Other answers involving the subjectivity of morality were first downvoted and then deleted (also by virmaior) with the remark that my sources were not considered relevant. This is one of those answers, which was an answer to the question How could 'objective morality' be known/investigated? :
Neither would be any alternative you can come up with, as morality is a pure human construct and fundamentally subjective.
Some might argue that a society where few living beings suffer is objectively more moral than a society where many living beings suffer, but when we also consider the quality of the individual (his/her individual traits) and not just the quantity of individuals, the issue becomes far more ambiguous.
Others might argue that a society with optimal balance between chaos and order (or freedom and responsibility) is more moral than either a society where there's too much chaos (freedom) or a society where there's too much order (responsibility). This, however, is no less problematic than the first proposition, as the need for chaos (freedom) and order (responsibility) differs strongly at the individual level and one man's (or woman's) freedom is often another many's prison. In fact, one could go so far as argue that the very notions of chaos and order are subjective human constructs.
Your example doesn't get us any further either, because it implies underlying assumptions, like (1) following rules is moral and (2) winning a game is moral, neither of which can be considered objective truths.
IMO, the fundamental subjectivity of morality as well as its relevance in spite of its subjectivity is best expressed by two very different sources : Malaclypse the Younger's Principia Discordia and Terry Pratchett's Hogfather.
Excerpt from the Principia Discordia :
The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making. With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle. Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be true. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other. Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle. The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion. The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that.
Excerpt from the TV-movie transcript of Terry Pratchett's Hogfather :
S : What would've happened if you hadn't saved him? D : Yes. The sun would not have risen. S : Then what would've happened? D : A mere ball of flaming gas would have illuminated the world. S : Alright, I'm not stupid. You're saying that humans need fantasies to make life bearable. D : No. Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape. S : With tooth fairies, Hogfathers... Yes. D : As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies. S : So we can believe the big ones? D : Yes. Justice, mercy, duty, that sort of thing. S : But they're not the same at all. D : You think so? Then, take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged. S : But people have got to believe that, or what's the point? D : You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
Why are neither the Principia Discordia nor Hogfather considered valid sources?
Are works of fiction not allowed? Not even when they contain great wisdom? So Richard Linklater's masterpiece Waking Life doesn't qualify as philosophical? What about Jaco Van Dormael's Mr Nobody? Or Guy Richie's Revolver?
What about religious texts? If so, doesn't the Principia Discordia qualify as a religious text?
What about works of psychology? What about works of sociology? If so, how is that any different from eg. a film that offers great insight into the human psyche?
What about the random scribbling of a savant made at a coffee table? Does one need to have a formal degree as a philosopher to qualify as a philosopher? Does one need to have a PhD? Must one be considered an authority in the field or does a student qualify as well?
And what about a factory laborer without any college degree qualify as a philosopher? If his opinions contain insight as great as that of Plato, Kant or Nietzsche, are his opinions irrelevant just because he's a factory worker without a degree??
It is my experience that the greatest wisdom and insight are often found where one expects them the least and that works of fiction offer sometimes profound insights greater than that of most works of philosophy that have been written down since the dawn of man.
In my experience, anyone who ponders the universe qualifies as a philosopher and is -- as such -- a valid source in his own right. Or to quote Terrence McKenna:
We all must try to understand what is happening. We need to try to understand what is happening, and in my humble opinion ideology is only going to get in your way.
Nobody understands what is happening. Not Buddhists, not Christians, not government scientists. No one understands what is happening.
So, forget ideology. They betray. They limit. They lead astray.
Just deal with the raw data and trust yourself. Nobody is smarter than you are.
And what if they are? What good is their understanding doing you? People walk around saying, "I don't understand Quantum Physics, but somewhere somebody understands it." That's not a very helpful attitude towards preserving the insights of Quantum Physics.
Inform yourself. What does inform yourself mean? It means transcend and mistrust ideology. Go for direct experience.
What do YOU think when YOU face the waterfall? What do YOU think when YOU have sex? What do YOU think when YOU take psilocybin?
Everything else is unconfirmable rumor, useless, probably lies. So, liberate yourself from the illusion of culture. Take responsibility for what you think and what you do.
- Subjective answers and questions stimulating subjectiveness
- Should opinion-based questions always be allowed on the philosophy board?
- How to determine in which cases is it strictly necessary to add citations to reliable sources that support my assertions?
- Users acting as authorities
- Friends, we are not philosophers
- Is this site for doing philosophy or discussing philosophy?