objective/subjective morals/conscience?

quote:

---

You are being too simplistic. Morality isn't subjective. It is a social thing (and hence is objective, in the sense of being shared between people). You, I, Bertot and Jaywill would all agree that killing other people is morally wrong. Hell, even most killers would agree with us that killing other people is morally wrong (they just choose to do what they want instead of following the moral rule).

---

A better term would be "intersubjective". The first two meanings (at least) described here, on Wikipedia would seem to fit.

quote:

---

There are five people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only four people. If one person is not thrown overboard then they all will die. The students faced with this delimma may come up with different solutions as to who should be thrown overboard to save the rest. They may decide that morality is relative.

​

But the dilemma actually demonstrates that morality is absolute. There would be no dilemma if morality were relative. If there were no right to life then we could solve the problem by saying "It doesn't matter. Throw everyone overboard and let them all drown. Who cares anyway who lives? They all can die."

---

That is completely and utterly wrong. People who believe that morality is relative usually still have moral values and therefore would NOT give the answer you suggest. A nihilist would, but if you rely on the assumption that all moral relativists are nihilists then your argument has lost contact with reality.So the dilemma does not prove the existence of moral absolutes.If you consider the reasons why there is a dilemma it raises problems for moral absolutism. Not only is there no agreed "right" answer, there is no way even in principle to determine the "right" answer. Nor is there even agreement on the theoretical basis for any absolute morality.Simply saying that there are moral disagreements seriously understates the magnitude of the problem.

quote:

---

Well, I think he makes a good argument that there is near universal agreement among people about the human right to life (but the example only proves this point rather obliquely). The fact that you (a moral relativist, I'm assuming) equate "people with moral values" with "people who would not kill all five" is fairly good evidence of Jaywill's point.

---

However, near-universal agreement was not his point in the part I addressed. Nor is it sufficient to prove that there is an absolute morality as he claimed. (And I will point out that a "right to life" is not the only basis for preserving some of those that could be saved).Worse for his case, there are good explanations for the agreements that do exist, which do not invoke an absolute morality. Whereas explanations that assume absolute morality are speculative at best.

quote:

---

I read it as his his attempt to use near-universal agreement to prove that absolute morality exists.

---

I don't think that it is that simple. Consider this again: That isn't about universal agreement. It is a clear mischaracterisation of moral relativism. It is simply not true that moral relativism entails that there is no dilemma. A nihilist would say that"It doesn't matter..." - but it is certainly not the case that all moral relativists are nihilists.

The Mosaic law of the Bible contains many commands which Christians do not follow. These are generally regarded as "Ceremonial Laws" which have no moral value in themselves (e.g. the ban on eating shellfish).
However, the Bible itself does not clearly distinguish between which laws are "ceremonial" and which are moral requirements. Christian interpretations do not seem to follow any clear guidelines either - why should the ban on homosexual acts because they are ritually unclean not be considered "Ceremonial" as other such laws are ? Why should the ban on charging interest on loans to Jews not be considered a moral law to be extended to all people - as the Church indeed did for some considerable time ?But this is not a problem unique to the Bible. It is one that occurs in everyone's mind. Our moral intuitions do not manage to cleanly distinguish widely agreed moral rules from parochial cultural rules. To do that requires conscious examination of the situation - and a willingness to accept that our personal moralities may not be absolute.This fact is a further blow against the idea that there is an absolute morality. Our intuitive ideas about morality are one of the major lines of argument allegedly supporting the idea of an absolute morality. The fact that these ideas can be clearly wrong (if often not to the person holding them !) seriously undercuts any such argument.