-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Is morality Objective?
- Thread starter AimlessEMF
- Start date
Please tell me the method you have for discerning what you think is the truth from the truth itself.Forest said:
Not true. Both "moral" and "true" are words in human language. Therefore humans like you and me decide their meanings.
:æ:
Upvote
0
Forest
Senior Veteran
:æ: said:
If you believe that morality and truth are subjective, then why do you say "not true".
We may decide on word definitions but "truth" as understood by a common definition is still objective. I look out my window and see clouds. (truth, no subjectivity in that truth, you may not believe it and I may not be able to prove it, but it is still 100% true)
Upvote
0
mepalmer3 said:
We're not completely addressing each others' concerns, I'm afraid. My only point here is to demonstrate that "objective" need not translate to "trancendentally absolute." The fact that we, as humans, have so much in common dictates much of our morality. That, in my mind, qualifies as "objective," but does not demonstrably derive from anything "trancendentally absolute."
Upvote
0
mepalmer3
Well-Known Member
MuAndNu said:
I'm afraid if we don't speak of it in terms that are clear, then we really lose the ability to communicate. If I water down what I mean when I say "objective" to fit something you're more comfortable or agreeable, then I've completely lost the meaning of what I'm trying to express.
1. Either morality truly is right/wrong, or it is not. (law of excluded middle)
2. If morality is not truly right/wrong, then no act is either right or wrong, or better or worse than any other. (true by definition)
3. Some acts are perfectly good/right acts.
4. Some acts are better than other acts.
5. Therefore, a true moral right/wrong exists.
The only premise you can logically argue is 3 or 4. You can say that no in fact rape is no different morally than love. I just think the evidence is overwhelming that 3 and 4 are true.
Upvote
0
mepalmer3 said:
3. Some acts are perfectly good/right acts.
Who will define "perfect" for us?
4. Some acts are better than other acts.
Yes, but who's to make that judgment? Whether it appeals to you or not, each of us has to do that individually.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objectivity:
ob·jec·tiv·i·ty (bjk-tv-t)
n.
1. The state or quality of being objective.
2. External or material reality.
objectivity
n : judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Transcendence does not inhere in this definition. To suggest that much morality derives from just the way people are, their common needs, and the impositions of their environments is a "judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices." It is, therefore, objective.
People will have to decide what's "perfect" and/or people will have to decide what's right and wrong. But the criteria they use in deciding are the contraints and restraints placed on them by their natures and environments. Thus, fundamental morality will not vary much from one person to the next.
In other words, people will have to decide what's "perfect" and/or people will have to decide what's right and wrong. But the criteria they use in deciding are the contraints and restraints placed on them by their natures. Thus, fundamental morality will not vary much from one person to the next.
Transcendence isn't required to explain common morality.
Upvote
0
Mepalmer, I'm going to respond directly to your syllogism, since the matter of whether acts truly are right/wrong is the issue of this debate. If there is anything in post #13 that you want me to address, let me know and I'll do so, but otherwise I'm just going to try to get to what I think is the pivotal issue.
First off, great syllogism! It's simple and logically valid, well laid out and you even illustrated the issue at hand by specifically identifying the debatable premises for everyone. I gotta say that's very good and I admittedly wouldn't expect such from you (maybe I've just been gone for too long) but you've surprised me with this and I commend you for it.
Anyway, the issue at hand - is there overwhelming evidence that things like rape and torture are REALLY worse than saving someone's life or feeding a hungry child? You say that introspection shows this to be true, and it is so widely and strongly accepted that some things are obviously worse than others that there MUST be an objective moral standard.
I would like to try and refute this, using counterexamples in the form of a reductio ad absurdum. What this means is, I'm going to apply your reasoning to another context, and a context that leads to agreeably false conclusions, to show that your reasoning, though it SEEMS correct with regard to morality, can be seen to be invalid with a broader perspective.
I will apply it to a couple things that you have already agreed are subjective and should never be considered objectively right or wrong, better or worse. I'll quote you first so you don't have to go back looking for what I'm referring to:
You used foods, and sports. So we're talking about the subjectivity of taste and fun, roughly. You say that these are obviously preference, and there is no standard of better or worse. You say the situation is different with morality, because people strongly object to rape in a way they would never object to a sports team they don't like. I completely agree with you! However, I think your comparison is unfair, and I don't think you realize it. You are comparing two drastically different moral acts in your examples, like eating a child vs caring for a child. However, with your examples of taste and fun, your examples are hardly different at all: you don't use equally drastic distinctions, and thus you give a false impression that morality is objectively different that other subjective preferences.
I will clear up this false impression by applying drastically different examples to taste and fun the same way you've applied drastically different examples to moral acts.
If you were to ask people, which tastes better, a fresh piece of dog feces covered in human vomit, or a fresh piece of apple pie covered in whipped cream, how many people do you think will say the vomit covered feces is better? Don't you think EVERYONE will say that OBVIOUSLY the pie is truly better than the poop? I think the reaction will be strong, they will be sickened by the idea of eating poop and vomit, and they will not hesitate to argue that pie is better and anyone who thinks otherwise is psychotic.
If you were to ask people, which is more fun, sorting their sock drawer, or going to see a great movie with their best friends, how many people would rather sort socks? Do you think you're going to get a 50/50 answer to this one? Or do you rather think, people are going to look at you like you're an idiot, and think you're ridiculous for even asking such a stupid question?
Now, have I just proven that taste is objective? Have I just proven that fun is objective? Not at all. All I have proven, if you read between the lines, is that human beings all share a lot in common in the way of desires and preferences. The lines will definitely blur when you are comparing apples and oranges, but when you're comparing dog **** and pie, the distinctions become quite clear, and it's easy to see just how similiar we all are at a fundamental level.
The evidence is just as "overwhelming" that taste/fun are objective as it is that morality is objective, according to your reasoning. However, this shows that your conclusion is invalid - you can't conclude from mass aggreeance objectivity, you can only conclude similiarity - the facts don't permit anything beyond this.
So, because we are social, empathetic creatures, we share a lot of moral tendencies that stem from our social bonds and our empathy. Therefore, you're not going to find many people who say eating children is better than caring for and loving children. This is not due to any objective standard in the sense you're describing, this has to do with a very strong and common thread of desire we all have as human beings (or almost all of us, there ARE people who'd rather eat the children, because they don't seem to hold these common desires).
So to conclude, I'd say you've taken the evidence and concluded too much from it. Where only massive similiarity is warranted, you've inserted an objective standard. You're going to need some new, more sophisticated arguments and evidences to support this, because right now with what you've provided, your conclusion is not properly substantiated.
Mepalmer said:
First off, great syllogism! It's simple and logically valid, well laid out and you even illustrated the issue at hand by specifically identifying the debatable premises for everyone. I gotta say that's very good and I admittedly wouldn't expect such from you (maybe I've just been gone for too long) but you've surprised me with this and I commend you for it.
Anyway, the issue at hand - is there overwhelming evidence that things like rape and torture are REALLY worse than saving someone's life or feeding a hungry child? You say that introspection shows this to be true, and it is so widely and strongly accepted that some things are obviously worse than others that there MUST be an objective moral standard.
I would like to try and refute this, using counterexamples in the form of a reductio ad absurdum. What this means is, I'm going to apply your reasoning to another context, and a context that leads to agreeably false conclusions, to show that your reasoning, though it SEEMS correct with regard to morality, can be seen to be invalid with a broader perspective.
I will apply it to a couple things that you have already agreed are subjective and should never be considered objectively right or wrong, better or worse. I'll quote you first so you don't have to go back looking for what I'm referring to:
You used foods, and sports. So we're talking about the subjectivity of taste and fun, roughly. You say that these are obviously preference, and there is no standard of better or worse. You say the situation is different with morality, because people strongly object to rape in a way they would never object to a sports team they don't like. I completely agree with you! However, I think your comparison is unfair, and I don't think you realize it. You are comparing two drastically different moral acts in your examples, like eating a child vs caring for a child. However, with your examples of taste and fun, your examples are hardly different at all: you don't use equally drastic distinctions, and thus you give a false impression that morality is objectively different that other subjective preferences.
I will clear up this false impression by applying drastically different examples to taste and fun the same way you've applied drastically different examples to moral acts.
If you were to ask people, which tastes better, a fresh piece of dog feces covered in human vomit, or a fresh piece of apple pie covered in whipped cream, how many people do you think will say the vomit covered feces is better? Don't you think EVERYONE will say that OBVIOUSLY the pie is truly better than the poop? I think the reaction will be strong, they will be sickened by the idea of eating poop and vomit, and they will not hesitate to argue that pie is better and anyone who thinks otherwise is psychotic.
If you were to ask people, which is more fun, sorting their sock drawer, or going to see a great movie with their best friends, how many people would rather sort socks? Do you think you're going to get a 50/50 answer to this one? Or do you rather think, people are going to look at you like you're an idiot, and think you're ridiculous for even asking such a stupid question?
Now, have I just proven that taste is objective? Have I just proven that fun is objective? Not at all. All I have proven, if you read between the lines, is that human beings all share a lot in common in the way of desires and preferences. The lines will definitely blur when you are comparing apples and oranges, but when you're comparing dog **** and pie, the distinctions become quite clear, and it's easy to see just how similiar we all are at a fundamental level.
The evidence is just as "overwhelming" that taste/fun are objective as it is that morality is objective, according to your reasoning. However, this shows that your conclusion is invalid - you can't conclude from mass aggreeance objectivity, you can only conclude similiarity - the facts don't permit anything beyond this.
So, because we are social, empathetic creatures, we share a lot of moral tendencies that stem from our social bonds and our empathy. Therefore, you're not going to find many people who say eating children is better than caring for and loving children. This is not due to any objective standard in the sense you're describing, this has to do with a very strong and common thread of desire we all have as human beings (or almost all of us, there ARE people who'd rather eat the children, because they don't seem to hold these common desires).
So to conclude, I'd say you've taken the evidence and concluded too much from it. Where only massive similiarity is warranted, you've inserted an objective standard. You're going to need some new, more sophisticated arguments and evidences to support this, because right now with what you've provided, your conclusion is not properly substantiated.
Upvote
0
Marz Blak
Well-Known Member
Agreed.mepalmer3 said:
Agreed. But the fact that morality is not Right/Wrong in any objective sense does not mean that people cannot arrive at broad intersubjective consensuses about right and wrong and act accordingly.
Unproven assertion. If the second half of (1) is true, of course, this is meaningless.
Another unproven assertion.
Your argument hangs on (3) and (4) being true, and they are unproven, so it doesn't work. You apparently recognize this....
1. What is your evidence? I suspect that whatever it is, there's a good deal of subjectivity involved with it when it's examined closely; and of course an argument for the objective truth of something based on subjectively-derived assertions....
2. One would not have to take as extreme a position as you suggest--that rape and love are moral equivalents--in order to argue that (3) and (4) are not valid. One could, for example, simply argue that they are unproven assertions and leave it at that. On the other hand, one could, of course, certainly imagine a rational argument that rape and love *are* moral equivalents, couldn't he? I don't hold such to be the case, but I think I could make such an argument.
Or one could argue that, even assuming that (3) and (4) are true, there's is practically no way to exemplify them without some subjectivity creeping in (either *yours* if you base your evaluation of whether an act is perfectly moral or morally better than another given act on your own innate moral sense, or someone else's if you propose some external referent as the ultimate arbiter of moral rectitude). This being the case, even if it were the case that objective morality exists, we as subjective creatures have no practical access to it.
In short, your entire argument comes down to saying that objective morality exists because some acts are prima facie objectively morally superior. It is basically a circular argument.
Upvote
0
mepalmer3
Well-Known Member
Socrastein said:
This is true. Although I think I also mentioned in the syllogism that I believe some things are obviously very moral without the need to compare them to anything else. Telling my wife I love her, for example, is a very moral thing to do. I don't need to compare that to anything else, rather it is simply moral all on it's own.
Through introspection, I think many things are seen as moral or immoral without having to compare them to other things. Although I do believe they are unprovable. I certainly can't prove that rape is morally wrong all on it's own... but it certainly appears undeniable to me. But again, if someone wants to deny it, then they certainly may.
Socrastein said:
That's a fair rebuttal. Although even taking the poop vs pie argument. There isn't a single desire in me that says it's actually wrong for someone to eat poop... well, I think it's really gross and I'd politely tell them I need to excuse myself while they eat it. But it would seem to me nonsense to have any desire to rise up in arms over poop-eaters. The closest I can come to feeling anything morally over this sort of thing is the fact that I think people should treat their bodies with respect, and generally speaking poop will not be very healthy for someone to eat. But then the analogy moves away from something that is clearly subjective (taste) to something that is objective...
I have to admit... objective morality seems so obvious to me that trying to argue against it seems like trying to present rational arguments to someone in the middle of a forest that trees don't actually exist. Like Socrates suggested, I think I trust my introspection even more I do my more normal senses. The closest I've been able to come to denying what I observe has only come from the times where I simply didn't want there to be an objective morality. I'm at times like the quote underneath where I want to try to blot out the sun by scribbling darkness on the wall.
Upvote
0
Mepalmer said:
Well of course you don't morally object, because taste doesn't have anything to do with morals. The same way you wouldn't want to puke if someone stole some money from a bank, cause morals don't have anything to do with taste.
Also, I think I asked you this a long time ago, but I don't remember, and if I did, I don't remember how you responded if you did, so I'll just ask again.
If objective morality is so incredibly obvious to you, then you should have no problem laying out what morality is. I therefore ask that you give a list of every moral maxim that is objective and undeniable by a rational person. If you cannot do this, or if you cannot present a list that doesn't quickly fall apart with multiple rejections and counterarguments, then how can you 1) say there is an objective, absolute morality and 2) say that it is obvious?
Upvote
0
Waiting for the Verdict
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your post. Now, my Kant is a little rusty, but from what I understand, his philosophy never saw God as the absolute standard by which morality is Judged (which is good, since even that position is really relativist. What if God changes the moral laws he sets up. Does that make rape good and love bad...if he tells us it does?), nor does Kant (I beleive) appeal to any sort of idealized form of goodness apart from, and higher than, God (my personal position). Strictly speaking, would his moral system be absolutist? Probably not. But if secular cultures took him as a benchmark for absolutism, I think it might prove more beneficial than tearing down all the old moral codes alltogether. Evolutionarily, they serve a purpose, even if they have been warped over time. Anyways, that's just my opinion. I'm going only on what I've been taught about Kant, as I have never been able to find a cheap enough copy of Critique of Pure Reason.kedaman said:
WAAAH!
Thanks again.
Upvote
0
You can read it onlineWaiting for the Verdict said:
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/And the groundwork for metaphysics of morals: http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/kant/kantcon.htm
God doesn't change, but why is that? According to Kant we have this idea of God defined as the highest good, moral perfection. Were we to find someone we thought is morally perfect but find out later he isn't, we see his principles have changed, or rather, the principles aren't grounded in reason, so that they would only obligate him to do things under certain circumstances, but not others. But were certain obligations to apply unconditionally, that is grounded in reason, would he be unchanging and morally perfect in his ways. So it is in fact absolutism. Kant also gives us a moral argument to believe in God:
First, morality is perfectly rational, but what is our interest in behaving rationally? If immoral behaviour leads to better consequences than moral behaviour then it would be more rational to behave immorally, and often it would seem this is the case, since it seems like you can always get away with immoral behaviour in man's justice system. So if there is a perfect justice system that extends beyond this life then it would be in our interest to behave rationally. This makes it practically necessary to believe in God.
Upvote
0
kedaman said:
This would only work for those who fear that there is a perfect justice system that extends beyond this life. If focus is made on the What-Ifs or the Just-In-Cases then we'd be in a bind since there are other belief systems which also have their own rules and consequences.
Upvote
0
mepalmer3 said:
I wrote the following late at night so if there are any holes feel free to poke at them but what I don't want this to turn into is some kind of semantics debate. Yes the meaning of the words are important but also take a gander at the spirit of the word and what it's trying to convey. That being said read on if you feel inclined:
A man kills another man with a witness present. Now this is quite a situation, vengence is usually a grey area but let's disect it a bit. There are three people directly involved in this example: the person who did the action, the person who is directly affected by that action and the person viewing this action. Now is this situation inherently bad? Well, when asked a question there are usually three possible answers: either yes, no or maybe (and maybe doesn't apply to this situation as you'll see). We will address each answer in the hopes of eliminating some.
Yes it is inherently bad.
Well how is this determined? If we say that an action is inherently bad then that means that there is no good that comes from this action (if there is even a little good then the situation becomes subjective and absolute morality is unattainable). For the purpose of clarity we'll state that for something to be good it needs to have a favorable or positive outcome and for something to be bad it needs to have a unfavorable or negative outcome.
Now does the man killing the other man have a negative outcome? Well sure the man is dead (if you value life then this would be a bad thing), the killer could spend his life in jail, the witness could be traumatized. But are there any positive outcomes? I think it's agreed that this situation could have some good. The man could be killing the other in self-defense or trying to protect the witness. If the person that was killed was a psychopathic killer then his death would be beneficial to society.
In other words it depends; it's relative to the situation and the players involved and is thus subjective. So many factors can come into play that would change our minds.
No it isn't inherently bad.
By process of elimination this is the only answer; for this situation it is possible to have good outcomes and as such can't be inherently bad.
But let's take this a tad further. It would be a fallacy to assume that because this situation doesn't have an inherent morality associated with it that all situations are the same. But since we can't analyse every scenario we have to develop a way of determining if situations we encounter do have that distinction. Let's take a look at a few examples to see what we can find. I must warm you that some of these can be seen as offensive or as condoning certain situations. I'd like to state for the record that I in no way condone any of these but merely present it as an argument. I don't need to be wasting my time defending the morality of a post, I thank you.
A person removes medical devices from a person in order to allow them to die. As everyone knows sometimes people request death and it would be a good thing for them. Sometimes it's a financially cripling situation and the person needs to do this or go broke at which point the plug will be pulled anyway. Is it bad? It depends.
Father steels a loaf of bread to feed his family. Classic example. Is the stolen bread beneficial to the bread owner? No, so it's a negatice outcome for the owner. The father and family get to eat and survive another say, that's a positive outcome. Is it a bad thing? It depends/
A man rapes a woman in front of her kids. Tough one. But we approach it the same way. It's a negative outcome for the woman and could be damaging to the children but the man might say that it was beneficial to him (if he doesn't get caught of course). Then you have to account for different times and cultures. In Greek times it was considered ethically right for a citizen to have sex with a captured prisoner, sometimes even young kids. It's rape since it's sexual intercourse without consent but it was considered morally right at the time. In the bible Moses was commanded by god to take the women of a certain city if they had no known a man and they could do with them what they wish. This was considered morally right at the time. Is rape absolutely bad? It depends.
There is no moral absolute. There isn't a code of ethics that preceeds all else. It depends on the stuation, the person, the time and many other factors. Morality is subjective.
Upvote
0
According to Kant, there is a rational basis for morality, the categorical imperative. No other basis is possible, since it would depend on empirical content and thus is subject to tendencies which will result in contradictory behaviour.Spyr said:
Upvote
0
Tell you what... you actually answer the request of mine that you ignored from my last post, and I'll answer this question for you. Quid pro quo.Forest said:
Defining something as objective doesn't make it so. My point remains.
It's not that you "may" not be able to prove it. It's that you CANNOT prove it, so all you have is an assertion that your statement is objectively true. But just as above, asserting that something is objective doesn't make it so, so my point still remains.
:æ:
Upvote
0
mepalmer3
Well-Known Member
Socrastein said:
So your argument goes something like this if I'm understanding it correctly.
1. If morality is objective, then we will know all moral maxims.
2. We can demonstrate knowing all moral maxims by listing all of them and agreeing upon them.
3. I can't list them all.
4. We won't agree on all of them.
5. Therefore we can't demonstrate that we know all moral maxims.
6. Therefore there is no objective morality.
I disagree with #1 and possibly #2.
#1 The fact as to whether or not something is objective is irrellevant to people's ability to understand or perfectly know all of it. Similar to mathematics, there is a great deal of math that the majority of the world doesn't understand.
#2 I think people willfully refuse to acknowledge some things. Because these things are seen through introspection, it is easier for people to deny that they exist.
Nevertheless, here are a few:
A. It is wrong to murder a person.
B. It is wrong to lie to another person.
C. It is wrong to steal from a person.
D. It is right to help a person in need.
Now I don't believe in categorical imperatives (as Kant does). These are moral rules, but I believe they have exceptions that are dependent on the situation. But they are objectively true for that sort of situation (ie, killing is the morally right thing to do when it's the only possible course of stopping someone from bombing a city).
Upvote
0
mepalmer3
Well-Known Member
Just to start off... I believe evil is privatio boni, or evil is a lack of goodness in the same way that darkness is a lack of light, not a substance itself. So in the same way that you can't shine darkness into a room with a flashdark, so can't a person be evil by itself, rather he can just be less good.
Because of this, and partly for other reasons I'm not going in to here to keep it rather short, a person may always demonstrate some qualities of good in every act they do. In fact almost everything I think people do is done towards a good goal, but the method or the means they attempt to achieve it is often what is horrifically evil. For example: Rape. Making love is a wonderfully great and good thing, and wanting that in it's proper context is morally good. But when you take it out of it's intended context and ignore the willingness of the other person, then you have completely taken the goodness out of the act.
As to what "comes of an action", that's a bit more involved. Even christians, who do believe some things are objectively immoral, believe that some good can come as a result from that act. For example... america is known perhaps, (and rightfully so I believe) for being very greedy, self-centered people who are focused on jobs, themselves, and what can I do for me. Further, americans do very little to respect and support their policemen and firemen. After 9/11, which flying a plane into a building and killing thousands of people is considered an immoral thing, a lot of people were appalled at the evil in the act. During the pain and anguish of the act, many people rose up to help out. People that had previously thought that giving money to charities was a stupid or useless thing began to believe and want to help. So in a sense something that was immoral was able to instigate others into doing something that was moral in return.
But the idea that something moral may come out of an immoral situation doesn't work against objective immorality. I think it bypasses the issue. At that point we have 2 things, the first act which is immoral, and the 2nd act which is moral.
Objective morality allows for situational morality. Certiainly some believe it MUST work like what Kant suggested. But clearly God was against killing, except for in certain situations where he said to kill. That makes the objective morality based upon the situation, but it is still objective, meaning that it is still morally wrong to kill a person without proper cause, and it is morally right to kill a person with proper cause.
I would disagree with this. First of all it would be difficult to quantify "good outcome vs bad outcome" as if they were both things you could weigh. But that's irrellevant to the issue. The problem is good can come out of any situation for the simple fact that the "bad" is often accompanied by pain and pain pushes people to act differently. Thus every bad action that causes suffering is considered to have a good outcome in that the suffering encourages the person to change. But there is still the reality that while good can come from every bad situation (though not necessarily for that person), it is still best if nothing bad had ever happened.
I'm not sure I understand what you just said.
I will state again that I agree with situational, objective morality. I don't believe in categorical imperatives.
Maybe we are just confused on our terminology afterall. So you are saying, for example, if a person kills another person for his own enjoyment, his own pleasure of killing, then is truly is absolutely morally wrong in that situation? However, if a man kills another man in self-defense, then it is not morally wrong? You are saying there are moral absolutes in that depending on the situation, some things truly are morally right or morally wrong?
I would agree with this. And I would say that I believe christianity agrees with this. Further I would say this sort of belief is only logical if a God exists that sets these absolute morals for those situations.
Because of this, and partly for other reasons I'm not going in to here to keep it rather short, a person may always demonstrate some qualities of good in every act they do. In fact almost everything I think people do is done towards a good goal, but the method or the means they attempt to achieve it is often what is horrifically evil. For example: Rape. Making love is a wonderfully great and good thing, and wanting that in it's proper context is morally good. But when you take it out of it's intended context and ignore the willingness of the other person, then you have completely taken the goodness out of the act.
Spyr said:
As to what "comes of an action", that's a bit more involved. Even christians, who do believe some things are objectively immoral, believe that some good can come as a result from that act. For example... america is known perhaps, (and rightfully so I believe) for being very greedy, self-centered people who are focused on jobs, themselves, and what can I do for me. Further, americans do very little to respect and support their policemen and firemen. After 9/11, which flying a plane into a building and killing thousands of people is considered an immoral thing, a lot of people were appalled at the evil in the act. During the pain and anguish of the act, many people rose up to help out. People that had previously thought that giving money to charities was a stupid or useless thing began to believe and want to help. So in a sense something that was immoral was able to instigate others into doing something that was moral in return.
But the idea that something moral may come out of an immoral situation doesn't work against objective immorality. I think it bypasses the issue. At that point we have 2 things, the first act which is immoral, and the 2nd act which is moral.
Spyr said:
Objective morality allows for situational morality. Certiainly some believe it MUST work like what Kant suggested. But clearly God was against killing, except for in certain situations where he said to kill. That makes the objective morality based upon the situation, but it is still objective, meaning that it is still morally wrong to kill a person without proper cause, and it is morally right to kill a person with proper cause.
Spyr said:
I would disagree with this. First of all it would be difficult to quantify "good outcome vs bad outcome" as if they were both things you could weigh. But that's irrellevant to the issue. The problem is good can come out of any situation for the simple fact that the "bad" is often accompanied by pain and pain pushes people to act differently. Thus every bad action that causes suffering is considered to have a good outcome in that the suffering encourages the person to change. But there is still the reality that while good can come from every bad situation (though not necessarily for that person), it is still best if nothing bad had ever happened.
Spyr said:
I'm not sure I understand what you just said.
Spyr said:
I will state again that I agree with situational, objective morality. I don't believe in categorical imperatives.
Spyr said:
Maybe we are just confused on our terminology afterall. So you are saying, for example, if a person kills another person for his own enjoyment, his own pleasure of killing, then is truly is absolutely morally wrong in that situation? However, if a man kills another man in self-defense, then it is not morally wrong? You are saying there are moral absolutes in that depending on the situation, some things truly are morally right or morally wrong?
I would agree with this. And I would say that I believe christianity agrees with this. Further I would say this sort of belief is only logical if a God exists that sets these absolute morals for those situations.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
