Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Is this an objective moral?

Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 9:42:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Lets say a man is stranded in the middle of the desert with no water, soon to die of dehydration.

IF a person desires to live, as this person in our example does, would drinking water be considered an objectively moral decision? Since anybody with the same desire would have to take such an action in order to fulfill it, regardless of what others thought.

Another way I might put this.
Even if no one is dying from dehydration, the fact would remain that IF one wanted to live, they ought to drink water.

Is this fact that stands independent of human thought, considered an objective moral? Can I really say its independent?

I understand that the "fact", in a way, relies on human thought, but I feel that reliance is no different then how we rely on our human thoughts to preceive color. Color, being a verifiable fact. The sky is blue.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 3:42:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:42:35 PM, Internet wrote:
Lets say a man is stranded in the middle of the desert with no water, soon to die of dehydration.

IF a person desires to live, as this person in our example does, would drinking water be considered an objectively moral decision? Since anybody with the same desire would have to take such an action in order to fulfill it, regardless of what others thought.

Another way I might put this.
Even if no one is dying from dehydration, the fact would remain that IF one wanted to live, they ought to drink water.

Is this fact that stands independent of human thought, considered an objective moral? Can I really say its independent?

I understand that the "fact", in a way, relies on human thought, but I feel that reliance is no different then how we rely on our human thoughts to preceive color. Color, being a verifiable fact. The sky is blue.

The scenario you described is a morally neutral action.

It sounds like you are asking if certain actions which would not be morally neutral could be evaluated objectively. I believe the answer is yes, science can qualify and quantify morality which would make the evaluation objective.

Sam Harris agrees with me - https://www.youtube.com...

I find subjective moralists assertion that actions that lead to absolute pain and misery and actions that lead to absolute flourishing and happiness to sentient beings are equal to be nonsensical.

The fact that subjective moralist would prefer to be treated one way over another shows cognative dissonance in their assertion that such treatments are equal.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 4:06:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
It's a good question - what sort of thing is moralty concerned with? I'd say the OP isn't about a moral choice, but what do I base that opinion on?
I think a moral choice is one that involves other people somehow - but I'm not sure that is all there it to it.

As the chap in the desert's decision to drink water or does not involve anyone else, it's a choice, but not a moral choice (but does that mean a decision to commit suicide is not a moral choice? - discuss!)

To turn it into a moral issue, suppose there were two men with enough water for only one. What should each one do then? I doubt anyone would willingly sacrifice themselves for a stranger, but what about for a wife, or for a son or daughter?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:21:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:42:35 PM, Internet wrote:
Lets say a man is stranded in the middle of the desert with no water, soon to die of dehydration.

IF a person desires to live, as this person in our example does, would drinking water be considered an objectively moral decision? Since anybody with the same desire would have to take such an action in order to fulfill it, regardless of what others thought.

Another way I might put this.
Even if no one is dying from dehydration, the fact would remain that IF one wanted to live, they ought to drink water.

Is this fact that stands independent of human thought, considered an objective moral? Can I really say its independent?

I understand that the "fact", in a way, relies on human thought, but I feel that reliance is no different then how we rely on our human thoughts to preceive color. Color, being a verifiable fact. The sky is blue.

"IF a person desires to live" This line sums up why morals can never be objective. Objective implies existence without our involvement. Even if every human on earth agrees on something, (say the preservation of earth) it would still not be objective but rather unanimous. Every action is performed because of a desire and desires are subjective.

"The sky is blue" The sky is in fact not blue. Colors do not exist outside of our perceptions. There is no evidence that you and I see the sky as the same color although we may all agree to call that color blue. Colors exist only in our mind/perceptions.