poll on morality

swampgas

equivariant wrote: »

I also note the someone (surprisingly imo) has voted for 4. Is that a serious vote?

Probably one of those Catholics who doesn't believe in God

Sycopat

pH wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Do people genuinely believe that for a certain situation different people can have different moral basis for their decisions?

What I think your missing (or ,at least, the impression I got from the OP, and I could be wrong) is that the thread and poll were never about moral universalism, relativism or absolutism and never were but if we believe in the objective existence of a morality.

To be clear, to disagree with moral objectivism you'd need to believe something like - "It would be wrong for me to beat my wife, but I believe that it would be OK for John to beat his wife as his morals are different".

'I' believe it is wrong to beat 'my' wife.
John believes it is his right to beat his wife.

We obviously have different morals.

That I would not be okay with John beating his wife means I would subscribe to moral universalism. If John believed it okay for me to beat my wife, so would he, but our morals themselves remain different.

I'm just a bit surprised - though I have a feeling people are voting against moral absolutism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

I'm wondering how you read the OP and figured he was talking about moral universalism/relativism/absolutism at all tbh.

edit: Ah I see now, it came up in a later post. Makes sense now.

equivariant

Zombrex wrote: »

Its the other way around.

I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape someone, in that there is no situation or circumstance where raping someone is ok, not now, not 10,000 years ago, not if the person raped you first, never.

That is "just" my subjective opinion though, I don't believe that it is some fundamental truth of the universe, like the speed of light or the distance from Cork to Dublin.

So if you adopt a moral absolutist position, you would say that there is no situation in which rape is right, regardless of any possible consequences (NB no matter how extreme those consequences are)?

My understanding is that an absolutist position does not allow you to consider consequences to judge the morality of an act.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

So if you adopt a moral absolutist position, you would say that there is no situation in which rape is right, regardless of any possible consequences (NB no matter how extreme those consequences are)?

Correct, or more specifically you say that you believe some moral decisions are steadfast no matter what the circumstances are.

For example, some people believe the death penalty is immoral no matter what the person has done, ie there are no circumstances where the death penalty is moral.

Doesn't mean all moral decisions are made independently to circumstance, but it can also be said that exact same circumstance should produce the exact same moral decision. For example, a moral absolutist wouldn't say something like "Well rape back in medieval times wasn't as bad because it was a different time", or "Its not the same when immigrant families beat their children because they have a different culture to our Western values"

pH

For the purposes of this discussion I'm continuing to use the common understanding of moral objectivity, which is defined here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You're"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutismYou're[/URL] right to bring the point up for clarification and, clearly, I've no idea what anyone else is voting on the basis of. But I don't think the question hinges on a distinction between moral absolutism and moral objectivism.

As I understand it, moral absolutism would be like saying that it is always wrong for John to hit his wife, regardless of context. So, for the sake of argument, John would be wrong to hit his wife even if his intention is to stop her from killing their children.

Moral objectivism would be to say that moral questions do require an appraisal of context. But, once taking account of context, the principles have general effect. So, in our scenario, it would be moral for anyone - not just John - to hit anyone's wife to prevent them from killing anyone's children.

Sorry but no.

Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply. it has nothing to do with context - in fact the definition makes clear we're not talking about how the morality of an action changes depending on the situation.

Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply,

For concrete examples - our legal system for the main part is morally objective- it doesn't matter who you are you are expected to follow a moral code and be punished if you do not.

A counter (non moral objectivism) position would be for example those wanting Shariah law. If there were 2 legal codes then depending on who you are you get judged under that one - something moral/legal in one may not be legal/moral in the other. If you are happy that different people can have different legal/moral codes then you're not a moral objectivist.

Sycopat wrote:

What I think your missing (or ,at least, the impression I got from the OP, and I could be wrong) is that the thread and poll were never about moral universalism, relativism or absolutism and never were but if we believe in the objective existence of a morality.

In the 5th post on the thread the OP said he was using a standard philosophical definition of moral objectivism and linked to the wikipedia article on moral universalism.

Wicknight wrote:

Its the other way around.

I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape someone, in that there is no situation or circumstance where raping someone is ok, not now, not 10,000 years ago, not if the person raped you first, never.

That is "just" my subjective opinion though, I don't believe that it is some fundamental truth of the universe, like the speed of light or the distance from Cork to Dublin.

Not if we're discussing moral objectivism.

If you as Wicknight believe that rape is wrong - and you don't believe that others in society should be free to hold a "rape is right" morality (they should be punished for rape) - then you subscribe to moral objectivism.

How you came to the view that "rape is wrong" is irrelevant, from some old writings you think god gave us, from reading philosophy or just from a dream you had - it doesn't matter your statement says you believe that rape is always wrong (therefore objectively wrong) and this should be applied universally (you don't believe other people get the right to say "rape is good" and go about raping) - hence moral universalism/moral objectivism.

Sycopat

pH wrote: »

Sorry but no.

Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply. it has nothing to do with context - in fact the definition makes clear we're not talking about how the morality of an action changes depending on the situation.

Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply,

Not necessarily. That's moral absolutism. Which is not incompatible with moral universalism, but they are not the same thing. Unlike moral absolutism, Moral universalism can be contextual.

Moral absolutism: Stealing is always, always wrong. No matter what.

Contextual Moral universalism: Any person in the situation of being unable to otherwise feed their family may steal to feed their family. A person who can feed their family without stealing should not steal.

Moral relativism(which is opposed to moral universalism): I will not steal for I believe it immoral. You may steal if you believe it to be moral, whether you are rich or poor.

For concrete examples - our legal system for the main part is morally objective- it doesn't matter who you are you are expected to follow a moral code and be punished if you do not.

Actually that's morally absolutist. The moral objectivity comes into our legal system in the discretion allowed judges to determine degree of punishment based on context.

In the 5th post on the thread the OP said he was using a standard philosophical definition of moral objectivism and linked to the wikipedia article on moral universalism.

Yeah sorry about that:

Sycopat wrote: »

I'm wondering how you read the OP and figured he was talking about moral universalism/relativism/absolutism at all tbh.

edit: Ah I see now, it came up in a later post. Makes sense now.

Not if we're discussing moral objectivism.

If you as Wicknight believe that rape is wrong - and you don't believe that others in society should be free to hold a "rape is right" morality (they should be punished for rape) - then you subscribe to moral objectivism.

How you came to the view that "rape is wrong" is irrelevant, from some old writings you think god gave us, from reading philosophy or just from a dream you had - it doesn't matter your statement says you believe that rape is always wrong (therefore objectively wrong) and this should be applied universally (you don't believe other people get the right to say "rape is good" and go about raping) - hence moral universalism/moral objectivism.

italics: moral absolutism
bold: moral universalism.

The extent of moral absolutism of a moral universalist depends on how they understand or define "all similarly situated individuals". A similar situation can be defined broadly(and tend towards absolutism) or narrowly(tending towards contextualism)

If we had one of those X -Y graphs people use for describing agnostic atheism vs. gnostic theism, then absolutism and contextualism would be on one axis and universalism/relativism would be on the other.

Note: (and this is aimed at no one in particular) that in this thread there has seemingly been much conflation of terminology. Originally centered around a conflation of objective morality with moral objectivity then some of moral objectivity with moral absolutism, and now I'm seeing moral universalism (a synonym for moral objectivism) with moral absolutism as well.

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

I have a special place in my heart for the Assassin's Creed series for not just being good games, but also getting in some meaningful commentary on morality and perception. The explanation of the Creed is pretty much how I see life.

So you're saying I should buy it?

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Not if we're discussing moral objectivism.

If you as Wicknight believe that rape is wrong - and you don't believe that others in society should be free to hold a "rape is right" morality (they should be punished for rape) - then you subscribe to moral objectivism.

Only if I believe they are objectively wrong.

If I believe morality is just opinion I believe in subjective morality, even if I don't care what anyone else's opinion is and do not allow anyone else the freedom to practice their different version of morality.

To use a non-moral example, I might say that the Spice Girl Movie is absolutely terrible and ban all copies of it and think that anyone who likes it is a moron. That is different to asserting that pi is 3.14159...

If someone thinks the Spice Girl Movie is good they are not objectively wrong, there is no objective standard for whether a movie is or isn't good, it is just opinion. But pi is what it is what ever I or anyone else thinks.

pH wrote: »

How you came to the view that "rape is wrong" is irrelevant, from some old writings you think god gave us, from reading philosophy or just from a dream you had - it doesn't matter your statement says you believe that rape is always wrong (therefore objectively wrong) and this should be applied universally (you don't believe other people get the right to say "rape is good" and go about raping) - hence moral universalism/moral objectivism.

If I believe the Spice Girls Movie is bad, and will always be bad, and there is no circumstance where I think anything could make it better, does that mean that the Spice Girls Movie is objectively bad and anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong (like saying pi is 4.23).

Or is it still "just" my opinion?

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

So you're saying I should buy it?

It's not for me to say. The answer is something you'll have to work out for yourself.

But also yes.

pH

Zombrex wrote: »

Only if I believe they are objectively wrong.

No, not only - the definition of objective morality does not take into account the objectivity of the beliefs, it just addresses whether you believe different people/cultures can have different moralities such that an act that is immoral in one could be moral in another.

I do understand we're talking about different things - but I'm discussing the standard definition of objective (or universal) morality - I do understand your examples - but I can't stress this enough - the objective morality that I'm discussing (and that you corrected me on!) has nothing to do with whether you believe the morals you hold have an objective or subjective basis.

So let's agree we're discussing this at cross purposes.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I do understand we're talking about different things - but I'm discussing the standard definition of objective (or universal) morality - I do understand your examples - but I can't stress this enough - the objective morality that I'm discussing (and that you corrected me on!) has nothing to do with whether you believe the morals you hold have an objective or subjective basis.

So let's agree we're discussing this at cross purposes.

Ok, but then it isn't "objective". The objective in objective morality doesn't mean something different than in say objective movie quality or objective taste in music.

Morality is just (and only) opinion, and therefore not objective. The value of Pi is not opinion.

Or to put it another way, objective things are discovered, subjective things are invented.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

pH wrote: »

Moral objectivism says that for 2 individuals in the same situation the same morals apply. it has nothing to do with context - in fact the definition makes clear we're not talking about how the morality of an action changes depending on the situation.

But, having regard to the material linked, the distinction being made between moral absolutism and moral objectivism is that absolutism takes no account of context/situation/background.

Which means, in a way, objectivism can take account of the circumstances of an action. It just insists that (as you say) the same circumstances involve the same moral judgment.

pH wrote: »

No, not only - the definition of objective morality does not take into account the objectivity of the beliefs, it just addresses whether you believe different people/cultures can have different moralities such that an act that is immoral in one could be moral in another.

I do understand we're talking about different things - but I'm discussing the standard definition of objective (or universal) morality - I do understand your examples - but I can't stress this enough - the objective morality that I'm discussing (and that you corrected me on!) has nothing to do with whether you believe the morals you hold have an objective or subjective basis.

So let's agree we're discussing this at cross purposes.

I don't think the discussion is completely at cross purposes - and you have drawn out a necessary point that needs to be addressed.

Taking the wikipedia article, I'd suggest that the quote attributed to Noam Chomsky is probably making a politcal point rather than a moral one. The other guy's view is more apt in saying that moral objectivism is "to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times."

Now, that is making the basis for the morals relevant. Because what I'd say (and possibly Zombrex, but I dare say he'll let us know himself) is that my morality is only based on my feeling-states at particular times. But my feeling states can stretch to a view of how others have behaved. If John asks me if he should hit his wife, I can provide him with a view. That doesn't mean I think he must follow that view because its "rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times."

Incidently, I'd suggest this is also why the Sharia would be asserted as objective, and not subjective as you've classified it. The Sharia would be asserted to exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times.

So, yeah, the basis is key. Otherwise, the categorisation wouldn't be telling you anythimg meaningful. You be left saying that me and Osama Bin Laden were examples of people with subjective moralities, that Atheist Ireland and Pope Benedict were examples of people with objective moralities, while William Binchy, Youth Defence and Hunter S Thompson would all be examples of moral absolutists. I'd suggest that categorisation would be entertaining, rather than meaningful.

pH

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Incidently, I'd suggest this is also why the Sharia would be asserted as objective, and not subjective as you've classified it. The Sharia would be asserted to exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times

I agree with much of your post - just feel like addressing this.

My point is not whether Shariah law is objective or subjective. My point using Shariah law as a current real life example - people in western democratic states are asking for a separate law - Shariah law - by which they could be judged.

So the question ISN'T about Shariah law (i'm sure many people believe everyone should be judged by Shariah law), it's about the concept of 2 different laws/morals side by side for different people - such that 2 men who did identical things in identical situations could be judged moral by one and immoral by the other.

If you're happy with the above then you disagree with moral objectivism.

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature.

Just wanted to clear that up - Shariah law by itself would be classified as objective - a dual legal system (different rules for different peoples) would not.