Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 75150477" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>How is that fact that our wishes can differ from our consciences support for objective morals?</p><p></p><p>If one person believes their conscience tells them a certain action is moral and another person believes their conscience tells them it is not, how can the objective moral truth be established? How can they determine which of them is correct or incorrect?</p><p></p><p>It's easy to claim that there is an objective moral truth, but if there is no way to determine what it is, it seems that you either acknowledge moral uncertainty, or assert moral certainty.</p><p> </p><p>No. All subjectivity means is that individuals have their own moral views. Some think views that differ are wrong, some think views that differ are right for the individual that holds them, and some think it depends on the circumstances.</p><p></p><p>Society and organizations impose the rules they do for a variety of reasons, to maintain order, safety, to provide a sense of justice and recourse, to increase prosperity & well-being; to protect themselves, to maintain a good image, for efficiency and profit, etc. There may be moral grounding for some of those rules, but in general, only fundamentalist societies make a claim to moral truth, and that, I suspect, more for political and propaganda purposes than sincerity (although some of the population may take it literally).</p><p></p><p>Consequentialism, where, 'the ends justify the means', has its own problems.</p><p> </p><p>On the contrary, Kantian deontology is based on reason and requires reason in its application - the '<em>perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions</em>' requires that you reason whether your choice of action would be self-contradicting if universally mandated or followed.</p><p></p><p>See the Kantian 'Categorical Imperative' (above).</p><p></p><p>Human well-being (or at least the predisposition not to do harm without good reason) is often accepted as a universal (captured in the 'golden rule') and hence the dehumanisation of victim groups, but I agree, who says what should be the basis? In practice, moral frameworks are generally built on the innate sense of fairness, enlightened self-interest (e.g. the golden rule), and the requirements for group success (cooperation, reciprocity, etc).</p><p></p><p>Sure, codifying some moral views into group rules and laws clarifies the situation, but following a rule or law doesn't mean you share its moral values, it's contractual - follow the rules - whatever your opinion - and you will share in the benefits; a contract more honoured in the breach...</p><p></p><p>But what about my question? People have differing moral views; if they all claim that their various views represent objective moral truths, what difference would that make? e.g. how is it different from subjective morality?</p><p></p><p>And yet society is more polarised on what is and isn't right than it has been for many years...</p><p></p><p></p><p>The young have always questioned and criticised traditional values.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 75150477, member: 241055"] How is that fact that our wishes can differ from our consciences support for objective morals? If one person believes their conscience tells them a certain action is moral and another person believes their conscience tells them it is not, how can the objective moral truth be established? How can they determine which of them is correct or incorrect? It's easy to claim that there is an objective moral truth, but if there is no way to determine what it is, it seems that you either acknowledge moral uncertainty, or assert moral certainty. No. All subjectivity means is that individuals have their own moral views. Some think views that differ are wrong, some think views that differ are right for the individual that holds them, and some think it depends on the circumstances. Society and organizations impose the rules they do for a variety of reasons, to maintain order, safety, to provide a sense of justice and recourse, to increase prosperity & well-being; to protect themselves, to maintain a good image, for efficiency and profit, etc. There may be moral grounding for some of those rules, but in general, only fundamentalist societies make a claim to moral truth, and that, I suspect, more for political and propaganda purposes than sincerity (although some of the population may take it literally). Consequentialism, where, 'the ends justify the means', has its own problems. On the contrary, Kantian deontology is based on reason and requires reason in its application - the '[I]perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions[/I]' requires that you reason whether your choice of action would be self-contradicting if universally mandated or followed. See the Kantian 'Categorical Imperative' (above). Human well-being (or at least the predisposition not to do harm without good reason) is often accepted as a universal (captured in the 'golden rule') and hence the dehumanisation of victim groups, but I agree, who says what should be the basis? In practice, moral frameworks are generally built on the innate sense of fairness, enlightened self-interest (e.g. the golden rule), and the requirements for group success (cooperation, reciprocity, etc). Sure, codifying some moral views into group rules and laws clarifies the situation, but following a rule or law doesn't mean you share its moral values, it's contractual - follow the rules - whatever your opinion - and you will share in the benefits; a contract more honoured in the breach... But what about my question? People have differing moral views; if they all claim that their various views represent objective moral truths, what difference would that make? e.g. how is it different from subjective morality? And yet society is more polarised on what is and isn't right than it has been for many years... The young have always questioned and criticised traditional values. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Atheism and nihilism
Top
Bottom