poll on morality

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I do understand we're talking about different things - but I'm discussing the standard definition of objective (or universal) morality - I do understand your examples - but I can't stress this enough - the objective morality that I'm discussing (and that you corrected me on!) has nothing to do with whether you believe the morals you hold have an objective or subjective basis.

So let's agree we're discussing this at cross purposes.

Ok, but then it isn't "objective". The objective in objective morality doesn't mean something different than in say objective movie quality or objective taste in music.

Morality is just (and only) opinion, and therefore not objective. The value of Pi is not opinion.

Or to put it another way, objective things are discovered, subjective things are invented.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

pH wrote: »

Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply. it has nothing to do with context - in fact the definition makes clear we're not talking about how the morality of an action changes depending on the situation.

But, having regard to the material linked, the distinction being made between moral absolutism and moral objectivism is that absolutism takes no account of context/situation/background.

Which means, in a way, objectivism can take account of the circumstances of an action. It just insists that (as you say) the same circumstances involve the same moral judgment.

pH wrote: »

No, not only - the definition of objective morality does not take into account the objectivity of the beliefs, it just addresses whether you believe different people/cultures can have different moralities such that an act that is immoral in one could be moral in another.

I do understand we're talking about different things - but I'm discussing the standard definition of objective (or universal) morality - I do understand your examples - but I can't stress this enough - the objective morality that I'm discussing (and that you corrected me on!) has nothing to do with whether you believe the morals you hold have an objective or subjective basis.

So let's agree we're discussing this at cross purposes.

I don't think the discussion is completely at cross purposes - and you have drawn out a necessary point that needs to be addressed.

Taking the wikipedia article, I'd suggest that the quote attributed to Noam Chomsky is probably making a politcal point rather than a moral one. The other guy's view is more apt in saying that moral objectivism is "to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times."

Now, that is making the basis for the morals relevant. Because what I'd say (and possibly Zombrex, but I dare say he'll let us know himself) is that my morality is only based on my feeling-states at particular times. But my feeling states can stretch to a view of how others have behaved. If John asks me if he should hit his wife, I can provide him with a view. That doesn't mean I think he must follow that view because its "rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times."

Incidently, I'd suggest this is also why the Sharia would be asserted as objective, and not subjective as you've classified it. The Sharia would be asserted to exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times.

So, yeah, the basis is key. Otherwise, the categorisation wouldn't be telling you anythimg meaningful. You be left saying that me and Osama Bin Laden were examples of people with subjective moralities, that Atheist Ireland and Pope Benedict were examples of people with objective moralities, while William Binchy, Youth Defence and Hunter S Thompson would all be examples of moral absolutists. I'd suggest that categorisation would be entertaining, rather than meaningful.

pH

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Incidently, I'd suggest this is also why the Sharia would be asserted as objective, and not subjective as you've classified it. The Sharia would be asserted to exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times

I agree with much of your post - just feel like addressing this.

My point is not whether Shariah law is objective or subjective. My point using Shariah law as a current real life example - people in western democratic states are asking for a separate law - Shariah law - by which they could be judged.

So the question ISN'T about Shariah law (i'm sure many people believe everyone should be judged by Shariah law), it's about the concept of 2 different laws/morals side by side for different people - such that 2 men who did identical things in identical situations could be judged moral by one and immoral by the other.

If you're happy with the above then you disagree with moral objectivism.

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature.

Just wanted to clear that up - Shariah law by itself would be classified as objective - a dual legal system (different rules for different peoples) would not.