Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   objective/subjective morals/conscience?
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2348 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 9 of 94 (491842)
12-22-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Huntard
12-22-2008 7:48 AM


Morality is social not subjective
quote:
I say there is no such thing as "objective morals" because everything I see in the world around me points to morals being subjective.
Not everyone thinks the same things are good and bad, they differ from person to person. If you ask person A what he thinks of something, then ask person B you are likely getting a different answer. As in, if I ask you what you think of abortion, I’m guessing you’re against it (correct me if I’m wrong). I on the other hand am in favour of abortion, though limited to certain circumstances.
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).
In the case of abortion, we have a disgreement about how that moral rule is applied in reality. We're dealing with a moral dilemma. You and I would argue that allowing abortion (under prescribed rules) is less harmful than making abortion illegal, whereas Jaywill and Bertot (I'm making assumptions here) would argue that the rule about killing is absolute, allowing no deviations, and applies just as much to embryos and fetuses as it does to postnatal humans.
In the case of capital punishment we can see a similar moral dilemma, one side insisting that the right to life is absolute (although only applying to postnatal humans), whereas the other side argues that society has a right to take life under certain circumstances.
Where I would disagree with Jaywill and Bertot is in defining where the moral rules come from. They believe the rules come from God, and so are absolute and unchanging, whereas I, being an atheist, believe that moral rules are just a kind of social agreement, a way of arranging society so that we don't have to worry all the time about being murdered by our neighbours (although that does sometimes happen :-().
So, I don't believe rules are absolute, but I do believe they are objective.
Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 7:48 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2008 9:57 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 12-22-2008 1:28 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024