I'm unable to watch video at work, so I didn't watch the video yet.  However, U can answer the question asked above.

Is Morality subjective because it is optional?

Perhaps, but I would say that morality is subjective because it is practiced by subjects (individuals).  That is, we all have our own perspective, values, desires, etc, and since there is no source for an objective morality (because the concept of an objective source is absurd), thus we create our own morality, then morality is never objective, but subjective.

With sufficient communication and understanding, we can make morality intersubjective, but never objective.

I'll watch the video when I get home to more appropriately respond. 

Shaun 

There is a distinction between murder and killing. Murder is never ok because it is defined as a specific type of killing; killing in a context of being unjustified, premeditated, etc.

The question of whether killing is ever ok is a different question. What makes something wrong is not how one feels about it--that's not I meant by ethics being always subjective. These subjective feelings are relevant, but they are not sufficient for a moral decision. You have to consider the consequences and effects upon other sentient beings around you as well, and this is where intersubjectivity comes in, as we make decisions based upon the intersubjective effects, ideals, etc.

When I say that ethics cannot be objective, I mean it quite literally--that they CANNOT be objective. That is, even if some action were always, under any possible circumstance, wrong to do, it would still be intersubjectively wrong. For it to be objectively wrong would imply that it was wrong before it were assessed or analyzed by some person or group. All persons or groups are (inter)subjective, and ethics are only relevant for subjects.

So, from whence do objective morals come from? Objective sources? How could a source communicate a moral idea if it is not a subject? An object is something perceived by a subject as not part of itself. Saying that a moral idea comes from an object would be like saying that you get a moral idea from a rock--not that the rock influences an idea you come up with, but that the rock gives it to you. If the rock is capable of communicating, then it's own subjectivity communicates with yours and you, together, create an intersubjective concept. That is, as soon as you learn anything from an object, that new learned thing is intersubjective. It cannot possibly be objective.

I may be using these terms in a way that is different from common usage of the term "objective morality," but that it simply because I wish to highlight that morals are derived from thinking things, not pulled out of the universe as Plato argued.

I understand your reasons, I'm simply clarifying the language. What I think you would want to say is taht you are a proponent of universalized intersubjective morality. You think that certain rules or principles should act as a foundation for our behavior, and that certain things are thus always wrong or always right. With this I agree, I just don't call that objective morality. This seems to be really a semantic point, but an important one to make certain distinctions about the source of morality.

What you are referring to is the question of realism v. constructionism in the philosophy of science. I would argue that science is an intersubjective persuit. The "laws" that science discovers are descriptions of physical tendencies/properties. The properties themselves may be objective, but the description of them is intersubjective. Science is the description, thus it is not objective.

Yes.

So, unless you are trying to argue for some sort of Platonism or divine command theory, I would not say you are really arguing for objective morality.

Shaun

That was a great video, g0at. I think I'll throw in my two cents.

I believe that morality is subjective not nessecarily because it's optional, but because it is evolveable.

There is a proccess of moral re-evaluation that exists in society. It comes from the application of context to an act. Once this context is applied, it begins to change and shift. What is considered immoral today does not remain immoral tommorow because of this re-evaluation. Alternately, a concept can be perceived as less moral tommorow as it was yesterday. To explain this, I'm going to use everyone's favorite example: murder.

Our ancestors from millenia ago decided that we shouldn't murder each other. This idea most likely began as a means to survive as a species;our ancestors numbers were much smaller. For the purposes of breeding, food gathering and other vital tasks, it was decided between them that they should not kill each other. That idea that humans should not commit murder began as an idea based out of practicality.

At some point in our mental evolution, we applied context to this idea. This happened when our ancestors applied context to the idea of mutual survival; we turned a pratical concept like this into companionship. We tend to put far more importance in things we have an emotional tie to, rather than simply a logical one. From this came to concept of loss. Our ancestors discovered that losing ones companions causes emotional pain. The act of murder became deplorable because that meant causing pain to the victim's fellowship. That was when our ancestors applied a negative context to murder and it became morally wrong.

However, though it was considered immoral, murder was still practiced by our ancestors. When our tribes became bigger, in order to maintain order it was deemed nessecary to murder people who commited crimes against the tribe. War was also considered a time when it was nessecary to kill, mostly as an idea of self-defense

As society grew and changed throughout the centuries, the context we put on murder began to change. It was decided that it was not ok to use murder as punishment for some crimes, like theft, since that's not really equal to killing someone. War became only nessecary in certain situations and only after negotiations between sides broke down.

In our present society, we are able to see the evolution of this context with real clarity. There is a resounding voice of opposition not just to wars, but to the concept of war itself. The use of the death sentence has declined signifigantly over the past twenty years, especially in North America. The broadness of the context our ancestors have put on murder as an immoral act has expanded far beyond the concept of practicality it was original conceived as. I believe that it will continue to expand.

The thing about religion is that it offers a static morality. The tenets of ethics are established early on in scripture and are left on unchanged. Religious morals do not allow for moral evolution, which I believe is very important part of human ethics. In fact, moral evolution is an almost entirely secular proccess. This is not to say that religion is immoral.  A better word would be countermoral.

So, that's it. I believe morality is subjective because it's not influenced by one static idea. It is inspired by an ever changing, adaptable idea.

Going with what I said before, I believe that there is preffered behaviour because there is preffered context. We are all raised to believe that murder is wrong. However, some of us still grow to murder. This is because if someone puts the right context on murder in the right situation, they will do it. If the murderer believes he's doing something justifyable and in many cases morally correct, he will do it.

If you truly don't care about going to jail and don't care about the impact of your actions on society, then in your own eyes, you aren't doing anything wrong. However, from the perspective of the person being murdered, and from the perspective of society, you are doing something very wrong, and so you are committing an immoral act.

Also, even if you don't CARE about the implications of your actions, but you still KNOW how others feel about your actions, I would say you could still be counted as immoral since you are still aware of the moral situation. (This is probably debatable).

(I assume this killing is completely unjustified since you used "murder" ).

When using the terms "moral" and "immoral" or "right" and "wrong", it's important not to assume that these are necessarily universal, absolute truths. Unless you can argue that they are.

My position on the origin of morals is that they are completely subjective, having been designed to meet biological and/or societal needs. Any given "moral", I think, can be explained by mere human empathy and the biological and societal implications of the action it describes.

I would say that on some level you are contradicting yourself when you propose a society where people are okay with the other members of that society killing one another for no reason whatsoever. That defeats the entire purpose of a society. Also, why would one person kill another if it served no purpose? Also, how do you know that purposeless killing would not affect anyone? You're looking at this from a completely social point of view here. You're not taking biology and empathy into consideration.

Also, you're still trying to apply the terms "moral" and "wrong" as absolute terms. Before the civil rights movement in the US, it was considered wrong for a black person to drink from the same water fountain as a white person. Is that still wrong today? NO. Because society has changed its application of "right" and "wrong". In other words, things are not inhrently right or inherently wrong. Those are just labels we use. In a very dumbed down sense, they boil down to "people are okay with that" and "people are not okay with that".

To answer your second question (perhaps too simply), empathy is biological. If you saw an innocent person being stabbed before your very eyes, you don't have to debate with yourself and try to justify why you should feel sorry for them. Empathy is not a switch that you flip on and off as you deem necessary. You evolved as a social mammal, and so you simply have empathy.

The religious assumption tends to be that morality is simple, unquestionable, and absolute, and handed down by god.

The realistic explanation, as far as I understand it, is that morality is very complicated, questionable, subject to change, and agreed upon by a group.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

with the empathy thing, even if i feel it can't i just ignore it?

Well, yeah, but that would just make you some kind of sociopath. If we accept that morals are not inherently "right" or "wrong" and that they are not absolute, universal truths, and that they are in fact decided on by groups, then ignoring empathy to commit an immoral act (i.e. an act deemed inappropriate or harmful by the group) makes you immoral according to the group you're in. But the act you've committed is not inherently "wrong".

I hope I'm understanding the question. 

Are you asking if certain acts can be considered moral among all groups while others are only moral to specific groups? I would say yeah, definitely.

 Most morals can be explained by the golden rule (most likely not invented by the Bible): "Do unto others as you would have done onto you." I wouldn't like it very much if you stabbed me in the face, and I know you wouldn't like it if I did that to you. So we can both agree that this is a harmful act and we (or people in general) should not do that. Since humans have such a great capacity for thinking hypothetically, we can get a lot of basic morals this way.

And an atheist would probably agree with these kinds of morals, because these morals come from simply being considerate for others and their human rights. (Don't kill, don't steal, don't slander, etc etc)

But religions propose other morals that are really harmless. For example, Chistianity forbids premarital sex. But what harm does that do anyone? If two people who are unmarried agree that they want to have sex, why shouldn't they? It's their business! It turns out to only be "wrong" because the Christian god said so. We can understand "Don't kill" and "don't steal" by simply considering the implications of our actions. But things like "Premarital sex is forbidden" and "Don't eat pork" and "Don't kill cows" and so on are just religion-based and most likely rooted in ancient superstition.

You're likely to encounter rules from one place to another that are just cultural differences as well. For example, the minimum age for marriage. Or even the age of consent, for that matter. Some cultures believe in monogamy while others believe in polygamy. Some cultures believe it's respectful to make eye contact with a person talking to you, while other cultures might think it's disprectful. Some cultures think it's rude to belch during a meal, while other cultures consider it a compliment. These are still things that the group has agreed on somewhere along the line, but these would probably be better classified as "laws" or "etiquette". They're still codes of behavior, but I doubt many people would put them on the same level as "morals".

So yeah, some "rights" or "wrongs" may be universal simply because it's natural to have empathy. Other "rights" and "wrongs" are unique and relative to how/where/under what circumstances the culture developed.