For moral relativists

[yukoncpa]

Suppose a moral system was: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Does consistency mean that I should go and buy everyone blow up, Asian, girlie dolls for Christmas, if this is what I would like others to do for me? I guess I don’t understand what it means to have a consistent moral system. Is it possible to create a system that is consistent and that all rational human beings would agree with?

I guess a moral system that people would agree on would be something like: don’t lie to, deceive, kill, or harm another human being unless your actions are such that every unaffected, rational person would agree with you. But then, it seems like I’m building inconsistency right into this.

[Praxising]

Treat others as you wish to be treated.

All the rest is commentary.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Treat others as you wish to be treated.

All the rest is commentary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's hope there's a lot of it ( commentary) because the advise is terrible.

luckyme

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can objective moral values exist if God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Start your own thread. I'm not making any claim whether I personally believe morals are relative or not. I just want to see what people who do think they are realative think about these preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sorry, I thought this was a public discussion forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is. What's your point?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what I have to agree or disagree on. That all people should be treated equally?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of, but it wouldn't be limited to just that. In a system that is both consistent and has only one class of people, actions that are morally permissible for any one person must be morally permissible for all (good for one, good for all) and actions that are impermissible for one must be impermissible for all. If it is bad for me to point a gun at you and demand your money, it must be bad for anyone to do that.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My personal preferences are for moral systems which are consistent over those which are inconsistent, and for systems which treat all people as equal (morally) over systems that have different classes of people. Do you agree or disagree with those subjective preferences?

[/ QUOTE ]
Those statements are too broad and vague for me to agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you disagree with them? If so, why?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn, I believe that there are certain advantages of a moral system that is quick at the cost of consistency. Not that I employ that strategy, but I'm not sure consistency is a clear favorite. A wrong action is often better than no action. Ultimately any moral system is judged by the benefits it provides to those that employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give an example?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose a moral system was: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Does consistency mean that I should go and buy everyone blow up, Asian, girlie dolls for Christmas, if this is what I would like others to do for me? I guess I don’t understand what it means to have a consistent moral system. Is it possible to create a system that is consistent and that all rational human beings would agree with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consistency, for the most part, and when combined with the given of a single-class system, means that the *identity* of the actor is not relevant to the analysis of the action.

[pvn]

I knew this would happen as soon as I saw that iron moved this thread. The OP uses particular phrases that are often used in the Politics forum; it's basically shorthand that's emerged in that particular context. Since many SMP readers don't read politics, they're going "WTF? this is vague." Plz to be moving back to politics?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Can objective moral values exist if God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, as long as you don't decide to call those principles God (which is probably what would happen). There could be idealized forms floating around out there somewhere that are objective, absolute morals.