RE: What does morality mean to you?
September 20, 2015 at 4:50 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2015 at 5:16 am by robvalue.)
OK, thanks
I'll check it out.
I think we probably mean slightly different things by morality in the first place, although if we hammered out the definitions for 57 years we'd probably agree in the end. Yes, wellbeing is an incredibly vague term which will mean different things to different people. This is why I argue for subjective morality. It simply covers the general notion of valueing others. So it could include lifespan, happiness, freedom from illness, being comfortable, being safe... and so on. The problem of objective morality is that it assumes we all somehow agree on which of these are important, and to what extent. Quite clearly we don't.
As for my poll, I've come to agree that although I still consider intentions to be at the heart of personal morality, it does involve other factors.
With regard to animals, I agree they can have morality. And this comes down to my idea that the more capable you are of thought and understanding, the more responsibility you have for your actions. I would alter the expectation to meet the abilities.
I consider it a clear distinction between scientifically observing/classing morality, and considering the thought processes of an individual with regard to their personal morality. I think a lot of the confusion comes from people either not talking about the same thing, or else conflating the two.
But I seem to be making no sense to you at all, so I'll leave it at that
I appreciate your input.

I think we probably mean slightly different things by morality in the first place, although if we hammered out the definitions for 57 years we'd probably agree in the end. Yes, wellbeing is an incredibly vague term which will mean different things to different people. This is why I argue for subjective morality. It simply covers the general notion of valueing others. So it could include lifespan, happiness, freedom from illness, being comfortable, being safe... and so on. The problem of objective morality is that it assumes we all somehow agree on which of these are important, and to what extent. Quite clearly we don't.
As for my poll, I've come to agree that although I still consider intentions to be at the heart of personal morality, it does involve other factors.
With regard to animals, I agree they can have morality. And this comes down to my idea that the more capable you are of thought and understanding, the more responsibility you have for your actions. I would alter the expectation to meet the abilities.
I consider it a clear distinction between scientifically observing/classing morality, and considering the thought processes of an individual with regard to their personal morality. I think a lot of the confusion comes from people either not talking about the same thing, or else conflating the two.
But I seem to be making no sense to you at all, so I'll leave it at that

Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum