Morality is subjective. Yes or no.

morality is a construct of your mind, just like everything else, so yes

>>1183949
si

>>1183975
This.

>>1183949
No

>>1183949
Sure why not

Depends who you ask.

>>1183949
objectively speaking, yes

Yes or no, the answer is subjective here.

Morality is subjective

Mores is objective

No room for debate here, it's been desided long ago and is a part of an entry-tier Ethic theory.

File: AREIZOO 100x100.gif (11KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 100x100px

>>1183949

MORALITY IS NEITHER SUBJECTIVE, NOR OBJECTIVE, BUT METAJECTIVE.

MORALITY IN ITSELF IS A CONSTRUCT; IT IS THE RESULT OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S MEDIATION OF ITS OWN AFFECTIVE CONTENT LIKE SENTIMENTS, INTUITIONS, AND AESTHETIC PREDISPOSITIONS, AS THEY ARE CONCRETIZED, ARRANGED, AND SYSTEMATIZED, THUS, OBJECTIFIED, BUT THIS OBJECTIFIED CONDITION IS TRANSITORY, THE MEDIATED CONTENT RETURNING TO IMMEDIACY AS THE INDIVIDUAL INTEGRATES THE CONCRETIZED ETHICOMORAL PRINCIPLES INTO ITS OWN PERSON.

>>1185310
Nope

>>1185366
WHY DO YOU CAPS LOCK ON IT IS MAKING IT HARD FOR ME TO READ YOUR POST BECAUSE I AM UNABLE TO NOT IMAGINE IT BEING SHOUTED BY THAT CREEPY DOLL IN YOUR PIC

>>1185324

But if mores vary from community to community, would that mean that they are subjective?

>>1185366
>>1185372

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlwdwS5-L3c

Societies, in general, are groups of people who operate under a shared philosophy. Part of that philosophy is the description of what is or is not an acceptable way to treat one another.

In some societies it's perfectly fine to treat other people as sub-human based on societal position. In some societies, any trespass is viewed as an infraction.

The main thing is, you can't have a society if everyone is killing each other, so that becomes the most obvious "moral". In most situations, you can't have a society if the "capable" are always stealing from, or otherwise victimizing, "weaker" people, because it leads to people ultimately killing each other.

Morals are therefore a construct of the shared philosophy of a society. This makes them neither subjective nor objective, because when you're defining these words, you're implying there may be some "objective existence" of an idea in the first place. They're more of an ideological tool.

>>1183949
Define morality

Morality itself as an idea may or may not be subjective

Christian morality is only slightly subjective.
Muslim morality is not subjective.
State morality is entirely subjective.
And so on and so forth.

>>1184408
underrated post

>>1183949
It's about as subjective as body language.
Smiling, for example, physically means that you're happy; it has inherent meaning; or rather, meaning has inherent language. Morality, likewise, has inherent language, such as the way we reciprocate feelings. Additionally, like body language, vocabulary can be added; while a smile, for example, is physically natural, a thumbs up is not but an iteration of body expressions formulated by the mind and society.

Morality is about as subjective as a smile and a thumb up, in which case it's half-subjective.

Many individuals with developmental disability think in "concrete" or "black and white" terms. This may particularly apply to those with autism or who are affected by fetal exposure to alcohol. “Black and white” thinkers like rules. They like rules that are always the same way.

They don't handle "gray areas."