If there is objective morality, then equal interests per life time for each sentient being should be the aim to achieve. — Atheer
. What does "equal interests per life time" mean? — SophistiCat
But equally considering equal interests is so demanding that it is impossible to achieve. Still I do not find some alternative that I can call objective. — Atheer
If there is objective morality, then equal interests per life time for each sentient being should be the aim to achieve. — Atheer
It is not about fault of whom, it is about making the distribution of well-being (closer to being) being objective. — Atheer
As long as illness and natural disasters happen to humans, carnivorous animals have to eat other animals or suffer and die themselves, we can not provide equal wellbeing to each sentient being. And if we can not that, then separateness of persons and equal distribution of well-being will be both required for objective morality to exist and impossible to achieve, which only leaves us with the option that it is imaginary!
Is there a solution for this problem from moral realiists here? — Atheer
The problem is that I am not sure where I went wrong about defining objective morality, or there is no objective morality that can be real even in any other possible definition.
What could be other definitions that qualify for objective morality and still be realistic? — Atheer
If there is objective morality, then equal interests per life time for each sentient being should be the aim to achieve. — Atheer
Is objective morality imaginary? — Atheer
I think it is objectively wrong to have differrent judgements on identical cases — Atheer
But it's objective only according to your preferred pretty pattern. There's no intrinsic reason, in nature, to prefer equal distribution. So what if peoples' lot is different, provided we ensure a lower "floor" below which no one need fall? Looking at it from my own point of view, it doesn't matter to me in the least that some have more than me, what matters is that I have what is due to me. That is objective justice. — gurugeorge
Morality is objective, if you look at morality with the group/team in mind. Morality was not designed to maximize the individual. Morality maximizes the team. The team has the unique property of being able to become more than the sum of its parts. The team affect can elevate all the individuals on the team. — wellwisher
Morality is not designed to maximize the individual. — wellwisher
Unless it is recognized that life intersects morality, moral realism will never make sense. There will always be contradictions, exceptions, ambiguity. — darthbarracuda
I think your basic problem is that 'objectivity' is too narrow a criterion for the establishment of ethical claims. Objectivity is a very useful criterion across many subjects, but ethical judgements are a different matter, as in this context, you're dealing with the wishes, rights and demands of persons, who are not 'objects' as such. — Wayfarer
There are not 100% identical cases concerning human beings. Hence there is no different judgement on identical cases. There is only different judgement on identical represented cases. — Tomseltje
For instance, if we can not prevent every individual from suffering, does it still make sense to try to lessen the number of people who will suffer (and still hold to our belief in the separateness of persons)? — Atheer
So, again, I think the attempt to arrive at a formula can only ever conform to some variety of utilitarianism, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.