Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

What people mean by 'morality' or 'moral' can mean one of two things according to the context of the conversation.A cultures-specific morality is indeed sometimes accepted as synonymous with moral code. I have differentiated between moral code and morality in order to differentiate between culture-specific morality i.e. moral code on the one hand and the concept of non-specific morality on the other.

Belinidi, I have no idea what a non-specific morality might be, how it might be defined or recognized. I take the general definition of "morality" to be, "A set of rules and principles governing interactions between agents in a moral field (a social setting)." Is that what you mean by a non-specific morality?

Hhmmm... that sounds like a pretty good definition of ethics (not morality).

[Terrapin Station]

Really? What do you think a goal is, other than something someone desires and seeks? Saying that Alfie's goal is Y, but he doesn't want Y, is self-contradictory.

Once again, your comment here is ignorant of real world psychology. You could simply be pledging to use a word a particular way (a la "I'm not going to agree to call x a 'goal'"), but then what of it? Your word-usage pledge wouldn't have any practical upshot.

[Belindi]

Belinidi, I have no idea what a non-specific morality might be, how it might be defined or recognized. I take the general definition of "morality" to be, "A set of rules and principles governing interactions between agents in a moral field (a social setting)." Is that what you mean by a non-specific morality?

Hhmmm... that sounds like a pretty good definition of ethics (not morality).

Ought I to be addressing the OP's question as if it were "What could make ethics objective?"

[GE Morton]

Belinidi, I have no idea what a non-specific morality might be, how it might be defined or recognized. I take the general definition of "morality" to be, "A set of rules and principles governing interactions between agents in a moral field (a social setting)." Is that what you mean by a non-specific morality?

Hhmmm... that sounds like a pretty good definition of ethics (not morality).

I take "ethics" and "morality" to be synonymous, as have most philosophers over the history of moral philosophy. Some have entitled their works "ethics" (Aristotle, Spinoza, Sidgewick, G.E. Moore, et al), and some "morals" (Hume, Kant, Bentham, Harris, et al). But they are all covered in university ethics courses without distinction between the terms.

In common usage "ethics" tends to be used to describe rules applicable to a particular field, i.e., medical ethics, legal ethics, business ethics, etc. But that specialized usage is not germane on a philosophy forum.

It is important to note, however, that the above general definition is too broad, since there are many other sets of principles and rules to which moral agents in a social setting may be subject which would not be considered moral rules, i.e., traffic rules, other legal rules, the rules of most games, etc.

[GE Morton]

Really? What do you think a goal is, other than something someone desires and seeks? Saying that Alfie's goal is Y, but he doesn't want Y, is self-contradictory.

Once again, your comment here is ignorant of real world psychology. You could simply be pledging to use a word a particular way (a la "I'm not going to agree to call x a 'goal'"), but then what of it? Your word-usage pledge wouldn't have any practical upshot.

*Sigh*. Anyone can use any word any way he wishes. But if he is not using it as it is understood in his speech community he will not be understood and will not be a relevant participant in any discussions of matters denoted with that word.

[Belindi]

In that case, GEMorton how would you like to differentiate moral codes such as the Ten Commandments or the Koran , and an ethic or ethics which may be applicable to more than one moral code ?

[Jklint]

With all the variations we never discovered the "objective" theme as presupposed by some philosophers and most theists because there never was one. Who or what could make it objective? Objective in that sense implies it as being externally provided.

[Terrapin Station]

Once again, your comment here is ignorant of real world psychology. You could simply be pledging to use a word a particular way (a la "I'm not going to agree to call x a 'goal'"), but then what of it? Your word-usage pledge wouldn't have any practical upshot.

*Sigh*. Anyone can use any word any way he wishes. But if he is not using it as it is understood in his speech community he will not be understood and will not be a relevant participant in any discussions of matters denoted with that word.

Is this a claim that most people are ignorant of real-world psychology in this matter?

[GE Morton]

With all the variations we never discovered the "objective" theme as presupposed by some philosophers and most theists because there never was one. Who or what could make it objective? Objective in that sense implies it as being externally provided.

You're late to the discussion. "Objective" and "subjective" are properties of propositions (like "true" and "false"). A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, confirmable by any suitably situated observer. It is subjective if its truth conditions are private, accessible only to the utterer.

[Terrapin Station]

With all the variations we never discovered the "objective" theme as presupposed by some philosophers and most theists because there never was one. Who or what could make it objective? Objective in that sense implies it as being externally provided.

You're late to the discussion. "Objective" and "subjective" are properties of propositions (like "true" and "false"). A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, confirmable by any suitably situated observer. It is subjective if its truth conditions are private, accessible only to the utterer.

Why are you repeating that nonsense after I pointed out a bunch of problems with it and you couldn't address any of those problems adequately?

[GE Morton]

In that case, GEMorton how would you like to differentiate moral codes such as the Ten Commandments or the Koran , and an ethic or ethics which may be applicable to more than one moral code ?

Many moral principles and rules are set forth in diverse moral codes. Is that what you meant by a "non-specific morality"? I thought by non-specific you meant a morality having no specific principles or rules.

If a rule tends to crop up in many moral codes in different eras and different cultures, there is probably some sound reason for it. As philosophers we need to try to elucidate that reason.

[Jklint]

With all the variations we never discovered the "objective" theme as presupposed by some philosophers and most theists because there never was one. Who or what could make it objective? Objective in that sense implies it as being externally provided.

You're late to the discussion. "Objective" and "subjective" are properties of propositions (like "true" and "false"). A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, confirmable by any suitably situated observer. It is subjective if its truth conditions are private, accessible only to the utterer.

That's as simplistic as one can get regarding what's objective and subjective especially regarding a subject as totally devoid of any objectivity as morality.

[Terrapin Station]

Re this by the way: "Anyone can use any word any way he wishes. But if he is not using it as it is understood in his speech community he will not be understood and will not be a relevant participant in any discussions of matters denoted with that word."

Give a few examples (that is, references) of the philosophical community using "subjective" and "objective" as terms that refer to properties of propositions.

[GE Morton]

Why are you repeating that nonsense after I pointed out a bunch of problems with it and you couldn't address any of those problems adequately?

Oh? I must have missed that. Could you reiterate those "problems"?

It is also possible that the "problems" were so contrived, fanciful, or frivolous that I ignored them.

[Sy Borg]

Not so. The whole assertion is 'If we want goal Y, then we ought to do X'.

The objective assertion here is: 'Action X aims at / promotes / leads to goal Y'. Or: 'This action leads to this outcome'.

All three of those formulations are truth-value equivalent. What is explicitly missing in your second two is the "we want goal Y." But that we want goal Y is implicit in the concept of a goal --- a goal is something we seek, that we want. Hence, that we want goal Y is implicit in your two formulations.

And the "ought" in the first formulation is the instrumental "ought": it simply means that X is necessary, or effective, for attaining Y. Or perhaps that X is the best available method, in the circumstances, for attaining Y. All of those claims can be objective.

There is no specifically "moral" sense of "ought," or "should." Those words in moral contexts have their usual instrumental meanings; they are only "moral" because the goal sought is a moral one.

Let's consider an "objectively" moral goal like keeping people alive. Is that necessarily moral? What of military conflict? What if resources are short and one has to choose who lives and dies? What of euthanasia, where death is more merciful than prolonged suffering? What of incorrigible killers and rapists who do nothing but harm others, even in prison?

Please respond as a whole, rather than breaking it into context-free pieces. TY