Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 08:10 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 04:02 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  This presents the is/should dilemma in philosophy.
Not that I want to be nit-picky, but I'm fairly certain that it's called the "is-ought problem". Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
04-12-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 03:14 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Regarding Moral Realism, how does one determine if something is moral despite time and place? Also, does moral realism have a stance on how things become moral in the first place (i.e. the origin of said morality)?

Moral realism is a taxon not a specific theory. The specific origin of morality depends on the specific type of moral realism.

A naturalistic moral realism--as advocated by Sam Harris--begins with a naturalistic axiology, i.e. a theory of value based on the needs of sentient creatures for well-being. The notion of well-being is to be constituted in terms of neuroscientific results regarding subjective well-being and its causes. Thus the subjective experience of sentient creatures serves as an objective basis for a theory of value. It is objective because most humans share a common neurology regardless of time and place.

Harris offers only an idea for an objective axiology and not much more. Harris also argues that well-being is to be (somehow) considered in the aggregate. He doesn't give an ethical theory which would presumably provide a "calculus" for determining the well-being aggregate in different scenarios and any weightings. Harris' book is very much a preliminary work. Harris' axiology doesn't really work any better if it is used with Benthamite utilitarianism than Bentham's original formulation; it justs more precisely defines utility but suffers from the same problems as Benthamite utilitarianism. On that basis and Harris' recurring use of the phrase human flourishing I suspect that he will not be proposing a utilitarian ethical theory but some sort of virtue-based ethical theory.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
04-12-2013, 08:16 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 01:43 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  ...
The two words: 'subjective' and 'morality' are really too ambiguous (both of them) that the combination of the two could be argued into infinity. It's just a headache waiting to happen as far as I'm concerned. I mean they sound all lofty and shit to toss around - but they're pretty useless when combined.
Unless of course - lofty tossing of shit is what you have in mind.


(no offense meant)

None taken.

In my idiosyncratic (according to Chippy) world of governance, we use only subjective and objective with regard to metrics.

We prefer the words intrinsic and contextual particularly with regard to quality.

We don't use the word morality at all because it has more baggage than ethics.

And with regard to ethics, we consider organisation ethics (derived from principles / values) and how they differ from individual ethics (which the organisation cannot control) and how the two combine and are revealed in individual behaviour ... which we need to predict and influence in order to determine how much shit can be consistently tossed loftily.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
04-12-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Objective Morality
DLJ are you a philosphy professor?
Chippy are you also involved in education?
Thanks for your input
I'm glad it hasnt debased into cursing marathons as in other posts

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 08:43 PM by Chippy.)
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  "Moral truths" is a claim that there are actions that are "right" and some that are "wrong". There is no qualifier on this, it just says "right" or "wrong" regardless of the goal or situation, regardless of the observer.

No, that idea is not instrinsic to the idea of a moral truth. What you are describing is moral absolutism. Moral realism is not synonymous with moral absolutism.

Quote:"Moral belief" is a belief that a person hold with regards to "moral truths".

Most people have moral beliefs. (BTW I don't)

You do have moral beliefs. You are like an alcoholic that has relabelled their wine bottles with a sticker that reads "WATER" and then claims to be drinking water. In my (fruitless) discussion with you, you repeatedly made moral claims about your person and your property.

Quote:So moral beliefs can be termed as subjective or objective, basically whatever the believer wants to label on their beliefs.

That is nonsensical. The categories subjective and objective are collectively exhaustive of reality and if something has an objective existence it isn't merely subjective. Do you understand what the terms subjective and objective mean?

Quote:But "Moral truths" cannot be proven to exist.

"Moral truths" is a category, it is an empty section of a bookshelf, not a specific thing. Whether "moral truths" exist or not depends on which "moral truths" you have in mind. Your statement 'But "Moral truths" cannot be proven to exist' is a vacuous over-generalisation.

Quote:Moral truths cannot be objective nor subjective.

They must be one or the other, those catageories are collectively exhaustive. Even if moral truths are fictions they at least have a subjective existence else we would be unable to even talk of them. Again, do you understand what the terms subjective and objective mean?


Quote:Believers in subjective morality can state that they themselves behave according to their own moral code, but how can they justify that others ought to follow their own personal moral beliefs?

We aren't talking about believers in "subjective morality"; moral realism is the claim that there is such a thing as objective morality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
04-12-2013, 08:39 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 08:31 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Chippy are you also involved in education?

I have a degree in philosophy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
04-12-2013, 08:58 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 08:31 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  DLJ are you a philosphy professor?
Chippy are you also involved in education?
Thanks for your input
I'm glad it hasnt debased into cursing marathons as in other posts

(04-12-2013 08:39 PM)Chippy Wrote:  ...
I have a degree in philosophy.

And I'm involved in education.
Big Grin you got us the wrong way round.

I'm a trainer / lecturer / consultant / showman.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 09:00 PM
RE: Objective Morality
Cool
Makes sense you chime in on the philosophical threads for the most part
Man I feel like sucha waste of time studying theology for so long, in the real world and in atheist circles is virtually pointless except for helping unbeliever understand what believers think and how they got there

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 09:08 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 09:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Cool
Makes sense you chime in on the philosophical threads for the most part
Man I feel like sucha waste of time studying theology for so long, in the real world and in atheist circles is virtually pointless except for helping unbeliever understand what believers think and how they got there

And please keep doing that.

Bowing

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 09:11 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 08:31 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  DLJ are you a philosphy professor?
Chippy are you also involved in education?
I'm neither. Hobo

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: