Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

are people who don't accept subjective morals stupid??? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what is absolute? where do these objective morals come from??
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Good idea for a thread, worded in the worst way possible.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calmingforzzzz)
    what is absolute? where do these objective morals come from??
    Some of them are stupid. Some of the people who think morals are subjective are also stupid though.

    Presumably you believe that morals are subjective and think you have good, easy to understand arguments for this view. Would you care to present them?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    One place I think an objective moral framework could come from is the universality of suffering and well-being. If moral decisions are those decisions that have a bearing on the welfare or quality of experience of some conscious perspective, then we can suppose there exists an objective measure of to what degree those decisions could affect any given perspective.

    It's troublesome that the universe seems pretty uncooperative in facilitating any exact measurements of an individual's suffering or well-being, but the data should in principle exist and it could (to the extent that such data is available) be used to inform efforts in moral decision-making.

    If we acknowledge that morality's principal concern is the suffering and well-being of conscious perspectives, then those things are rooted in objective reality (i.e., they actually exist and to an actual extent), despite that they are experienced subjectively.

    The reason I think morality is often thought to be subjective is because we can't actually agree that morality is in fact principally concerned with suffering and well-being, and a lot of people think any conception of morality is equally valid. This seems to indicate we have a problem understanding the topic of discussion, rather than with discussing it once we know what we're talking about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    what do you even mean by "subjective"?
    subjective in their sources? or subjective in their applications (i.e. "slavery is bad, except in situation x")?
    I have a morality that is mostly objective but it is subjective in its origin (e.g. a flawed human being's mind, not a deity's or from nature)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    people who think morals are subjective are also stupid though.
    I couldn't disagree with you more, not just because you think some of us are stupid, but because even without the non-judgmental insult, I believe you are mistaken. The idealistic concept of moral absolutism has over time been transcended (even within legal parameters) by the more realistic philosophy of situational ethics. This is even, for example, partly why not all homicide cases lead to murder charges. Even the law recognizes that circumstances negate application of absolutes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kendrik Lamar)
    I couldn't disagree with you more, not just because you think some of us are stupid, but because even without the non-judgmental insult, I believe you are mistaken.
    Think there might be a misunderstanding here - I didn't insult anyone! My point was simply that there are invariably intelligent people who believe stupid things. So even if we concede that objective morality is an outrageously stupid idea, it's still not very sensible to infer that any particular proponents are themselves stupid. I just stated that there were stupid people on both sides of the table!


    The idealistic concept of moral absolutism has over time been transcended (even within legal parameters) by the more realistic philosophy of situational ethics. This is even, for example, partly why not all homicide cases lead to murder charges. Even the law recognizes that circumstances negate application of absolutes.
    Situational ethics is perfectly compatible with objective systems of morality though, no? I don't think it's sensible to conflate absolute morals with objective morals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Think there might be a misunderstanding here - I didn't insult anyone! My point was simply that there are invariably intelligent people who believe stupid things. So even if we concede that objective morality is an outrageously stupid idea, it's still not very sensible to infer that any particular proponents are themselves stupid. I just stated that there were stupid people on both sides of the table!
    I might have misunderstood you. Pardon me there.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.