Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is as valid as any other.[1]
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India to the present day, in diverse fields including art, philosophy, science, and religion.
Nothing is objectively good or bad, it's all subjective, because morals that determine what "good" or "bad" mean are subjective, often changing by culture. The concepts of "good" and "bad" are human ideas and are not innate objective facts.
That being said, IMO it's better to be objectively good. How do you determine if something is objectively "good" when everything is actually subjective? To me, it means trying to view a situation in as broad of a context as possible. Will this option cause the least amount of harm overall, regardless of my own personal feelings? Likely "objectively" the better/"good" option. Am I framing something within my own limited worldview, and will it cause me or things/people close to me, or people only within my culture to reap some benefit, while allowing a larger mass of "bad" to be released into the world? IMO, then that is subjectively good.
Again though, it's all moot, because it's all subjective. It has been suggested that true moral relativism isn't possible, as we are all creatures of the culture(s) in which we were raised and have lived, and we are the culmination of our own experiences, and cannot completely remove ourselves from all human culture and attempt to view things from a completely emotionless blank slate.
I have thought about this kinda thing a lot! Moral relativism is a really interesting topic to me.
NightDragon on
+4
Options
darunia106J-bob in gamesDeath MountainRegistered Userregular
It's better to be subjectively good, even if it's objectively bad
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is as valid as any other.[1]
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India to the present day, in diverse fields including art, philosophy, science, and religion.
Nothing is objectively good or bad, it's all subjective, because morals that determine what "good" or "bad" mean are subjective, often changing by culture. The concepts of "good" and "bad" are human ideas and are not innate objective facts.
That being said, IMO it's better to be objectively good. How do you determine if something is objectively "good" when everything is actually subjective? To me, it means trying to view a situation in as broad of a context as possible. Will this option cause the least amount of harm overall, regardless of my own personal feelings? Likely "objectively" the better/"good" option. Am I framing something within my own limited worldview, and will it cause me or things/people close to me, or people only within my culture to reap some benefit, while allowing a larger mass of "bad" to be released into the world? IMO, then that is subjectively good.
Again though, it's all moot, because it's all subjective. It has been suggested that true moral relativism isn't possible, as we are all creatures of the culture(s) in which we were raised and have lived, and we are the culmination of our own experiences, and cannot completely remove ourselves from all human culture and attempt to view things from a completely emotionless blank slate.
I have thought about this kinda thing a lot! Moral relativism is a really interesting topic to me.
nah forget all this nonsense! -Tal's cracked it, there's only one correct answer and all other answers are equivalent to being a murderous cop.
Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought", but not that any belief is as valid as any other.[1]
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India to the present day, in diverse fields including art, philosophy, science, and religion.
Nothing is objectively good or bad, it's all subjective, because morals that determine what "good" or "bad" mean are subjective, often changing by culture. The concepts of "good" and "bad" are human ideas and are not innate objective facts.
That being said, IMO it's better to be objectively good. How do you determine if something is objectively "good" when everything is actually subjective? To me, it means trying to view a situation in as broad of a context as possible. Will this option cause the least amount of harm overall, regardless of my own personal feelings? Likely "objectively" the better/"good" option. Am I framing something within my own limited worldview, and will it cause me or things/people close to me, or people only within my culture to reap some benefit, while allowing a larger mass of "bad" to be released into the world? IMO, then that is subjectively good.
Again though, it's all moot, because it's all subjective. It has been suggested that true moral relativism isn't possible, as we are all creatures of the culture(s) in which we were raised and have lived, and we are the culmination of our own experiences, and cannot completely remove ourselves from all human culture and attempt to view things from a completely emotionless blank slate.
I have thought about this kinda thing a lot! Moral relativism is a really interesting topic to me.
now how do you reach the conclusion that if the utilitarian equation has reached its maximum value that it becomes objective, while a submaximal value is subjective
Posts
I like eggs, yeah.
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
I might be drunk. But these are important questions
Laws are just codified subjective values.
Ironic, considering you chose the cop option...
Stealing from poor people is never cool
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
actually cops do shit they know is bad for "the greater objective good" all the time
that's right I'm going full sovereign citizen / captain america terrorist crazy
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
yes that's their reason but objectively they're being subjective.
Like Frosted Flakes?
You started it friendo.
my head hurts
On a scale of on a scale of "not at all" to "a lot" to on a scale of 1 to 10 how objectively can you rate how much your head hurts?
Cops think they're objectively good.
There is no way in hell I think of myself like that.
daddy w h yyyyyyyyy
Cops believe that their subjective experience of "I was scared" is more important than the objective event of "The cop killed a person"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Nothing is objectively good or bad, it's all subjective, because morals that determine what "good" or "bad" mean are subjective, often changing by culture. The concepts of "good" and "bad" are human ideas and are not innate objective facts.
That being said, IMO it's better to be objectively good. How do you determine if something is objectively "good" when everything is actually subjective? To me, it means trying to view a situation in as broad of a context as possible. Will this option cause the least amount of harm overall, regardless of my own personal feelings? Likely "objectively" the better/"good" option. Am I framing something within my own limited worldview, and will it cause me or things/people close to me, or people only within my culture to reap some benefit, while allowing a larger mass of "bad" to be released into the world? IMO, then that is subjectively good.
Again though, it's all moot, because it's all subjective. It has been suggested that true moral relativism isn't possible, as we are all creatures of the culture(s) in which we were raised and have lived, and we are the culmination of our own experiences, and cannot completely remove ourselves from all human culture and attempt to view things from a completely emotionless blank slate.
I have thought about this kinda thing a lot! Moral relativism is a really interesting topic to me.
Right you are.
Sorry. I was going by my own subjective definitions of objective and subjective rather than the objective definitions of those words.
nah forget all this nonsense! -Tal's cracked it, there's only one correct answer and all other answers are equivalent to being a murderous cop.
honestly it's cleared a lot of things I was worried about up.
Now, if you were to ask me if there's anything that can be objectively good, well...reply hazy, ask again later.
The "coption", if you will
so I'm going to be smart for once in my life and refrain from sharing them
now how do you reach the conclusion that if the utilitarian equation has reached its maximum value that it becomes objective, while a submaximal value is subjective
do it coward
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
Yeah, whiskey river bbq burger or the tavern double?