Difference between revisions of "Objective-subjective distinction"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | Work In Progress. | ||
| + | |||
[[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 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; | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
''Moral facts are objective if they are made true or false by mind-independent facts, otherwise they are subjective'' | ''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 | + | 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.'' | ''Moral facts are objective if they are made true or false by facts independent of the opinions of humans, otherwise they are subjective.'' | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
then the framework is objective, as facts about the well-being of conscious creatures do not depend on the opinion of humans. | 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 the positions of '''moral universalism (moral objectivism)''' and '''moral relativism''', | + | 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= | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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= | =Consensus= | ||
Revision as of 11:17, 9 January 2018
Work In Progress.
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;
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.
Contents
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.
