The Fighting Fundamental Forums

I would like to challenge the notion that all morality is objective.  To the contrary, morality is in actuality subjective.  Morality is, therefore, relative.  I am game for any argument to the contrary.

I support my notion with the very definition of morality itself.  I have perused several definitions, and they can all be summed as this: morality is a set of principals that dictate one's behavior.  That word principals caught my eye.  principals are like laws -- they are established by decree.  That makes them subjective.  Not all peoples share the same moral code.  What might be considered moral in one society is considered immoral in another.  There is no absolute morality.  For instance, in Pakistan the use of contraceptives is seen as highly immoral.  In Germany the use of contraceptives is considered highly moral.

Even in the United States, morality is established, in some cases, by state statute and varies from state to state.  For instance, in the state of Alabama it is wrong for an adult person to have unmarried sex with another person below age 16.  In California the age of consent is 18.  Just a few years ago in the State of South Carolina it was considered okay for an adult to engage in unmarried sex with someone as young as 15!

Whatever the case, a set of moral values is no good if not practiced.  There are those who object to an atheist decrying the immoral behavior of a theist.  "What is you moral code?" is a question I have seen asked of the atheist who would dare do such a thing.  Leave it to the atheist to be the one to do the right thing, I say.

What say you?

You are defining morality as subjective based on your observation of how different people define morality.  In other words, you are looking at it through the lens of people, who are imperfect and do not reflect absolutes.  That is always going to be an inaccurate way to measure morality. 

It's like the old saying about an 8 ounce glass being half empty or half full.  The way people see it is relative.  But the truth behind it is an absolute.  The glass has 4 ounces of water in it.  That is the absolute.

Practically speaking... its really never an either or issue. In practice, its always a blend of both. A person's morality contains a blend of both objective and subjective principles. 

I complete agree with Rogue that we must see the absolutes for what they are. 

Yes. Atheists have a moral code just like anyone else. Yet, Atheists are easily influenced by external sources like every human being. 

To understand the practice of human morality, we must embrace our common nature. 

Any law can set forth arbitrary absolutes. Take the "Law of God" set forth in the Bible,

Lev 19:27  Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 

This presents a rather clear absolute. However, the law is clearly based on circumstances. Circumstances that may change. If the Gentiles of the time would have stopped cutting their hair and beards in that manner, then the law should change. 

This is much the same argument that the writer of Hebrews witnessed in Hebrews 7

Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 

Ultimately, things change. Even when they change, they often remain mostly the same. Human Morality is both objective and subjective. We have to look outside ourselves to fully embrace "pure morality".