11-07-2022, 01:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2022, 01:33 AM by Rhythmcs.)
Is Morality Objective?
Is Morality Objective?
Because, or so it's contended, though human beings have many flaws and though situations can be complex and difficult to cleanly parse, and though there may be plenty of space in the world for interpretation, it's not impossible for a moral statement to report a fact about a thing itself. As opposed to that purported fact of the object being a misreported fact of the reporting subject, or the reporting subjects society. Subjectivism and relativism, respectively, and the explaination (as subjectivists and relativists would have it) for why the objectivist statements are both truth apt -and- incorrect as stated.
I suppose the simple answer is that the terms, like many terms in any area of study, aren't employed exactly like they are in casual conversation. That you're taking them to mean something else, and perhaps arguing against or addressing that other thing, when using them in this context. Moral objectivity is not moral absolutism, for example. Where there is and can only ever be one answer and no room to interpret or disagree. In objective moral systems, there's as much room for disagreement and interpretation as the collection of facts about the thing allows. In an absolutist context, for example, we might say "stealing bad" and this is simply the end of it and off to the gulag or the hand chopper or the private prison plantation you go. In an objective system, we might want or need to know more about the theft...or, in my earlier example, the fire, before we go doling out judgement. There are other things we may also consider, but that would be the baseline.
Even deeper still, especially when given an exclusively suboptimal decision field, there may not be one objective answer, there must be interpretation and consideration of those relevant facts and circumstances , or else the conclusion..if there is one to be had, cannot be objective. Moral dilemmas like trolley problems being the standard example.
I suppose the simple answer is that the terms, like many terms in any area of study, aren't employed exactly like they are in casual conversation. That you're taking them to mean something else, and perhaps arguing against or addressing that other thing, when using them in this context. Moral objectivity is not moral absolutism, for example. Where there is and can only ever be one answer and no room to interpret or disagree. In objective moral systems, there's as much room for disagreement and interpretation as the collection of facts about the thing allows. In an absolutist context, for example, we might say "stealing bad" and this is simply the end of it and off to the gulag or the hand chopper or the private prison plantation you go. In an objective system, we might want or need to know more about the theft...or, in my earlier example, the fire, before we go doling out judgement. There are other things we may also consider, but that would be the baseline.
Even deeper still, especially when given an exclusively suboptimal decision field, there may not be one objective answer, there must be interpretation and consideration of those relevant facts and circumstances , or else the conclusion..if there is one to be had, cannot be objective. Moral dilemmas like trolley problems being the standard example.
