Difference between revisions of "Objective-subjective distinction"
(→Moral Universalism vs Moral Relativism) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The dominant view in philosophy is that morality is universal. The primary argument in its favour holding that morality is by definition universal, and as a consequence, if a rule is not universal then it is not a moral rule. Proponents of this line of appeal to the traditional use and meaning of morality, such as that found in religions, whereby moral rules apply universally. An example of this is the well known philosopher R.M. Hare, who proposes the following discussion between a universalist (U) and a relativist (R). | ||
| + | Univeralist: “You oughtn't to do that.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | : <span style="color:green; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Relativist'' </span>: “You should not do that.” | ||
| + | ::<span style="color:blue; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Universalist'' </span>: “So you think that one shouldn't to do that kind of thing?” | ||
| + | :<span style="color:green; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Relativist'' </span>::”I think nothing of the kind; I say only that you shouldn't do that.” | ||
| + | ::<span style="color:blue; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Universalist'' </span>: “Don't you even imply that a person like me in circumstances of this kind shouldn't do that kind of thing when the other people involved are the sort of people that they are?” | ||
| + | :<span style="color:green; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Relativist'' </span>:: “No; I say only that you shouldn't to do that.” | ||
| + | ::<span style="color:blue; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Universalist'' </span>: “Are you making a moral judgment?” | ||
| + | :<span style="color:green; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Relativist'' </span>:: “Yes.” | ||
| + | ::<span style="color:blue; background:#FFFFFF"> ''Universalist'' </span>: “In that case I fail to understand your use of the word ‘moral’.” | ||
=Moral Realism vs Moral Subjectivism= | =Moral Realism vs Moral Subjectivism= | ||
Revision as of 10:18, 11 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. It's worth noting that due to the way these positions are defined, it is possible to have a subjectivist position that is also universal (objective), such as divine command theory. Whereby morality is universal (objective) and depends on a mind (the mind of God).
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.
The dominant view in philosophy is that morality is universal. The primary argument in its favour holding that morality is by definition universal, and as a consequence, if a rule is not universal then it is not a moral rule. Proponents of this line of appeal to the traditional use and meaning of morality, such as that found in religions, whereby moral rules apply universally. An example of this is the well known philosopher R.M. Hare, who proposes the following discussion between a universalist (U) and a relativist (R). Univeralist: “You oughtn't to do that.”
- Relativist : “You should not do that.”
- Universalist : “So you think that one shouldn't to do that kind of thing?”
- Relativist ::”I think nothing of the kind; I say only that you shouldn't do that.”
- Universalist : “Don't you even imply that a person like me in circumstances of this kind shouldn't do that kind of thing when the other people involved are the sort of people that they are?”
- Relativist :: “No; I say only that you shouldn't to do that.”
- Universalist : “Are you making a moral judgment?”
- Relativist :: “Yes.”
- Universalist : “In that case I fail to understand your use of the word ‘moral’.”
Moral Realism vs Moral Subjectivism
Moral realism
- moral statements express propositions
- some moral statements are true
- moral statements are true or false in virtue of mind-independent properties of the world
Moral subjectivism
- moral statements express propositions
- some moral statements are true
- moral statements are true or false in virtue of mind-dependent properties of the world
