Jump to content

QOTD IV!! 884: Who should be next QOTD master and why, or should it die?


Recommended Posts

I don't know. For one thing, insofar as uncertainty exists, I am somewhat uncertain that morals can be known to be correct because the results the actions encouraged by those morals will bring are uncertain. Another thing: I believe that because people are different, and have different objectives, morals should be different for each person. Naturally people have some similarities so the moralities shouldn't all be completely different. At the same time, there is a solipsistic side to me, and I sometimes find it hard to really appreciate people who reason differently from me when it comes to morality. Finally, there is a somewhat nihilistic side to me that believes that everyone should do what they want, subject to concerns regarding what other people will think.

The idea that I should act in order to avoid conflict with others is very important to me. Even though I believe that goodness of regular people comes in part because of "society's mutual oppression", I am actually glad that that this is the case.

Sorry, I don't know.

Edited by Sane Young Dog Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I guess I fall into moral absolutism, but I don't think the issue is as simple as just absolutism vs. relativism, and I don't really feel like going into it in this post.

So yeah, for the purposes of this question I guess absolutism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i use snapchat for a lot of things but most recently for snapchatting roxas his suspension to rub it in

QUESTION SEVEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO: Do you subscribe to absolute morality or relative morality?

courtesy my nephew darros

holla @ me

Anyway way I look at it is that each person has their own set of morals, so I would say I subscribe to relative morality. That said, it's hard to judge someone's actions based off of what their set of morals is ((like "Oh I don't agree with that but they thought that was okay so")), so I have tendencies to be absolute in my judgements. Trying to work on that though ((circumstantially)).

I'm actually of the thought that taking another persons life is immoral always, and this topic comes into conversation... more often than it should with really weird "what if" situations people will come up with.

EDIT: I'm not actually sure if this post makes any sense or not. Chalking it up to "tired" as an excuse

Edited by Papyrus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in absolute morality. I believe their is a clear (correction: correct, not necessarily clear as in easy to know) right and wrong and that, well...that's it, there is an absolute right and wrong and that sometimes what people thing is right is wrong or what they thing is wrong is right or what they think doesn't matter does. Now, I'm not going to say I know what the absolute right and wrong is, or that really, anyone should be expected to all the time. But, I do believe it's there. I think my faith may have something to do with that belief.

Edited by AnonymousSpeed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna go by the Wikipedia page here because that's what's handy.

Definitely absolutist on some things. Also "people have different moralities just like opinions and we shouldn't judge others based on that" is silly. It's fine to think that way until genuinely harmful moral viewpoints come into play.

So I'm absolutist on some points,

I believe in descriptive moral relativism (and I think everyone does),

I don't feel like getting into meta-ethical moral relativism (whether you can objectively prove something is right/wrong),

and I definitely don't subscribe to normative moral relativism (because you can't objectively prove things, we ought to tolerate others' actions even if they go against our moral standards).

I guess I fall into moral absolutism, but I don't think the issue is as simple as just absolutism vs. relativism, and I don't really feel like going into it in this post.

So yeah, for the purposes of this question I guess absolutism.

ya i agree this question sux

but yea this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in absolute morality. I believe their is a clear (correction: correct, not necessarily clear as in easy to know) right and wrong and that, well...that's it, there is an absolute right and wrong and that sometimes what people thing is right is wrong or what they thing is wrong is right or what they think doesn't matter does. Now, I'm not going to say I know what the absolute right and wrong is, or that really, anyone should be expected to all the time. But, I do believe it's there. I think my faith may have something to do with that belief.

Yeup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can we just change this question to, "do you believe there is an objective morality" except not a bad sd thread

there's too many competing opinions in ethics to narrow it down to relativism vs absolutism

this is especially true when you don't let people define what their "absolute" truths are since people tend to interpret things in different ways

i see a ton of people identifying with absolutism here but i don't think anyone here would agree with divine command theory

Edited by Knight of Argentum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is nobody going to bother referencing the fact Integ suspended me for six hours because I'm a loose cannon cop who doesn't play by the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i see a ton of people identifying with absolutism here but i don't think anyone here would agree with divine command theory

I don't know how different these things are, but I do believe in a perfect God, so...is that Divine Command Theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how different these things are, but I do believe in a perfect God, so...is that Divine Command Theory?

divine command theory is a common criticism with moral absolutism that states that if morality is defined by god, then whatever god commands is right or 'morally correct'

this raises problems such as, "what if god commanded us to kill babies?"

i'd imagine most sane people would disagree on whether this is morally, let alone socially acceptable

you could then argue something like, "god would never command that," and we're faced with an entirely different argument of whether or not we can accurately interpret god, if at all. our only source thus far is any religious text, and whether or not you choose to believe in that is totally up to you, but it's preposterous to think that its existence implies some kind of scientific proof (i personally do not believe in a god, though i'm not going to go and say believing in a god is bad or go full-atheist, because atheists have problems of their own; the athiest's wager)

Edited by Knight of Argentum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...