100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Universal Morality - Trust/Truth | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
In fact, as far as I can see, the only "meaningful" discussions of morality necessarily must be based on one's likes and dislikes, because morality, IMHO, requires a judgment call of some kind to be made. Judgment is not always about likes and dislikes. In other words, the very concept of "morality" without attaching it to any sense of "right or wrong" is a meaningless concept. Therefore some 'criteria' for being able to measure what's "right or wrong" must be associated with the concept of morality and that requires a subjective judgment. What is the difference between an objective and a subjective judgment? If there is none, then using the term "subjective" is superfluous. Morality is not moral belief. That has been clearly shown. The argument given identifies the distinction it holds true. Again, this is just how I view the concept of morality, because for me the very concept is meaningless outside of this scope. You're not alone, the majority hold much the same view. Yet, the consensus is that there are three different approaches to morality. Those coming from two different scopes. One of which is within the oughts, and the other from outside of the oughts. You choose the former, and I the latter. The latter entails the former, and therefore by definition is a stronger claim. Therefore my conclusion would be that all morality is indeed subjective, and so the very notion of any "universal innate morality" seems to be an idea that couldn't exist, unless of course everyone has the same subjective experiences, and the same reactions to those experiences. Again, this would be describing the criteria for a prescriptive claim. One 'ought not' do such and such, or words to that effect. The approach being used from this end asks what those those things really mean. This has been worked through during the thread on more than one occasion so far. creative: The argument being given is not a prescriptive/normative one and therefore those things play no role in universal morality. It represents an active collection of self-evident truthes being used as a basis for necessitarian approach. And yes, it still needs work. Abra: Well, I guess can see this in the purest philosophical sense, but it seems to me that even at its best, this idealization would necessarily be 'contaminated' with the subjective ideas and experiences of the person whose doing the idealizing. What is the difference between a "subjective" experience and/or idea and one that is not "subjective"? I mean, in the end, it would basically need to be a thesis that 'everyone' agreed with, otherwise how could it be claimed to be "Universal". Universally applicable means without exception not universally agreed upon. That is the criterion of scientific law. There are some who, none-the-less, do not agree that those laws hold true in all applicable situations. That fact does not affect the universality of the law. The proof in being universally moral is had by satisfying the criterion that one cannot possibly think of a case - either real or imagined - in which the universal does not equally apply. We all breathe air is such a claim. That is significantly different from being universally agreed upon. However, that being said is not to diminish the importance of a universal morality argument being understood by as many as possible. There are good reasons for the axioms being used in the way that they are. |
|
|
|
|
