Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Moral hypotheticals

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:18:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of many arguments against objective morality is to simply point out that if the human race all died out, morality would cease to exist, and thus morality is relative. However, even if we do accept this, I have to ask a question. Can't we still posit objective moral facts by saying, "if the human race is in existence, murder is wrong". That would be an objective assertion. Or do moral hypotheticals not count?

And this assumes that murder is wrong. It's more of a defence against an attack of objective morality rather than a proof.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:29:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Morality is dependent on the existence of moral agents. When agents don't exist, morality does not cease to exist. It is simply inapplicable for the time being that no agents exist. So pointing that out, wouldn't actually be defeating of objective morality.

If no one in the world is playing chess at the moment, do the rules of chess suddenly cease to exist?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:44:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:29:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
Morality is dependent on the existence of moral agents. When agents don't exist, morality does not cease to exist. It is simply inapplicable for the time being that no agents exist. So pointing that out, wouldn't actually be defeating of objective morality.

Good post.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:03:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:18:51 AM, phantom wrote:
One of many arguments against objective morality is to simply point out that if the human race all died out, morality would cease to exist, and thus morality is relative. However, even if we do accept this, I have to ask a question. Can't we still posit objective moral facts by saying, "if the human race is in existence, murder is wrong". That would be an objective assertion. Or do moral hypotheticals not count?

And this assumes that murder is wrong. It's more of a defence against an attack of objective morality rather than a proof.

I've brought this up in a debate about a similar matter. Things 'exist' in different ways and the categories of objective and subjective still aren't adequate when talking about matter such as these.

Morality is epistemically objective but ontologically subjective. That is to say that certain moral precepts exist as a precept independent of one person's feelings. At the same time, the moral precept also depends on a subjective agency in order that it be actual rather than possible.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:14:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:29:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
Morality is dependent on the existence of moral agents. When agents don't exist, morality does not cease to exist. It is simply inapplicable for the time being that no agents exist. So pointing that out, wouldn't actually be defeating of objective morality.

If no one in the world is playing chess at the moment, do the rules of chess suddenly cease to exist?

Truth.

Everything requries a framework -- a context. That's what Phantom is touching on... context. It's one of the most pervasive concepts in moral philosophy (as well as many other, more technical competencies), as without context, most concepts lose their meaning.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 5:18:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:18:51 AM, phantom wrote:
One of many arguments against objective morality is to simply point out that if the human race all died out, morality would cease to exist, and thus morality is relative. However, even if we do accept this, I have to ask a question. Can't we still posit objective moral facts by saying, "if the human race is in existence, murder is wrong". That would be an objective assertion. Or do moral hypotheticals not count?

And this assumes that murder is wrong. It's more of a defence against an attack of objective morality rather than a proof.

I don't think it works. Also, you need to be clearer about your conditionals.

"If the human race is in existence" could imply "human race existing is one of many possible conditions for murder being unethical", or it could imply "only if the human race exists is murder unethical". It's sort of like saying "If it rains, the ground is wet." It's true, but it's not the only possible world in which the ground could get wet.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 2:36:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is my firm belief that it is of the highest and most divine objective moral imperative to further propagate pain and suffering in the world.

And it is my existential choice to defy it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord