Moral nihilism compared to Moral universalism
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
The idea of obtaining and maintaining an infinitely changing moral compass is a well embedded value within our own society. The standards of our moral compass are taught to us as fact from childhood onward, by all agents of socialization. If we deviate from this moral compass or create or own we may face peer, family, educational ostracizing which obviously can have many affects and effects upon many individuals. I personally have never understood this logic, how can something be factually universal, how can any moral standard be truly correct if it's personal or consensus standards. If one culture finds cannibalism fine, and the other doesn't, who is right or wrong? In my opinion neither are right or wrong, they just hold the label of an action, there is no attachment of good or bad to them in the terms of relativity.
I would like to know:
1. What is your moral ideology out of the two mentioned
2. Why is it that
3. Is there any rebuttals you have against either
4. Take these two tests and they will relay much information about how you think about morals.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/cat/Default.aspx
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx
My results:
Moralising Quotient: 0% Yuk-O-Meter: null
Moral consistency: 100%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
The idea of obtaining and maintaining an infinitely changing moral compass is a well embedded value within our own society. The standards of our moral compass are taught to us as fact from childhood onward, by all agents of socialization. If we deviate from this moral compass or create or own we may face peer, family, educational ostracizing which obviously can have many affects and effects upon many individuals. I personally have never understood this logic, how can something be factually universal, how can any moral standard be truly correct if it's personal or consensus standards. If one culture finds cannibalism fine, and the other doesn't, who is right or wrong? In my opinion neither are right or wrong, they just hold the label of an action, there is no attachment of good or bad to them in the terms of relativity.
I would like to know:
1. What is your moral ideology out of the two mentioned
2. Why is it that
3. Is there any rebuttals you have against either
4. Take these two tests and they will relay much information about how you think about morals.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/cat/Default.aspx
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx
My results:
Moralising Quotient: 0% Yuk-O-Meter: null
Moral consistency: 100%
0
1. Morals definitely change with time and setting. Universality does not exist.
2. Simply due to time and setting. With time/setting everything changes, and by that I mean EVERYTHING.
3. Rebuttals
I seriously hate giving examples due to the amount of time and effort it takes to find a truly satisfying documentation to convince people. But here goes...
Stanford Prison Experiment
Simply showing how under a specific setting, the morals of the 24 selected "Psychologically healthy and stable" prison guards quickly deteriorated and accepted the use of violence, verbal abuse etc.
Milgram Experiment
Famous experiment now used in Psychology textbooks. Indicated that even if the people within the experiment had socially accepted morals, under the pressure of authority(setting) they will not abide to these morals and thus, break their rules. This to my point of view also serves as a strong argument for the pointlessness and inexistence of moral universality - Even if you we do have a set of universal morals, what is the point of it if under a certain situation, your actions do not abide to these morals?
and more, but these two are very well-known for their study in Ethics and morals
My Results:
Moralising Quotient: 0%
Yuk-O-Meter: 0%
Moral Consistency: 92%
2. Simply due to time and setting. With time/setting everything changes, and by that I mean EVERYTHING.
3. Rebuttals
I seriously hate giving examples due to the amount of time and effort it takes to find a truly satisfying documentation to convince people. But here goes...
Stanford Prison Experiment
Simply showing how under a specific setting, the morals of the 24 selected "Psychologically healthy and stable" prison guards quickly deteriorated and accepted the use of violence, verbal abuse etc.
Milgram Experiment
Famous experiment now used in Psychology textbooks. Indicated that even if the people within the experiment had socially accepted morals, under the pressure of authority(setting) they will not abide to these morals and thus, break their rules. This to my point of view also serves as a strong argument for the pointlessness and inexistence of moral universality - Even if you we do have a set of universal morals, what is the point of it if under a certain situation, your actions do not abide to these morals?
and more, but these two are very well-known for their study in Ethics and morals
My Results:
Moralising Quotient: 0%
Yuk-O-Meter: 0%
Moral Consistency: 92%
0
(did quiz first)
1. Neither
2.I can't agree with the wiki's definition of "nihilism"s "Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived." considering abstract thought is part of the human experience, part of our intelligence, an inherited trait in this manner.
I can't agree with universal, considering that I view it as something that's formed by an individuals intelligence. There is no 2 intelligences (so far documented) exactly alike in physical and intellectual make up.
3. I don't view morals (now, never thought about this before) as something that is shaped by a single entity or aspect, but over a collection of different information, experiences, and mental development. That morals have the possibility to form under any circumstance involving intelligence (studying this atm), and can be influenced by mental development.
4.
My results:
Moralizing Quotient: 0%
Yuk-O-meter: null (I had difficulty with the cat though for personal bias)
Moral consistency: 58%
I had difficulty determining at what value was "maximum value of survivors, ignoring short term happiness" compared to "involving unassociated bystanders" was in my head. In the end I valued maximum number of lives above all my other morals.
2nd Moral consistency: 100%
This time I devalued my belief of "inaction is still an action, that by choosing nothing you contribute to the event", under all my other morals. Removing myself from responsibility to the situation, valuing "with no responsibility too, hurting another, no matter the reason, would be wrong"
It seems this quiz equates living to happiness "..you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximise human happiness", which I can't agree with, by diverting the train they can just as much feel a need to bare responsibility for another death by there actions that lead to their placing there, which is my reasoning. Reason I received 100% is due to the fact that I don't equate "more people living equaling more people happy", I equate "the more people living means the more possibility of people having the chance to be happy", I had answered "no" to question 2 for this reason devaluing short term happiness for longer term hypothetical scenarios.
3 hours... I'm so dizzy...
1. Neither
2.I can't agree with the wiki's definition of "nihilism"s "Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived." considering abstract thought is part of the human experience, part of our intelligence, an inherited trait in this manner.
I can't agree with universal, considering that I view it as something that's formed by an individuals intelligence. There is no 2 intelligences (so far documented) exactly alike in physical and intellectual make up.
3. I don't view morals (now, never thought about this before) as something that is shaped by a single entity or aspect, but over a collection of different information, experiences, and mental development. That morals have the possibility to form under any circumstance involving intelligence (studying this atm), and can be influenced by mental development.
4.
My results:
Moralizing Quotient: 0%
Yuk-O-meter: null (I had difficulty with the cat though for personal bias)
Moral consistency: 58%
I had difficulty determining at what value was "maximum value of survivors, ignoring short term happiness" compared to "involving unassociated bystanders" was in my head. In the end I valued maximum number of lives above all my other morals.
2nd Moral consistency: 100%
This time I devalued my belief of "inaction is still an action, that by choosing nothing you contribute to the event", under all my other morals. Removing myself from responsibility to the situation, valuing "with no responsibility too, hurting another, no matter the reason, would be wrong"
It seems this quiz equates living to happiness "..you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximise human happiness", which I can't agree with, by diverting the train they can just as much feel a need to bare responsibility for another death by there actions that lead to their placing there, which is my reasoning. Reason I received 100% is due to the fact that I don't equate "more people living equaling more people happy", I equate "the more people living means the more possibility of people having the chance to be happy", I had answered "no" to question 2 for this reason devaluing short term happiness for longer term hypothetical scenarios.
3 hours... I'm so dizzy...
0
I have decided to give this topic another life. Folks join in.
1.Out of the two I'm more inclined to nihilism
2.Because morals are not inherit, they are nurtured.
3. Although they are based off empathy which could be considered inherit, but I guess what makes you sleep at night works.
4.Test:
Moralising Quotient: 67%
Yuk-O-Meter: 100%
Moral consistency:67%
1.Out of the two I'm more inclined to nihilism
2.Because morals are not inherit, they are nurtured.
3. Although they are based off empathy which could be considered inherit, but I guess what makes you sleep at night works.
4.Test:
Moralising Quotient: 67%
Yuk-O-Meter: 100%
Moral consistency:67%