With subjective morality, What does good, bad, right, wrong, true, lie, even mean?



By definition, whatever you want. Stupid question.


"Feelings" is more of a subjective word than morality. Morality could almost universally be called do unto other as you do onto yourself.


Please reference a dictionary. Stop posting ignorant questions.


If morality is subjective, there is no such thing as morality, and laws, courts, jails, police, etc., should not exist, and we could go so far as to kill people, and it's fine. There is no such thing as truth, and therefore, it's not possible to lie. If nothing is right, we can't do wrong. If good is subjective, bad is subjective. Good, bad, right, wrong, true, lie, all of that would mean nothing. If morality were subjective. Good thing morality is objective, because I do not want to see people be able to kill, and get away with it.

All hat

Nothing - that's the whole point and attraction of that load of crap.


It means a lot when you take into consideration the way God feels about good, bad, right, wrong and because he provided the perfect moral guide for humans to follow. Psalm 119:105 - "Your word is a lamp to my foot, And a light for my path."




When subjectivity/relativism become the model for decision-making and ethics no concept will have any fixed meaning; morality/ethics, and epistemology become meaningless labels. OK - it is not quite this extreme and I believe EVERY human being has an internal, probably inborn and hard-wired, sense of right and wrong but American academia is busy trying to pretend this is simply not so and that anyone that harbors such notions is just plain stupid (but, IMO, it is THEY that are behaving stupidly).


Morality is cultural, not universal. What's acceptable in one society, even today, like executing people for homosexuality, and viewed as morally just by that culture is viewed with abhorrently by others. In the same sense, as time goes on we'll find ourselves on the wrong side of history as everyone before us has. Morality evolves in a vacuum of space taking new cultural forms but never finding perfection as cultural perfections are an enigma given freedom of thought.

Mircea The Young

Good and bad are the things that make your life better, or worse. Right or wrong are the things you are willing to accept, or not. Truth and a lie are not subjective, though both can be used for both good and bad, right or wrong.


Most times I have seen it the individual just wants to get out of it alive. Doesn't care if it is without a limb or something. That individual just wants to live. Is that good enough for subjective morality?


is an acknowledgement of limited perception it means that even if there is an objective morality we can only view it through our subjective prison bars of self


I can rape steal or murder because that is my opinion


The truth is the truth and opposite of that is a lie.A lie can never be the truth. Human beings are subjective , however truth is not.

sparrow: Subjectively, it means

Subjectively, it means: good for THEM, bad for THEM, right to THEM, etc. It's looking at the world from only that person's point of view.


I guess you don't know. They all mean exactly what you think they mean, and they all mean exactly what I think they mean, and the two need not be the same. What is your understanding of the difference between subjective and objective? Do you think good, bad, right, wrong, true, and lie are objects that exist outside of minds, or concepts that exist inside minds?


Our sense of right and wrong is innately human, beyond which we know no right and wrong good or bad. This essentially innately human sense is the basis of our morality – morality really is observance and codification of the sense of right and wrong that is fundamental to our nature. Our concept of morality is essentially human, and therefore, completely subjective to our human nature. Just imagine what would it be if we had to live by some moral code completely independent of our human nature, and so completely ‘objective’, i.e. what if we were expected to live like angels. Morality, therefore, is essentially human, that it is centred on human life, and it is only for human life, a construct of the mind tailored to adorn human nature and direct human behaviour. Since our sense of morality is born out of our human nature that is common to all people, then it is only in this sense that morality, i.e. our sense of right and wrong, is objective. That, no individual person can have their way defining morality to live by, but to live by the common and shared principles of a behaviour universal among all human beings. Morality there is subjectively objective, i.e. it is subjective to human nature, but then, no individual person or a group of people can modify it, therefore it is objective. All social laws and practices and procedure for the care and governance of public affairs are of the same origin and nature. Laws, for instance, are specifically formulated to regulate the working of a society, where they can vary from society to society form people to people, but for each respective society, they are objectively implemented. The entire human race is just one such society, besides which there is none other.


Morality is objective when applied to law.

Punkin eater

It means if you purposefully harm other people you are not moral. It's not a semantics problem with the word subjective vs objective. It's always subjective, even if you think you got it from a really great book written by a god dude


For the slow among us by definition these things are individually determined sub·jec·tive /səbˈjektiv/ adjective 1. based entirely upon or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. An example Jhn 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Freethinking Liberal

Morality IS NOT subjective, nor is it objective. They are emotive labels to produce a stupid argument. As I and several others have pointed out, morality is the rules (written and unwritten) which help a society, or other groups, to function. It changes to enable a society or group to cope with new situation. The attempt to make out that morality is 'objective' fails just by understanding history. All religions (yes all) re-interpret their own rules to fit their needs at the time. Now, it is so that it is popular for some of religion to say that all the others have it wrong. Those groups (and there are some in every religion) will cit their book. However, their book is often just a bunch of stories which have been lumped together. The Bible is an obvious case, however, all of the 'Holy' books are more or less the same. The Bible is so full of contradictions when it comes to morality as to support (and it has) nearly any action. The Bible people cit the ten commandments. To anyone, bar Christians, the first four commandments are pointless. The other six are actually encompassed in most religions in one way or another. It is so that all of the religions are really happy to support (usually by nit-picking the meanings) what would normally be considered immoral. Thus, they cannot be used as 'objective'. Take killing. It would seem that all religions are very anti it. Yet every religion has supported killing, even promoted it. Just look at WW1. Most incumbents were Christian, yet all sides had priests, vicars, etc. blessed the troops before going into battle... even telling them they were doing 'God's work'. NB: Only one TD, how disappointing... still, may be Christians are beginning to come to reality... may be not...


Morality is man-made and opinion based. It is based on the culture that one grows up in. That is why the bible should not be our basis for morality or any religious book. They were all written for a certain time period for people with certain beliefs.


it's hard to know if it's subjective. you must have empathy, to view it from another's perspective.


God doesn't watch each and every human being at the same time and cannot live with each and everyone to guide them. These works are done by the spirits. God had created different kinds of spirits for various purposes. He had made the spirits to watch, guide and determine the destiny of the human beings from their daily activities, talks and thoughts too. Your past determines your present and your present determines your future. God has given freewill to all creatures including human beings. According to this, all human beings have all right to live a life as they wish. But if it happens to be bad and hurts someone, they have to face the consequences. These consequences are created by spirits. It's a natural system. After death no one lives in any form. Heaven and hell are only for spirits, not for human beings. Spirits are separate elements. A human being is not a single spirit. A human being doesn't have a spiritual body. A human being during his/her lifetime is living with many spirits which have joined one by one since birth. They are knowledge, intelligence, skills, feelings, emotions, interests and everything. Even thoughts are not your own. For example, when you want to take a decision on a subject, one after another the spirits think and you just listen, choose or reject the ideas which they transmit to your mind through your brain in the form of thoughts. Brain is just a media to connect the spirits to your mind. A mind is just a computer's mind. After the destruction of a computer completely you will not get it's mind. The same is the case with the human beings. Soul is nothing but an energy needed for the functionality of a body. It is not a spirit or anything else. All human beings are just robots made of flesh and bones and toys of the spirits for their games.


Correct. Which is why Jesus Christ founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church the fullness of God's truth until the end of time. He knew we needed an objective and infallible source of truth.


It means people sin differently, and without a lawgiver, it would be anarchy, and tyranny , with a lawgiver, there is a United law and equitable justice