What's the basis for your ethical model? Principles, maxims, assumptions... How do you justify it? Also, general ethics/duty/justice/socio-political philosophy discussion thread
Im a moral relativist but I use my moral beliefs that I've.. learned to base my decisions on. Though deep down I know its my own beliefs and not fact. Is that what you're asking
id say my ethical model is based around my own experiences and judgement s based on fact i attempt not to make any form of assumptions of people and try to see the best within everyone if thats what you wanted to know
Doing what seems to be right at any given time. Not attaching to any particular mental construct for any longer than necessary. Not holding onto something from the past so it interferes with experiencing the present. Allowing everyone the opportunity to be different, including myself. Letting go of assumptions and judgements if I make them. Seeing people as fundamentally good, even when they haven't been. Knowing that what I see may not always be correct, and allowing something new to come from that.
do no harm--hyprocritical oath i took after i realized the shit is fucked up--i said hyprocite on purpose
Utilitarian Consequentialism - to maximize the happiness to the greatest number of people and minimize pain. What is Morally right and wrong is the consequences of the actions. However the one point I differ in is only to the degree to how intended they are. If you intended good things and good things happen, it's good. If you intend bad things , and bad thing happen it's bad. However, if you intend good things, and bad things happen , I don't consider it morally wrong , but simply a miscalculation. If you intended bad, but it lead to good consequences , this is also a miscalculation. Both of the two last examples , however should require some sort of rehabilitation.
One man's good is another man's bad. One man's bad is another man's good. I get what you mean, but things are never that easy. Deciding good or bad is very subjective and depends on many things. Most of us will agree on the biggies, but for the most part, many people on this forum do something society still says is bad, yet we know it to be otherwise.
I don't believe in objective morals, I think they're lofty "opinions" . I put opinion in quotes because most people don't critically examine there morals from an abstracted point of view, and most people's moral code comes from their particular religion, culture, etc. While I still consider rape a terrible thing, I understand that it is not the law of the universe that rape is wrong. I object to human suffering in most cases, especially of the innocent, and that would lead me to object morally to rape. But, i know really it is just a preference. I actually don't believe in objective good or bad either, yet I still oppose drone strikes that kill children and I oppose burning people at the stake. Some of it is probably just from being a human, having empathy, etc. Basically, that morality is relative to the perspective a person comes from and their experiences, and that there is no universal code to follow being good or bad.
Are you familiar with the critiques of moral relativism? For example, that the argument for moral relativism commits the naturalistic fallacy
I suppose I go on how I was raised when I was a hatchling and then built upon that with experience. I guess the way I handled my experiences was based on how I was raised though...
I'm not too well read on the philosophy, it is just a position i identify with. From looking at the "naturalistic fallacy" wiki page I don't really see how it does. As far as i understand, moral relativism doesnt seem to say that nature is good or bad. maybe i should read more about moral relativism but I don't quite see how it commits that fallacy.
Wiki's not a great place to learn about fallacies, but rational wiki or iron chariots are decent. The wiki page about the naturalistic fallacy says that what I'm referring to (the is-ought problem) is wholly different from the naturalistic fallacy, but really it's not. At the core of the naturalistic fallacy (as defined by the wiki page) is the inference of a prescriptive statement (ought) from a descriptive statement (is) "Inferring an "ought" from an "is", or more generally a prescriptive statement from a descriptive one." http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NaturalisticFallacy I'm not sure whether or not you're talking about ethical subjectivism or cultural relativism (which is basically the same thing as ethical subjectivism but on a societal level,) but either way both philosophical viewpoints (aka moral relativism) commit the same fallacy (the naturalistic fallacy.) To say that "each individual or culture has a diverse array of moral beliefs" is a descriptive statement, which is very different than saying how things ought to be. But that's exactly what moral relativism (ethical subjectivism or cultural relativism) is espousing, the idea that each individual should have his or her own moral beliefs and that these beliefs are morally right. In other words, simply having a sincere moral belief gives that belief a moral authority. But again, that commits the naturalistic fallacy, and in logic if a premise in your argument or (in this case) the conclusion from the premise/s commit a fallacy, then the proceeding premises and/or conclusion are false. And I don't know about you, but I care whether or not my beliefs are true, so if someone demonstrated to me that moral relativism was bunk then I'd have no choice but to stop believing it. tl;dr relativism in general is plain ole false
I think a lot of people think they're relativists in general until they explore the philosophical positions and find that they never really believed in relativism in the first place. Like having relativism as the epistemological position for truth is just plain silly.
hmm. Well I don't think that description is what I believed. But I do think morals are relative. I don't think anyone has moral authority nor do I care if cultures have different morals or not. So... i believe in the relativity of morals (or the subjective nature of ethics) but i guess not moral relativism the philosophy. evidently i misunderstood what moral relativism entailed.
There are no objective or existing morals or ethics. It is all opinion, generally gained from one's culture or background. Right and wrong do not exist in the universe. As far as i know.
I'll just post Sam Harris's narrative. "She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong? Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing wellbeing—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human wellbeing. She: But that’s only your opinion. Me: Okay… Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human wellbeing? She: It would depend on why they were doing it. Me (slowly returning my eyebrows from the back of my head): Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.” She: Then you could never say that they were wrong."