Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Posted: August 12th, 2018, 6:38 am
Indeed, if you can think of any instance where continuing to live is a bad idea then you come back to the inherent subjectiveness of moral judgements.
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15719
Indeed, if you can think of any instance where continuing to live is a bad idea then you come back to the inherent subjectiveness of moral judgements.
Trying to apply the false gods of objectivity and subjectivity is a hopeless cause in questions of morality.Eduk wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 6:58 am Well I think you can make an argument that all morality is existential. But you have to look at the big picture. For example altruism on the face of it might seem to argue against existential claims but existentially we are all much better off if altruism is high and what better way to insure this than to be altruistic yourself. Basically it's not straightforward and time and life, as a whole, need to be considered.
But you are still left with a subjective claim that existence is 'good'.
I do feel though that many subjective claims are not as subjective as they seem. For example let us imagine that you like the temperature to be 21 and I like it to be 20. Maybe good arguments can be made for both but we would normally just say it's subjective and get on with our lives. If however you liked 21 and I liked 100 then it might be objective.
To a sane person, the desire to live is self evidently good. An objective morality would seek to provide people's common needs, not their individual subjective wants. There are exceptions to every rule, but that is not a reason not to have rules.Eduk: Yes but 'desiring to stay alive' can't be proven to be 'good'?
Yes but 'the desire to live' being 'self evidently good' is subjective not objective. I have no issue with it being objective that that is your subjective belief.To a sane person, the desire to live is self evidently good.
Excellent, morality is not the realm of the lone resident of a desert island. It usually involves interaction with other individuals and their "desire to live", thus where the inherent subjectivity of the enterprise originates.Felix wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 11:56 amTo a sane person, the desire to live is self evidently good. An objective morality would seek to provide people's common needs, not their individual subjective wants. There are exceptions to every rule, but that is not a reason not to have rules.Eduk: Yes but 'desiring to stay alive' can't be proven to be 'good'?
An objective morality would be founded on "right desires," which are desires that are commensurate with universal human needs, and the will to live is obviously such a right desire. Murder and suicide are not. The fact that some individuals, for whatever reason, lose their will to live, does not invalidate the fact that it is a right desire, it just means that their personal deficiency prevents them from realizing it.Yes but 'the desire to live' being 'self evidently good' is subjective not objective. I have no issue with it being objective that that is your subjective belief.
Go on then!Felix wrote: ↑August 13th, 2018, 1:22 pmAn objective morality would be founded on "right desires," which are desires that are commensurate with universal human needs,Yes but 'the desire to live' being 'self evidently good' is subjective not objective. I have no issue with it being objective that that is your subjective belief.
You simply do not have the 'right' to judge another until you are in their shoes.
Sorry meant precedent.I can set past president.
I didn't say that "life is good," I said that having a will or desire to live is good. You can easily verify the truth of that statement by finding someone who has no will to live and considering the quality of their life. Obviously we cannot have the same sort of objective certainty about moral conclusions as we can about weights and measurements but we can approximate it by considering the known facts about human nature.Eduk: But I can think of no such logic or tests or any evidence at all that you can demonstrate that life is 'good'.
The only judgement I made was that, in terms of health, a person without a will to live is "deficient" compared to a person who has a will to live.ThomasHobbes: You simply do not have the 'right' to judge another until you are in their shoes.
I live in the U.S., please do me a favor and set our current president.I can set past president.
That's not what objective means. What do you think objective means? I think it means something is objective when its truth conditions are met without feelings or opinions.I said that having a will or desire to live is good. You can easily verify the truth of that statement by finding someone who has no will to live and considering the quality of their life.
Maybe you should check your arrogance and consider the possibility that it is YOU who is deficient. Deficient in reason and imagination.