Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The “Golden Rule” wouldn’t be considered objective. So I’ll rephrase it:

If everyone can do it (without force), at no-one’s expense (with consent); it is morally correct.

Murder, rape, stealing, lying (outside of self defense), slavery, they don’t meet the above criteria. [censored]-sexuality, premarital sex, does… I’m sure they’re plenty of things that at first glance appear to pass, so let the flaming begin.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone can do it (without force), at no-one’s expense (with consent); it is morally correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not objective. The "expense" to others of your action is totally subjective.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you have to define "system of morality" for us here? If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe is right and wrong", then I do in fact think that they are all equally "valid". If you define "system of morality" as "what you believe you have the right to do to others on the basis of what you believe is right and wrong" then I do not think they are all equally "valid". This distinction is, I think, the most powerful and compelling argument that anarchists on this board make regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

A system of morality is like a scientific theory. In science you put forward a theory and it is validated or not based on the evidence of the senses combined with the scientific method. That is the objective external standard which means that not all scientific theories are equally valid. It's not up to you if the world is round or not. I'm asking is it up to you if stealing is good or not or is there an objective external standard like the scientific method for judging conflicting moral theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clarifying.

I think that one can form an opinion of what characteristics a "system of morality" should have, and if those characteristics are objectively determinable then that would form an objective measure of moralities. Then, to the extent that a group of people agree to the standard they can then agree to the validity of a system of morality. Of course, the objective standard will not be an absolute - some people will disagree.

For what it's worth, some people disagree with the scientific method as well. For example, where the scientific method creates results that conflict with the Bible. So even there, you are talking about a subjectively determined objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't disagree with the scientific method they just think that non sense (in both meanings of the term) evidence trumps sense evidence. In fact they don't even believe that because when they want to go to work they don't just sit it the car and pray for it to take them they use previously observed sense evidence to conclude that the theory that turning the ignition key and pressing on the gas pedal is most likely to get them to work.

You can't make arguments to try and convince someone that arguing isn't objectively the best way to convince people of something or use english to try and communicate to me that using a language that someone else understands isn't objectively the best way to communicate with them.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'll go for no too. And that is because most (not all) christian systems are strongly biased in favor of a tyrannical approach to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove objectively that tyranny is worse than a lack of tyranny. I'd be interested in hearing you do it in a way that (when consistently applied) doesn't make you an ACist.

Re: Moral relativity
 

nietzreznor is one of the more competent/wily supporters of moral realism/objectivism that I've encountered (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1)
although I still have no idea how he'd go about supporting any 'objective moral fact' in any sort of convincing manner.

Re: Moral relativity
 

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

Re: Moral relativity
 

I think a lot of people confuse thinking "hey I'm open minded and tolerant of others" to mean that they think morality is all subjective. But then, isn't "being open minded and tolerant of others" a worthwhile moral principle? It's really that simple, imo.

"Everyone has different preferences," therefore your philosophy can not be looked at as being objectively good. Well, if my philosophy can be demonstrated to be the most tolerant of the fact that everyone has different preferences, then doesn't that become (for all intents and purposes other than maintaining an argument on the internet) "objectively" better than ones that don't.

When you phrase the question this way (referring to OP), it's clear everyone agrees that not every moral view is a worthy one just because someone holds it. Unless you answered "yes" here, you really should do away with entering the "but ultimately it's all subjective" into any of your arguments.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

[/ QUOTE ]

If my morals are better for the society that I live in to peacefully coexist than yours then the answer is yes. Society decides. If your morals allow for murder and mine don't, then I suspect mine would be deemed better than yours by the rest of the society.

Re: Moral relativity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Morals are defined by the society you live in. There is no absolute standard that they follow. Most have developed in a particular society to be beneficial for the common good. When one society's morals differ enough from another's, war sometimes breaks out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your personal morals any better or worse than my personal morals? To be able to say yes you have to give reference to an external method of verification I don't accept "because I say so".

[/ QUOTE ]

If my morals are better for the society that I live in to peacefully coexist than yours then the answer is yes. Society decides. If your morals allow for murder and mine don't, then I suspect mine would be deemed better than yours by the rest of the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your objective external standard is "society"? Like if you add up lots of little subjectivities it becomes objective? I'm not saying I disagree because I'm genuinely trying to clarify my own position here (I've got some agenda with the question but not completely) How do you define society? I assume it's not a 51% majority or anything like that.