Back
to top
Morals and Values
Watch this thread
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
The Dictator
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
0
reply
Kallisto
Badges:
22
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
(Original post by The Dictator)
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges:
21
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
Morals are simply an extension of value and both are heavily influenced by our families and wider society in addition to ones personality themselves. I'm much more concerned with values (both my own and other people - perhaps i'm just more judgmental) in my mid twenties than i was a decade ago.
0
reply
Asolare
Badges:
20
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
This is essentially the foundation of a lot of non-cognitivist ethical approaches in a nutshell, is it not'? 
0
reply
NutE
Badges:
12
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
NeverTooLatte
Badges:
9
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Lady Comstock
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report
#7
(Original post by The Dictator)
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report
#8
I think that there is and indeed must be an objective right and wrong but that morality is not the right description for this. Morality is subjective as we are not born into a vacuum.
in this I broadly agree with Kants categorical imperative.
in this I broadly agree with Kants categorical imperative.
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#9
(Original post by Davij038)
I think that there is and indeed must be an objective right and wrong but that morality is not the right description for this.
I think that there is and indeed must be an objective right and wrong but that morality is not the right description for this.
0
reply
NHM713
Badges:
4
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report
#10
(Original post by The Dictator)
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
I have underlined an objective difference between "morals" and "values".
Morals, or what is right and what is wrong, exist independently of consciousness.
Values are more subjective and vary according to the individual. I do not value the same things as my neighbour might. I do not even value the same things as my family might.
Any idea you have about yourself is fake.
0
reply
Asolare
Badges:
20
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report
#11
I too am interested as to why some of you think there is an objective right and wrong and what determines this.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report
#12
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Why do you think that 'there must be an objective right and wrong'?
Why do you think that 'there must be an objective right and wrong'?
I think that there are universal rules which can be rationally seen and applied. These can generally be seen as laws of nature which I see as truth: if you hurt somebody they will feel pain- this can be rationalised in any which way but the truth of the matter is that they are in pain.
0
reply
Asolare
Badges:
20
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report
#13
But the argument 'I think there must be objective morals because if not then it's moral relativism' isn't a strong one.
1) Just because you dislike the idea of moral relativism it does not mean it is wrong.
2) Accepting there are no objective moral facts doesn't have to lead to chaos. Moral Fictionalism suggests that most moral discussions have no factual basis (are false), but advocates that we need a theoretical system of morality to keep 'the world in order' etc.
1) Just because you dislike the idea of moral relativism it does not mean it is wrong.
2) Accepting there are no objective moral facts doesn't have to lead to chaos. Moral Fictionalism suggests that most moral discussions have no factual basis (are false), but advocates that we need a theoretical system of morality to keep 'the world in order' etc.
1
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report
#14
(Original post by Inexorably)
But the argument 'I think there must be objective morals because if not then it's moral relativism' isn't a strong one.
1) Just because you dislike the idea of moral relativism it does not mean it is wrong.
2) Accepting there are no objective moral facts doesn't have to lead to chaos. Moral Fictionalism suggests that most moral discussions have no factual basis (are false), but advocates that we need a theoretical system of morality to keep 'the world in order' etc.
But the argument 'I think there must be objective morals because if not then it's moral relativism' isn't a strong one.
1) Just because you dislike the idea of moral relativism it does not mean it is wrong.
2) Accepting there are no objective moral facts doesn't have to lead to chaos. Moral Fictionalism suggests that most moral discussions have no factual basis (are false), but advocates that we need a theoretical system of morality to keep 'the world in order' etc.
0
reply
Asolare
Badges:
20
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report
#15
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
The issue though is that there aren't any particularly strong arguments for any meta-ethical positions. Preferring relativism or nihilism isn't somehow 'better'.
The issue though is that there aren't any particularly strong arguments for any meta-ethical positions. Preferring relativism or nihilism isn't somehow 'better'.
Do you really believe all meta-ethical positions are weak? I would say that Prescriptivism certainly has its credits.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report
#16
(Original post by Inexorably)
It might not necessarily be better to outright claim that morals don't exist or that morality is completely subjective (though I would not agree with this - I don't think we need morality. Simply saying something has dire social consequences or legal consequences would be enough in my eyes), but once again this doesn't mean they are incorrect
It might not necessarily be better to outright claim that morals don't exist or that morality is completely subjective (though I would not agree with this - I don't think we need morality. Simply saying something has dire social consequences or legal consequences would be enough in my eyes), but once again this doesn't mean they are incorrect
It may not be necessary to have morality but that, similarly, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Do you really believe all meta-ethical positions are weak? I would say that Prescriptivism certainly has its credits.
0
reply
Asolare
Badges:
20
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report
#17
(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
I didn't say they were incorrect.
It may not be necessary to have morality but that, similarly, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I didn't say they were incorrect.
It may not be necessary to have morality but that, similarly, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I would say that no meta-ethic has a 'particularly strong' argument. It doesn't mean that positions are weak per se but ultimately none can be proven over another as there can be logically valid and sound theories for all of them. Really it seems to just come down to which assumptions you prefer.
0
reply
RandZul'Zorander
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report
#18
I am more inclined to agree with you here, but isn't that how it is for ana awful lot of philosophical theories
1
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
