjective


> based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
> "his views are highly subjective"
> 
> synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive"a subjective analysis"
> ...


----------



## fulgoreakuma (Sep 1, 2014)

Cal said:


> @fulgoreakuma
> 
> I know I may be wrong here but bear with me.
> 
> ...


Yes I think that is a much better term. Subjective should be used rather than relative.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Define "morality." This question makes no sense to me because morality seems subjective nearly by definition—it's defined as something to do with what is "right," people obviously maintain different ideas about what is "right," and there is no source of ideas about "rightness" outside of what people think. 

So unless you are asking us whether we believe in some mystical source of rightness that exists outside of the human mind, I don't see how anyone could opine that morality is objective without contradicting the fact of moral plurality.

And are you using "gender" as a synonym for biological sex? I never know what people mean by that word these days.


----------



## intjonn (Apr 20, 2013)

fulgoreakuma said:


> I am currently doing my own study of differences in Gender. I am trying to see if there is a difference in how each gender perceives reality. Does one gender see morality as relative while the other see's it as objective with a universal morality existing that isn't based on culture?
> 
> I am testing all 4 personality groups. *My expectation* with you NT's is that you may be split 50/50, because our high intuition might make us a little disconnected from reality possibly? I as an INTJ however I have always believed morality and truth were objective realities to be sought after, in the same vain as science is not relative from person to person.
> 
> You can also discuss your own understanding and reasons for believing one or the other, I would love some extra input


*<<<<<<-----------------take it frum a koon!*
You're trying to conduct some kind of 'study' to determine an outcome / discovery yet you've begun said 'study' already with an expectant and hence prejudicial/biased outcome? Not very 'scientific' on your part but giving ammo to some of both Hume's & Nietzsche's arguements regarding the problems of so called 'objective' experiments. Haha! Go back and start over but first Maybe you should study Popper's ideas on 'Empirical Falsification'............ fuckin youngins


----------



## Mephi (Jun 10, 2015)

Going to play devil's advocate for a bit for the fun of it....I honestly have no idea what i think about this yet. Still studying the daylights out of it. Usually this isnt my realm of knowledge so bare with me....

Wouldn't subjective and relativism be basically the same argument. It's individual relativism vs cultural relativism at this point, which are basically both saying that it's based on a person or a group of people(their leaders?) opinions leaving morality to be one dimensional based solely on moral principles/beliefs. They both suffer from a similar issue. Why would cultures or individuals evolve if everything can be considered moral? We couldnt ever say cultures or practices have improved because everything is moving laterally if it's all based on only beliefs. There might be ways that there are objective truths for 'proper conduct' despite what the culture believes at the time. Example, the resurgence of the earth is flat belief. Someone(or a group of people) can believe something but it doesnt make it reality. Couldn't this be the case with some morals--maybe sometimes cultures are mistaken? Aka...Nazis? Also couldnt we test this in a similar way as proving that universal emotions exist by seeing if maybe different cultures evolve in similar ways over time? Or maybe there could be exceptions to certain practices that make things more utilitarian because of harsh environmental conditions?

Just saying maybe there is an objective morality that might be based on practicalism. Like we all need rules for a race because blowing each other up to win wouldn't get us very far as a society. So maybe morality is a bit more complex than relativism gives it credit for?

Edit: I thought of some examples. Back in the day it wasn't a big deal to mate with ones sibling, but nowadays it'd be considered improper conduct or morally wrong. Perhaps because of the discovery that it was increasing the likelihood of genetic defects. Or cannibalism becoming morally wrong...which is practical, not only because of disease, but also it's probably not best for a species to eat its own kin. Wouldn't practical reasons be objective?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

There is (no 5th) option, as they are not _mutually exclusive_.


----------



## Mephi (Jun 10, 2015)

intjonn said:


> *<<<<<<-----------------take it frum a koon!*
> You're trying to conduct some kind of 'study' to determine an outcome / discovery yet you've begun said 'study' already with an expectant and hence prejudicial/biased outcome? Not very 'scientific' on your part but giving ammo to some of both Hume's & Nietzsche's arguements regarding the problems of so called 'objective' experiments. Haha! Go back and start over but first Maybe you should study Popper's ideas on 'Empirical Falsification'............ fuckin youngins


Don't a lot of studies start with a hypothesis and then test to see if it's true or not?


----------



## Chatshire (Oct 12, 2017)

Gonna assume you mean subjective not relative.

I think at its core, morality is objective, yet the values which it espouses are subjective to the individual. 

Humanity has an inherent sense of right and wrong. We’re conditioned to reject behaviour that may endanger our independent or communal wellbeing. This is because whilst our most innate instinct is to ensure personal survival, humans are also a social species. Hence, if something is overtly unethical, we’re likely to recognise it through instinctual reaction. 

Morality becomes subjective when considering personal values i.e. what we independently believe is right or wrong. However, humans are a social species so we’re inclined to express and exercise these values through our ‘public image’. Therefore, subjective principles become permeated throughout society to the point where they’re solidified within our conscience. This forms a flexible system of morality that may fluctuate alongside a shifting social atmosphere.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

If you are re-defining or operationalizing morality differently than it is currently defined/operationalized, then perhaps (and as others have pointed out, substituting subjective for relative in the threat title), then perhaps you have a question. However, this question in itself would be totally theoretical. 

For example, I feel like you are using "morality" as an all-encompassing term to describe _right and wrong_ in societies, and aspiring towards a sort of moral absolutism to back up your claim. This ignores the role of ethics in the conversation, for indeed _ethics_ and _morality_ are two related but distinct concepts. I'm not going to link back to it, but interestingly this concept came up in a different thread recently.

Ethics are generally accepted to be the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting (external), whereas morality is something that’s personal and normative. Put another way, morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong (internal). I would posit at this point that neither are "objective" however - you only have to note the previous examples given in this thread (incest, cannibalism) which were considered ethical in some cultures but not other contemporary ones to see the relative nature of the concept. 

If what you are trying to get at is whether, dependent upon sex, certain people are more or less likely to flout culturally endorsed ethical principles in favor of personal moral codes when they clash (e.g. the law says one thing but you disagree so do another thing, your professional code dictates one thing but you view it as immoral so you practice a different way) - well, that is in my opinion an interesting question. I don't think that is what you are asking, but I do think it is a more compelling question.


----------



## intjonn (Apr 20, 2013)

Mephistophelesx said:


> Don't a lot of studies start with a hypothesis and then test to see if it's true or not?





*<<<<<-------------take it frum a koon!*

You seem like a smart girl so I'll assume, being an independent female NT & all that you'ld like to find out for yourself and so you can somehow research what the definition of 'Hypothesis' is......
Then I'll also assume you can also research what the defininton of 'Expectation' is and compare those as to whether they are synonymous. that shouldn't be tooooo difficult of an experiment for you.
Oh and try to accomplish advised 'research' without a preconceived hypothetical expectation! Enjoy!
(and you don't have to report back to me with your findings either - its for your own personal use - sorta like being a moral masturbator):laughing:

oh oh naughty of me; I've assumed you know what 'synonymous ' means - in case you don't you might want to add that to your 'research' list. Ciao..........intjonny koon luzsha bay bee!


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Just like the difference between the values of Fi and Fe, it's subjective.


----------



## ENTP_Guy (Nov 5, 2013)

Interesting that currently, more men consider morality objective. I consider morality relative as you only have to look at what different sociaties consider wrong and taboo to see that.


----------



## Warp11 (Jul 13, 2016)

Morality is subjective (it can also be relative, but I don't think that's what you meant). Personally, moral considerations almost never come into play when making a decision on how to act (okay, some times they do). Instead, I look at how the actions will affect the outcome of a desired goal, and whether that outcome is positive or negative vis-a-vis related future goals. _That_ will tell me "right or wrong."

For example...
You get stuck in the middle of the woods in winter without any supplies to keep you alive. You walk for a day searching for food and shelter. You then come upon a cabin in the woods and when you look through the window you see there is food and a bed inside. You go to open the door but it is locked. Someone obviously doesn't want their stuff taken or used but you are going to be near death if you don't change your situation soon. Conventional morality teaches us that breaking into people's homes and stealing from them is immoral, but you don't really have a choice, do you? So you break in through the window, eat, sleep and survive for another night. The cabin owner comes back in the morning and sees what you've done and wants to kill you. You try to explain, "hey bud, I just needed some food and shelter, and I didn't know if anyone was coming back here. I'll make it up to you somehow, sorry. Please understand" but it's not enough and he goes in for the kill. You manage to defend yourself and kill him instead because you would otherwise be killed. At first you feel awful about it, but then realize that life is often about making tough decisions and dying to preserve morality can be kind of an impractical thing to do.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

It's remarkable that the term relative is more accurate than subjective when it comes to morality, although the term objective (as opposed to relative) might not be the best choice here.
Indeed, relativism opens up for social constructivism, whereas if by subjective we mean that morality is determined by the subject, then it doesn't take into account social constructivism. Thus the distinction proposed by some users (subjective in place of relative) is a worse alternative than relative.

Besides defining morality as subjective is also problematic: our sense of morality stands regardless of our coscience or inclination.


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

@Silastar I dunno, I would have to disagree. If you are talking about social constructionism, it seems like vis-a-vis morality, that is more an argument towards the objective end of the spectrum (vs. subjective). I think it would still hold as a subjective vs objective dichotomy (vs substituting "relative"), however you would have to note that the idea of social constructionism generally encompasses morality, law and ethics, making it seem inherently like morality is objective, but only within that sphere. 

However, I would then posit that cultural relativism means that morality and even ethics leads to a more subjective nature of morality (and even possibly ethics), but certainly the former. It would lead me to feel that the entire concept is relative, and the question at hand - objective or subjective within that realm.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

@Senah Yes, I think your observation is right and you raise an excellent point in regards to social constructivism as more 'objective' than subjective. However while we can argue that social constructivism is more objective than subjective, it is still a relativistic position (if we go by something such as: moral constructivism is the theory holding that moral values are defined by the society in which people live in; not the individuals nor an eternal truth) and its understanding, given the theory is true, depends on the culture we live in; thus its not entirely objective either, but more like inbetween subjective and objective. 

I'm not sure I understand the second part. You claim that cultural relativism should lead to a more subjective view of morality. This however contradicts what said above: that social constructivism is more objective than subjective, and it is still a relativistic position. Relativism doesn't lead to subjectivism in other words. If anything, the latter includes the former, not vice-versa.
I fail to share your feelings where you say that cultural relativism would make you feel that the entire concept (of morality?) is relative. If we assume that traditions and cultures are relative, it doesn't follow that morality is relative too, as moral constructivism might not be true. It seems even less likely that the concept of morality as a whole is relative, whereas all cultures have a similar understanding of the concept.


----------



## LetMeThinkAboutIt (Dec 15, 2017)

Morality is subjective-relative. Things, actions or whatever else, are not intrinsically good or bad. Morality is a human invention, and therefore is mind-dependent.


----------



## NiceGuyDeclan (Dec 4, 2017)

I can't vote because the poll is closed, but morality is a relative.


----------



## Mephi (Jun 10, 2015)

What about Naturalist Observation theory? Things we should or should not do, or ought or ought not do, is based off of what we were designed or evolved to do. Basically we should do things according to its functions and doing things outside of these functions are wrong/immoral/should nots. A basic example of this would be chewing on metal and breaking a tooth is an ought not. It went against the function of what our teeth should be able to do. To expand this, humans are a social species, they have brain wiring and biological impulses to act in a way that is social. So anti social behavior, like iono murder of ones' own crew and etc are immoral and should nots. This would give morality some objectivity.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Subjectiveness is a symptom of misunderstanding. Morality is only one, the flaws are infinite.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

I like the term relative, because that's what I believe. There is no inherent morality, there are only choices, actions and consequences. How you define the outcome is _subjective_, but each situation is relative to the next.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

this question would be a lot easier for me to answer if it was talking about etiquette instead of morality. I do believe that etiquette is very subjective even though our brain wiring makes it extremely tempting to believe that it is objective.

morality - I do see some subjectivity there too although it's more like different order of priorities instead of totally different priorities. abortion for example. Morally OK to some and morally not OK to others. everyone on both sides of that fence thinks that killing people is generally a bad thing, and forcing someone to use their body as a life support for another human being against their will is also generally a bad thing. It's just some people thing killing the unborn baby is worse than forcing the woman to use her body as a life support system against her will. And others think that forcing the woman to use her body as a life support system against her will is worse than killing the unborn baby. different order of priorities but not completely different priorities.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

cuddle bun said:


> this question would be a lot easier for me to answer if it was talking about etiquette instead of morality. I do believe that etiquette is very subjective even though our brain wiring makes it extremely tempting to believe that it is objective.


My understanding is that a belief in objective etiquette has to do with using Fe. Hence why, as we discussed in another thread, Fe-egos tend to see not using Fe in itself as an offensive act; for them it is a violation of the objective rules of etiquette.


----------



## Maybe (Sep 10, 2016)

Subjective, different cultures have different interpretations of morals.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

PiT said:


> My understanding is that a belief in objective etiquette has to do with using Fe. Hence why, as we discussed in another thread, Fe-egos tend to see not using Fe in itself as an offensive act; for them it is a violation of the objective rules of etiquette.


I definitely do see Fe people believing that Fe etiquette is objective or universal...I do believe they are mistaken in that assumption...
however I also see my own brain making the same mistaken assumption too (Fi has its own set of etiquette rules, and I'm definitely guilty of thinking that Fi etiquette should be more obvious to Fe people ...respecting the individuality of human emotion ... not requiring emotions to match a group standard... this is strongly reinforced when I find multiple other Fi people who agree with me instantly like "yeah he was definitely a jerk, some people just have no manners!!")

so lately I see Fe and Fi as two separate but equal etiquette systems....I read somewhere approximately 52% of the population is Fi and 48% is Fe. So, not exactly equal but equal enough.

or at least I see it them like equal when my brain wiring isn't forcing me to see it like "that Fe person is a rude jerk, some people just have no manners!!" - which I do pretty often because brains are brains, unfortunately. lol


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

cuddle bun said:


> I definitely do see Fe people believing that Fe etiquette is objective or universal...I do believe they are mistaken in that assumption...
> however I also see my own brain making the same mistaken assumption too (Fi has its own set of etiquette rules, and I'm definitely guilty of thinking that Fi etiquette should be more obvious to Fe people ...respecting the individuality of human emotion ... not requiring emotions to match a group standard... this is strongly reinforced when I find multiple other Fi people who agree with me instantly like "yeah he was definitely a jerk, some people just have no manners!!")
> 
> so lately I see Fe and Fi as two separate but equal etiquette systems....I read somewhere approximately 52% of the population is Fi and 48% is Fe. So, not exactly equal but equal enough.
> ...


It is often difficult to create proper separation between your own preferences and those of other people. I used to just operate under the assumption that my preferences were rationally based. I would run into problems then when people questioned me on them and I realized that some decision of mine had strictly to do with what I personally wanted. When I later learned about cognitive functions I realized that this was a struggle between Te and Fi, and I had mistakenly categorized both tendencies as something closer to Te and blamed myself for personal failings when Fi inevitably failed at being Te.

Based on that, it makes perfect sense why Fi-users will sometimes act as if their rules of etiquette are fundamental. Nevertheless, I do believe it holds that Fi-users are more likely to reject the idea that etiquette and manners are objective.


----------



## cuddle bun (Jun 2, 2017)

PiT said:


> It is often difficult to create proper separation between your own preferences and those of other people. I used to just operate under the assumption that my preferences were rationally based. I would run into problems then when people questioned me on them and I realized that some decision of mine had strictly to do with what I personally wanted. When I later learned about cognitive functions I realized that this was a struggle between Te and Fi, and I had mistakenly categorized both tendencies as something closer to Te and blamed myself for personal failings when Fi inevitably failed at being Te.
> 
> Based on that, it makes perfect sense why Fi-users will sometimes act as if their rules of etiquette are fundamental. *Nevertheless, I do believe it holds that Fi-users are more likely to reject the idea that etiquette and manners are objective*.


anecdotally, my experience matches the bold part, I guess I didn't try to generalize yet because I know so few people and I was hoping to stay hopeful. 
but yeah, I only know a very small handful of people who see Fi and Fe as two "different but equal etiquette systems" ... and all of them are Fi people  I do see lots of Fe people think their etiquette rules should be obvious to everyone, and lots of Fi people think their etiquette rules should be obvious to everyone ... not many who see the equality on both sides there but the small number I know who do see it are all Fi (so far)


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

I believe very few people/ pretty much no one would argue that the social etiquette is not tied to a tradition / education. 

This also makes it so that it's not determined individually but socially instead, which means it can't be entirely subjective as it has meaning only in a given social reality. Sure, our personality could be selective of a few traits but ultimately it has to select them from established collective standards. So I'd say etiquette is relative, but not subjective.


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)

It might have been more informative to break it down not just by gender, but by Fi vs Fe, like this:

Potential Choices:

I'm a male (ENTP, INTP, ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ, INFJ, ESFJ, or ISFJ), and I think morality is subjective.
I'm a male (ENTP, INTP, ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ, INFJ, ESFJ, or ISFJ), and I think morality is objective.

I'm a male (ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP, ESFP, or ISFP), and I think morality is subjective.
I'm a male (ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP, ESFP, or ISFP), and I think morality is objective.

I'm a female (ENTP, INTP, ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ, INFJ, ESFJ, or ISFJ), and I think morality is subjective.
I'm a female (ENTP, INTP, ESTP, ISTP, ENFJ, INFJ, ESFJ, or ISFJ), and I think morality is objective.

I'm a female (ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP, ESFP, or ISFP), and I think morality is subjective.
I'm a female (ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ, ENFP, INFP, ESFP, or ISFP), and I think morality is objective.


----------



## Dustanddawnzone (Jul 13, 2014)

Morality is subjective but with work people can agree to objective principles by which assert what is moral. Also, male here.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Dustanddawnzone said:


> Morality is subjective but with work people can agree to objective principles by which assert what is moral. Also, male here.


Thanks for this. Although I don't agree that all is subjective, it helped me realize that when people come to a compromise they're attempting to come to an objective and unified truth...

And why does compromise always have to indicate meeting in the middle? Why not sometimes one moving in one thing, and the other moving in another thing? Sometimes compromise can be one-sided without intrinsically equating to unfairness.

It's all so much simpler when the objective / unified standard is pre-established prior to the relationship...


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

If you want to be accurate, then subjective. If you want to be pragmatic, then objective. So, both?


----------



## Tabris (May 6, 2017)

It's too bad the poll is already closed ... I think that morality is obviously subjective ("relative").


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

In my opinion, you need a large sample if you're going to be able to draw any conclusions of such issue related to gender.

I think there's both a subjective and objective reality. The subjective one is what I (or you) personally believe to be true. The objective reality is what actually is true. Our subjective reality doesn't always sync with the objective reality, and it's far from easy to know what the objective truth is - this may even be something we spend our lifetimes trying to discover.

Example: I might subjectively believe that the earth is flat. That's my subjective truth. Yet, the world is _de facto_ round. Not an easy objective truth for people in medieval times to believe in...

With that said, yes, I believe there is an objective truth and likewise an objective right/wrong. How truth and morality (right/wrong) relate is a bit too big of a topic to dig into here. But in short, a quick study of world religions (which kind of 'ish have similar moral values) shows this, or the fact that peoples general 'feelings' of what right and wrong is tend to be similar across cultures (its 'wrong' to kill, its 'wrong' to lie, its 'right' to help other people, etc...)


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

RGB said:


> Thanks for this. Although I don't agree that all is subjective, it helped me realize that when people come to a compromise they're attempting to come to an objective and unified truth...


Not true. Compromise doesn't necessarily have anything to do with truth.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

x


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

x


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

My morality is objective as I have explore any possible permutations from all possible sides.

But on society I am simply forced to implement it subjectively.

And it is my life objective to make it objective.

:smugface:


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Found an old thread where the conclusion: there's so much thing to do for you, @series0 . Tough.


----------

