Objective morality

[FallentoReason]

I've always thought to myself that maybe it can be shown that there are in fact objective morals. The problem though is that we tend to jump straight into the tricky situations where it's not clear what is right or wrong anymore. I see this as chucking a high school kid into a 2nd year engineering unit and expecting him/her to cope. That's not logical at all.

Would it be possible to start from scratch and through logic define a basic framework where we could then expand our ideas of morals and see if objectivity is at least somewhat plausible?

What I think a good starting point is this: can it be said that it is always morally wrong to end your own race?

[Matt231]

I never really thought an objective morality is possible. To me, pretty much everything is subjective. I think the main problem with creating an objective morality is when you start to look at other cultures, since their customs and behaviours are so different. However, I am open to your idea. We can see how far we can get.

As for your question, I would say yes. It is morally wrong to end your own race.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

What I think a good starting point is this: can it be said that it is always morally wrong to end your own race?

Who says it is immoral in the first place?

In setting moral values for others, you first need a moral authority. EG Christians use the bible to set a list of absolute moral imperatives,which they tend to largely ignore.

Morality is based on pragmatism,and is a survival tool. Some 'moral' behaviour has even been observed in at least one other species of ape.


If morality was at all objective,ethical codes would be consistent and unchanging between virtually all cultures and times, but they are not. So far, I have been unable to discover ONE absolute, universal moral imperative.

[Reforged]

Right and wrong are concepts we have invented which appear to work for us, that being said there are a grand variety of situations where there is no clear line between either.

Decisions have so many consequences we can't even comprehend most of them. Yes if you were to cure every disease in the world that would be a good thing on the face of it but wouldn't that cause overpopulation? Where would all the excess people live? How many could find jobs? Would some turn to crime out of desperation? How long till theres just too much excess population, our system simply collapses because of it and we are reduced to survival of the fittest again?

There really is no absolute definition of right or wrong which always holds true. Every good decision has some bad consequences, every bad decision some good consequences.
You can't control consequences but you can control your actions, your actions are what defines you. Its really a question of how you wish to be defined. Killing someone, even for the best of reasons, would leave its mark on everything you are and everything you will be.

[FallentoReason]

can it be said that it is always morally wrong to end your own race?

Morality is based on pragmatism,and is a survival tool.

So far, I have been unable to discover ONE absolute, universal moral imperative.

I think you may have found your first one..? Or maybe there is a situation where the right thing would be to kill humanity?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Or maybe there is a situation where the right thing would be to kill humanity?

What is your moral authority for claiming such an action is immoral?

IF I accept the action is immoral,I am unable to accept the rule is absolute without knowing ALL of the possible scenarios, which I do not.

[FallentoReason]

Right and wrong are concepts we have invented which appear to work for us, that being said there are a grand variety of situations where there is no clear line between either.

Decisions have so many consequences we can't even comprehend most of them. Yes if you were to cure every disease in the world that would be a good thing on the face of it but wouldn't that cause overpopulation? Where would all the excess people live? How many could find jobs? Would some turn to crime out of desperation? How long till theres just too much excess population, our system simply collapses because of it and we are reduced to survival of the fittest again?

There really is no absolute definition of right or wrong which always holds true. Every good decision has some bad consequences, every bad decision some good consequences.
You can't control consequences but you can control your actions, your actions are what defines you. Its really a question of how you wish to be defined. Killing someone, even for the best of reasons, would leave its mark on everything you are and everything you will be.

This is the thing though.. you need to take baby steps. Even before you begin to analyze morality you need to understand for yourself where YOU stand. Do you think an action is good because the intentions were good i.e. it was always about the ends? Do you think the greater good is the way to go meaning that the means can either be good or bad, as long as you make the most people happy?

It's these building blocks that I'm talking about tied with fundamental facts of who we are as humans that I think could be used to formulate some sort of objectivity.

[genkaus]

[FallentoReason]

[Neo-Scholastic]

I guess this is a carry over from an adjacent thread? I think you must start with the working hypothesis that a universal moral principle indeed exists and that our real problem is learning how to recognize it.