Moral epistemology and moral ontology

[Xant]

Is something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so? For example, is killing innocent people for fun objectively wrong, or is that just a subjective opinion? Was the holocaust wrong? Would it be wrong even if the Nazees had won and successfully brain-washed everyone that it was alright? Or are these merely social conventions, and perhaps society in hundred years could be in favor of murdering infants, and nobody in today's society could claim it is "evil", because there's no objective morality? Or if there is, whence comes the objective morality, if not from God?

If you don't believe in objective morality, then morality is just a social custom – or what is socially acceptable at the time. Hence it is not morally "wrong" to kill babies, it’s just socially frowned upon. How then can you condemn anyone for deeds like murder or rape if it's nothing more than your own personal opinion, a mere social custom, you personally subscribe to?

That becomes a non-question if you believe in God and that he decides what is moral and what is not, so it's a question for people who have no faith.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

All opinions are subjective, including what's evil and good, and whether evil and good exist.

[Osiris]

whats right whats wrong whats legal what isn't changes all the time. We used to marry and have kids at 13-14 now you would be called a sick pedophile and locked away. whose to say in 200 years the age of consent wont be 25 and we all look like pedophiles

There are some constants however ie Murder. I don't think murdering children has ever really been socially acceptable same as theft (as long as its not your own people ofc murdering and looting enemies or other peoples was fine)

Even gods morality has changed over time. many people get divorced or have pre marital sex etc there are very few who take the bible literally most of it comes from common sense and culture.

We can condemn people for murder and rape because we make laws against it. as for is something right or wrong independent well no ofc not. right or wrong is always according to the people of the time.

[Christo]

You are sick.

(click to show/hide)

gotcha

On this good and evil, right and wrong talk, there is no black and white. only shades of grey

The good and evil stuff belongs to the fairy tales, and romanticized ideals

Although may I question point of thread, without getting a silly one liner? Seems like you want to stir something up, but you already went through the thought yourself.

[Xant]

So mass murder and genocide is not evil or wrong, only a "shade of grey"?

[Christo]

Does calling it wrong, or evil stop genocide from happening?

In the end it's all based on who are we talking about, there is no absolute evil or absolute good. That's what I meant with that.

On genocide not being wrong, well the ones doing it probably see it as right and justified, the victims etc. see it as cruel. It's all based on the situation.

These pointless discussions though. I miss old cRPG drama that was actually entertaining.

[Xant]

Calling it wrong or evil doesn't stop it from happening, but that wasn't the question. If it isn't evil or wrong, then why condemn it? Why do something to stop it? What makes your point of view more right than the point of view of those who thought it was fine? Or are both sides equally right? Is it simply a question of which is better, strawberry or chocolate icrecream, a personal opinion? If so, why would you say the Holocaust is wrong? Or would you not, and say that there was nothing wrong or evil about it, it was a perfectly legit moral opinion of someone that it was a good thing to do?

[Christo]

Ohoho, you're not going there, are you.

[Xant]

Yeah, didn't think you could actually provide any reasons.

[Christo]

I think you're on the wrong forum for that mate

[Xant]

That remains to be seen.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html

[Kalam]

Can't talk about this without someone bringing up the Prisoner's Dilemma, so here's this.

This article sums it up nicely.

Morality, then, is an agreement with the rest of the world for you to protect yourself and the people you love when you lack the power to directly assure your safety.

Personally, I believe that moral values exist without religion because humans are co-dependent creatures. 

Something else to consider: Emergence of a Peaceful Culture in Wild Baboons.

[bilwit]

Despite what fanatics think, religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Obviously it's not as simple as saying "yes, there is objective morality with or without a god" but the easiest way to study intrinsic human behavior is to look at primeval human society. Take away all the nations, history, technology, culture and even language and you're still left with human beings living and working together communally. Humans are naturally social and cooperative creatures whose best interest is to help their fellow man. Outside of that, it's all social construction and bullshit.

[SixThumbs]

Well, I am subject to the impressions of objects/events reflected through a collective conscience based upon a median level of social adaptation grown from current cultural trends which allows me to come to the conclusion that you haven't been watching enough MTV.

[Malaclypse]

Just social/cultural customs, no objective good/evil, go with the flow of the times.

I think for most of us that is the case- I mean getting outside of the idea of objective good or evil, let's take a loot at how people responded to what is viewed by the world at large as evil or wrong, that there holocaust you pointed out. People just get swept up in the tide of what's going on around them; if we're going to commit genocide, by god we're going to work together to do it. We're social beings, even the most antisocial of us.