Objective Morality ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2014, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2014 11:00 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Objective Morality ...
(31-12-2014 08:34 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Is "we ought to reduce harm concerning others" not an "ought" Tomasia? It would seem to me that "Hurting others increases harm" is the "is" here.

Hurting others increases harm is an "is", but it doesn't follow that just because it increases harm to others, that I ought not to harm them.

Hurting chickens increases harm as well, but it doesn't follow that we should all be vegetarians, or not hunt for sport.

In some religious traditions, there are beliefs in these presupposed rules, moral laws whether written in the fabric of cosmos, or within the human heart, like we have an obligation to love our neighbors as ourself, to act in accordance with empathy, that we have moral duties and obligations which can be perceived through such things as consciousness.

Without appeal to such things when making a supposed "ought", then the ought is only illusory, suggestive, rather than obligatory, more akin to stating a personal preference, rather than a rule of law or an appeal to some supposed objective reality, or binding authority.

If an ought is not obligation, but a merely a choice based one's particular preferences at that given moment, morality can not enter the realm of being objective, even if the harm caused can be objectively measured, and agreed upon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: