P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.C1: Morality is objective.Let’s work through this. Whenever two men have a dispute, the one side tries to convince the other that they have violated a standard of good conduct that they both share, while the other argues that they have not violated such a standard.If there were not a shared standard between them, such an argument would be pointless, as one could simply say “to hell with your standard.” If that were the case, we could not condemn genocide, rape, or any other cruel act because we could not compare it to a universal standard of good conduct. Similarly, you can not argue that a football player committed a foul if the rules of football are not universally true.Since we DO make disputes/condemnations, this universal standard must exist. Thus, we affirm daily that morality is indeed objective.
13 days later
8 days later
Morality itself is an appeal to an objective standard (i.e. authority).
If there is authority in a standard created by people, the authority is truly vested in the people that created it.
A man only needs to know how his car works enough that it does not endanger him or others, and get's him from point A to point B.
If reason itself is your authority then I certainly don't think that it is irrational to appeal to that authority.
A man only needs to know how his car works enough that it does not endanger him or others, and get's him from point A to point B.If "morality" is the "car" in this example, and the cars keep breaking down and crashing into people and destroying property, SHOULDN'T SOMEBODY INVESTIGATE?Shouldn't we build a "safer" "car" that doesn't kill (maim and disfigure) as many people as the current model?Maybe even something slightly "less wrong"?
It's hardly vital to that individual to justify their ethics.
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested.
So long as a 'significant amount of the justification is an appeal to authority.
So long as a 'significant amount of the justification is an appeal to authority.I think you should imagine that all the police and other officials are gone.Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a stop sign.Would you stop?Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a campsite, and a large bag of money.Would you take the money?
Myself, I'm fairly self interested, rather than community interested.That is a common condition. If it were not for self interest overcoming our sense of empathy would we even need ethics?
18 days later
Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a stop sign.Would you stop?Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a campsite, and a large bag of money.Would you take the money?I'd 'probably stop.Not sure though.Large bad of money.I'm afraid I might, if I thought I could get away with it.The ramifications of the questions and answers, eludes me though.
That is a common condition. If it were not for self interest overcoming our sense of empathy would we even need ethics?We might still disagree on how to best help other people I suppose, or what constitutes a virtuous life, thus still requiring ethics, even in a less 'self interested human race.
Looking over the examples in the thread, I think this discussion raises a new question: What about couch potatoes?Whenever I think of ethical dilemmas, the hypothetical individuals in my examples are usually good and decent individuals. I've always wondered if couch potatoes are worthy substitutes. Couch potatoes are the perfect opposite of good individuals. They are idle in cases of moral problems. For example, they would rather watch t.v. than volunteer at a local charity. Would you say that couch potatoes are unethical?
The question is WHY?What is YOUR PERSONAL MORAL CODE?Divorced from any EXTERNAL rules?
Do you think all the "good intentions" would short-circuit any and all "moral culpability" (requirement for punitive "punishment")?
Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a stop sign.Would you stop?Perhaps you're way out in the middle of nowhere, driving along a road and you see a campsite, and a large bag of money.Would you take the money?The question is WHY?What is YOUR PERSONAL MORAL CODE?Divorced from any EXTERNAL rules?
Humans are programmed by, and consume the external world, and individual cannot 'be without it.Indeed there is no outside world, there is only the world, of which an individual human is a piece of.Semantics on my part, maybe though.If one's PERSONAL MORAL CODE is used as a yardstick for external decisions, then it is not divorced from the external.And one's personal moral code is made 'of the external, I say again.
