U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:05 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,023,112 times
Reputation: 1335

Advertisements

You do realize that when you believe that their are absolutes, even that is an arbitrary choice made by you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,640,232 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
what do you guys think?
I think that "opinion" might not be the best word for moral judgments, but I think that moral judgments are subjective--they only arise in persons' brains, there is no other source of them.

Believing that some conduct is "kosher" and other conduct isn't seems to be a fundamental way that human brains function (and I agree with the view that the most widespread, core ethical beliefs there are what they are because of evolutionarily selection/survival advantage).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:10 PM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,235,124 times
Reputation: 45820
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
You do realize that when you believe that their are absolutes, even that is an arbitrary choice made by you.
No, I think that's facile thinking on your part. For you cannot argue an instance where it could ever be perfectly moral for me to walk into a 7/11, shoot the clerk, and take a six-pack of Budweiser without paying for it.

After all, the entire concept of morality is centered around a code of conduct for the continuance of the species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,640,232 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET View Post
To a certain degree I think morality is more subjective, in a universal sense. However, I also think morality has an objective facet to it as well. There are things that are inherently immoral- rape, incest, murder, child pornography… things that are an affront to all of society with the exceptions of such a small minority that it can easily be called objective.
I use subjective/objective as ontological terms. In other words, those terms, in my usage (which isn't at all inconsistent with the conventional usage of those terms in philosophy) are about where something occurs. If it occurs in the consciousness of sentient beings only, it's subjective. So it doesn't matter if everyone on something--if that thing (like an ethical judgment) only occurs in consciousness and can't be found in the world outside of consciousness, then it's subjective.

The significance of it being subjective is that unlike many other things (like whether a particular kind of plant has leaves with serrated edges, say), when there are disagreements, there is nothing in the non-mental world that we can look at to see who is actually correct. There are only different beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,640,232 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
I believe that there are moral absolutes.

The problem with moral relativism is that you can't complain when someone else has different morals than you do.
Sure you can--you just can't claim that they're "objectively wrong" (meaning that they've got something incorrect in matching some objective state of affairs).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:14 PM
 
878 posts, read 1,847,099 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
I think there are two broad classes.

There's morality that has to do with how you treat the world around you. Murder, theft, sexual abuse, lying, etc., are all moral absolutes for these actions cause significant harm to others.

Then there's morality that is really nothing more than a reflection of a given culture's mores. Drug and alcohol use, sexual conduct among consenting adults, or the eating of proscribed foods.

In the case of the latter example, morals would indeed be an opinion. Remember, 100 years ago, there were a significant number of people who thought it immoral to have a Sunday newspaper.
Well, in the interest of playing devils advocate, I disagree with your moral perspective of "do not harm others."

If I measure morality based on an evolutionary perspective, then murder is acceptable because it eliminates genetic competition, theft provides additional resources for ensuring my children reach breeding age, and rape provides more opportunity to breed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,640,232 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by zman0 View Post
Well, in the interest of playing devils advocate, I disagree with your moral perspective of "do not harm others."

If I measure morality based on an evolutionary perspective, then murder is acceptable because it eliminates genetic competition, theft provides additional resources for ensuring my children reach breeding age, and rape provides more opportunity to breed.
The way it would happen is that communities of organisms that have brains that tend to think it's fine (or even recommendable) to murder similar organisms at any whim, especially if it takes those organisms some time to be able to procreate and produce more organisms, are not likely to have enough members around long enough to perpetuate that species. It's not that none of the organisms can think that it's okay to kill similar organisms on a whim, but if that were the norm, that species wouldn't last long. Also, it's not that the species can't think that it's okay to kill similar organisms under particular conditions--as long as the conditions amount to there being enough of that organism around at the right times to perpetuate the species, those beliefs will not be selected against (and indeed, many humans think that it's okay to kill other humans under particular conditions).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:31 PM
 
878 posts, read 1,847,099 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
The way it would happen is that communities of organisms that have brains that tend to think it's fine (or even recommendable) to murder similar organisms at any whim, especially if it takes those organisms some time to be able to procreate and produce more organisms, are not likely to have enough members around long enough to perpetuate that species. It's not that none of the organisms can think that it's okay to kill similar organisms on a whim, but if that were the norm, that species wouldn't last long. Also, it's not that the species can't think that it's okay to kill similar organisms under particular conditions--as long as the conditions amount to there being enough of that organism around at the right times to perpetuate the species, those beliefs will not be selected against (and indeed, many humans think that it's okay to kill other humans under particular conditions).
So self-destructive behavior can never be moral?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:48 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,023,112 times
Reputation: 1335
I think that some are just trying to point out that there are no moral absolutes. To think so is to fail to realize that that belief requires a limited perspective. Any moral absolute requires a finite perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2008, 12:50 PM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,023,112 times
Reputation: 1335
I could argue that the extermination of the human race would be moral on such a belief that humans were a parasitic species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top