|
Post by Synonym on Sept 3, 2011 18:03:55 GMT
...satisfying a personal value-judgment.
Let's say for the sake of argument that an objective morality exists and we can know what it says.
Would you rather be morally good or would you rather be morally bad but satisfy a personal value-judgment?
Let's say that it is an objective fact that punching old people is morally good, and to see an old person and not punch them is evil. Would you rather do the morally right thing and know that you are acting good, or would you prefer to be evil but satisfy your own subjective (and wrong) value-judgment which says that it is evil to punch and good not to?
Or let's say that you make a value-judgment that homosexual behaviour is wrong, but as it turns out it is objectively not wrong. Would you rather do the objectively right thing and not censure it in anyway, or would you prefer to satisfy your own (and objectively wrong) preference of censuring it because of your subjective value-judgment that it is wrong?
So, be a bad person and behave immorally (but in accordance with your own incorrect value-judgments) or behave morally (but possibly in opposition to your own incorrect value-judgments)?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 5, 2011 21:30:29 GMT
since both of your examples are YOUR incorrect value judgements, as the opposite is THE objective morality, i will choose to abide by what is the absolute morally correct and not punch old people, or condone the abomination of homosexuality
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 5:08:33 GMT
It is a difficult one to answer because I can't conceive of a universal morality that does differ vastly from what most people agree is right.
But religious people sometimes have to make that sort of decision. Your religion may say divorce or remarriage is wrong but you think it is the right thing for your friend, and want to support him or her.
I find it impossible to concieve of a God who will deny people entry to heaven just because they don't happen to be a Christian/ Muslim/ Jehovah's Witness or whatever, yet that is what people of those faiths are often taught.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Sept 6, 2011 11:38:02 GMT
Indeed Skylark. Which is one of the reasons why religion and morality are two entirely separate concepts.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 6, 2011 11:48:37 GMT
since both of your examples are YOUR incorrect value judgements, as the opposite is THE objective morality, i will choose to abide by what is the absolute morally correct and not punch old people, or condone the abomination of homosexuality I haven't made any value-judgments. I posed a situation where the reader who makes the value-judgment that punching old people is wrong learns that objective morality says different, or the reader who makes the value-judgment that homosexual behaviour is wrong (or an abomination) learns that objective morality says different. In that scenario would the reader prefer to be a good person who does the right thing, or be a bad person by continuing to follow their own value-judgments that they have discovered to be objectively wrong. It seems as if you would prefer to be a bad person who does the wrong thing, but follow your own subjective value judgments on these matters. And again that is not MY judgment that your judgments are wrong, I make no judgment on whether they are or not. I am posing the scenario where objective morality says that they are wrong, in order to see whether people would choose an incorrect subjective morality over objective morality.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 6, 2011 11:57:09 GMT
Indeed Skylark. Which is one of the reasons why religion and morality are two entirely separate concepts. You may reject some religious morality but I'd be surprised if you rejected all of it. Religions are groups of people who have come to a set of rules of what is or isn't moral based on certain starting premises, the same as anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 12:41:16 GMT
Your original question is very difficult to answer.
When you talk about an "objective morality", do you mean what the majority believe, or are you positing some kind of "natural law" that is out there somewhere, and which we have finally come to know. If the latter, I'm not sure how anyone could act against it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 6, 2011 12:49:53 GMT
since both of your examples are YOUR incorrect value judgements, as the opposite is THE objective morality, i will choose to abide by what is the absolute morally correct and not punch old people, or condone the abomination of homosexuality I haven't made any value-judgments. I posed a situation where the reader who makes the value-judgment that punching old people is wrong learns that objective morality says different, or the reader who makes the value-judgment that homosexual behaviour is wrong (or an abomination) learns that objective morality says different. In that scenario would the reader prefer to be a good person who does the right thing, or be a bad person by continuing to follow their own value-judgments that they have discovered to be objectively wrong. It seems as if you would prefer to be a bad person who does the wrong thing, but follow your own subjective value judgments on these matters. And again that is not MY judgment that your judgments are wrong, I make no judgment on whether they are or not. I am posing the scenario where objective morality says that they are wrong, in order to see whether people would choose an incorrect subjective morality over objective morality. of course, you are in error. i said that i will ALWAYS follow the objective morality, which obviously makes me the good person. i simply pointed out that, in the two examples that you used, the actual objective morality is what you tried to classify as the subjective morality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 6, 2011 12:52:29 GMT
Your original question is very difficult to answer. When you talk about an "objective morality", do you mean what the majority believe, or are you positing some kind of "natural law" that is out there somewhere, and which we have finally come to know. If the latter, I'm not sure how anyone could act against it. how is that? it happens all the time. you see plenty who act against the objective morality and natural law by condoning gay marriage, along with a multitude of other patently immoral acts
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 6, 2011 14:46:40 GMT
Your original question is very difficult to answer. When you talk about an "objective morality", do you mean what the majority believe, or are you positing some kind of "natural law" that is out there somewhere, and which we have finally come to know. If the latter, I'm not sure how anyone could act against it. By 'objective' I essentially mean 'factual', something that exists independently of opinion. So yes, some kind of 'natural' law would fit the bill and be objective just as the laws of gravity are objective.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 6, 2011 14:55:11 GMT
i simply pointed out that, in the two examples that you used, the actual objective morality is what you tried to classify as the subjective morality How do you know that to be the case that punching old people and homosexuality are objectively wrong? Because those are your opinions? Is it not even a possibility that one of your moral opinions might, if such a thing exists, run contrary to objective morality? Even if you are objectively correct on the punching and homosexuality issues?
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Sept 6, 2011 15:15:13 GMT
As a firm believer in oblivion after death my moral standards are my own. If it neither harms you or anyone else you have the right to do it. You are entitled to jump off the Eiffel Tower, if you avoid the pedestrians. Punching anyone, except in self-defence, is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 16:24:03 GMT
Your original question is very difficult to answer. When you talk about an "objective morality", do you mean what the majority believe, or are you positing some kind of "natural law" that is out there somewhere, and which we have finally come to know. If the latter, I'm not sure how anyone could act against it. how is that? it happens all the time. you see plenty who act against the objective morality and natural law by condoning gay marriage, along with a multitude of other patently immoral acts Of course you're right in saying that people can and do act immorally. Of course you are wrong in presenting yourself as the arbiter of what is morally right! If we could be sure of what the "right" thing was, it would be impossible to have your own different morality. That's what I'm trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 6, 2011 19:32:55 GMT
how is that? it happens all the time. you see plenty who act against the objective morality and natural law by condoning gay marriage, along with a multitude of other patently immoral acts Of course you're right in saying that people can and do act immorally. Of course you are wrong in presenting yourself as the arbiter of what is morally right! If we could be sure of what the "right" thing was, it would be impossible to have your own different morality. That's what I'm trying to say. nope. i am NOT the arbiter of what is morally right. what i think, or you think, or anyone else thinks, has no relevance whatsoever. the simple FACT is the morality is an absolute, and immutable. what was wrong a million years ago, is wrong today, and will be wrong a million years from now. if absolutely every individual on the face of the earth were to accept something as being right that is inherently wrong, it would NOT change the fact that it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 6, 2011 19:36:56 GMT
i simply pointed out that, in the two examples that you used, the actual objective morality is what you tried to classify as the subjective morality How do you know that to be the case that punching old people and homosexuality are objectively wrong? Because those are your opinions? Is it not even a possibility that one of your moral opinions might, if such a thing exists, run contrary to objective morality? Even if you are objectively correct on the punching and homosexuality issues? no. as i've said, my opinion has nothing to do with anything. these things are part of the natural law that you refer to. did your great grandfather's morality say that it is okay to punch an old person? i seriously doubt that it did. as i said, if everyone in the world suddenly decided that it is okay to punch and old person, it would still be wrong
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 19:37:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 6, 2011 22:21:01 GMT
no. as i've said, my opinion has nothing to do with anything. these things are part of the natural law that you refer to. did your great grandfather's morality say that it is okay to punch an old person? i seriously doubt that it did. as i said, if everyone in the world suddenly decided that it is okay to punch and old person, it would still be wrong My forefathers may have believed things to be right that I believe to be wrong such as slavery or marital-rape; and people in different cultures around the world may also disagree with you and I on matters such as cannibalism or FGM. What you are saying is that there exists an objective morality that exists independently of human opinion, and in addition to this you are also confident that your morality is the same as this objective morality down to the last tee. I'd like to know how you ascertain this because to another observer it can appear as if it is just one person's opinion as to what is right or wrong, versus another's.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Sept 6, 2011 22:45:33 GMT
Who said anything about rejecting anything? To use your own quote from an earlier post: "I haven't made any value judgements". I merely pointed out that religion and morality are two different concepts.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Sept 7, 2011 10:56:05 GMT
But isn't religious morality a form of morality?
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Sept 7, 2011 11:18:30 GMT
I said religion and morality were two different concepts Synonym - the definition of concept being a general notion or abstract idea. NB I did not say 'religious morality', which is something different. Moral tenets may indeed form an essential subset of certain (most?) religious beliefs and what is moral may or may not differ among different religions, but to conflate religion with morality is, I believe, a mistake. If we do that, we are at risk of thinking that someone is moral because they are religious and someone is not moral because they are not religious.
|
|