When asked, it is difficult for me to sum up my views on morality in one (or even a few) words.
First, I don't think that the universe has an objective right or wrong. Morality is entirely biological. With that out of the way; I think that moral conclusions about specific events/behaviors based on a person's values (e.g, all of humanity, just self, just family, just society, total apathy, other creatures, ect.) can be logically correct, but those values cannot be rationalized.
When making decisions: We each have subjective emotional values, many of which most people have in common. The "right" decision is the one that correctly achieves goals based on these values. The "wrong" decision is one that, due to logical errors when deciding how to do it, is either destructive to or fails to achieve a value-motivated goal.
When judging other people's actions: If two people have the same values but have different ideas about how to achieve whatever it is they want in a given situation, it is completely possible for one person to be logically right and the other to be incorrect. If two people have different or conflicting values, then the situation cannot be logically determined to be definitely right or wrong and is thus just a battle of interests. In such a situation, it is normal and necessary to regard your enemy with contempt because it can help you win the conflict/debate and remember how destructive they are to your interests.
It's almost like a third stance, between moral relativism and moral absolutism (unless of course I have interpreted these terms incorrectly...They are somewhat ambiguous). I was wondering if it had a name of some sort or which philosophers have espoused similar views so that I don't have to make large explanations each time. Any help?
Sign In
What is the name of this ethical view? | Forum
Member sonofject
Oct 4 '14
On the topic title question: I would think it would be an amoral stance, but within the bounds of ethics. It really boils down to a person's nature, so I don't want to label the ethical 'view' incorrectly or attribute it to a type of philosophy. If I had to, though, I would say that some of these values are inherently satanic in nature.
The loss of a person's internal 'moral compass' (or some would say sense of fairness or right/wrong) is usually an effect of injustice. When in conflict, an individual motivation depends on a person's sense of justice or honor. A person who has lost their moral compass does not have this motivation. Even in a robust debate, one puts aside personal motivations and expresses a desire to engage an issue rather than project ego.
The loss of a person's internal 'moral compass' (or some would say sense of fairness or right/wrong) is usually an effect of injustice. When in conflict, an individual motivation depends on a person's sense of justice or honor. A person who has lost their moral compass does not have this motivation. Even in a robust debate, one puts aside personal motivations and expresses a desire to engage an issue rather than project ego.
Chapter Head EzrelT
Oct 4 '14
Coming to terms with the fact that every individual's beliefs, sayings, and actions must be understood within the context of a particular social reality, is the first step towards rising above moral conflict.
Knowing that the basic substantive issues of the conflict are deeply embedded in the moral orders of the individuals with differing values speaks of the intractable nature of the issues in question.
Perhaps, Moral Intractabilism might be a starting point to the philosophical path you seek. Just a thought. *wink
Knowing that the basic substantive issues of the conflict are deeply embedded in the moral orders of the individuals with differing values speaks of the intractable nature of the issues in question.
Perhaps, Moral Intractabilism might be a starting point to the philosophical path you seek. Just a thought. *wink
The Forum post is edited by EzrelT Oct 4 '14
Anna
Oct 5 '14
When judging other people's actions: If two people have the same values but have different ideas about how to achieve whatever it is they want in a given situation, it is completely possible for one person to be logically right and the other to be incorrect. If two people have different or conflicting values, then the situation cannot be logically determined to be definitely right or wrong and is thus just a battle of interests. In such a situation, it is normal and necessary to regard your enemy with contempt because it can help you win the conflict/debate and remember how destructive they are to your interests.
Something between moral relativism and amorality, I think.
First, I don't think that the universe has an objective right or wrong. Morality is entirely biological.
I'm not sure what you mean. First you say that the Universe is beyond the division into good and evil, which means it is amoral, and then you say that morality is a biological/natural thing. You can't have it both ways.
Nature is amoral. Morality is a cultural thing and it varies from culture to culture. It also changes in the course of time. For example, some time ago a woman from Poland visited a Muslim country (I don't remember which one) and was raped there. She was silly enough to go to the police and she was put in jail just like the perpetrator. According to their Sharia Law, they were both guilty of adultery. Unthinkable for the Westerners, right? Well... perfectly normal for the Muslims.
Guess who
Oct 5 '14
I mean that there isn't a natural law or supernatural authority which decides objective right from wrong. Morality exists as subjective emotions and values within organisms.
I would consider moral decisions based on false assumptions/beleifs to be logically incorrect and immoral. A Muslim may value the same things as westerners do, but are deluded and have strange and ineffective ways of trying to achieve their goals.
I would consider moral decisions based on false assumptions/beleifs to be logically incorrect and immoral. A Muslim may value the same things as westerners do, but are deluded and have strange and ineffective ways of trying to achieve their goals.
Guess who
Oct 5 '14
Perhaps this ethical stance would be best described as emotivism...though it's more about logically deciding what is right according to your personal values rather than solely upon your direct emotional response to an action/situation.
Kenneth
Oct 5 '14
But isn't that emotional response to an action/situation in part dependent upon your personal values?
Chapter Head EzrelT
Oct 6 '14
Good observation, Kegare. Perhaps my explanation below may sufficiently buttress the point further home on why values, be it cultural, religious or social are responsible for influencing the Moral order of a group, and certainly not direct emotional responses
Connecting the Dots
Now, here's the thing: Moral order is knitted and related to the practices and patterns of thinking - not emotional responses - of a socialized group of people whose members learn to center their judgments on values and procedures essentially fundamental to their own common culture. Therefore, people from different cultures of the world depend largely on their respective moral orders to provide the set of meanings through which they understand their experience and make judgments about what is valuable and important; and in certain cases for interpreting and defining what is right and wrong. This explains the reason in Anna's example why the lady who got raped was jailed in a muslim country for committing adultery. In this case, the Sharia law was the moral order used in the delivery of judgment.
Identifying the Problem
The Sharia Law in question, which found the lady guilty of the crime, is a blend of Islamic and cultural customs - derived from religious and social values - that provides for differences in gender roles, rights and obligations. Such a law when replaced with that practised in the West obviously would attract a different judgement that sees only the offender being jailed. Now, this leads to a question which has already been answered in my previous post: Will the Sharia Law at any point alter or modify its moral order on the subject of Adultery to accommodate the West's interpretation of Rape? Certainly not, reason being that there is an existent gap already created by cultural diversity which no logical pattern of thinking can fill. This invariably explains the INTRACTABLE positions of both laws that in themselves present MORAL CONFLICT.
Moral conflict occurs when an action that one moral order deems perfectly acceptable may be regarded as an abomination by a different moral order.
What therefore creates the difference between the moral orders of Sharia Law and Western Law is that while the former is built on Virtues; the latter finds its strength in Rights. A rights-based approach is associated with Modernity and the Enlightenment; while a virtues-based approach finds rooting from traditional society. As such, when modernists carry out acts regarded as obligatory or good within their own moral order, these very acts may be perceived by traditionalists as offensive.
Finding a Position: Read my last post over and over again until it sinks. *wink.
Connecting the Dots
Now, here's the thing: Moral order is knitted and related to the practices and patterns of thinking - not emotional responses - of a socialized group of people whose members learn to center their judgments on values and procedures essentially fundamental to their own common culture. Therefore, people from different cultures of the world depend largely on their respective moral orders to provide the set of meanings through which they understand their experience and make judgments about what is valuable and important; and in certain cases for interpreting and defining what is right and wrong. This explains the reason in Anna's example why the lady who got raped was jailed in a muslim country for committing adultery. In this case, the Sharia law was the moral order used in the delivery of judgment.
Identifying the Problem
The Sharia Law in question, which found the lady guilty of the crime, is a blend of Islamic and cultural customs - derived from religious and social values - that provides for differences in gender roles, rights and obligations. Such a law when replaced with that practised in the West obviously would attract a different judgement that sees only the offender being jailed. Now, this leads to a question which has already been answered in my previous post: Will the Sharia Law at any point alter or modify its moral order on the subject of Adultery to accommodate the West's interpretation of Rape? Certainly not, reason being that there is an existent gap already created by cultural diversity which no logical pattern of thinking can fill. This invariably explains the INTRACTABLE positions of both laws that in themselves present MORAL CONFLICT.
Moral conflict occurs when an action that one moral order deems perfectly acceptable may be regarded as an abomination by a different moral order.
What therefore creates the difference between the moral orders of Sharia Law and Western Law is that while the former is built on Virtues; the latter finds its strength in Rights. A rights-based approach is associated with Modernity and the Enlightenment; while a virtues-based approach finds rooting from traditional society. As such, when modernists carry out acts regarded as obligatory or good within their own moral order, these very acts may be perceived by traditionalists as offensive.
Finding a Position: Read my last post over and over again until it sinks. *wink.
The Forum post is edited by EzrelT Oct 6 '14
