Debate 9 Discussion: Whether morality is absolute: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 9 Discussion: Whether morality is absolute » Debate 9 Discussion: Whether morality is absolute

Debate 9 Discussion: Whether morality is absolute

Page: 1 2 3

Debate 9 Discussion: Whether morality is absolute

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1450

Posted 07/16/06 - 06:36 AM:	#11
KipBond wrote: I wish that someone in this debate could have actually articulated why they believe in objective morality. After reading it, we have one person who outlined the reasons for his belief in subjective morality, and another who said he doesn't know, but thinks there might be an objective morality. This doesn't make for a very interesting debate. Floyd did a good job in implictly defining morality as those actions which someone prefers (comparing them to "taste" -- after all, how can God say that chocoloate ice cream objectively tastes better than vanilla?). There was no counter to this, unfortunately. If you read and understood my arguments and the debate better maybe you would have a different outlook on it. As I told Machiveli, my argument was that we do not know enough to determine whether morality is objective or subjective and until we do we are morally required to try to learn more about the world in order to determine what objective morality is if it exists. Every argument that Floyd made why morality is subjective I was able to counter with one or more arguments and show problems with the argument or that it had contradictions. In the end Floyd was merely arguing why his morality was 'good' and my morality was 'evil' at which point he was no longer defending subjective morality, but his own moral code. I think the problem lies in that almost everyone believes that morality has to be based on virtue ethics and not consequential ethics. The reason for this is that people are more comfortable with the virtue ethics and subjective morality because with both of them there is no worrying as to even if you make the best efforts in trying to be good you can still do wrong. With consequential ethics you can still perform bad acts even if you are trying to do good because you do not know the consequences of your actions. This is not what to be told or think about so like any other elephant in the room problem they live with it and pretend that it does not exist.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Machiveli
post-philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004

Total Topics: 122
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 07/16/06 - 01:15 PM:	#12
KipBond wrote: Floyd did a good job in implictly defining morality as those actions which someone prefers (comparing them to "taste" -- after all, how can God say that chocoloate ice cream objectively tastes better than vanilla?). There was no counter to this, unfortunately. But this is exactly the weakness of 'subjective morality' it is a contradiction in terms. The subjectivist (believing as he does that morality is simply ones personal taste) cannot distinguish between things which are moral preferences and things which are simply preferences. Unless the subjectivist goes against common sense and argues that ones taste in icecream is a moral choise how can he argue that morality exists at all?

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK

Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2285

Posted 07/17/06 - 12:06 AM:	#13
Moral preferences and taste preferences are two different kinds of preference, directed at two different objects, in two very different spheres. The fact that there’s no mysterious metaphysical distinction between the two doesn’t make them the same, any more than anger and elation both being emotions makes them the same.
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: Transcontinental Humanitarian Expedition

Posted 07/17/06 - 03:46 PM:	#14
dclements wrote: In the end Floyd was merely arguing why his morality was 'good' and my morality was 'evil'. No, I was not arguing that. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: Transcontinental Humanitarian Expedition

Posted 07/17/06 - 03:53 PM:	#15
From round 5: Floyd wrote: My belief in the subjectivity of morality is not a moral belief. I don't believe truth is morally good. And, nothing about my argument implies that truth is morally good. Truth is epistemologically true; that has nothing to do with morality. Floyd wrote: I propose this argument as a factual analysis of the issue, and not as a moral analysis of the issue. Floyd wrote: The statement, "Only Floyd thinks all moral propositions should be stated as opinions", is incorrect, because I don't think moral propositions should be anything. I said that moral propositions must be stated as opinions to have a factual veracity. That statement is a factual statement, not a moral statement. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 09/21/06 - 07:36 PM:	#16
nosos wrote: Moral preferences and taste preferences are two different kinds of preference, directed at two different objects, in two very different spheres. The fact that there’s no mysterious metaphysical distinction between the two doesn’t make them the same, any more than anger and elation both being emotions makes them the same. Unequivaclly the same is different than saying something is the same. Something can be the same and different...sooo...shrugs.
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/09/06 - 01:46 AM:	#17
Machiveli wrote: But this is exactly the weakness of 'subjective morality' it is a contradiction in terms. The subjectivist (believing as he does that morality is simply ones personal taste) cannot distinguish between things which are moral preferences and things which are simply preferences. Unless the subjectivist goes against common sense and argues that ones taste in icecream is a moral choise how can he argue that morality exists at all? The reason a moral subjectivist "cannot distinguish between things which are moral preferences and things which are simply preferences" is because there is no distinguishing feature. They are one-and-the-same. The 'morality' of an action is a preference, nothing more.
I am awesome.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: Transcontinental Humanitarian Expedition

Posted 10/09/06 - 08:12 AM:	#18
Where a moral value is just a personal preference or subjective value, then the term 'moral' is both superfluous and meaningless. When calling a value moral is just a way to make it seem objective, then the term 'moral' is a fiction. A moral subjectivist knows the difference between the former and the latter. However, it is impossible to tell without context, since the word moral is used in both cases. This says nothing about the moral subjectivist's (or nihilist's) theory. It just demonstrates the equivocation and vagueness of moral terminology, which, interestingly, seems like another motivation to abandon such terms. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 10/13/06 - 11:54 AM:	#19
I think the very notions used when debating morality are superflous, especially "objectivity". HOWEVER, i think there is an objective morality; but speakin about it, and trying to systematize it cannot be done- especially by me. However, allow me to use a few words from Davidson: the objectivity of morality escapes the nomological net.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 805

Posted 08/12/08 - 02:17 AM: Subject: morality	#20
Only humans experience morality. Any thing with conciense is defined as human. Evil can only be committed by humans. (predators are not evil) Free will is the ability to do evil. We are guided by concience. Animals by instinct. Human instinct is to be moral so to act intuitively is a guide to "goodness". Evil by definition is choosing to do what is not right and if we stray from our intuition our concience nags us. To impose your will against nature or another man is immoral for nature has a will to live and men a will for free choice. In exersizing free will we should consider all other will and try not to interfere. That's why it is so hard to be good. All will has to be kept balance or life is compromised. (As we on earth have clearly demonstrated.)
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.