RE: Is morality objective or subjective?
March 19, 2017 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2017 at 9:44 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Like health... once we agree to a definition of it morality can be objective.
But I am talking about moral epistemology not moral ontology.
So the poll is missing a "in one sense yes, in another sense, no" answer. So I refuse to vote.
My bold. That's irrelevant though. People may disagree on the most effective chess strategies but that doesn't mean there aren't some moves in chess that aren't objectively better than others in certain positions, at least in principle if not in practice (it may be hard to pin down in practice due to the number of different moves and positons available and the different styles experts have i.e. some experts are tactical players and others are positional but this doesn't mean one style isn't objectively better than the other if it were, in theory, played perfectly).
Objective doesn't imply universal. i.e. some people with diabetes may need to take insulin injections and that's objectively good for their health... but that doesn't mean everyone has to take insulin injections. Because what's objective for their health doesn't have to be universal and apply to everyone absolutely it can be entirely relative to them and still be objective.
Hence it may be objectively moral for one person to do one thing and another person to do something else. If someone is very good at being generous then that might be a good route to go down to be moral. If another person tends to fuck everything up when they try to be generous then maybe "not hurting people" might be a better moral goal for them.
The whole point about objectivity is it doesn't matter if people have differing opinions. Some hardcore vegans think all meat is always bad for one's health including fish like salmon... but that doesn't change the reality of the matter that salmon is very healthy and we're omnivores. Some people think gluten is always bad for your health but that doesn't make that true either. There may be some nutcase who thinks a hemlock only diet is the healthiest diet there is.... that difference of opinion wouldn't change the fact that objectively hemlock is a poison and the very opposite of healthy.
But I am talking about moral epistemology not moral ontology.
So the poll is missing a "in one sense yes, in another sense, no" answer. So I refuse to vote.
(March 19, 2017 at 9:30 am)Chad32 Wrote: Stealing and killing are illegal pretty much everywhere, but there are differing opinions on when it is and isn't ok to do either of those things.
My bold. That's irrelevant though. People may disagree on the most effective chess strategies but that doesn't mean there aren't some moves in chess that aren't objectively better than others in certain positions, at least in principle if not in practice (it may be hard to pin down in practice due to the number of different moves and positons available and the different styles experts have i.e. some experts are tactical players and others are positional but this doesn't mean one style isn't objectively better than the other if it were, in theory, played perfectly).
Objective doesn't imply universal. i.e. some people with diabetes may need to take insulin injections and that's objectively good for their health... but that doesn't mean everyone has to take insulin injections. Because what's objective for their health doesn't have to be universal and apply to everyone absolutely it can be entirely relative to them and still be objective.
Hence it may be objectively moral for one person to do one thing and another person to do something else. If someone is very good at being generous then that might be a good route to go down to be moral. If another person tends to fuck everything up when they try to be generous then maybe "not hurting people" might be a better moral goal for them.
The whole point about objectivity is it doesn't matter if people have differing opinions. Some hardcore vegans think all meat is always bad for one's health including fish like salmon... but that doesn't change the reality of the matter that salmon is very healthy and we're omnivores. Some people think gluten is always bad for your health but that doesn't make that true either. There may be some nutcase who thinks a hemlock only diet is the healthiest diet there is.... that difference of opinion wouldn't change the fact that objectively hemlock is a poison and the very opposite of healthy.
