Difference between revisions of "Objective-subjective distinction"
(→Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism= | =Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism= | ||
| − | + | 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= | =Moral Realism vs Moral Subjectivism= | ||
Revision as of 12:28, 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.
Contents
[hide]Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism
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.
