Morality without the righteous. What is right and wrong?

[genkaus]

Do you make moral statements and believe we have obligations or duties to behave a certain way?

In a manner of speaking. I don't believe in absolute obligations or in duties not resulting from our own choices.

I can make ought assessments of my own behavior and that of others based on my judgement of what is the prudent thing to do or simply the things I want to do or to be. But it makes no sense to me to assert that there is a duty or obligation to do or not do this or that.

If you can justify your judgment and figure out how the basic principles apply in different cases, you wouldn't be simply asserting.

[Tranquility]

The imperatives are different. One being "this is the prudent thing to do." The other being "this is the obligatory thing to do." Perhaps even though I read and understand moral statements to express the latter, it isn't always the case?

[genkaus]

The imperatives are different. One being "this is the prudent thing to do." The other being "this is the obligatory thing to do." Perhaps even though I read and understand moral statements to express the latter, it isn't always the case?

If your morality is justifiable, then they'd be the same.

[Tranquility]

Can you explain how it would be the same?

We could say it is prudent to save money for unexpected expenses. How is an obligation to do so derived?

[genkaus]

Can you explain how it would be the same?

We could say it is prudent to save money for unexpected expenses. How is an obligation to do so derived?

That would depend upon the moral theory you subscribe to.

[NoMoreFaith]

Unless I misunderstood you, it appears you are arguing in favor of traditional Kantian morality.

Meh, only in the sense that if you are trying to construct an infallible version of right and wrong - Kant has probably come the closest - and even then after adding on all the exceptions and additions.

I think that Kantian morality has one fatal flaw, which you inadvertantly mentioned in the paragraph above (third from the top). It is that no general moral rule can be without exception.

Quite advertant. There is no absolute standard and no absolute rule - the only absolute, is that moral decision is encumbered by the infinite variance of potential situations requiring action, or inaction.

Absolute moral law is an impossibility - but we can try to cover as much as we can to apply in a general situation and not go too wrong.

The awkward question has never been - how do we differentiate between right and wrong. The melancholic conclusion logic and reason always lands on becomes "Is there right and wrong?". The only true answer I can give to that one is; I want there to be a right or wrong, that I would not act in a manner contrary to what I would wish that everyone would act in the same situation.

Natural feelings of empathy - one of the reasons for the success of our species I may add - (or as the slightly detestable and faulty logic of the theist calling our empathetic instinct God - or Gods will) is well and good. But the inevitable conclusion is that there is no right and wrong - which is why the question "what is right or wrong" an effectively unanswerable due to it's unfalsifiable nature (much like God).

So while I quote Kant as the closest I can come to as a decent stab at an absolute rule - the fact remains it is still an illusion developed from the commitments and tradition of your own life experience and culture.

Even rape and murder have at certain points, in certain cultures (here's looking at you certain revered moral holy texts) been deemed morally good - as detestable as that is to the majority of us now.