Absolute Morality Vs. Subjective Morality

[thepixiesrock]

So what are we even arguing now?

[Pidesco]

Whether one person's happiness is worth 16 dead people, I guess. It's all about quantifying good and evil.

[Cycloneman]

Yes, every action has a positive and negative element, sure. But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil. If an action, say, makes me happy, but causes the wanton killing of sixteen people, then it's obviously evil.

 

What if all those 16 people don't have any family nor friends, and are suicidal? Wouldn't it be a good deed, then?

Hint: look up the definition of "wanton."

 

But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil.

 

No, it is only mostly "good" or mostly "evil."

Good and evil are opposites. Something is either good or evil. What's next, something is "mostly hot" or "mostly cold"? Something is "mostly fast" or "mostly slow"?

Edited March 23, 2008 by Cycloneman

[Gorth]

Good and evil are opposites. Something is either good or evil. What's next, something is "mostly hot" or "mostly cold"? Something is "mostly fast" or "mostly slow"?

I have a cup of coffee here. I wonder if it is good or evil?

 

That is, I don't really believe the world to be that black and white. Maybe you you can have actions that are perceived as good or evil by a majority of people? According to my own experiences, people perceive good as that which they agree with and evil as that they disagree with. That is based emtirely on subjective observation and not any deep philosophical reasoning

[Humodour]

According to my own experiences, people perceive good as that which they agree with and evil as that they disagree with. That is based emtirely on subjective observation and not any deep philosophical reasoning

 

You'd be mostly correct. But you'd also be misleading.

 

Why do people agree/disagree with an act? I think you'll find that the reasoning is startlingly uniform, which suggests something higher than human whim or selfishness.

[Walsingham]

According to my own experiences, people perceive good as that which they agree with and evil as that they disagree with. That is based emtirely on subjective observation and not any deep philosophical reasoning

 

You'd be mostly correct. But you'd also be misleading.

 

Why do people agree/disagree with an act? I think you'll find that the reasoning is startlingly uniform, which suggests something higher than human whim or selfishness.

 

*nods sagely*

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Something is either good or evil.

 

I disagree.

 

What's next, something is "mostly hot" or "mostly cold"? Something is "mostly fast" or "mostly slow"?

 

Mildly cold, medium hot, we do that already.

Edited March 23, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Walsingham]

I don't believe it is reasonable to describe an action as 'grey' or mildly good. Because acts are composed of discrete concomitants. If I move a mountain, and thereby ease one village and throw another into darkness then you could argue this is neutral. However, it is good and bad at once. The importance of this is that it leaves clear the fact that my act could be better if I were able to prevent one village being too shady. If we call teh act merely neutral then we diminish the evil and the good needlessly.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts.

[Walsingham]

But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts.

 

 

Nonsense! *he continues affably* If you are sick with fever, and I kick a stone into a lake, that would be neutral.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But there is no direct connection between those two events. A better example would be: You kick a stone into a lake, this act makes you feel good but also kills a rare fish.

[Gorth]

But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts.

 

 

Nonsense! *he continues affably* If you are sick with fever, and I kick a stone into a lake, that would be neutral.

It depends... shouldn't you be trying to do something to help him cure his fever rather than kicking stones into the lake. Is not taking action the same as taking action as far as morality goes? >_

[Humodour]

But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts.

 

Uh, no it doesn't. lol

 

I see an old lady who needs help crossing the street. I help her across. She isn't one of those psycho baby-killer grannies. Where's the negative aspect here?

 

Also, 'neutral' is a bad term to use because you lose information, as Wals said.

[Guest The Architect]

Exactly. If I see a pigeon on my fence and shoot it dead with a spud gun, where's the positive aspect in that?

Edited March 24, 2008 by The Architect

[Walsingham]

Exactly. If I see a pigeon on my fence and shoot it dead with a spud gun, where's the positive aspect in that?

 

I completely misread this as 'on my face'. The image was hilarious.

[Sand]

Exactly. If I see a pigeon on my fence and shoot it dead with a spud gun, where's the positive aspect in that?

 

It is no longer on your fence.

[Guest The Architect]

Hahahaha!