4 ms·

I don't quite agree. While in some cases, there is certainly subjectivity in morality, almost everyone would agree that certain things are definitively a darker

by ekiru 17y ago

I don't quite agree. While in some cases, there is certainly subjectivity in morality, almost everyone would agree that certain things are definitively a darker gray than others. Almost no one would argue that murdering random people is morally superior to nursing an injured bird back to health. It is true that some people might, but I think that the vast majority is sometimes right in judging comparisons like that.

csallen 17y ago
>> almost everyone would agree that certain things are definitively a darker gray than others Yes, but we must ask ourselves: Does widespread agreement on an opinion turn that opinion into a fact? If 100% of humanity were to suddenly believe that red is better than blue, would that make it objectively true? I think the answer is no. The difference between fact and opinion is not reliant on the number of people who believe one way or the other.
- Retric 17y ago
  In this case moral relative depends on the definition of better. If you have a specific definition of better (EX: for one person, one group, society, the environment etc) you can actually come up with a relative ranking. However, it's the choice to use better in the most vague term that makes it a monochromatic argument.
- ekiru 17y ago
  "If 100% of humanity were to suddenly believe that red is better than blue, would that make it objectively true?" No, but it does make it subjectively true for 100% of humanity. In addition, as a sibling comment pointed out: it is possible to objectively decide which of two actions is better than another for any specific definition of better. For example, one definition of moral "betterness" is the quality of being conducive toward the survival of a given society.
  - csallen 17y ago
    I'm suspicious of this vague terminology. Instead of saying something is "better", why not just say "it's more conducive toward the survival of a given society"?

by ekiru 17y ago

csallen 17y ago

>> almost everyone would agree that certain things are definitively a darker gray than others Yes, but we must ask ourselves: Does widespread agreement on an opinion turn that opinion into a fact? If 100% of humanity were to suddenly believe that red is better than blue, would that make it objectively true? I think the answer is no. The difference between fact and opinion is not reliant on the number of people who believe one way or the other.

Retric 17y ago
In this case moral relative depends on the definition of better. If you have a specific definition of better (EX: for one person, one group, society, the environment etc) you can actually come up with a relative ranking. However, it's the choice to use better in the most vague term that makes it a monochromatic argument.
ekiru 17y ago
"If 100% of humanity were to suddenly believe that red is better than blue, would that make it objectively true?" No, but it does make it subjectively true for 100% of humanity. In addition, as a sibling comment pointed out: it is possible to objectively decide which of two actions is better than another for any specific definition of better. For example, one definition of moral "betterness" is the quality of being conducive toward the survival of a given society.
- csallen 17y ago
  I'm suspicious of this vague terminology. Instead of saying something is "better", why not just say "it's more conducive toward the survival of a given society"?