Moral Universalism, Utilitarianism and Other Things
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. ISO #1

    Moral Universalism, Utilitarianism and Other Things

    What is your view on morality? Is morality universal (possibly also objective), or is it relative?

    What do you think about utilitarianism?

    I'll start.
    I think morality is universal, and I also think its objective (although not really in the way most people think).
    I think there's a set of certain laws that are true at every level of analysis - the physical, the social/sociological, the psychology, the chemical, the subatomic level etc.
    I think morality is objective for this reason, and I think the 'best' morality or the one that best describes the moral landscape (whatever that is) can be found by looking for 'laws' of nature that are true in such a manner (occurring in sociology, physics/chemistry etc).

    I think utilitarianism is a garbage idea that can be used to justify many great evils.

  2. ISO #2

    Re: Moral Universalism, Utilitarianism and Other Things

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    What is your view on morality? Is morality universal (possibly also objective), or is it relative?

    What do you think about utilitarianism?

    I'll start.
    I think morality is universal, and I also think its objective (although not really in the way most people think).
    I think there's a set of certain laws that are true at every level of analysis - the physical, the social/sociological, the psychology, the chemical, the subatomic level etc.
    I think morality is objective for this reason, and I think the 'best' morality or the one that best describes the moral landscape (whatever that is) can be found by looking for 'laws' of nature that are true in such a manner (occurring in sociology, physics/chemistry etc).

    I think utilitarianism is a garbage idea that can be used to justify many great evils.
    I think, first and foremost, morality cannot easily be accurately determined and assessed by a single person without input from others. However, this isn't to say that morality is absolutely subjective or relative (it is not). Rather, I think its a necessary acknowledgement that regardless if there are (or aren't) laws or otherwise in the moral experience, one will need to consult with others on ethical subjects given the inherent limitations of the human being and its tendency to make errors and communicate in order to learn.

    I think morality inherently has universality to it. In every situation or context possible, including the context of knowing all information and the contexts of not knowing all the information, there is a moral solution. Or, at the very least, there are options that aren't "morally condemnable" (i.e. neither right or wrong).

    I think morality is also objective to a large degree, but is not absolutely objective. I do not say this in the sense that "I doubt morality is objective" but rather "I believe morality can be shown to be, at the very least, objective to this degree". Which does mean I don't believe it is proven that morality is absolutely objective. As to whether its possible to prove that morality is completely objective I am unsure about, and honestly may require me to major in ethics to figure out lol.


    There are two key aspects that I disagree within utilitarianism in general:

    1. The assertion that all actions should be judged by X value only.
    2. The belief that happiness is a moral priority under any circumstance.
    (This is to say that even if you (General "you") didn't argue #1 in utilitarianism, I still don't believe happiness is important enough to be considered equal or worthwhile in moral consideration when considering all morally relevant values.)

    So what I end up generally believing in is sort of a form of negative utilitarianism that is not asserted on an absolute basis. Which basically means:

    1. In general we should avoid suffering and minimize it. HOWEVER, that does not mean it should be the sole determinant or consideration on whether an action is morally wrong or not.
    2. Suffering should be held as a higher (but far from absolute) moral consideration.
    3. Happiness should never be a moral consideration. If it has to be at some point, it must be before all other moral considerations.

    Whether this counts as utilitarianism, I'm not sure. Its definitely fairly consequentialist. However, one thing that is consistent through many utilitarianist theories (as far as I've read) is that they have an X value that has moral consideration, and that X value should be the only moral consideration. This I disagree with heavily, no matter the moral value that is being considered in any context that is imaginable.

    To emphasize, though, this is only what I generally (or most typically) believe in. I do believe there are cases or circumstances where I tend to favor principles over consequences, and for that they generally involve the realm of individual autonomy, off the top of my head.

    Disclaimer: I'm not an authority on moral matters -- I'm only 20 and I've only took a honors-college-level class on ethics.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •