Do you believe in absolute morality? Why or why not?
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
WeimerSolutions on scored.co
10 months ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
What I was trying to say with that question was that an evil deed can take place where the perprator does not see any consequences, but it is still evil. The falling tree makes a sound. There can even be evil things done consensually and no one involved perceives the consequences. The consequences can come later and / or to unrelated parties. So it is very incomplete to generalize the entire concept of morality to just consequence.
There is right and wrong regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. That is what morality is. We cant always wait for the results to find out what is right or wrong to do. We must know what is evil before we act.
Although new ground always awaits, our world is not an infant! There is over five thousand years of History to reflect on! Vlad the Impaler is interpreted as an evil figure, but there is no arguing his Results. Conversely, no one will cry for our "evil" Nation if we are successfully vanquished!
Let me simplify. A shoplifter goes uncaught. Was it moral / okay to shoplift bc there were no consequences? Is the shop owner evil or immoral bc he suffers the consequences?
What is the evil deed: the theft or the failure to prevent it?
I enjoy this Dialogue, but neither side is willing to budge. There is always Consequence because nothing exists in a vacuum!
If the thief escaped, it might incentivize an encore, or perhaps he'll remain content with his haul. Perhaps the guilt will eat him up, or perhaps not.
The shopkeeper will be ever so slightly poorer, and might have to raise prices or increase security to compensate. Alternatively, he didn't notice at all!
Real life isn't a disney movie; things like this do happen and nothing can be done about it. People cry that meat consumption is murder, and yet billions perpetuate this "crime". My view is that morality is subjective, as unfortunate as that may be!
I figured which is why I asked those difficult questions. I dosagree woth you, subjective morality means no morality at all or worse a misplacement of what we consider to be good deeds and evil deeds.
From the theifs subjevtive moral viewpoint, shoplifting was good. From the customer's viewpoint, the shopkeeper raising his prices is evil. A third party reads the story and says the shopkeeper is evil bc he sells and eats meats. A fourth person enters and thinks no evil deeds were done then he shoot everyone.
With objective morality, the evil deed was the theft regardless of what the shoplifter or anyone thinks of it and regardless of any consequences or lack thereof. Without an objective morality, we cannot have laws.
Subjective morality = total chaos (What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly)
Objective morality = order (collective effort against actions that cause the mist undesirable consequences)
I am not arguing against the concept of Laws or Principles, however I still do not believe they represent an objective morality.
Laws can be twisted, as they have been in Our time. If its deemed unlawful, should we cease "misgendering" or meat consmption? I don't believe you believe that either.
Each Nation lives and dies by its own Principles, but whether they are objectively good or evil is still subjective. To the "chosen", Our existence is amoral, a Consequence I am perfectly content with!
There is right and wrong regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. That is what morality is. We cant always wait for the results to find out what is right or wrong to do. We must know what is evil before we act.
What is the evil deed: the theft or the failure to prevent it?
If the thief escaped, it might incentivize an encore, or perhaps he'll remain content with his haul. Perhaps the guilt will eat him up, or perhaps not.
The shopkeeper will be ever so slightly poorer, and might have to raise prices or increase security to compensate. Alternatively, he didn't notice at all!
Real life isn't a disney movie; things like this do happen and nothing can be done about it. People cry that meat consumption is murder, and yet billions perpetuate this "crime". My view is that morality is subjective, as unfortunate as that may be!
From the theifs subjevtive moral viewpoint, shoplifting was good. From the customer's viewpoint, the shopkeeper raising his prices is evil. A third party reads the story and says the shopkeeper is evil bc he sells and eats meats. A fourth person enters and thinks no evil deeds were done then he shoot everyone.
With objective morality, the evil deed was the theft regardless of what the shoplifter or anyone thinks of it and regardless of any consequences or lack thereof. Without an objective morality, we cannot have laws.
Subjective morality = total chaos (What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly)
Objective morality = order (collective effort against actions that cause the mist undesirable consequences)
Laws can be twisted, as they have been in Our time. If its deemed unlawful, should we cease "misgendering" or meat consmption? I don't believe you believe that either.
Each Nation lives and dies by its own Principles, but whether they are objectively good or evil is still subjective. To the "chosen", Our existence is amoral, a Consequence I am perfectly content with!