stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,609
- 1,644
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Then the argument becomes what is good and what is bad, to what objective standard do we ground this in. That leads to measuring morals by scientifically and logically according to material ideas of objectivity which ends with the 'is/ought' problem. By making moral truths like laws inherent in the universe through conscious experience we overcome that problem.I don't see that as a problem. If you treat morality as something trancedendant then it might. But it's a practical matter. What works is good. What doesn't is bad.
It then becomes a case of supporting these non physical/material truths but not through empirical science alone but through our conscious experience which is directly connected to these transcendent moral truths because it is through our lived experience that we know morality. It is a better measure than science because its direct and science is a mental concept that is indirect when it comes to conscious experience.
But that doesn't mean we cannot reason our morals as we are rational beings as well. Its when rationality and our conscious experience lines up to make a true representation of what is happening that we can know these moral truths.
I think the point is we can pose moral dilemmas all day long but that doesn't mean there is not a moral truth to be found in each and every situation. As morality is also circumstantial when can find the moral truth in most if not all situations because objective morals are not absolute. But if the issue is more complex and it seems there is no answer that doesn't mean there is no determination. It just means we have to think about it more.Is lying morally bad? If the lie is going to cause a problem then we ought not tell it. If it solves a problem then we should.
So that means we look at each situation on its own merits and this may lead to lying being the moral thing to do. Usually that's because a greater moral truth comes into play. In some situations you may be more intimate with the person so your moral responsibility will be different to someone who is not intimate. It may be you have more knowledge so then your moral responsibility is greater.
So if you know the lie is going to hurt that person in a way that brings greater harm than the lie represented in the original case then you know its not the best way to behave morally. If you didn't know and harm is done how can you be held responsible. The ultimate wrong is taking a life without justification. So obviously if a lie saves life then its ok to lie. I don't even think its a lie as I thought a lie was about knowingly lying for personal and selfish gain.
The beauty to seeing things this way is that I think it accommodates subjective conscious experience and yet can still hold that there is a moral truth to all moral situations. It also lays responsibility back on the knowledge a person has which seems to relate to the idea that knowledge and Mind is fundamental just as QM seems to point to.
Last edited:
Upvote
0