16 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIs killing for your country OK?
Really?
Is there anyone here that thinks murder and stealing are OK?
You use the word murder but that means different things to different people.
I personally find capital punishment immoral.
And stealing?
Stealing to feed a starving child - ... is that OK?
Of course in general we have similar morals - it is what our laws are
based on - but when one examines the minitiae of morality we all differ.
16 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Moral rules are absolute and really quite simple. What is subjective is how we calculate them. So is 'morality' the rules, or the result of the calculation?
We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?
Or does anyone believe in an absolute morality?
Discuss.
For example, one part of morals is that you value people closer to you higher than people far away. Now what particular values you give is relative. Some people claim to recognize all humans as perfectly equal, yet it is very very rare that they would actually value their own child or parent exactly the same as a stranger.
Similarly, one may choose to grant some moral status to animals, or choose to deny it to certain races.
16 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59What about abortion?
I personally find capital punishment immoral.
And regarding capital punishment, is it because of the risk of error, or do you think killing is generally immoral? What about punishment? Do you set limits on it?
And stealing?
Stealing to feed a starving child - ... is that OK?
Thats a tricky one because you are now evaluating moral bad and moral good (which is really the prevention of moral bad). But I suspect you would have trouble even answering that question for yourself in a general nature. You might have to specify how much is being stolen or from whom, and how hungry the child is and what the consequences of not eating would be.
You may also want to ask at what age does the child become an adult and is no longer more important than theft in your morality books.
But I think we would all agree that:
Steeling: bad.
Killing: bad.
Starving child: bad.
Where we may disagree is exactly how bad in relation to other moral bads.
16 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59But what is subjective is whether or not you recognize a fetus as being a moral agent worthy of your consideration and not the moral absolute that all things being equal it is wrong to bring about the death of moral agents worthy of consideration.
I can condone my wife having an abortion because it would not go against any of my morals.
I am sure others would not.
Another example of subjective morality.
What we call 'morality' covers everything from the underlying rules, to areas of application. For example, if we call a teenage girl 'immoral' we usually mean she is behaving in a way that we disapprove of (usually something to do with sex). But the moral calculation that gets us there is long and complicated, usually having as much to do with cultural norms built up over generations than any actual clearly understood rule and calculation. But ultimately we recognize that a girl with 'loose morals' is harmful to someone whether to our own sensibilities, or to society as a whole, or to herself, may not be very clear or even considered.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59This is an interesting topic I want to take some time on...
We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?
Or does anyone believe in an absolute morality?
Discuss.
But my initial response that you might consider is that i think you have an excluded middle here.
I believe that morality is objective, rather than subjective... I do not however believe in 'absolute' morality.
I will go into this in more detail when I get the time to do this properly... which might be Monday...
I'm working today and am going out Sunday... Have family over who I don't see very often...
But you might want to have a think about whether you consider subjective and absolute morality to be exclusive
and exhaustive labels... And whether you might consider objective morality as being different from absolute.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI see the same distinction and have seen it expressed in books on philosophy.
This is an interesting topic I want to take some time on...
But my initial response that you might consider is that i think you have an excluded middle here.
I believe that morality is objective, rather than subjective... I do not however believe in 'absolute' morality.
I will go into this in more detail when I get the time to do this properly ...[text shortened]... abels... And whether you might consider objective morality as being different from absolute.
X-axis: objective - subjective
y-axis: absolute - relative
Therse are words and the definition of words is a convention. But here is one approach:
"In conversations with apologists, it seems like these two sets of terms are mistaken thus making the conversations run in circles and misunderstandings that could be avoided if only we agreed on the terms (well, not only these terms, but many others. However, these seem rather problematic). It seems also that people in general have this problem and treat absolute and objective, as well as relative and subjective, each pair as synonyms. Absolute means that it holds all by itself, relative means that it depends on something else. Objective and subjective are different. Objective means that it is something individuals can check and might be beyond individuals control, subjective means left to the individual.
"Thus, for example, if our most basic instincts towards moral behaviour are the result of our evolutionary history as a social species, then our inclinations would have an objective reality as a basis. Would the basis be also absolute? Well, no. The evolution of such basal instincts would be relative to us having evolved as social animals. Thus, things can be both objective and relative."
http://www.ted.com/conversations/10913/we_need_to_distinguish_absolut.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357Yes! This is what I am talking about...
I see the same distinction and have seen it expressed in books on philosophy.
X-axis: objective - subjective
y-axis: absolute - relative
Therse are words and the definition of words is a convention. But here is one approach:
"In conversations with apologists, it seems like these two sets of terms are mistaken thus making the conversations run in ...[text shortened]... and relative."
http://www.ted.com/conversations/10913/we_need_to_distinguish_absolut.html
I will watch the TED talk when I get a chance, thanks for this.
16 Feb 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?
We all have differing morals so surely morality is subjective?
Or does anyone believe in an absolute morality?
Discuss.
Do you seriously believe that people having different opinions on a given topic necessarily indicates that the topic is subjective?