Morality
What best describes you outlook on morality?
0
I am a nihilist, morality is bullshit and serves only to slow me down on my quest for world domination.
Jokes aside I used to be a relativist until I realized it was a rather shoddy explanation for that which isn't really there. Rather than try to give explanation to all the different variables that are there I believe people simply aim to survive. They might do it through cooperation or selfishness but at the end of the day, either way, it's all for the betterment of themselves. There is no right or wrong, only a means through which to survive.
I'm pretty sure I know the thread you're talking about, it is not nearly as well thought out as this one is. Also:
Jokes aside I used to be a relativist until I realized it was a rather shoddy explanation for that which isn't really there. Rather than try to give explanation to all the different variables that are there I believe people simply aim to survive. They might do it through cooperation or selfishness but at the end of the day, either way, it's all for the betterment of themselves. There is no right or wrong, only a means through which to survive.
BagMan wrote...
I believe there was already a thread which asked a similar question but I'm fine with reitering myself.I'm pretty sure I know the thread you're talking about, it is not nearly as well thought out as this one is. Also:
Bill wrote...
Note: I did search the forum for this particular topic and though it did appear the threads were either of specific moral scenarios or did not capture the different moral beliefs appropriately.
0
Pyre wrote...
BagMan wrote...
I believe there was already a thread which asked a similar question but I'm fine with reitering myself.I'm pretty sure I know the thread you're talking about, it is not nearly as well thought out as this one is. Also:
Bill wrote...
Note: I did search the forum for this particular topic and though it did appear the threads were either of specific moral scenarios or did not capture the different moral beliefs appropriately.Hence why I had no problem reiterating myself.
0
Byte wrote...
Second_Prototype wrote...
Not sure if I should pick Moral Nilhism or Moral Relativism. As far as I'm concerned concepts of "right" and "wrong" are defined by whoever has the power to punish transgressors. That's why even if we assume a God exists and that God punishes those who sin against it, this God's laws are not absolute moral standards, but relative moral standards constructed and enforced by said God.
Which one does that fall into?
That explanation actually falls more in line with objectivism rather than relativism, it is definitely not nihilist.
How so? According to the OP Moral Objectivism is universal standards right? I'm saying that if a God existed it would effectively seem like Moral Objectivism was in effect for those it ruled over, but it would still technically not be objective because there could be another universe out there with another God that had different values.
0
Second_Prototype wrote...
Byte wrote...
Second_Prototype wrote...
Not sure if I should pick Moral Nilhism or Moral Relativism. As far as I'm concerned concepts of "right" and "wrong" are defined by whoever has the power to punish transgressors. That's why even if we assume a God exists and that God punishes those who sin against it, this God's laws are not absolute moral standards, but relative moral standards constructed and enforced by said God.
Which one does that fall into?
That explanation actually falls more in line with objectivism rather than relativism, it is definitely not nihilist.
How so? According to the OP Moral Objectivism is universal standards right? I'm saying that if a God existed it would effectively seem like Moral Objectivism was in effect for those it ruled over, but it would still technically not be objective because there could be another universe out there with another God that had different values.
Moral objectivism entails fixed standards that are subject to context and consequences, so while they're fixed they also have some malleability; this is the closer belief to your previous example, the one where you didn't include any mention of quantum realities. By the way, a quantum reality makes the concept of God given in your explanation invalid in and of itself, something cannot be omnipotent or omniscient if there are things equal to or beyond it's grasp.
1
Relativism. I had an argument in high school with my religion teacher, I was an atheist at a catholic high school, regarding his statement "cannibalism is always morally wrong." This made me think of a couple of things, 1st being that some tribes a couple hundred years ago had cannibalism being a religious and honorable act, obviously the person was dead first. Secondly what about rugby team that was stuck in the andes in 1972, if they didn't cannibalize the corpses of the dead, it was much more likely that none of them would have returned from the incident. Yeah figured I would just give throw that story out there,
0
Byte wrote...
Second_Prototype wrote...
Byte wrote...
Second_Prototype wrote...
Not sure if I should pick Moral Nilhism or Moral Relativism. As far as I'm concerned concepts of "right" and "wrong" are defined by whoever has the power to punish transgressors. That's why even if we assume a God exists and that God punishes those who sin against it, this God's laws are not absolute moral standards, but relative moral standards constructed and enforced by said God.
Which one does that fall into?
That explanation actually falls more in line with objectivism rather than relativism, it is definitely not nihilist.
How so? According to the OP Moral Objectivism is universal standards right? I'm saying that if a God existed it would effectively seem like Moral Objectivism was in effect for those it ruled over, but it would still technically not be objective because there could be another universe out there with another God that had different values.
Moral objectivism entails fixed standards that are subject to context and consequences, so while they're fixed they also have some malleability; this is the closer belief to your previous example, the one where you didn't include any mention of quantum realities. By the way, a quantum reality makes the concept of God given in your explanation invalid in and of itself, something cannot be omnipotent or omniscient if there are things equal to or beyond it's grasp.
Fair enough. I guess talking in terms of Gods would be the wrong kind of example. I suppose different governments enforcing different moral paradigms based on their nation's cultures would be a better way of describing the idea I'm trying to present.
0
Wow, this is a wonderful question.
I kinda fall into both Moral relativism and Moral skepticism. I guess the best way to explain it is "I don't really think any of us have any clue what we're doing. So let's try stab around in the dark until we get a consensus on some things and then we can fight about the rest."
Sometimes, I feel very much like life is just one giant cluster fuck of happy accidents that make it kinda work.
For the record shinshuuko, I'm backing you up on this one. I already told my friends and family that if there is a good purpose, such as survival or organ donations, I would be very mad at them if they DIDN'T use my body. I'm dead. I seriously want you to avoid being that. However, don't kill me for food, okay? :)
I kinda fall into both Moral relativism and Moral skepticism. I guess the best way to explain it is "I don't really think any of us have any clue what we're doing. So let's try stab around in the dark until we get a consensus on some things and then we can fight about the rest."
Sometimes, I feel very much like life is just one giant cluster fuck of happy accidents that make it kinda work.
shinshuuko wrote...
...regarding [the] statement "cannibalism is always morally wrong." This made me think of a couple of things, 1st being that some tribes a couple hundred years ago had cannibalism being a religious and honorable act, obviously the person was dead first. Secondly what about rugby team that was stuck in the andes in 1972, if they didn't cannibalize the corpses of the dead, it was much more likely that none of them would have returned from the incident....For the record shinshuuko, I'm backing you up on this one. I already told my friends and family that if there is a good purpose, such as survival or organ donations, I would be very mad at them if they DIDN'T use my body. I'm dead. I seriously want you to avoid being that. However, don't kill me for food, okay? :)