Originally posted by no1marauderNot at all; Kantian deontology would be a decent (counter-)example. For many moral theories happiness is at most a side-effect. It is not the goal of the theory.
Presumably any standard of morality is designed to give the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number in the long run including Divine Command (more people go to Heaven or wherever).
Adding "in the long run" clearly doesn't make the theory meaningless. Perhaps it makes it unworkable, to some degree. But of course that doesn't make it wrong.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn her work, Modern Moral Philosophy. It wasn't just about utilitarianism, however.
Dottewell: I've been unable to find Anscombe's analysis of Rule Utilitarianism. Can you point me in the right direction?
[Can't find it online, but it was written around 50 years ago so will still be copyrighted. Basically she said that rule-utilitarianism allowed corruption, i.e. I would be justified in breaching a rule if it contributed to the general happiness, provided it did not compromise general obedience to the rule (i.e. no one found out about it...)]
Originally posted by dottewellI hate blowhards who use an obscure term without explaining what it is. "Kantian deontology" ooooooh, you must be the smartest person in the whole world!
Not at all; Kantian deontology would be a decent (counter-)example. For many moral theories happiness is at most a side-effect. It is not the goal of the theory.
Adding "in the long run" clearly doesn't make the theory meaningless. Perhaps it makes it unworkable, to some degree. But of course that doesn't make it wrong.
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry.
I hate blowhards who use an obscure term without explaining what it is.
Deontology - the rightness or wrongness of an act is intrinsic to the act and not dependent on the goodness or badness of its consequences. From "deon" [Greek], meaning duty.
Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough.
I agree with almost all of this but have reservations about this sentence:
Rather, it is a claim about what persons ought to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.
I think how persons normally act is strong evidence, though not conclusive evidence, of what is morally acceptable. I think "how they prefer to behave" is pretty overwhelming evidence.
I think there is one main objection given thus far to reject objective morality, namely that because cultures and individuals disagree on moral standards, it follows that these said issues are relative.
To defend this premise the relativist can cite any of a number of examples, such as cross-cultural and intra-cultural differences over the morality of sexual practices, abortion, war, and capital punishment:
"In one society, people love their neighbour; in another, they eat their neighbour; in one society, a widow is burned on the funeral pyre of her husband; in another, she is (sun) burned on the beach in Miami.”
Let’s call this “the argument from cultural and individual differences”.
I contend that relativism does not follow from this disagreement. The fact that people disagree about something does not mean there is no truth. An example I used elsewhere:
The fact that people disagreed on the question of whether the earth is round, would certainly not be proof that the earth has no shape.
Likewise, the fact that a skinhead and I may disagree on the question of whether we should treat people equally is certainly not sufficient reason to conclude that equality is not an objective moral value. Even if individuals and cultures hold no values in common, it simply does not follow that nobody is ever right or wrong about the correct values. Despite the existence of moral disagreement, it is still quite possible that an individual or an entire culture, such as Adolf Hitler, Bill Clinton or Nazi Germany is simply mistaken.
In the end, moral disagreement is simply an observation that proves nothing about the true nature of morality.
To the contrary, I think disagreement actually counts against relativism. By employing this line of argument, relativism has set down a principle, namely that disagreement means there is no objective truth. This is a self-defeating statement which destroys the relativists own position -- after all, there are those who hold the belief that relativism is a mistaken view. Ergo disagreement over the view of relativism annuls it: the "disagreement" principle is a proposition for which there is no universal agreement and thus on its own grounds must be rejected.
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat exactly is an "objective morality"?
I think there is one main objection given thus far to reject objective morality, namely that because cultures and individuals disagree on moral standards, it follows that these said issues are relative.
To defend this premise the relativist can cite any of a number of examples, such as cross-cultural and intra-cultural differences over the morality of s ...[text shortened]... ition for which there is no universal agreement and thus on its own grounds must be rejected.
I can see how morality might be relative in that anyone can define the word "morality" as xe sees fit; however, I cannot understand how the word could possibly have an objective meaning. If it did, would this mean it could not be called by a different name, e.g. in a different language?
I think people assume there is some sort of universal definition for the word; the debate then becomes "what acts are moral (by the universal definition)". The problem is that "moral" is not clearly defined!
Originally posted by HalitoseImagine a world where morals were actually relative, but we still debated the nature of realtive or universal etc. without knowledge of which was right. In this world, even though we may not arrive at a solution, there would still be your statment above. Clearly in this situation it would be false. This is the same style of arguement I was shot down for concerning agnosticism last year and in reconsidering it here, I don't think it is any more persuasive.
To the contrary, I think disagreement actually counts against relativism. By employing this line of argument, relativism has set down a principle, namely that disagreement means there is no objective truth. This is a self-defeating statement which destroys the relativists own position -- after all, there are those who hold the belief that relativism is a mi ...[text shortened]... sition for which there is no universal agreement and thus on its own grounds must be rejected.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungObjective morality: A normative claim about right and wrong that would be universally applicable.
What exactly is an "objective morality"?
I can see how morality might be relative in that anyone can define the word "morality" as xe sees fit; however, I cannot understand how the word could possibly have an objective meaning. If it did, would this mean it could not be called by a different name, e.g. in a different language?
I think people ass ...[text shortened]... oral (by the universal definition)". The problem is that "moral" is not clearly defined!
An example of an objective moral claim: it is morally wrong for all peoples of all cultures to torture babies for fun; this action aught not to be done.
You will find normative claims in all societies, so it is not the definition of "morality" per se that should has a universally similar meaning, but that there are some of these claims that have universal relevance.
Take for example the Nuremberg trials. The defense argued that Hitler's cronies had done nothing wrong, as their actions had been culturally sanctioned and legally (according to German law at the time) permissible. They questioned the authority of the Allied Forces to impose their morality on the rest of the world.
IMO, a moral relativist would have to agree with this stance -- except if you want to argue that "might makes right".
Originally posted by StarrmanIMO, assuming any hypothetical negation, would hypothetically render all evidence other than absolute proof as unpersuasive. Unfortunately this is question begging, since the very validity of relative morals is in question here.
Imagine a world where morals were actually relative, but we still debated the nature of realtive or universal etc. without knowledge of which was right. In this world, even though we may not arrive at a solution, there would still be your statment above. Clearly in this situation it would be false. This is the same style of arguement I was shot down for ...[text shortened]... ng agnosticism last year and in reconsidering it here, I don't think it is any more persuasive.
Morals are nothing more than a genetically evolved tendancy to try to live peacably with fellow members of our own species combined with culturally evolved 'norms'. This conflicts with a similarly evolved tendancy for selfish behaviour both at an individual an societal level.
The only 'moral' that I would consider absolute is 'do what benefits my society or individuals in my society so long as it does not significantly harm me personally or the section of society that is closer to me than the section being benefited.'
Whether or not you agree with the above statement it is the one followed by the mojority of the worlds population as being the basis for all moral statements whether they realise it or not.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis utilitarian moral code is shared by animals.
The only 'moral' that I would consider absolute is 'do what benefits my society or individuals in my society so long as it does not significantly harm me personally or the section of society that is closer to me than the section being benefited.'