FPQ # 3

Another provocative question from Fandango!

FPQ #3

“Is morality objective or is it subjective? If you believe it’s objective, what is its source. If you believe it’s subjective, how do you know whose concept of morality is correct?

Morality, by definition has to be objective, though in some cases it can be subjective at a cultural level.

The basic definition of morality is that it is a system of distinguishing between right and wrong. Any action which is right has to be right on the absolute principles. A wrong has to be wrong as considered by all people. If something is right for me, it cannot be wrong for another and vise versa. There is an inbuilt moral compass in all the human beings which tell right apart from wrong. A small child knows when it has done something wrong and would try to hide it. Our compass gets corrupted as we grow into adults in a society when moral values are askew due to our own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. So as far as absolutes are concerned, morality is objective.

However there are different cultural values in different societies concerning, the social aspects. These differ from one culture to another. It would include modes of behavior which are acceptable in a culture but frowned upon in another. For example the social norms that are prevalent in western societies are different then those in some eastern cultures. So what is acceptable  for the people from one culture can be unacceptable for those from other societies.

The judge of behavior always has to be one’s own self. But based on what the inner compass is indicating.

That is my take on morality. Your’s may be different, so take up this FPQ and share your views.

Written for:

FPQ # 3




33 thoughts on “FPQ # 3

  1. Interesting. Would you say that taking the life of another human being is objectively wrong and objectively immoral? I would, and yet if taking another human life is objectively wrong, why have governments and religions taken the lives of other human beings throughout recorded human history? If someone was attempting to kill you, but you, in order to save yourself, killed that person, would what you did be objectively immoral or would it be subject to a subjective assessment of morality based upon the circumstances? I’m not trying to give you a hard time; I’m just curious about your statement that morality, by definition, must be objective.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Killing another human being is wrong. And we have laws for describing that as a crime. The punishment for that is meted out according to the law. Sometimes it is necessary to draw a boundary line to prevent people from committing this grievous wrong. People are against the death penalty but it’s a punishment to deter people from the crime. I hope I am making sense. I hadn’t thought about the death penalty when I wrote my answer.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have a opinion on this but it’s going to be a long post if I go into details. I think that the law sanctioned penalties are a different subject from the morality of a society.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t care one way or the other about daylight saving time or standard time. My suggestion: choose one or the other and stick with it all year long. This spring up/fall back crap twice each year needs to stop.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Indeed, what is right for one culture maybe not be so for another . But some principles are the same for everyone all over. We shouldn’t confuse morality with sexual values.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s