Go back
Morals -- relative or absolute.

Morals -- relative or absolute.

Spirituality

AThousandYoung
Join the west side!

tinyurl.com/metbdfh3

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26701
Clock
20 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So, your argument is that a person P considers X to be immoral if and only if P would not want to commit or be a victim of X?

EDIT: From a Catholic perspective, all killing is always objectively evil. Whether a particular act that results in a killing is immoral or not depends on double effect.
All killing or just murder?

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49373
Clock
20 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why does it have to be an entity or entities that "decides" it? It's part of our makeup; how it got there is an open question. Read Halitose's posts on pages 2 and 3 and Ivanhoe's rather good first paragraph in his post on page 3.
I'll be damned ..... a compliment from the marauder ?

*cloink*

......... glass of water for Sir Ivanhoe, please

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
20 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'll be damned ..... a compliment from the marauder ?

*cloink*

......... glass of water for Sir Ivanhoe, please
You probably cut and pasted it .........

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49373
Clock
20 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, I'm agreeing with you, Ivanhoe. I must be being persecuted by the WolfPack!
You must be getting old and finally wise to be able to agree with me, that's all marauder ..... 😛

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49373
Clock
20 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
You probably cut and pasted it .........
My English must be improving then ..... 😏

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
Clock
20 Jun 06
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
If what was good for society was static, then I'd agree. Since it is not, but everchanging, it morals are relative to that change.
Right. Perhaps we to need define what exactly "good for society" entails, since at the moment it is a tautology.

H
I stink, ergo I am

On the rebound

Joined
14 Jul 05
Moves
4464
Clock
23 Jun 06
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Lemme drive this debate a little further:

To distinguish between preference claims, and normative moral claims, consider these two statements:

1. I like vanilla ice cream.
2. Killing people without justification is wrong.

The first statement is a preference claim, since it is a description of a person's subjective taste. It is not a normative claim. It is not a claim about what one ought or ought not to do. It is not saying, "Since I like vanilla ice cream, the government ought to coerce you to eat it as well."

A claim of subjective preference tells us nothing about what one ought to think or do. For example, if someone were to say, "I like to torture children for fun," this would tell us nothing about whether it is wrong or right to torture children for fun.

The second claim, however, is quite different. It has little if anything to do with what one likes or dislikes. This statement is a moral claim. It is not a descriptive claim, for it does not tell us what, why, or how things are, or how a majority of people in fact behave and think. Nor is it a preference claim, for it does not tell us what anyone's subjective preference may be or how one prefers to behave and think. Rather, it is a claim about what persons ought to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
23 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
Right. Perhaps we to need define what exactly "good for society" entails, since at the moment it is a tautology.
That is hard to say, since society is an incredibly complex interactive set. Perhaps we could consider a theoretical and simple society liek a small tribe?

I guess I have a utilitarian view of society, whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This will clearly be relative to the changing desires of the people therein.

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
158970
Clock
23 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
That is hard to say, since society is an incredibly complex interactive set. Perhaps we could consider a theoretical and simple society liek a small tribe?

I guess I have a utilitarian view of society, whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This will clearly be relative to the changing desires of the people therein.
Let us take away all the rights of privacy, to protect the children!
Much damage can be done trying to justify the greater good.
😞
Kelly

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
23 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let us take away all the rights of privacy, to protect the children!
Much damage can be done trying to justify the greater good.
😞
Kelly
Point? Relevance? Explanation?

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
Clock
23 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
All killing or just murder?
All killing. In murder, the intent of the act is ending the life of the person and murder is done with forethought.

AThousandYoung
Join the west side!

tinyurl.com/metbdfh3

Joined
23 Aug 04
Moves
26701
Clock
24 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
All killing. In murder, the intent of the act is ending the life of the person and murder is done with forethought.
This suggests that all soldiers are at least evil and probably murderers. Right?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
24 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
That is hard to say, since society is an incredibly complex interactive set. Perhaps we could consider a theoretical and simple society liek a small tribe?

I guess I have a utilitarian view of society, whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This will clearly be relative to the changing desires of the people therein.
If it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes, is that morally acceptable in your view?

no1marauder
Naturally Right

Somewhere Else

Joined
22 Jun 04
Moves
42677
Clock
24 Jun 06
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
Lemme drive this debate a little further:

To distinguish between preference claims, and normative moral claims, consider these two statements:

1. I like vanilla ice cream.
2. Killing people without justification is wrong.

The first statement is a preference claim, since it is a description of a person's subjective taste. It is not a to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.
I agree with almost all of this but have reservations about this sentence:

Rather, it is a claim about what persons ought to do, which may be contrary to how persons in fact behave and how they prefer to behave.

I think how persons normally act is strong evidence, though not conclusive evidence, of what is morally acceptable. I think "how they prefer to behave" is pretty overwhelming evidence.

S

Joined
19 Nov 03
Moves
31382
Clock
24 Jun 06
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
If it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes, is that morally acceptable in your view?
From my perspective, growing up in this moral set; of course not. But in a time in which our moral sensibilties were not present, the members of that society may have had no reservations about it.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.