Yes, I'm hoping for a binary result to be the product of my "test". Morality does often present as being subject to an individuals perception. If I was using a looks like a duck, quacks like a duck protocol; then rejecting objectivity outright would be a likely outcome. I think we do want it to be objective to validate how much emotional investment the subject entails. Wanting a particular answer too much can be a trap.There is no objective morality plane and simple — MAYAEL
An attempt at an exploration in search of objectivity, because relativism causes so much harm. — Cheshire
Intrigued by this. How do you imagine it causes harm? — Isaac
How are any of these the fault of relativism? These acts were often argued to be morally acceptable and objectively moral. It's the actual argument that these acts are objectively moral that provides the reasoning for others to participate in them.It delivered the worst humans have ever done. Slavery, Genocide, Illegal Downloading... — Cheshire
I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available.How are any of these the fault of relativism? — Harry Hindu
Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing.I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available. — Cheshire
Yep.Really? — Harry Hindu
Two groups are committing immoral acts.What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? — Harry Hindu
Almost curious what you have to twist in order to support this assertion. No one is generally arguing it in the way you have presented it.Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing. — Harry Hindu
Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral?Two groups are committing immoral acts. — Cheshire
You derived self defense from the refutation of the following statement about genocide/slavery.Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral? — Harry Hindu
Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing. — Harry Hindu
If you're asking if there is something objective about an immoral act, I would say there is, viz., the harm done. So, for example, if I cut someone's arm off for no good reason, then I've committed an immoral act by definition. — Sam26
I'm not sure whether you're actually asking this, or whether it is just part of your discussion.I think that for one's moral stance to be strong, one has to believe that it's not merely one's own, subjective, partial, biased view, but that it intimately has something to do with "how things really are", ie. that it is objective, beyond mere subjectivity.
— baker
Why does my lone perception carry less moral validity than some one's imagined consensus with the universe? — Cheshire
But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. — Cheshire
I'm taking for granted that I seem to believe it without any trouble. The OP was basically this assertion followed by But, I can't account for how this could be; because every case seems to be about an observer.Note that here with your notion of moral objectivism, you're already taking for granted that certain acts are moral, while others are immoral. — baker
The ground that my perception of what is moral is accurate. But, I don't know why. It isn't compelling, but near universally understood. So much so we test our moral theories against an understood intuitive moral standard. Or unuttered theory. Then, expect the same from others without explanation. The thread was meant to test for the experience being real or an illusion of sorts. So far it's moderately inconclusive.But on the grounds of what did you establish that a certain act is moral to begin with? Your gut feeling? — baker
I asked if you meant they were all equally valid, which you confirmed. — Cheshire
Your demonstration of multi-sided ethics via a soccer gain result.↪Cheshire I am now confused. I can't identify what you mean by "they". But it's not your fault... my mind is going, I can't mentally encompass a great number of data items that require short-term memory recall. Sorry, again, it is clearly my fault and my problem. — god must be atheist
Originating Here:They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist
If my soccer team wins by one goal where the referee did not punish my team for being off side, then it's not a moral sin for the followers of my team, but it is for the opposing team. — god must be atheist
Your demonstration of multi-sided ethics via a soccer gain result. — Cheshire
I just really can't fathom the jist of your criticism. — god must be atheist
They are equally valid in two groups: valid for one group with one set of answers, and valid for the other group with a different set of answers. The validity is decided on whom the answer vindicates morally. To one group those questions will be valid that morally vindicate them; to the other group, conversely so. — god must be atheist
There's also attempted Armacide. It's immoral from the intention to harm, but lacks the objective existence of it. Would this still qualify as a property and maintain an objective sense? — Cheshire
1. Is it Morally wrong to destroy a beautiful painting?
2. What if no one would have ever seen it?
3. What if you painted it? — Cheshire
I think I'm in agreement. I suppose harm implies there is an understood value in the subject of harm. Others being high value and self-portraits held for disposal would be low value. The more I look at it we're just discussing criminal law without specific precedent.So, even in a case like this, there's going to be an objective component. — Sam26
The idea was to establish objective morality. If the answers are different, then morality is not from the act but rather a subjective notion of the observer. The same willful act of destruction of the same object should in theory produce the same moral judgement. Or not. An attempt at an inquiry.Well......if no one has ever seen it, there is no beauty. We observers are not passive receivers of some beauty that is "out there". What, did you actually think this to be the case? Not only does beauty vanish in an unobserved world (an impossible thing to even imagine, really), but reason and meaning vanishes as well. — Constance
First, I maintain that was a misinterpretation of Kant's work that was referenced in it's refutation. The original work is discussing lying in Kant's legal sense as whether or not it is a liability to tell the truth.The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that you are stuck at the same hurdle as Kant, when it comes to lying (Kant said you can't and must not) and lying for the effect of effecting a moral good. You and Kant can't come to terms with the flip-flop nature of moral conviction, and its effect on people. — god must be atheist
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.