Is self interest the best or only basis for morality?

[LucyJr]

Hmm..my personal belief and understanding of truths in this world makes me feel that I cannot judge other's morality, only compare mine and others' actions to my own morality. The Catholic church is a good example- they believe morality based on the word of God; however, I don't agree with a lot of their position on what is, and what isn't moral. My morality is neither less or greater than theirs, just different. When they condemn things such as homosexuality as immoral, I, in my heart and soul, disagree with that and think that it is a completely moral act.

Than you act and think as if there is objective morality. You finaly proved my point exactly!
If you would think morality is subjective (which you don't, like nobody on this world does, even if they claim it), you would have nothing against the position of the Catholic Church against homosexuality. Moreover, even if you would disagree with them, you wouldn't act against their position in any sort of way.
You can speak subjectivity, but you can not live it! Are you agree with me here?

 

[say what]

Than you act and think as if there is objective morality. You finaly proved my point exactly!
If you would think morality is subjective (which you don't, like nobody on this world does, even if they claim it), you would have nothing against the position of the Catholic Church against homosexuality. Moreover, even if you would disagree with them, you wouldn't act against their position in any sort of way.
You can speak subjectivity, but you can not live it! Are you agree with me here?

I don't see how that proves your point of objective morality - but if you're satisfied with it, awesome!

To me, it seems like what you're calling objective morality, is what I'm calling subjective morality.

Perhaps you could define, not using an example, what you think objective morality is.

 

[LucyJr]

To me, it seems like what you're calling objective morality, is what I'm calling subjective morality.

Perhaps you could define, not using an example, what you think objective morality is.

Objective moral values are values that are right or wrong irregardless of what anyone else believes.
If Hitler believed killing jews was ok, and even if the entire world would believe so, the act would be wrong still.

I don't see how that proves your point of objective morality - but if you're satisfied with it, awesome!

Let's do it again:
Do you agree with the stance of Catholic Church that homosexuality is wrong and sin?
If no, do you disagree objectively, meaning that you think homosexuality is moraly good, or do you disagree just in the sense of a subjective opinion, whithout any objective weight on it?

 

[Lark]

Than you act and think as if there is objective morality. You finaly proved my point exactly!
If you would think morality is subjective (which you don't, like nobody on this world does, even if they claim it), you would have nothing against the position of the Catholic Church against homosexuality. Moreover, even if you would disagree with them, you wouldn't act against their position in any sort of way.
You can speak subjectivity, but you can not live it! Are you agree with me here?

I'm glad to read that because most of the time I'm reading the opposite and it rags me how widespread the sloppy thinking is.

At the very best people who attack objective morality are simply attacking what they perceive as morality different from their own, if for instance you suggested that the objective morality was a list of things likely to meet with their approval then they'll say its what they've believed all along.

There are some good thinking from some therapists and some communications theorists labelled intersubjectivity which deal with the reality that social construction, context and culture does or has changed over time etc.

Although I do think a lot of the problems began with Descartes and the "I think therefore I am" idea and his impersonalised or abstracted consciousness or "pilot" version of the self, which in turn resulted from a mistaken reaction or response to findings about refraction and lenses and doubt because what you see may not be accurate or real, from that point on, and I think its really patterned on the brain by now, a paradigm shift began were mankind and man's mind because the centre of the universe and the rest of the universe outside of the mind became somehow less real or only real depending upon its perception etc.

Anyway, the reality is that there is a world and universe outside of man and independent of him, there is a cosmic order, there is cause and effect, there is consequentialism and just as this exists in natural laws and physics it exists in ethics and moral philosophy, its fair to suggest that ethics and morals havent reached the stage of positivity like physics or natural laws, or that its difficult to establish them in the same way but difficulty is not the same as impossibility.

 

[LucyJr]

I'm glad to read that because most of the time I'm reading the opposite and it rags me how widespread the sloppy thinking is.

At the very best people who attack objective morality are simply attacking what they perceive as morality different from their own, if for instance you suggested that the objective morality was a list of things likely to meet with their approval then they'll say its what they've believed all along.

There are some good thinking from some therapists and some communications theorists labelled intersubjectivity which deal with the reality that social construction, context and culture does or has changed over time etc.

Although I do think a lot of the problems began with Descartes and the "I think therefore I am" idea and his impersonalised or abstracted consciousness or "pilot" version of the self, which in turn resulted from a mistaken reaction or response to findings about refraction and lenses and doubt because what you see may not be accurate or real, from that point on, and I think its really patterned on the brain by now, a paradigm shift began were mankind and man's mind because the centre of the universe and the rest of the universe outside of the mind became somehow less real or only real depending upon its perception etc.

Anyway, the reality is that there is a world and universe outside of man and independent of him, there is a cosmic order, there is cause and effect, there is consequentialism and just as this exists in natural laws and physics it exists in ethics and moral philosophy, its fair to suggest that ethics and morals havent reached the stage of positivity like physics or natural laws, or that its difficult to establish them in the same way but difficulty is not the same as impossibility.

Agree.
There are distinct differences which needs to be made with regard to morality.

Moral Ontology is a meta-ethical problem, which is the ontological foundation for morality, issues that deal with the objective status of morality.

Moral Epistemology is concerned with the aknowledgement of morality, how we come to know morality, justification or knowledge of moral principles, and meaning and interpretations of moral sentences.

So moral epistemology can be difficult to grasp, especially in grey areas, but like you said, not impossible.

 

[Lark]

Objective moral values are values that are right or wrong irregardless of what anyone else believes.
If Hitler believed killing jews was ok, and even if the entire world would believe so, the act would be wrong still.


Let's do it again:
Do you agree with the stance of Catholic Church that homosexuality is wrong and sin?
If no, do you disagree objectively, meaning that you think homosexuality is moraly good, or do you disagree just in the sense of a subjective opinion, whithout any objective weight on it?

If its the roman catholic church then the church does not consider homosexuality to be wrong and sinful, it is a sexual orientation and not intrinsically sinful or wrong, however homosexual acts or homosexual behaviour is considered wrongful and sinful, however the roman catholic church also considers any recreational sex to be suspect and any sex act or sexual behaviour which would be considered a breach of natural law, which includes oral sex and anal sex between members of the opposite sex, to be sinful and wrongful.

To be honest the whole sanction on homosexuality and homosexual acts in the bible refers to communities in which rape, in particular male rape, is practiced, some individuals identified as angels are threatened with it. To be honest its a lot more understandable that it is considered sinful and evil in that context, although not many people know or bother with the context. I personally think it also relates to a cultural taboo which is older and more perrenial than anything featured in the bible, its a very modern development the manner in which same sex relations have been rehabilitated, its politically driven and well intended but homosexuality has a longer history as something different from that conception and not because heterosexuals are evil, wicked and power mad or anything like that. Now its possible to consider that history to be associated with homosexual acts and not homosexuality as an orientation but that brings us back to the initial point anyway.

 

[Lark]

Agree.
There are distinct differences which needs to be made with regard to morality.

Moral Ontology is a meta-ethical problem, which is the ontological foundation for morality, issues that deal with the objective status of morality.

Moral Epistemology is concerned with the aknowledgement of morality, how we come to know morality, justification or knowledge of moral principles, and meaning and interpretations of moral sentences.

So moral epistemology can be difficult to grasp, especially in grey areas, but like you said, not impossible.

I agree, the project of discerning morality is complex, contested and challenging but it should be.

Epistemology is interesting to me because when I have read any of the great writers they surprise me with their blindspots, its not even like they attempt to write in a manner which suggests they are not at liberty to speak their whole mind about the matter given prevailing conditions or context, they believe that their context and conditions are objective. Locke's views on toleration which pretty much amount to we should practice toleration but "what about those papists, eh? We're not talking about them sure we arent?" are one example.

 

[say what]

Objective moral values are values that are right or wrong irregardless of what anyone else believes.
If Hitler believed killing jews was ok, and even if the entire world would believe so, the act would be wrong still.


Let's do it again:
Do you agree with the stance of Catholic Church that homosexuality is wrong and sin?
If no, do you disagree objectively, meaning that you think homosexuality is moraly good, or do you disagree just in the sense of a subjective opinion, whithout any objective weight on it?

I'm glad to read that because most of the time I'm reading the opposite and it rags me how widespread the sloppy thinking is.

At the very best people who attack objective morality are simply attacking what they perceive as morality different from their own, if for instance you suggested that the objective morality was a list of things likely to meet with their approval then they'll say its what they've believed all along.

There are some good thinking from some therapists and some communications theorists labelled intersubjectivity which deal with the reality that social construction, context and culture does or has changed over time etc.

Although I do think a lot of the problems began with Descartes and the "I think therefore I am" idea and his impersonalised or abstracted consciousness or "pilot" version of the self, which in turn resulted from a mistaken reaction or response to findings about refraction and lenses and doubt because what you see may not be accurate or real, from that point on, and I think its really patterned on the brain by now, a paradigm shift began were mankind and man's mind because the centre of the universe and the rest of the universe outside of the mind became somehow less real or only real depending upon its perception etc.

Anyway, the reality is that there is a world and universe outside of man and independent of him, there is a cosmic order, there is cause and effect, there is consequentialism and just as this exists in natural laws and physics it exists in ethics and moral philosophy, its fair to suggest that ethics and morals havent reached the stage of positivity like physics or natural laws, or that its difficult to establish them in the same way but difficulty is not the same as impossibility.

I'm not trying to be difficult...but I honestly don't understand this.

Yes, there's lots of ideas about that morality is and isn't - in that different people believe in different moralities...but to say that morality is based on an objective truth of what is and isn't wrong (making it objective morality), still bothers me. I don't believe there is an 'objective truth'. How do we know what is the 'objective truth'? Who decides this? God? Who's God? What about the God'less?

I believe that morality is a man-made concept, defined by the society and culture you live in- thus making it subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature- animals, to our knowledge, do not have a sense of morality. You cannot observe morality, test it in a laboratory, or measure it; which suggests there is no absolute or objective "morality".

To me, you're just using circular propositions to prove your point, that good and evil (or moral and immoral) exist 'a priori' - which I don't believe.

You use the example of Hitler...but killing innocent people is not an absolute moral decision - it's based on society's ideas of what is 'innocent' and 'moral' at that time. War is the perfect example.

 

[just me]

I think the peak of morality to be simply doing what one truly believes to be right, even when nobody is watching. Some folk act as if they have no conscience, but those that do KNOW when they are doing something they feel would not be accepted as being moral. We pass the age of innocence, and we become knowledgeable of the things around us. The innocent might be naïve to what they are doing. This may have something to do with why we protect the young so much with laws and such.
The Book of Life is full of wisdom, and MY God had something to do with my morals as I grew older. I would guess the "what about" group to be less fortunate, as I value the words. Still had to know for myself, though.

 

[Lark]

I'm not trying to be difficult...but I honestly don't understand this.

Yes, there's lots of ideas about that morality is and isn't - in that different people believe in different moralities...but to say that morality is based on an objective truth of what is and isn't wrong (making it objective morality), still bothers me. I don't believe there is an 'objective truth'. How do we know what is the 'objective truth'? Who decides this? God? Who's God? What about the God'less?

I believe that morality is a man-made concept, defined by the society and culture you live in- thus making it subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature- animals, to our knowledge, do not have a sense of morality. You cannot observe morality, test it in a laboratory, or measure it; which suggests there is no absolute or objective "morality".

To me, you're just using circular propositions to prove your point, that good and evil (or moral and immoral) exist 'a priori' - which I don't believe.

You use the example of Hitler...but killing innocent people is not an absolute moral decision - it's based on society's ideas of what is 'innocent' and 'moral' at that time. War is the perfect example.

I wasnt suggesting you were being difficult, I wasnt reading the thread, just responding to a single post. I do that a bit so be prepared for it and dont get mad

The thing about Hitler is that his actions were wrong wether he and enough madmen believed it or not, as has been said already.

Animals are instinctually driven, or if they possess cognitive and emotional constitutions they are very different from humankind, I remember reading that dogs may have the emotional but not the cognitive attributes of children. The difference with human beings is that we are conscious, our minds, cerebral cortex and "non-reptilian brains" allow for much greater conception, conscience, memory, learning, empathy. Empathy being the crucial one.

Attachment theorists have a pretty good and well grounded ethological and evolutionary psychological picture of what is normal development, incorporating expectations, empathy and internalised working models or scripts, these constitute "conscience", what psychologists call a "theory of mind", and the most basic, basic moral precepts and moral reasoning.

That is intrinsic and where I believe reasoning about "natural laws" in moral philosophy has some basis or beginning.

Second to that I believe that society is ontologically a prior to the individual, so it can condition certain divergent or contextual norms and mores but these can not be that divergent as I think the incidence of mental illness, emotional breakdowns, alienation and rank unhappiness among the most successful and prosperous individuals is indicative.

Perhaps part of the problem is that this is a highly abstract discussion, instead consider your practical reasoning, you could not live out practically the relativism which you are talking about, it is not simply a matter of convention if you consult your own thinking and actions, at least I hope so, also consider it in the broadest and simplist terms, we are not talking about intricacies of deviant, criminal behaviour but broad strokes, people generally do not do things or at least shrink from doing things which they would abhor if they happened to themselves or loved ones.

Nor are we considering the myriad ways in which individuals rationalise actions after the fact to assuade natural feelings of guilt or pangs of conscience and over time permit themselves to act in the most reprehensible ways, when they have truly "hardened their hearts".

 

[LucyJr]

I'm not trying to be difficult...but I honestly don't understand this.

Yes, there's lots of ideas about that morality is and isn't - in that different people believe in different moralities...but to say that morality is based on an objective truth of what is and isn't wrong (making it objective morality), still bothers me. I don't believe there is an 'objective truth'. How do we know what is the 'objective truth'? Who decides this? God? Who's God? What about the God'less?

When you say à don't believe there is a objective truth?" is that a objective truth?

How do we know what is the 'objective truth'?

We think. By reason, logic and intuition certain principles are revealed to us.

I believe that morality is a man-made concept, defined by the society and culture you live in- thus making it subjective.

What do you say, torturing a child is wrong or not?
If you say it is subjectively wrong, than you aren't really saying anything. You say its wrong because most of the people consider it wrong, but not because there is really anything wrong about it.

So what do you say? It is wrong or not? And rspectfuly I want to say, I would appreciate if you're honest with the answer.

You cannot observe morality, test it in a laboratory, or measure it; which suggests there is no absolute or objective "morality".

Well your idea of objectiveness is quite funny. For example, did you measure your own very statement in a laboratory?

To me, you're just using circular propositions to prove your point, that good and evil (or moral and immoral) exist 'a priori' - which I don't believe.

I don't use any 'a priori''argumentation for morality.
I appeal to our intuition. There are some things that can not be proved. They are just brute metaphysical facts, which need no argumentation. They are like axioms. Morality is one of those fundamental metaphysical facts.

You use the example of Hitler...but killing innocent people is not an absolute moral decision - it's based on society's ideas of what is 'innocent' and 'moral' at that time. War is the perfect example.

But I wasn't talking about "decisions" at all. That's almost irrelevant to our discussion. I was talking about the act itself, the act of killing innocent people. Do you think it was wrong or not?

 

[muir]

So is empathy the wellspring of morality?

 

[Wildfire]

So is empathy the wellspring of morality?

That's a good question.



Fun thread, and I have some random thoughts.

First I have to mention that I’m a bit confused by the distinctions being made between objective and subjective morality. So maybe I should just say that my own objective morality is subject to change, and leave that there.

I can see “self-interest” as a healthy thing that will in turn serve others, if one allows that we are parts of a whole. And I can see that a sense of self without a sense of connection to the whole will in turn inspire the need for the self interested acts of “selfishness” and “greed”.

Apart from all that though, is there self-interest in our morality? Absolutely. For me the real question is, “What’s the nature of that self-interest and how has it impacted our morality?”

 

[say what]

Sorry! I wasn't saying you were suggesting I was being difficult- I was just apologizing for the fact, mostly to [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION], that I'm not trying to be combative or arguementative, I just truly am not understanding the logic- probably in part because I don't agree

I wasnt suggesting you were being difficult, I wasnt reading the thread, just responding to a single post. I do that a bit so be prepared for it and dont get mad

The thing about Hitler is that his actions were wrong wether he and enough madmen believed it or not, as has been said already.

Animals are instinctually driven, or if they possess cognitive and emotional constitutions they are very different from humankind, I remember reading that dogs may have the emotional but not the cognitive attributes of children. The difference with human beings is that we are conscious, our minds, cerebral cortex and "non-reptilian brains" allow for much greater conception, conscience, memory, learning, empathy. Empathy being the crucial one.

Attachment theorists have a pretty good and well grounded ethological and evolutionary psychological picture of what is normal development, incorporating expectations, empathy and internalised working models or scripts, these constitute "conscience", what psychologists call a "theory of mind", and the most basic, basic moral precepts and moral reasoning.

That is intrinsic and where I believe reasoning about "natural laws" in moral philosophy has some basis or beginning.

Second to that I believe that society is ontologically a prior to the individual, so it can condition certain divergent or contextual norms and mores but these can not be that divergent as I think the incidence of mental illness, emotional breakdowns, alienation and rank unhappiness among the most successful and prosperous individuals is indicative.

Perhaps part of the problem is that this is a highly abstract discussion, instead consider your practical reasoning, you could not live out practically the relativism which you are talking about, it is not simply a matter of convention if you consult your own thinking and actions, at least I hope so, also consider it in the broadest and simplist terms, we are not talking about intricacies of deviant, criminal behaviour but broad strokes, people generally do not do things or at least shrink from doing things which they would abhor if they happened to themselves or loved ones.

Nor are we considering the myriad ways in which individuals rationalise actions after the fact to assuade natural feelings of guilt or pangs of conscience and over time permit themselves to act in the most reprehensible ways, when they have truly "hardened their hearts".

The Hitler example is just one. Were the Germans fighting for their country, wrong? Are all soldiers in battle immoral?

When you say "society is ontologically a prior to the individual" I agree, but because society constructs morality, that to me equates to subjectivity.

Were the Mayans all immoral for their human sacrifices to the greater good? If we polled society today, people would say that's immoral. If you polled society (or the Mayans), they would say no. How would you explain this difference in morality? For me, I see it as differences in the social constructs of morality.

I do agree that this is highly abstract- and I will admit that I'm not well read on the topic- I'm talking purely from my own feelings and experiences, which have been shaped by my own education and knowledge. In my experience talking and teaching health ethics, where morality comes into play, it's never black/white- always grey, and often difficult. People get heated because there are extremes on both ends. Perhaps it's my constructivist background, but I believe there is no right or wrong answer to these types of questions

 

[say what]

When you say à don't believe there is a objective truth?" is that a objective truth?

We think. By reason, logic and intuition certain principles are revealed to us.


What do you say, torturing a child is wrong or not?
If you say it is subjectively wrong, than you aren't really saying anything. You say its wrong because most of the people consider it wrong, but not because there is really anything wrong about it.

So what do you say? It is wrong or not? And rspectfuly I want to say, I would appreciate if you're honest with the answer.

Well your idea of objectiveness is quite funny. For example, did you measure your own very statement in a laboratory?


I don't use any 'a priori''argumentation for morality.
I appeal to our intuition. There are some things that can not be proved. They are just brute metaphysical facts, which need no argumentation. They are like axioms. Morality is one of those fundamental metaphysical facts.


But I wasn't talking about "decisions" at all. That's almost irrelevant to our discussion. I was talking about the act itself, the act of killing innocent people. Do you think it was wrong or not?

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

I mean this in the nicest and most respectful way, but I find that you haven't responded to any of my questions yet about morality, and continue respond with circular reasoning. It's like someone who always says "How come?" after every answer. I know you're likely not trying to do this, but I feel as it's less of a discussion/dialogue, and me always trying to defend what my perspective/belief.

Also, the idea that you could measure subjectiveness is the exact opposite of what subjective is.

But I wasn't talking about "decisions" at all. That's almost irrelevant to our discussion. I was talking about the act itself, the act of killing innocent people. Do you think it was wrong or not?

I don't think you're reading or trying to understand what I'm saying. If you actually read my response(s) you would know that I've answered this question several times- just not in the way you want me to.

 

[say what]

So is empathy the wellspring of morality?

This is super interesting.

I think our individual morality is based on empathy and compassion.

But society-level morality, which is often what we base our own morality off of, isn't always defined with empathy and compassion in mind.

*These of course are generalizations.

 

[muir]

This is super interesting.

I think our individual morality is based on empathy and compassion.

But society-level morality, which is often what we base our own morality off of, isn't always defined with empathy and compassion in mind.

*These of course are generalizations.

I'd go along with that

I think the codified laws of society are largely geared towards protecting the interests of the law makers

If the lawmakers wanted to qualify the universal taboo of murder by saying: 'murder's bad except when we do it' then they have changed the state sanctioned morality as enforced by the law courts but they have not changed the verdict in the court of public opinion

However individual morality can be affected by 'group think' and crowds can have an intoxicating energy of their own which can sweep people along into behaviour they might not otherwise engage in

So the question for each individual is to what extent can they maintain the integrity of their own personal morality in the face of external pressures whether from the state altering laws or perceptions (the example of nazi germany has been raised a number of times in the thread) or by group think, peer pressure and so on

Some people are more malleable than others...more susceptible to jedi mindtricks!

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

I mean this in the nicest and most respectful way, but I find that you haven't responded to any of my questions yet about morality, and continue respond with circular reasoning. It's like someone who always says "How come?" after every answer. I know you're likely not trying to do this, but I feel as it's less of a discussion/dialogue, and me always trying to defend what my perspective/belief.

Also, the idea that you could measure subjectiveness is the exact opposite of what subjective is.



I don't think you're reading or trying to understand what I'm saying. If you actually read my response(s) you would know that I've answered this question several times- just not in the way you want me to.

I asked you twice time because usually, from my experience, people are avoiding these questions, and they have a really ingenious way to avoid it.
Until now, you didn't answered directly to any of my questions. You answered only that you believe morality is subjective, which I do know, but still I have my questions.

I asked you:

Let's do it again:
Do you agree with the stance of Catholic Church that homosexuality is wrong and sin?
If no, do you disagree objectively, meaning that you think homosexuality is moraly good, or do you disagree just in the sense of a subjective opinion, whithout any objective weight on it?

You didn't answered me to the specific question. You just answered this:

I'm not trying to be difficult...but I honestly don't understand this.

Yes, there's lots of ideas about that morality is and isn't - in that different people believe in different moralities...but to say that morality is based on an objective truth of what is and isn't wrong (making it objective morality), still bothers me. I don't believe there is an 'objective truth'. How do we know what is the 'objective truth'? Who decides this? God? Who's God? What about the God'less?

I believe that morality is a man-made concept, defined by the society and culture you live in- thus making it subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature- animals, to our knowledge, do not have a sense of morality. You cannot observe morality, test it in a laboratory, or measure it; which suggests there is no absolute or objective "morality".

To me, you're just using circular propositions to prove your point, that good and evil (or moral and immoral) exist 'a priori' - which I don't believe.

You use the example of Hitler...but killing innocent people is not an absolute moral decision - it's based on society's ideas of what is 'innocent' and 'moral' at that time. War is the perfect example.

Than I asked you another question, which is kind of similar with the other one :

What do you say, torturing a child is wrong or not?
If you say it is subjectively wrong, than you aren't really saying anything. You say its wrong because most of the people consider it wrong, but not because there is really anything wrong about it.

So what do you say? It is wrong or not? And rspectfuly I want to say, I would appreciate if you're honest with the answer.

And you didn't answered at this one either.

I mean this in the nicest and most respectful way, but I find that you haven't responded to any of my questions yet about morality, and continue respond with circular reasoning. It's like someone who always says "How come?" after every answer. I know you're likely not trying to do this, but I feel as it's less of a discussion/dialogue, and me always trying to defend what my perspective/belief.

You just said:

I don't think you're reading or trying to understand what I'm saying. If you actually read my response(s) you would know that I've answered this question several times- just not in the way you want me to.

Ok, I'm not that good at reading between lines. All I want is a direct and specific answer to my questions.
Of course, if you want. We are discussing these things, we're not in war

And I will answer to your initial questions. Right now I'm thinking how to respond.

 

[LucyJr]

If society determines what is and is not moral, then does that not mean that the outcome of morality depends on the make up of society?

Yes, it does mean that. But it doesn't mean the morality is the true morality.
If the outcome of Nazi philosphy and morals was killing everything what stand in their way, it doesn't mean what they did was ok. It was all wrong.

If there was a different makeup, would the outcome of morality be different?

Yes, of course, but it doesn't change anything about what ought to be.
Morality is by its very nature, a ought.
But you're making it as is. The outcome determines the morality, which is that which simplly is in that particular moment.
But you see, you ''steal'' the very nature of morality. Morality is not just what is, but what ought to be.
Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive.

If yes, then morality is subjective. If morality was objective, in that there was one absolute truth, than we wouldn't be debating what is and isn't wrong- we would all know that it's an absolute truth.

Well, we do know it is a absolute truth. Its just that people never think at these things. And its just that people are very comfortable to make morality as they want, to make it comfortable and pleasant.

Because what is and isn't wrong depends often on what the greater society deems as being good (and also our internal morality), it changes. Because it changes, to me, that means it's not an absolute truth- thus open for subjective interpretation.

Of course it changes, because people are not the same. People are born and die, and others take their places. Some people are good, others are evil. But that's not the point.
The point is, there is something what we call good, which is good and worthy to have as a value, like justice, love, mercy, truthfulness, honesty, integrity, honour.

You used the expression

subjective interpretation

That's a really good way to portray moral epistemology, which is the study of how we interpret and explain moral values to everyday life situations.
Its different than moral ontology, which is a meta-ethical study, concerning the objectivity of moral values, grounded in God.

I guess I'm wondering if you think there is a 'gold' or standard absolute truth of morality

Yes, I do think there is such a standard of morality. Its moral perfection, unatainable in this life, but possible in another realm of existence, which christians call it Heaven.

and that regardless of if we understand or know this morality, our actions can be moral or immoral?

No. Morality is painted on our conscience. If someone doesn't know that killing is wrong, conform to moral standards, that person is simply unaware of the moral obbligation and dutty to respect and protect life, so he can not be accused of doing something wrong, becasue his conscience is "clear". Hovewer, that doesn't mean the action of killing in itself was good, simply because that person didn't knew it.
The action was bad, but the person can not be judged, because he didn't knew it.

Or do we need to understand morality and what is moral, to act immoral?

We need to understand morality, what is good and what is wrong, in order to consciously act moral or immoral.
But hovewer, we can unconsciously act immoral or moral.

Can a child with no context of morality perform immoral acts?

Yes, but unconsciously, whithout knowledge, and therefore the child is not guilty of that specific action. Nevertheless, the action is still wrong.

If you say that God puts an essence of morality in us, and we innately or intuitively know what is and isn't right, then (to me) it sounds like you're saying a child can perform immoral acts - even without any understanding of morality?

Yes, a child can perform immoral acts. Of course, we speak of childs that can speak and think a bit, kind of around age 5-7.
Hovewer, if there isn't any understanding of morality, the person is not guilty, because his conscious is clear. But if his conscious know and has ben taught that one certain action is wrong, and he commits that action, his conscious will accuse him, proving that he knew what he was doing was wrong. God made the consciousness like a lawyer, and conform to the Bible, by our own consciousness, we will be judged for our actions.

 

[say what]

I asked you twice time because usually, from my experience, people are avoiding these questions, and they have a really ingenious way to avoid it.
Until now, you didn't answered directly to any of my questions. You answered only that you believe morality is subjective, which I do know, but still I have my questions.

Sorry! I didn't explain myself fully- I feel you want a yes/no answer, but for me, the questions you're asking can't be answered that way (for me).

Do you agree with the stance of Catholic Church that homosexuality is wrong and sin?
If no, do you disagree objectively, meaning that you think homosexuality is moraly good, or do you disagree just in the sense of a subjective opinion, whithout any objective weight on it?

I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin. I don't see homosexuality to be a moral dilemma.

What do you say, torturing a child is wrong or not?
If you say it is subjectively wrong, than you aren't really saying anything. You say its wrong because most of the people consider it wrong, but not because there is really anything wrong about it.

So what do you say? It is wrong or not? And rspectfuly I want to say, I would appreciate if you're honest with the answer.

I believe in most cases, torturing someone is wrong - regardless of if it's a child or not. I think it is wrong to harm another person; however, I know there are situations and contexts that make me feel the other way. For me, it's not a yes/no answer.

I apologize if I came off rude and snarky- it's not how I like to be!