Difference between revisions of "Objective-subjective distinction"

From Philosophical Vegan Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
[[File:SR2.webm|thumb|]]
 
[[File:SR2.webm|thumb|]]
  
Objective morality is often the subject of straw-manning that results from a misunderstanding of what objective morality means, and an ambiguous objective-subjective distinction. If we consider the moral framework posed by Sam Harris, whereby, moral claims are made true or false depending on how they affect the well-being of conscious creatures. Whether this framework is subjective or objective depends on how one defines the objective-subjective distinction. If we take it to be;
+
Objective morality is often the subject of straw-manning, whereby, it is claimed that moral objectivism purports the existence of the moral properties, such as rightness and wrongness, that exist independently of the natural properties of the world. This results from a misunderstanding of what objective morality means, and works against rational morality and moral discourse. In this article we will consider distinction between the well defined philosophical positions of '''moral universalism (moral objectivism)'''  and '''moral relativism''', and between '''moral realism''' and '''moral subjectivism'''.
 
 
''Moral facts are objective if they are made true or false by mind-independent facts, otherwise they are subjective''
 
 
 
Then this framework is subjective, as facts about the well-being of conscious creatures depend on the minds of conscious creatures. However if we take it to be
 
 
 
''Moral facts are objective if they are made true or false by facts independent of the opinions of humans, otherwise they are subjective.''
 
 
 
then the framework is objective, as facts about the well-being of conscious creatures do not depend on the opinion of humans.
 
 
 
The objective-subjective distinction tends to cause confusion and works against rational morality and moral discourse. In this article we will consider distinction between the well defined philosophical positions of '''moral universalism (moral objectivism)'''  and '''moral relativism''', and between '''moral realism''' and '''moral subjectivism'''.
 
  
 
=Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism=
 
=Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism=

Revision as of 11:44, 9 January 2018

Work In Progress.

Objective morality is often the subject of straw-manning, whereby, it is claimed that moral objectivism purports the existence of the moral properties, such as rightness and wrongness, that exist independently of the natural properties of the world. This results from a misunderstanding of what objective morality means, and works against rational morality and moral discourse. In this article we will consider distinction between the well defined philosophical positions of moral universalism (moral objectivism) and moral relativism, and between moral realism and moral subjectivism.

Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism

Put simply the distinction between moral universalism and moral relativism, is that moral universalism holds that morality is universal, meaning that moral principles apply to everyone and apply everywhere. Put simply, what is wrong for me here and now is also wrong for you. Moral relativism, in contrast, holds that there are moral principles that do not apply to everyone or everywhere and are dependent on the opinions of a person (individualist subjectivism), culture (cultural subjectivism) or similar.

Moral Realism vs Moral Subjectivism

Consensus

Moral Realism

Naturalistic Realism

Railton Realism

Cornell Realism