Compassion and empathy. Do we really have so little of it that we need to be told what good is?
subjective terms, and assuming we all have enough of it. I think when you look at a person it is obvious that we need to be told what good is, that is why we strive to find it all our lives, because we clearly do not contain it
I think something is wrong if you lack the moral fibre to weigh the consequences of your own actions or inactions in order to come to a reasonable and balanced conclusion about what a good act is without the need to defer to some external moral authority.
Not to get into the religious side of the debate but I do find this argument to be incorrect as there is, in my opinion, no way to deduce any sort of morality on a purely rational basis. We may use some standard by which to determine what is a moral act, like utilitarianism or something similar, but at the end of the day our attachment to this standard is primarily emotional rather than rational. From a purely objective and rational point of view there can be nothing inherently wrong with - for example - massacring random people, since these people's lives to not have any inherent value only that which we attach to it for emotional reasons.
Therefore in my opinon there can only be two types of morality. A purely subjective and emotional morality determined by humans but which can be altered according to our will, or an objective morality determined by some metaphysical entity or principle which humans have no power over. I believe the answer lies somewhere in between - that morality is a human distortion of metaphysical truths - but that (and probably this) is not a conversation for a chess forum!
I find this to be a sad, cynical statement. My morality comes from within, and from my ability to put myself in other's shoes. I don't need to consult some external authority because there are no better answers out there than those I already have. We are all capable of this.
agreed and true, but it is what the OP sould think about to pass the time :)
I find this to be a sad, cynical statement. My morality comes from within, and from my ability to put myself in other's shoes. I don't need to consult some external authority because there are no better answers out there than those I already have. We are all capable of this.
Yes but its an emotional association. Your morality is derived from your capacity to FEEL for others. It has no objective or rational basis. According to this standard I should have no obligation to behave in a way that other people consider moral since morality is purely subjective.
Amartalon, in your first paragraph you presuppose that morality is objective in the first place which leads you into a circular argument. Your second paragraph seems to be a little more on point, in my view.
I find this to be a sad, cynical statement. My morality comes from within, and from my ability to put myself in other's shoes. I don't need to consult some external authority because there are no better answers out there than those I already have. We are all capable of this.
It may be true, but there is no objective way to tell for wure since we cannot seperate ourselves from ourselves to be truely objective. A great subject to investigate and I would love to discus it further with you, but here is not the place
Amartalon, in your first paragraph you presuppose that morality is objective in the first place which leads you into a circular argument. Your second paragraph seems to be a little more on point, in my view.
it has to be objective by definition, otherwise everyone can have their own and be right
Amartalon, in your first paragraph you presuppose that morality is objective in the first place which leads you into a circular argument. Your second paragraph seems to be a little more on point, in my view.
How did I presuppose that morality is objective. I said it can be objective OR subjective, but if it is the latter then we have to understand the consequences of this, which MichaelPorcelli just pointed out.
It's not just an emotional association, moral dilemmas are often multifaceted and extremely complex and require a very rational objective assessment of the numerous trade offs involved. This assessment often involves some empathetic measure of varying degrees of harm, but is rational nonetheless.
The psychology around this is fascinating. The distinctions and rationalizations people can make between an action versus an inaction, each with the same outcome, for example, are incredibly interesting.
There are reams of philosophy essays exploring the relative objectivity versus subjectivity of morality all written by people far more insightful and who have spend far more time pondering these things than us. One thing becomes clear when you read these: it is not clear at all.
True, what it really comes down to are the base assumptions each person has in terms of what what makes us human, and how those in turn demand that we live
There are reams of philosophy essays exploring the relative objectivity versus subjectivity of morality all written by people far more insightful and who have spend far more time pondering these things than us. One thing becomes clear when you read these: it is not clear at all.
also true, but it is important to also remember that just because we cannot find the truth does not mean that it is not out there waiting to be found
Amartalon, your objection was that it was not rational or objective. You go on to say subjectivity is a possibility, but in that first paragraph you've presupposed your conclusion -- that a morality not rooted in rational objectivity must be in some way flawed.
By the way, have a look around at the state of the world today and the root of much of the conflict and tell me again that morality is not subjective.
So long answer short, philosophical endeavors meet the OP's criteria.
By the way, have a look around at the state of the world today and the root of much of the conflict and tell me again that morality is not subjective.
that statement assumes people want to be moral, which I do not think is always the case at all
Well I've seen a number of supposedly objective morals put forth as rules everyone should live by that run counter to my assessment of the way people should be treated. Not everyone wants to be moral, true, but there's not even agreement among those who do.
Well I've seen a number of supposedly objective morals put forth as rules everyone should live by that run counter to my assessment of the way people should be treated. Not everyone wants to be moral, true, but there's not even agreement among those who do.
I would be intereted in exploring that further but not in the forums. Goodnight people
I believe I'd also be interested in discussing this topic in greater depth too and do agree I've enjoyed each person contributing and that it is probably best to not dive so deep to it in this particular forum either.
And like everyone's said, this really is something that can challenge the mind. 
Compassion and empathy. Do we really have so little of it that we need to be told what good is?