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
Where does morality come from?
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: 74982343" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>No what I am talking about is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is about how a person sees things from a relative position (in relation to). IE it was OK to have slaves in the US in the 1800s, but it is not OK in 2020. It is relative to the culture or time in history. So, it is OK to do something at that time but not at this time or it is wrong to do something in this culture but not that culture. As your WIKI link says</p><p><em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" target="_blank">Moral relativism or ethical relativism is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the <strong>differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures.</strong></a></em></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" target="_blank">Moral relativism - Wikipedia</a></p><p>and</p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" target="_blank"><strong>Moral relativism</strong> is the view that <strong>moral</strong> judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" target="_blank">https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/</a></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism" target="_blank">Whereas subjective morality is about people's point of view regardless of the relative position. It is the same as "likes and dislikes" such as about tastes for food. One likes choc another like vanilla.</a> So someone telling another person their moral position is wrong is the same as telling them that what they "like" is wrong. It does not say anything about whether something is really really wrong. </span></p><p> Yes it does. You cannot say that the other person's subjective moral position is wrong because you are taking your personal opinion and applying it to others while at the same time making an objective statement. And that description agree with what I said. Subjective morality is only about personal opinion, "likes and dislikes". If that's the case saying someone else is wrong and you are right is claiming you have some objective measure to tell that you are right over the other person.</p><p></p><p> Can't be person A otherwise that's subjective. No, you don't have to show who the objective moral lawmaker is to show that someone is taking an objective moral position. All the person has to say is by claiming you are right and I am wrong you are claiming that you are right independent of human opinion.</p><p></p><p>Therefore you claim that you know that you are really correct and have some independent measure of your moral position. It doesn't matter if you cannot show who or what the measure is. It is taking your subjective position beyond what it can claim that is relevant.</p><p></p><p>Debating who the moral lawgiver is and how it came to be is a different topic based on epistemology (how we know something). But what I am talking about is being, which is moral ontology, if objective morality really exists.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 74982343, member: 342064"] No what I am talking about is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is about how a person sees things from a relative position (in relation to). IE it was OK to have slaves in the US in the 1800s, but it is not OK in 2020. It is relative to the culture or time in history. So, it is OK to do something at that time but not at this time or it is wrong to do something in this culture but not that culture. As your WIKI link says [I][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism']Moral relativism or ethical relativism is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the [B]differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures.[/B][/URL][/I] [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism']Moral relativism - Wikipedia[/URL] and [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism'][B]Moral relativism[/B] is the view that [B]moral[/B] judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/[/URL] [COLOR=#000000][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism']Whereas subjective morality is about people's point of view regardless of the relative position. It is the same as "likes and dislikes" such as about tastes for food. One likes choc another like vanilla.[/URL] So someone telling another person their moral position is wrong is the same as telling them that what they "like" is wrong. It does not say anything about whether something is really really wrong. [/COLOR] Yes it does. You cannot say that the other person's subjective moral position is wrong because you are taking your personal opinion and applying it to others while at the same time making an objective statement. And that description agree with what I said. Subjective morality is only about personal opinion, "likes and dislikes". If that's the case saying someone else is wrong and you are right is claiming you have some objective measure to tell that you are right over the other person. Can't be person A otherwise that's subjective. No, you don't have to show who the objective moral lawmaker is to show that someone is taking an objective moral position. All the person has to say is by claiming you are right and I am wrong you are claiming that you are right independent of human opinion. Therefore you claim that you know that you are really correct and have some independent measure of your moral position. It doesn't matter if you cannot show who or what the measure is. It is taking your subjective position beyond what it can claim that is relevant. Debating who the moral lawgiver is and how it came to be is a different topic based on epistemology (how we know something). But what I am talking about is being, which is moral ontology, if objective morality really exists. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom