Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

poll on morality

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Still based on axioms and semantics which are as arbitrary as anything.


  • Options
    #33
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Sarky wrote: »
    Still based on axioms and semantics which are as arbitrary as anything.

    not the point. The point being that some logical systems are proveably complete


  • Options
    #34
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Dades wrote: »
    I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!
    I'd be happy to :D

    There are things that are 'bad', and then there's everything else.

    When you cause harm to an innocent, its a bad thing.
    Otherwise, work away.

    Whats subjective is the details of what causes harm... this depends on all kinds of personal / societal stuff.


  • Options
    #35
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Aren't the definitions of "harm" and "innocent" exactly what needs to be defined by any system of morality? :pac:

    Not to mention whatever exceptions there are to the rules...


  • Options
    #36
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Dades wrote: »
    I want the people who chose option 1 to explain themselves!

    (Obviously we can't make the poll public now after people have voted.)

    I guess it all depends on what we're talking about.

    This area is very complicated and nuanced, but Moral Objectivism as being discussed here is the concept that In your opinion for a given situation there is a moral choice regardless of the person in that situation ("all similarly situated individuals").

    For you too claim you're *not* a "moral objectivist" you need to provide a situation where IN YOUR OPINION it would be "correct" or "moral" for person A to make one decision, but equally correct and moral for person B not to make that decision - as distinct from "either could have made either decision".

    Provide a scenario where in your opinion 2 different (but similarly situated) people are morally compelled to make different decisions - otherwise you're a moral objectivist!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    I'm genuinely not sure, although that derives from my lack of understanding of the philosophical nuances, rather than me arguing for some complex position.

    Do I kill people? No.
    Do I not kill people because I choose not to? No. At least, it doesn't feel like that, nor does it appear to be processed in my brain like that.
    Do I not kill people because my biological make up won't allow me to? I think so. But then, I couldn't say whether my apparent biological imperative to preserve life is innate or conditioned by society.

    My actions don't feel subjective. That doesn't mean they aren't though. Someone tell me if I'm a moral subjectivist?

    Can actions derived from biological imperative be considered in terms of morality? I don't know.


  • Options
    #38
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    equivariant wrote: »
    Well I think that the poll options are precisely worded? What I really would like to know is the percentage of respondees that self identify as "atheist moral objectivists" - I will leave it to people themselves to decide what that means, as these are pretty well defined terms in the philosophical literature I think, and in any case I am not expert enough to give a philosophically precise definition of moral objectivism.
    Well (at the risk of sounding like a complete knob here) if you're not happy you can explain the question you think you're asking, I'm not quite sure you should trust the answers you think you're getting.

    To be a bit more specific about it: I think that any ethical system -- I don't believe the term "moral" sits well with non-authoritarian systems -- there are a number of things that are fairly non-negotiable: the delivery and reciprocation of honesty, trust, fairness, responsibility, collegiality, equality and so on from all members of the community. With that basic stuff done, you can then go on and sort out the less obviously clearcut ideas: abortion, interest rates, prison + foreign policy, basic and derived human and animal rights etc, etc, etc.

    If you want to refer to the first set as "absolute moral requirements", and there's a reasonable case one should, then yes, I think I would fit best into the "I believe in an objective morality" choice. If you want to refer to the second, larger set of actions + choices as your base set, then no I don't "believe in an objective morality".

    The above digressions, btw, ignore the semi-religious uses of the term "moral" and the phrasal verb "believe in" and the unclear-to-me remit of the adjectives "objective" and "subjective".

    Apologies for going all OCD on this :)


  • Options
    #39
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    robindch wrote: »
    Well (at the risk of sounding like a complete knob here) if you're not happy you can explain the question you think you're asking, I'm not quite sure you should trust the answers you think you're getting.

    I don't trust them in any important sense. It is after all just an Internet poll among a self selecting group boardsies. Interesting to me at least and possibly to others, but of course, of no real statistical significance
    To be a bit more specific about it: I think that any ethical system -- I don't believe the term "moral" sits well with non-authoritarian systems -- there are a number of things that are fairly non-negotiable: the delivery and reciprocation of honesty, trust, fairness, responsibility, collegiality, equality and so on from all members of the community. With that basic stuff done, you can then go on and sort out the less obviously clearcut ideas: abortion, interest rates, prison + foreign policy, basic and derived human and animal rights etc, etc, etc.

    I did deliberately choose to ask about morality rather an ethics. I appreciate that there is a distinction although I am not sure why morality implies authoritarianism?

    I chose morality rather than ethics because t seems to me at least to be a tougher question to answer. As you point out below ethics covers such a broad range of issues hat it is hard to present any convincing argument for an objectively true ethical system

    If you want to refer to the first set as "absolute moral requirements", and there's a reasonable case one should, then yes, I think I would fit best into the "I believe in an objective morality" choice. If you want to refer to the second, larger set of actions + choices as your base set, then no I don't "believe in an objective morality".

    The above digressions, btw, ignore the semi-religious uses of the term "moral" and the phrasal verb "believe in" and the unclear-to-me remit of the adjectives "objective" and "subjective".

    Apologies for going all OCD on this :)

    Religions may have hijacked the word 'moral' but surely in this forum we recognise that morality does not necessarily have anything to do with religion :)


  • Options
    #40
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I'm genuinely not sure, although that derives from my lack of understanding of the philosophical nuances, rather than me arguing for some complex position.

    Do I kill people? No.
    Do I not kill people because I choose not to? No. At least, it doesn't feel like that, nor does it appear to be processed in my brain like that.
    Do I not kill people because my biological make up won't allow me to? I think so. But then, I couldn't say whether my apparent biological imperative to preserve life is innate or conditioned by society.

    My actions don't feel subjective. That doesn't mean they aren't though. Someone tell me if I'm a moral subjectivist?

    Can actions derived from biological imperative be considered in terms of morality? I don't know.
    You've stated the problem well and, absolutely, some do attempt an argument to the effect that morality is an innate sense, installed in humans as a product of evolution.

    There are many problems with this view. The most immediate problem (IMHO) is that biological impulses are not always so benign. We'll avoid fulfillig Godwin's law by mentioning the Rwandan genocide instead. Plenty of biological imperatives were displayed there, not many of which involved preservation of life.

    Now, it is another of those questions where no-one can actually tell you finally what to think. However, I'm not aware of any successful argument that shows a potential basis for an objective morality outside of religion. Innate impulses are just innate impulses. They might be comfortable, but that doesn't make them good or bad in a moral sense.


  • Options
    #41
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    seamus wrote: »
    Get in the sack.
    Excellent use of Dara o'Briain. :D

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RstwLzikmvA


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Dades wrote: »
    Aren't the definitions of "harm" and "innocent" exactly what needs to be defined by any system of morality? :pac:
    Harm... yes. Particular actions can cause harm in one circumstances and not in another.
    Example: Sex with 'young' people. Historically there have been many cultures where "if she's old enough to bleed, she's bleeding old enough" is the culturally established norm.

    Nowadays, having sex with a 12 year old is recognized to do psychological harm and so is legislated as statutory rape. In a society where most girls are married off as soon as they menstruate, is the adolescent harmed by having sex?

    This doesn't mean that 'harm' has changed meaning.

    Innocent is both easy and impossible to conclusively define.


  • Options
    #43
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    I'm fascinated by the large vote against objective morality.

    Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?

    Most posters seem to be skirting around a different concept, that of moral absolutism - which is not the same thing at all.

    To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".

    I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism


  • Options
    #44
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    robindch wrote: »

    Apologies for going all OCD on this :)

    Apologies for double replying to your post - I thought of something else that I should have said. I understand your objections to my poll. However, the audience here surely consists mostly of people that are not trained philosophers (I certainly have no formal philosophical training). So it seems that we have 2 choices

    1. Either refrain from discussing such matters at all and leave it to the pros - this is a reasonable course of action.

    2. Attempt to have a discussion, while allowing for the fact that most participants are not philosophers. So we must try to balance clarity versus precision in our statements and be honest about the limitations of our own knowledge. For example, I have no doubt that any semi competent philosopher could destroy me in 2 minutes in any discussion of moral objectivism - regardless of what position I choose to defend. That does not mean that I am not entitled to an opinion, just that I lack the training.

    Anyway, I respect your objections, but I have tried to adopt option 2 above and worded the poll accordingly. Thus, if I had phrased the poll options along the lines "I can give a rigorous philosophical defense of the following precisely specified moral objectivist position", would I get any more reliable information? Then the poll would really be about how much philosophy each of the respondees had studied.


  • Options
    #45
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    pH wrote: »
    I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
    I suspect you're right, and I'll be the first to hold my hand up!

    I reckon I got steered off course by this line in the OP:
    equivariant wrote: »
    Basically the issue is, in your opinion are good/evil objective or subjective concepts?
    Perhaps the OP could clarify?


  • Options
    #46
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    pH wrote: »
    I'm fascinated by the large vote against objective morality.
    Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?
    Most posters seem to be skirting around a different concept, that of moral absolutism - which is not the same thing at all.
    To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".
    I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
    You're right to bring the point up for clarification and, clearly, I've no idea what anyone else is voting on the basis of. But I don't think the question hinges on a distinction between moral absolutism and moral objectivism.

    As I understand it, moral absolutism would be like saying that it is always wrong for John to hit his wife, regardless of context. So, for the sake of argument, John would be wrong to hit his wife even if his intention is to stop her from killing their children.

    Moral objectivism would be to say that moral questions do require an appraisal of context. But, once taking account of context, the principles have general effect. So, in our scenario, it would be moral for anyone - not just John - to hit anyone's wife to prevent them from killing anyone's children.

    Moral subjectivism, as I understand it, doesn't particularly call on me to feel that John should be exempt from whatever I regard as ethical wife beating. It simply acknowledges that there's no particular reason for John to share my view of morality.

    Asserting that wife beating is objectively immoral is, ultimately, an argument for theism. There's a guy called William Lane Craig, who was the subject of a thread on a nearby forum some time ago, who uses an argument for theism along those lines.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80383465&postcount=57
    So what he's really trying to do (just based on the quote you included) is work backwards from the strong possibility that whomever he's debating with won't want to say "I think wife beating is unpleasant, but there's no natural order to the universe that it offends". Once he's trapped the other guy into saying wife beating is inherently wrong, he's got you. If wife beating does offend some universal morality, then it pretty much does follow that some moral law-giving being is the source of it.


  • Options
    #47
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    I responded to the poll with the terms outlined more or less as GCU has described above FWIW.

    On an unrelated note, William Lane Craig must be the most disingenuous debater I've ever seen. I don't think it's even close.


  • Options
    #48
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    I don't see any evidence that there is an objective morality but I'm open to the notion that there could be an objective morality, or at least a relatively objective morality.

    The much maligned Sam Harris makes a good analogy. Good health is somewhat subjective yet we usually have cancer sufferers as being in worse health than someone with a runny nose. Everyone has something wrong with them if you look hard enough so "perfect health" probably doesn't exist but that doesn't stop us giving a relative appraisal of health.

    In the same vein, "perfect morality" might not exist but it could be possible to come up with a fairly non-subjective metric by which to compare the morality of different actions - bombing a bus full of children compared to laughing at someone falling over, for example.


  • Options
    #49
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pH wrote: »
    I'm fascinated by the large vote against objective morality.

    Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?

    Most posters seem to be skirting around a different concept, that of moral absolutism - which is not the same thing at all.

    To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".

    I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

    Its the other way around.

    I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape someone, in that there is no situation or circumstance where raping someone is ok, not now, not 10,000 years ago, not if the person raped you first, never.

    That is "just" my subjective opinion though, I don't believe that it is some fundamental truth of the universe, like the speed of light or the distance from Cork to Dublin.


  • Options
    #50
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    In response to Dades, I think that the confusion was not caused by the OP, but rather by my attempted clarification, quoted below
    equivariant wrote: »
    Well I think that the poll options are precisely worded? What I really would like to know is the percentage of respondees that self identify as "atheist moral objectivists" - I will leave it to people themselves to decide what that means, as these are pretty well defined terms in the philosophical literature I think, and in any case I am not expert enough to give a philosophically precise definition of moral objectivism. I have included the theist options so that the results are not skewed by theist respondees (I am presuming that the vast majority of these will self identify as moral objectivists)

    If you must have a definition - this will suffice

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

    In my defence, I note that wikipedia has conflated objectivism and universalism, so I am only as thick as Wikipedia (which is surely something to be proud of). I suspect the pH is correct and that nearly all the voters are voting on the basis of universalism rather than his/her definition of objectivism, which seems to be the correct one.

    I also note the someone (surprisingly imo) has voted for 4. Is that a serious vote?

    Reliable information from this poll: wikipedia is bad, most of us have conflated universalism and objectivism.


  • Options
    #51
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    equivariant wrote: »
    I also note the someone (surprisingly imo) has voted for 4. Is that a serious vote?
    Some theists have sneaked into the forum when we weren't looking :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    equivariant wrote: »
    I also note the someone (surprisingly imo) has voted for 4. Is that a serious vote?

    Probably one of those Catholics who doesn't believe in God ;)


  • Options
    #53
    Sycopat
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    pH wrote: »
    Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?

    What I think your missing (or ,at least, the impression I got from the OP, and I could be wrong) is that the thread and poll were never about moral universalism, relativism or absolutism and never were but if we believe in the objective existence of a morality.

    To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".

    'I' believe it is wrong to beat 'my' wife.
    John believes it is his right to beat his wife.

    We obviously have different morals.

    That I would not be okay with John beating his wife means I would subscribe to moral universalism. If John believed it okay for me to beat my wife, so would he, but our morals themselves remain different.
    I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

    I'm wondering how you read the OP and figured he was talking about moral universalism/relativism/absolutism at all tbh.

    edit: Ah I see now, it came up in a later post. Makes sense now.


  • Options
    #54
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Its the other way around.

    I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape someone, in that there is no situation or circumstance where raping someone is ok, not now, not 10,000 years ago, not if the person raped you first, never.

    That is "just" my subjective opinion though, I don't believe that it is some fundamental truth of the universe, like the speed of light or the distance from Cork to Dublin.

    So if you adopt a moral absolutist position, you would say that there is no situation in which rape is right, regardless of any possible consequences (NB no matter how extreme those consequences are)?

    My understanding is that an absolutist position does not allow you to consider consequences to judge the morality of an act.


  • Options
    #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    equivariant wrote: »
    So if you adopt a moral absolutist position, you would say that there is no situation in which rape is right, regardless of any possible consequences (NB no matter how extreme those consequences are)?

    Correct, or more specifically you say that you believe some moral decisions are steadfast no matter what the circumstances are.

    For example, some people believe the death penalty is immoral no matter what the person has done, ie there are no circumstances where the death penalty is moral.

    Doesn't mean all moral decisions are made independently to circumstance, but it can also be said that exact same circumstance should produce the exact same moral decision. For example, a moral absolutist wouldn't say something like "Well rape back in medieval times wasn't as bad because it was a different time", or "Its not the same when immigrant families beat their children because they have a different culture to our Western values"


  • Options
    #56
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    For the purposes of this discussion I'm continuing to use the common understanding of moral objectivity, which is defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    You're"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutismYou're[/URL] right to bring the point up for clarification and, clearly, I've no idea what anyone else is voting on the basis of. But I don't think the question hinges on a distinction between moral absolutism and moral objectivism.

    As I understand it, moral absolutism would be like saying that it is always wrong for John to hit his wife, regardless of context. So, for the sake of argument, John would be wrong to hit his wife even if his intention is to stop her from killing their children.

    Moral objectivism would be to say that moral questions do require an appraisal of context. But, once taking account of context, the principles have general effect. So, in our scenario, it would be moral for anyone - not just John - to hit anyone's wife to prevent them from killing anyone's children.

    Sorry but no.

    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.

    Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply,

    For concrete examples - our legal system for the main part is morally objective- it doesn't matter who you are you are expected to follow a moral code and be punished if you do not.

    A counter (non moral objectivism) position would be for example those wanting Shariah law. If there were 2 legal codes then depending on who you are you get judged under that one - something moral/legal in one may not be legal/moral in the other. If you are happy that different people can have different legal/moral codes then you're not a moral objectivist.
    Sycopat wrote:
    What I think your missing (or ,at least, the impression I got from the OP, and I could be wrong) is that the thread and poll were never about moral universalism, relativism or absolutism and never were but if we believe in the objective existence of a morality.

    In the 5th post on the thread the OP said he was using a standard philosophical definition of moral objectivism and linked to the wikipedia article on moral universalism. :confused:
    Wicknight wrote:
    Its the other way around.

    I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape someone, in that there is no situation or circumstance where raping someone is ok, not now, not 10,000 years ago, not if the person raped you first, never.

    That is "just" my subjective opinion though, I don't believe that it is some fundamental truth of the universe, like the speed of light or the distance from Cork to Dublin.

    Not if we're discussing moral objectivism.

    If you as Wicknight believe that rape is wrong - and you don't believe that others in society should be free to hold a "rape is right" morality (they should be punished for rape) - then you subscribe to moral objectivism.

    How you came to the view that "rape is wrong" is irrelevant, from some old writings you think god gave us, from reading philosophy or just from a dream you had - it doesn't matter your statement says you believe that rape is always wrong (therefore objectively wrong) and this should be applied universally (you don't believe other people get the right to say "rape is good" and go about raping) - hence moral universalism/moral objectivism.


  • Options
    #57
    Sycopat
    Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    pH wrote: »
    Sorry but no.

    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.

    Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply,

    Not necessarily. That's moral absolutism. Which is not incompatible with moral universalism, but they are not the same thing. Unlike moral absolutism, Moral universalism can be contextual.

    Moral absolutism: Stealing is always, always wrong. No matter what.

    Contextual Moral universalism: Any person in the situation of being unable to otherwise feed their family may steal to feed their family. A person who can feed their family without stealing should not steal.

    Moral relativism(which is opposed to moral universalism): I will not steal for I believe it immoral. You may steal if you believe it to be moral, whether you are rich or poor.
    For concrete examples - our legal system for the main part is morally objective- it doesn't matter who you are you are expected to follow a moral code and be punished if you do not.

    Actually that's morally absolutist. The moral objectivity comes into our legal system in the discretion allowed judges to determine degree of punishment based on context.
    In the 5th post on the thread the OP said he was using a standard philosophical definition of moral objectivism and linked to the wikipedia article on moral universalism. :confused:

    Yeah sorry about that:
    Sycopat wrote: »

    I'm wondering how you read the OP and figured he was talking about moral universalism/relativism/absolutism at all tbh.

    edit: Ah I see now, it came up in a later post. Makes sense now.


    Not if we're discussing moral objectivism.

    If you as Wicknight believe that rape is wrong - and you don't believe that others in society should be free to hold a "rape is right" morality (they should be punished for rape) - then you subscribe to moral objectivism.

    How you came to the view that "rape is wrong" is irrelevant, from some old writings you think god gave us, from reading philosophy or just from a dream you had - it doesn't matter your statement says you believe that rape is always wrong (therefore objectively wrong) and this should be applied universally (you don't believe other people get the right to say "rape is good" and go about raping) - hence moral universalism/moral objectivism.

    italics: moral absolutism
    bold: moral universalism.

    The extent of moral absolutism of a moral universalist depends on how they understand or define "all similarly situated individuals". A similar situation can be defined broadly(and tend towards absolutism) or narrowly(tending towards contextualism)

    If we had one of those X -Y graphs people use for describing agnostic atheism vs. gnostic theism, then absolutism and contextualism would be on one axis and universalism/relativism would be on the other.

    Note: (and this is aimed at no one in particular) that in this thread there has seemingly been much conflation of terminology. Originally centered around a conflation of objective morality with moral objectivity then some of moral objectivity with moral absolutism, and now I'm seeing moral universalism (a synonym for moral objectivism) with moral absolutism as well.


  • Options
    #58
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Sarky wrote: »
    I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series for not just being good games, but also getting in some meaningful commentary on morality and perception. The explanation of the Creed is pretty much how I see life.

    So you're saying I should buy it?


  • Options
    #59
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pH wrote: »
    Not if we're discussing moral objectivism.

    If you as Wicknight believe that rape is wrong - and you don't believe that others in society should be free to hold a "rape is right" morality (they should be punished for rape) - then you subscribe to moral objectivism.

    Only if I believe they are objectively wrong.

    If I believe morality is just opinion I believe in subjective morality, even if I don't care what anyone else's opinion is and do not allow anyone else the freedom to practice their different version of morality.

    To use a non-moral example, I might say that the Spice Girl Movie is absolutely terrible and ban all copies of it and think that anyone who likes it is a moron. That is different to asserting that pi is 3.14159...

    If someone thinks the Spice Girl Movie is good they are not objectively wrong, there is no objective standard for whether a movie is or isn't good, it is just opinion. But pi is what it is what ever I or anyone else thinks.
    pH wrote: »
    How you came to the view that "rape is wrong" is irrelevant, from some old writings you think god gave us, from reading philosophy or just from a dream you had - it doesn't matter your statement says you believe that rape is always wrong (therefore objectively wrong) and this should be applied universally (you don't believe other people get the right to say "rape is good" and go about raping) - hence moral universalism/moral objectivism.

    If I believe the Spice Girls Movie is bad, and will always be bad, and there is no circumstance where I think anything could make it better, does that mean that the Spice Girls Movie is objectively bad and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong (like saying pi is 4.23).

    Or is it still "just" my opinion?


  • Options
    #60
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    bluewolf wrote: »
    So you're saying I should buy it?

    It's not for me to say. The answer is something you'll have to work out for yourself.

    But also yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Only if I believe they are objectively wrong.

    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.


Advertisement