by Cute Puppies » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:27 pm
by Farnhamia » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:28 pm
by Cute Puppies » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:28 pm
Farnhamia wrote:And your opinion?
by VoVoDoCo » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:33 pm
by Reformed Houn » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:33 pm
by Farnhamia » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:34 pm
by Cute Puppies » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:35 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Cute Puppies wrote:Personally, I believe morals are subjective. On another note, your red, bolded letters scare me.
EDIT: What about you?
I was speaking as Mod. You didn't notice the echo effect? Anyway, your opinion should be in the OP but it's okay as it is. I don't much care, honestly.
by Reformed Houn » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:36 pm
by Farnhamia » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:37 pm
by Reformed Houn » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:38 pm
by Cute Puppies » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:39 pm
by Genivaria » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:39 pm
by Albrenia » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:28 pm
by Bombadil » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:36 pm
by Neutraligon » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:05 pm
Cekoviu wrote:Morality is subjective, of course. That seems obvious to me, but I suppose I could see a religion-based case being made for objective morality.
by New Emeline » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:07 pm
by Novskya » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:15 pm
by Cute Puppies » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:23 pm
Novskya wrote:*sNiP*
(Do I get bonus points for being the first non-moral relativist?)
by VoVoDoCo » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:23 pm
Novskya wrote:It seems to me that many people are conflating what is truly moral vs what is percieved moral. Personally, I believe in non-relative morals (considering that I am a deontologist.) I mostly stem my non-relative system from the fact that things are good-in-itself as:
1.) Whenever one acts, it is necessarily with some good in mind, as one intends to do some sort of good by committing to an action. Whether or not the action is good, creates good, or achieves the good intended is not the point, but rather the fact in itself that one acts for a good.
2.) All of our actions intend to realize some sort of end, the result that we call good. In this the end becomes the good, however the source of the good is placed by the agent, and so this value judgement is agent-relative.
3.) When one acts to achieve an end, the end is done in order to commit to another further end. For example, I buy a car so I can get around with greater convenience, so I can more readily convene with friends, so we can share camaraderie, etc.
4.) The notion of achieving an end for another end implies a hierarchy of ends, where the initial end becomes a mere means for the next end. By the relegation of the initial end to a means, a superior value is given the end further down the chain.
5.) There must be an end to the chain of ends or else which reach an incomprehensible chain of ends ad infinitum. This final end is an end-in-itself, in which the end is reached purely for its own sake and not for the sake of another end.
6.) All people's ends are for the achievement of the end-in-itself, and therefore an end valued by all. If we look at the notion of this hierarchy, it is appropriate to label the end-in-itself the highest good, as it is at the top of all hierarchies and one that cannot be superseded.
7.) The end-in-itself is Good.
The implication is that Good (in the context of Aristotle, a virtue) has inherent value and that it is a cornerstone of metaethical structures. What "Good" is a question that must be answered by the ethicist, and the interpretations have generally been what creates all the major ethical theories throughout history. It is thereby irrational to think of values as anything other than good in-itself (from which we can derive ethical theories from that are not based on subjective values.)
When a person calls one thing good he seeks it; and when one calls a thing bad, he wishes to avoid it. These usages can be split into areas of which things are sought as means to some further end and those which they seek as good as ends in themselves. Of course, this is not to say that ends are applicable to all. For example, a starving man finds food as a "good" whilst an overweight man sees it as "bad". In order for something to be good, it is to be "good without qualification" (as Kant puts it). For something to be "good without qualification", it has to not act as a "good" for one end and "bad" for another. It must be sought as good totally independently of serving as a means to something else; it must be "good in-itself" (see above as to justification for why). Furthermore, while one thing may be good as means relative to a particular end, that "end" becomes a "means" relative to some other "end".
It is to be noted that for something to be absolutely and universally good, it has to be good within every instance of its occurrence. All those which people call "good" (whatever that may be) can become bad if the will which one uses it is bad. That is, if we were to imagine a bad person (i.e. one who willed or wanted to do evil) in which who has all traits in which we might call "good" (such as intelligence, wit, pride, etc), then these very traits would make only that much worse his will to do what is wrong. Thus, for something to be "good", it has to be done out of Good Will.
Many facts of reality have inherent normative claims coming off of them. Organisms have ends built into them by the virtue of their structures. So, the denial of one's own teleology through some form of nihilism is rising from convolutions which problems rise up when discussing justification of our beliefs with our propositions. We can derive normative claims from the concepts of man. My bro Quine addresses this issue of emotivism which is based on a strong empiricism which leaves us with a bad theory of concepts.
What this all seems like to me is a failure to see beyond the normative claims and y'all not having an axiological anchor because you either weren't able to ground yourselves in a realist framework, even if it is secular like the utilitarians. Utilitarianism is a main choice amongst a lot of people but most ppl fall into apathy and this disconnect into moral anti-realism. First. because they are uninformed on their personal and local level and secondly due to the sociocultural conditions.
(Do I get bonus points for being the first non-moral relativist?)
by Novskya » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:27 pm
Genivaria wrote:There seems to be in our searching no sign of any external source of any 'objective' morality.
Perhaps there is something that can be based on near universal human characteristics like the ability to reason and empathy but that's as close to 'objective' as we're likely to get.
by Novskya » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:40 pm
Cute Puppies wrote:No. Negative points.
Vovodoco wrote:I don't really see a compelling argument in here in favor of deontological, action based, or objective ethics tho.
Vovodoco wrote:You even say it in there that for something to be objectively good, it'd have to be good as perceived by everyone. That seems to contradict the claim that you're a non-moral relativist.
by Novskya » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:48 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Avzeria, Big Eyed Animation, Cyptopir, Duvniask, Google [Bot], Gravlen, Ifreann, Kannap, Kaztropol, Kerwa, Kyoto Noku, Lothria, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Niolia, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Uiiop, Valrifall
Advertisement