Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: Meta-Ethics

  1. #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Online
    01-17-2018 @ 04:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mare
    Country
    Andorra
    Gender
    Posts
    5,400
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,783
    Given: 2,629

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos View Post
    I think there are such things as objective moral values and duties.
    My foundation of morality is well-being, that is, my moral reference is human flourishing. I am Hedonist-Consequentialist.
    I get my morality from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions. I get them from a foundation that says "my actions have consequences on other people, and if we are going to share space together we need to recognize that my right to swing my arm ends at your nose; my rights end when your rights begin. You might argue the kind of moral theory I tend to exercise is relative to well-being therefore not absolute. I think there are metaphysical problems with relativism, which I can get to, if you'd like. I therefore question whether I am a moral absolutist?

    Does one being a moral realist imply he is an absolutist? I think not.
    Does one being a moral objectivist imply he is an absolutist? I question this.

    What do you think?
    I am not asking you by what process do you personally decide if an act is moral or immoral, but I am asking you why do you believe objective moral values exist. You certainly can create a moral system simply by setting a set of principles and decision-making rules to decide between two or more actions without a belief in God, but what makes you belief any moral statement is objective? Do you take it as evident?

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Also View Post
    I am not asking you by what process do you personally decide if an act is moral or immoral, but I am asking you why do you believe objective moral values exist. You certainly can create a moral system simply by setting a set of principles and decision-making rules to decide between two or more actions without a belief in God, but what makes you belief any moral statement is objective? Do you take it as evident?
    I don't think God is an appropriate reference point of morality, since you'd have to rely on either divine command (whatever God commands is moral and therefore obligatory) or natural law (God's nature is moral and good), I think both of these are relative to God, in one case on his opinion (subjectivism) or on his nature (problematic). If what God commands what is moral then it is merely his opinion, subjective, if however God only commands things that are moral, then we can investigate his nature regardless of whether he exists or says so.

    I tend to cling on to objective morality because I despise relativism (especially cultural relativism). I understand that the opposite of relativism is not objectivism, it is absolutism. To be honest, I am still exploring philosophical terms to discern what it is that I believe in, and what my views ought to be.

    I am in Engineering, but I am taking time to educate myself on important philosophical topics, but I am a complete amateur. Could you perhaps assist me?

    Is there any form of moral objectivism that you would accept?
    For me, there are forms of relativism that I do accept.

    It may be impractical to claim that anyone possesses absolute morality or even objective morality. However, I believe it exists.
    Why would you go looking for something you don't believe exists.

  3. #33
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Online
    01-17-2018 @ 04:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mare
    Country
    Andorra
    Gender
    Posts
    5,400
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,783
    Given: 2,629

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos View Post
    I don't think God is an appropriate reference point of morality, since you'd have to rely on either divine command (whatever God commands is moral and therefore obligatory) or natural law (God's nature is moral and good), I think both of these are relative to God, in one case on his opinion (subjectivism) or on his nature (problematic). If what God commands what is moral then it is merely his opinion, subjective, if however God only commands things that are moral, then we can investigate his nature regardless of whether he exists or says so.

    I tend to cling on to objective morality because I despise relativism (especially cultural relativism). I understand that the opposite of relativism is not objectivism, it is absolutism. To be honest, I am still exploring philosophical terms to discern what it is that I believe in, and what my views ought to be.

    I am in Engineering, but I am taking time to educate myself on important philosophical topics, but I am a complete amateur. Could you perhaps assist me?

    Is there any form of moral objectivism that you would accept?
    For me, there are forms of relativism that I do accept.

    It may be impractical to claim that anyone possesses absolute morality or even objective morality. However, I believe it exists.
    Why would you go looking for something you don't believe exists.
    I belief the moral realm we experience starts to exist with the creation of concious creatures with free will, it is a divine construction just like the physical realm but the moral realm is beyond the natural. And I don't think the concept of good can be separated from the concept of God, if we have moral laws then we need an object to fit the role of the giver and sustainer of these moral laws, if this object can only subjectively sustain moral statements, like human beings, than all our moral system is also subjective, in order for objective morality to exist we would need an objective frame of reference for morals.

    God, being conceptualize as a perfect being endowed with a moral nature, would provide this objective frame, it makes no sense to say that God would command something immoral because it would contradict his nature, it would be a logical impossibility, it is like talking about a square circle. You don't need to believe in God to agree with this, because this is not an argument that pressuposes the existence of God, but it is the conditional statement that if God exists, being morally perfect, he wouldn't engage in immoral acts. Another conditional statement, is that if God exists, being perfect in knowledge and in moral nature, any morality derived from him would have to be objective, our morality is not objective because we are always susceptible to making error judgements, at most we can argue (sometimes, very confidently) that one act looks more moral than another, but we are ignorant of all the extensions of the act and of the precise way to evalue the act and its extensions, but this would not apply to God.

    Being a theist, I have a basis for believing in moral objectivity, that does't mean I know that any specific moral statement is objectivily right, just that it makes sense to think that morality has an objective nature given the existence of God. But what basis would an atheist have for moral objectivity? If he says "X should do (or not do) Y", then according to whom or what? Is this whom or what capable of stablishing objective moral truths? Not if he is just another human. Most of us probably agree that a certain act is clearly immoral, but we don't have the tools to stablish the objectivity this claim, because this is just how we feel about the act and how it contrast to our social and biological conditioning, likewise, think about a field where statements are objectively true or wrong like mathematics, no one would take seriously a defense that a mathematical conjecture is true if the defender grounds on the fact he feels strong about the truth of that particular conjecture, "I just feel very strong that Goldbach's Conjecture is true! It is just evident! You have to agree.", you need objectivity, you need to know the underlying axioms and rules of inferences and the proceed to make a proof of the conjecture that is syntacticaly correct. Contrast this to how we morally evalute actions, we don't even know the 'rules' of morality, we don't precisely know how to moraly evaluate acts and even if we did we are ignorant of the total extension of an act.

    So, yes, I accept moral objectivism.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Should Balkanic be considered a own meta-ethnicity
    By Mortimer in forum The Apricity Regional
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-02-2016, 09:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •