- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you believe in moral relativity or absolutism?
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
The system that serves to maximize human happiness and to alleviate human suffering is utilitarianism, by definition.
Utilitarianism is simple and works in many instances, but typically only looks at consequences and not at intent, which is its downfall in many thought experiments when claiming that it is objective and perfect.
However, I’d be lying if I didn’t say 90% of my moral judgements in life stem from a utilitarianistic standpoint.
Utilitarianism is simple and works in many instances, but typically only looks at consequences and not at intent, which is its downfall in many thought experiments when claiming that it is objective and perfect.
However, I’d be lying if I didn’t say 90% of my moral judgements in life stem from a utilitarianistic standpoint.
This post was edited on 5/13/18 at 2:02 pm
1
Posted on 5/13/18 at 1:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It all depends on how one defines "superior" in this instance. If a superior moral system is one which maximizes subjective human happiness and minimizes suffering then yes, some moral systems are superior to others. But to argue that anything is objectively good or evil apart from the isolated sphere of human experience is nonsensical. There is no reason why killing another person is evil apart from how the act is perceived by and effects other people.
I understand many people find that idea horrifying and repulsive, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I refuse to accept this. You are preaching nihilism. Life is meant for more than just existing. Your moral obligation in life is balancing order and chaos. Go too far in either of those directions, and you will find yourself in an amoral or evil society.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 2:01 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
For most of human history, killing a child with profound cognitive deficits in infancy was far more humane than allowing them to live. Today such an act would be considered evil by essentially everyone in our society, largely because of the quality of life we can now give to such people now.
Well people will still abort kids who have these defects, and tons of people don’t bat an eye to this. So I’m not sure if we’ve really evolved past this when you really think about.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 2:07 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
You are preaching nihilism.
Not quite
Where I differ from a traditional nihilist is that I believe subjective purpose and happiness are enough to grant meaning to existence. Just because my life has no objective meaning is insufficient to call life meaningless IMO.
quote:
Life is meant for more than just existing.
Only because we have the higher order cognitive ability to assign subjective meaning and purpose to our lives. An ant exists solely for the sake of existence.
But objectively, on a universal scale outside the scope of human perception, our existence is no different than that of the ant.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 2:10 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Well people will still abort kids who have these defects, and tons of people don’t bat an eye to this. So I’m not sure if we’ve really evolved past this when you really think about.
Sure but everyone, even the most ardent pro-lifers, acknowledges by their actions (if not their words) a distinction between a 12 week old fetus and a 12 week old infant. I think abortion for convenience has no place in a thriving first world society, but nobody genuinely believes it's equivalent to killing a baby.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 2:13 pm to Ross
quote:
Utilitarianism is simple and works in many instances, but typically only looks at consequences and not at intent, which is its downfall in many thought experiments when claiming that it is objective and perfect.
No moral system can withstand logically consistent scrutiny across the board, because no moral system is truly objective and certainly not universal. Even the moral systems that claim a divine basis are internally inconsistent.
But if we're talking about a moral system being superior to another for the purposes of human utility, we must define superior in some way.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 2:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I think abortion for convenience has no place in a thriving first world society, but nobody genuinely believes it's equivalent to killing a baby.
So if you aborted a 7 month old baby, do you still think those aren’t at the same level as killing a newborn? Babies can survive outside the womb at 7 months, and the record is 22 weeks for a baby surviving outside the womb.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 2:21 pm to Roger Klarvin
I was just letting you know that when you define the criteria in the way that you did, an ethical framework already exists that perfectly fulfills that criteria by definition and that is utilitarianism. I am engineer so I live my life by making complex problems simple and solving the simple, approximated problem. Utilitarianism was a natural place for my mind to latch to as far as ethics are concerned.
I think Kant’s theory of universalizable maxim’s (a needlessly convoluted phrase coined by a guy that loved to act like an academic when expressing pretty simple ideas) is better in some ways. Simply put, if an action and the intent behind the action was done in the same way and for the same reason by anyone, anywhere, or everyone, everywhere; would the world be better for it? If yes, it was in Kant’s eyes, an objectively morally correct action.
Also not perfect, but good intentions cannot be ignored when judging someone’s actions. Sometimes they can be mostly ignored, but surely all cases cannot be judged morally just based on an actions consequences.
At least that’s the motivation behind Kant’s thoughts as I took them.
I think Kant’s theory of universalizable maxim’s (a needlessly convoluted phrase coined by a guy that loved to act like an academic when expressing pretty simple ideas) is better in some ways. Simply put, if an action and the intent behind the action was done in the same way and for the same reason by anyone, anywhere, or everyone, everywhere; would the world be better for it? If yes, it was in Kant’s eyes, an objectively morally correct action.
Also not perfect, but good intentions cannot be ignored when judging someone’s actions. Sometimes they can be mostly ignored, but surely all cases cannot be judged morally just based on an actions consequences.
At least that’s the motivation behind Kant’s thoughts as I took them.
This post was edited on 5/13/18 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 5/13/18 at 3:02 pm to biscuitsngravy
Reality and truth are as they are.
Perception using senses doesn't show reality or truth.
Perception using senses doesn't show reality or truth.
Posted on 5/13/18 at 5:41 pm to TH03
quote:
"For example, you can't judge people in the 18th century by the standards of today."
The empty pedestal at ____ circle says otherwise.
18th century = 1701 to 1800.
Apparently you CAN judge people in the 19th century by the standards of today.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News