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
Is there Objective Morality?
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="stevevw" data-source="post: 76302276" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>That doesnt make sense. You have said it is relative morality but it really isnt relative morality. I agree with the second assessment that it isnt relative morality because relative morality allows for anyones relative situation to dictate morality. Whereas my example doesnt allow for anyones relative position. It only allows for one option for morality if the situation is to function.</p><p></p><p>In trying to equate relative morality to my example would be like calling the way Western governments dictate that their relative version of morality is the only true morality to other cultures. Thats the opposite of relative morality but rather imperialism or dictatorship because it is not tolerating different relative positions.</p><p></p><p>That would require that other cultures or people in relative situations follow the governments view of morality not because its truth or factually right but because they say so. But what I am talking about is that an independent measure has determined the moral truth or fact. It is the way people live that moral and that the moral is necesaary for humans to function in that situation which makes it independently fact.</p><p></p><p> Thats not what I said and is misrepresenting what my arguement is. Running a marathon doesnt matter to humans morally. But being able to engage with others in seeking the truth is a vital moral matter of importance for humans to function together. We seek the truth of matters with others as part of being human so we have to uphold "Honesty and Truth"as moral values.</p><p></p><p> Its not a case of all rational people agreeing on a moral truth like there is some subjective rule that makes it good. Its rational because it is what humans already do regarding that moral situation. The proof of it being rational is in the way people function within that moral situation and therefore its a necessary moral value to function.</p><p></p><p>That makes the moral value independent from peoples subjective/relative views of what is rationally moral or not. That is why its called moral realism because its how morals are lived in real situations outside peoples heads.</p><p></p><p> No one gets to decide as mentioned. Its self-evident in that people live that way moraly and cannot function in that situation without living that way morally. Exactly as I pointed out above. It doesnt matter morally if you don't run the marathon. That is why I used an example of a specific situation where the morals of "Honesty and Truth" are necessary to seek the truth of a matter which is a vital human function morally. It matters morally because humans make it matter morally.</p><p></p><p> Yes now we have 3 people engaged in finding the truth of this matter. Imagine if we dismissed as subjective or relative the moral values of "TRuth and Honesty". How far would we get in finding the truth.</p><p></p><p>You claiming that I am misrepresenting things with relative morality, me countering that with my arguement, Ken adding his contribution about what he thinks is the truth would all not be able to contested or determnined as to whether it is the truth if we made "Honesty and Truth" relative to peoples situations.</p><p></p><p>PS. What I find strange is that you have choosen to address this and left the elephant in the room regarding Kens claim that logic and rationality are subjective.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76302276, member: 342064"] That doesnt make sense. You have said it is relative morality but it really isnt relative morality. I agree with the second assessment that it isnt relative morality because relative morality allows for anyones relative situation to dictate morality. Whereas my example doesnt allow for anyones relative position. It only allows for one option for morality if the situation is to function. In trying to equate relative morality to my example would be like calling the way Western governments dictate that their relative version of morality is the only true morality to other cultures. Thats the opposite of relative morality but rather imperialism or dictatorship because it is not tolerating different relative positions. That would require that other cultures or people in relative situations follow the governments view of morality not because its truth or factually right but because they say so. But what I am talking about is that an independent measure has determined the moral truth or fact. It is the way people live that moral and that the moral is necesaary for humans to function in that situation which makes it independently fact. Thats not what I said and is misrepresenting what my arguement is. Running a marathon doesnt matter to humans morally. But being able to engage with others in seeking the truth is a vital moral matter of importance for humans to function together. We seek the truth of matters with others as part of being human so we have to uphold "Honesty and Truth"as moral values. Its not a case of all rational people agreeing on a moral truth like there is some subjective rule that makes it good. Its rational because it is what humans already do regarding that moral situation. The proof of it being rational is in the way people function within that moral situation and therefore its a necessary moral value to function. That makes the moral value independent from peoples subjective/relative views of what is rationally moral or not. That is why its called moral realism because its how morals are lived in real situations outside peoples heads. No one gets to decide as mentioned. Its self-evident in that people live that way moraly and cannot function in that situation without living that way morally. Exactly as I pointed out above. It doesnt matter morally if you don't run the marathon. That is why I used an example of a specific situation where the morals of "Honesty and Truth" are necessary to seek the truth of a matter which is a vital human function morally. It matters morally because humans make it matter morally. Yes now we have 3 people engaged in finding the truth of this matter. Imagine if we dismissed as subjective or relative the moral values of "TRuth and Honesty". How far would we get in finding the truth. You claiming that I am misrepresenting things with relative morality, me countering that with my arguement, Ken adding his contribution about what he thinks is the truth would all not be able to contested or determnined as to whether it is the truth if we made "Honesty and Truth" relative to peoples situations. PS. What I find strange is that you have choosen to address this and left the elephant in the room regarding Kens claim that logic and rationality are subjective. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
Top
Bottom