UPSB v4
Off-topic / Is morality a matter of objectivity or relativity?
-
Date: Thu, Mar 13 2014 23:20:56
Posted this on MAL a couple of days ago and got mixed opinions, some are saying morality is objective, some say its subjective while others says it is just a social construct. I realise that I post quite a few threads on MAL and thought I might as well post them on UPSB as well to get some more opinions and to also bring some life to the off topic section and encourage some more discussion. Which is what a forum is about right. So expect more threads to come! There are many acts in which the general consensus would consider to be bad such as lying, rape and murder. However, given the scenario, some would consider these acts to be good, such as lying to protect someone. The case that I will focus on in this post will be that of killing in self defense. The scenario: Strip away the context, you are pushed into a dark alleyway (where your perpetrator is blocking the only exit) and he points a gun at you. So you are forced into a scenario where, as far as I can see, there are only three options. 1 You get killed 2 You somehow overpower the perpetrator and kill him 3 You somehow overpower the perpetrator and escape For the purpose of this post lets go with the 2nd option, where you kill the perpetrator in self defense. Is this a morally right or wrong act? I think that killing in itself is always wrong. So I would say that the act of killing to save your own skin is wrong. However, this does not mean that I would say you shouldn't kill at all. In fact, given the scenario I proposed I would actually condone the act of killing to defend yourself. Here I can see that there are two distinct notions in my frame of mind, one is that I agree with Kant's moral philosophy to an extent, and second, I seem rather contradictory. I've only studied Kant briefly, so correct me if I'm wrong, but he believes that there are universal laws as to whether certain acts are right or wrong. And if an act is wrong then you shouldn't do it at all, period. I agree with this to the point that acts are considered to be either right or wrong; however, I don't think that that should prevent you from doing something wrong. Secondly, I sound rather contradictory since if I believe that an act is considered to be wrong then doesn't that mean I should also think that you shouldn't do it? Well, I guess you can consider me as a quasi consequentialist. Where a consequentialist would judge whether or not it is a just act based on the consequence of the act . Applying this to the scenario, they would say that it is right to kill in order to save your own life (correct me if I'm wrong here, I only have a basic understanding of consequentialism). Whereas in my case, I have judge the act to be morally wrong; however, by considering the scenario I would condone the act since you are saving your own life and if you don't you die, which is why I say that I am a quasi consequentialist. As you can tell, my morality stands somewhere between Kants moral philosophy and consequentialism. Where the former has an objective outlook to morality while the latter sees morality based on the consequences and therefore morality is relative to the situation. So, what is your stance as to whether morality is a matter of objectivity or relativity or perhaps something else?
-
Date: Fri, Mar 14 2014 17:30:22
I studied morality recently too. Morality pretends to be universal and objective, it also pretends to agree with everyones opinion. We, as a rational people, need to know what is socially accepted as good or bad actions. But we also should judge it (ethics) and improve it, making exceptions in those (almost) universal laws. I dont know if you studied this concepts, because moral and ethics are really similar and it might not be understood by you the same way I studied it :D
-
Date: Sat, Mar 15 2014 00:21:30
TLDR.
-
Date: Sat, Mar 15 2014 00:44:39
Quake wrote: TLDR.
