Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Objective morality good or bad?

Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:41:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't quite see the appeal to objective morality. Life is strange and all sorts of things happen beyond our control and every situation has to be acted upon differently. No objective standard is going to save me from making a truly moral decision in the face of various dangerous or questionable scenarios. Morality should be able to change be based on reasons from whatever the situation, that's what a real judge has to do.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:45:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:41:52 PM, Karmanator wrote:
I don't quite see the appeal to objective morality. Life is strange and all sorts of things happen beyond our control and every situation has to be acted upon differently. No objective standard is going to save me from making a truly moral decision in the face of various dangerous or questionable scenarios. Morality should be able to change be based on reasons from whatever the situation, that's what a real judge has to do.

The premise that objective morality can only consist of rigid instructions which don't accommodate for the complexities of the real world is flawed. "What is right" obviously depends on the specific facts of a situation, but that doesn't mean a moral standard is useless when it comes to morally interpreting those facts. For instance, the rules of logic don't address every problem, but they still apply to them. In the same sense that logic is a standard, so is objective morality.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:52:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:33:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Mora realism =/= moral absolutism

Yes, I agree.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 4:55:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:45:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:41:52 PM, Karmanator wrote:
I don't quite see the appeal to objective morality. Life is strange and all sorts of things happen beyond our control and every situation has to be acted upon differently. No objective standard is going to save me from making a truly moral decision in the face of various dangerous or questionable scenarios. Morality should be able to change be based on reasons from whatever the situation, that's what a real judge has to do.

The premise that objective morality can only consist of rigid instructions which don't accommodate for the complexities of the real world is flawed. "What is right" obviously depends on the specific facts of a situation, but that doesn't mean a moral standard is useless when it comes to morally interpreting those facts. For instance, the rules of logic don't address every problem, but they still apply to them. In the same sense that logic is a standard, so is objective morality.
As an example I could hold the absolute that death and suffering are bad. So I avoid it and feel people ought to avoid it.

When someone attacks people I love and I inflict suffering or even death to the perpetrators, I may be holding to an objective standard but at the same time I am making an exception to that standard when it comes to the enemy, when defending the ideal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:01:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 4:55:29 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:45:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:41:52 PM, Karmanator wrote:
I don't quite see the appeal to objective morality. Life is strange and all sorts of things happen beyond our control and every situation has to be acted upon differently. No objective standard is going to save me from making a truly moral decision in the face of various dangerous or questionable scenarios. Morality should be able to change be based on reasons from whatever the situation, that's what a real judge has to do.

The premise that objective morality can only consist of rigid instructions which don't accommodate for the complexities of the real world is flawed. "What is right" obviously depends on the specific facts of a situation, but that doesn't mean a moral standard is useless when it comes to morally interpreting those facts. For instance, the rules of logic don't address every problem, but they still apply to them. In the same sense that logic is a standard, so is objective morality.
As an example I could hold the absolute that death and suffering are bad. So I avoid it and feel people ought to avoid it.

When someone attacks people I love and I inflict suffering or even death to the perpetrators, I may be holding to an objective standard but at the same time I am making an exception to that standard when it comes to the enemy, when defending the ideal.

If self-defense really is morally justified, that just means you need to refine your moral standard so that it doesn't exclude what is morally right.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:32:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:01:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:55:29 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:45:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:41:52 PM, Karmanator wrote:
I don't quite see the appeal to objective morality. Life is strange and all sorts of things happen beyond our control and every situation has to be acted upon differently. No objective standard is going to save me from making a truly moral decision in the face of various dangerous or questionable scenarios. Morality should be able to change be based on reasons from whatever the situation, that's what a real judge has to do.

The premise that objective morality can only consist of rigid instructions which don't accommodate for the complexities of the real world is flawed. "What is right" obviously depends on the specific facts of a situation, but that doesn't mean a moral standard is useless when it comes to morally interpreting those facts. For instance, the rules of logic don't address every problem, but they still apply to them. In the same sense that logic is a standard, so is objective morality.
As an example I could hold the absolute that death and suffering are bad. So I avoid it and feel people ought to avoid it.

When someone attacks people I love and I inflict suffering or even death to the perpetrators, I may be holding to an objective standard but at the same time I am making an exception to that standard when it comes to the enemy, when defending the ideal.

If self-defense really is morally justified, that just means you need to refine your moral standard so that it doesn't exclude what is morally right.
It isn't as if the enemies life isn't see as value as well. That would fit the standard. An exception literally has to be made, an enemies life over a loved ones life. Such a decision wouldn't ever be taken lightly. What makes the exception possible is the fact that the perpetrator is not abiding by this no killing and no inflicting of suffering standard.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 5:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 5:32:50 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 5:01:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:55:29 PM, Karmanator wrote:
At 10/27/2014 4:45:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:41:52 PM, Karmanator wrote:
I don't quite see the appeal to objective morality. Life is strange and all sorts of things happen beyond our control and every situation has to be acted upon differently. No objective standard is going to save me from making a truly moral decision in the face of various dangerous or questionable scenarios. Morality should be able to change be based on reasons from whatever the situation, that's what a real judge has to do.

The premise that objective morality can only consist of rigid instructions which don't accommodate for the complexities of the real world is flawed. "What is right" obviously depends on the specific facts of a situation, but that doesn't mean a moral standard is useless when it comes to morally interpreting those facts. For instance, the rules of logic don't address every problem, but they still apply to them. In the same sense that logic is a standard, so is objective morality.
As an example I could hold the absolute that death and suffering are bad. So I avoid it and feel people ought to avoid it.

When someone attacks people I love and I inflict suffering or even death to the perpetrators, I may be holding to an objective standard but at the same time I am making an exception to that standard when it comes to the enemy, when defending the ideal.

If self-defense really is morally justified, that just means you need to refine your moral standard so that it doesn't exclude what is morally right.
It isn't as if the enemies life isn't see as value as well. That would fit the standard. An exception literally has to be made, an enemies life over a loved ones life.

That's not an "exception", that's called maximization of utility.

Such a decision wouldn't ever be taken lightly. What makes the exception possible is the fact that the perpetrator is not abiding by this no killing and no inflicting of suffering standard.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 7:42:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Objective morality is a concept where a persons subjective opinion is not sufficient to determine what is good or bad.

It can't possibly exist, simply for the fact that objective morality can not possibly encompass every possible scenario.

If it can't encompass every possible scenario it thus requires a person's opinion on how the moral code gets applied to a situation which in turn means it is applying Subjective Morality rather than Objective.

One might argue an objective moral exist regardless if humans are not able to apply it in their daily living. I however could also say a widgyfiggywugglewamoo exists as well, but we can't see it, use it, apply it, or even know it.

What good is something if it can't be known or applied. In short there is no such thing as objective morality when a person must use their subjective viewpoint in applying a moral code to their situation they are in.
Toadstring
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 2:29:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To make a complete set of rules that account for any possible situation is an overwhelming, if not impossible task. Partly because there are so many different possibilities, and partly because some people might simply disagree.

If there was such a rule set, it would be possible for people to decide upon making moral decisions, and then actually do it. If one should wish to act immorally (for whatever reason), they could do that. I would like such a rule set, it would make things much simpler.

As humans we cannot possibly know every consequence of our actions, so judging the morality of an action by it's consequences would mean that it is impossible for humans to act morally every single time, as it would mostly be guesswork. So a person who only wishes the best for everyone (assuming that is moral), may end up being an evil person because of the faults of human beings.

Instead of making a huge, 5 billion volume set of rules, we could cheat a bit.
Like this: An action is morally correct if the individual who performs it believes it to be.
So the only objectively moral action is to do what you believe to be right.
The problem with this way of thinking is, that it could then be considered immoral to take action without knowing every implication of it, at which point we would kinda be stuck, since we cannot know every consequence of our actions. A solution might be to decide upon how much though one should give to a given situation, but then we end up at the 5 billion volume set of rules for every possibility scenario again.
Please