30
   

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 12:47 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

A human does not need a god to understand either version of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated...or...don't treat others as you would resent others treating you.

That just makes sense...and allows life to function more easily.



No... You are making a religious statement. There is natural or scientific reason that you should treat other people. It certainly isnt a constant in human nature.

This is something that is true because you believe it os true. It is a matter of faith.


No...I am NOT making a religious statement at all. And I certainly am not saying it because I "believe" it is true, because I do not do any "believing."

I am saying there is utility in doing what the Golden Rule suggests. If there are no gods...the rule would still be applicable.

If you disagree...fine.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 12:49 pm
@hightor,
I guess I was confused by his lip service to 'divine guidence'.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 08:55 pm
@hightor,
In hightor's quote, de Sousa wrote:
A crucial feature of moral reasons is that they are always based (or ‘supervenient’) on other, ordinary facts that can be specified without reference to morality. Suppose for example that you are considering doing X. You notice that doing X will cause someone pain. That might strike you as a reason not to do X. Call that reason A. Another fact might also strike you as a reason against X: that it will be boring, perhaps, or too expensive. Call that reason B. Moralists will tell you that your reason A, but not your reason B, also ‘grounds’ another reason not to do X, namely that it would be immoral. And on that basis, reason A but not reason B now gets to be ‘inescapable’, ‘overriding’ any reason you had in favour of X: that it would be exciting, say, or memorable. So now it seems that reason A, unlike reason B, gives you two reasons not to do X: reason A (that it will cause pain), plus the fact that X is immoral. But since this second reason was just grounded on reason A, what can it possibly add to it? How can it suddenly make reason A override all other reasons? It seems to be just a way of counting it twice.

His reasoning here is convoluted. Doing X is immoral because reason A—X causing someone pain—is immoral. It isn't a case of counting A twice. X is an instance of A.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 05:07:37