Views on Morality

[quasi-star-chaos]

I 've mentioned once in my introduction that I identify as a moral nihilist, meaning I don't believe there is a such thing as objective moral truth. I believe that any and all moral views held by humans are subjective, with no one being intrinsically any more or less correct than anyone else. Essentially, I believe that a person's views on right and wrong are no more factually-based than their favorite musical genre. I know some people find this position an odd one to take, so I'm writing a little questionare below to learn more about how people of different religions view morals and morality.

THE SURVEY:

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

 

[Riverwolf]

I 've mentioned once in my introduction that I identify as a moral nihilist, meaning I don't believe there is a such thing as objective moral truth. I believe that any and all moral views held by humans are subjective, with no one being intrinsically any more or less correct than anyone else. Essentially, I believe that a person's views on right and wrong are no more factually-based than their favorite musical genre. I know some people find this position an odd one to take, so I'm writing a little questionare below to learn more about how people of different religions view morals and morality.

THE SURVEY:

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

No. The entire notion requires social interactions; i.e., subjects. It cannot exist without that.

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

I don't see how, given my earlier statement.

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

I don't believe in inherent moral "correctness."

 

[quasi-star-chaos]

I don't believe in inherent moral "correctness."

Sounds like your viewpoint is pretty similar to my own then.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sounds like your viewpoint is pretty similar to my own then.

Perhaps. I do believe in ethics, though, and proper conduct ESPECIALLY in someone else's house/land.

 

[quasi-star-chaos]

Perhaps. I do believe in ethics, though, and proper conduct ESPECIALLY in someone else's house/land.

For me stuff like that would fall under subjective morals. I behave ethically and treat others respectfully, but I do it because I want to, not because I feel as though I'm obligated to.

 

[bobhikes]

I 've mentioned once in my introduction that I identify as a moral nihilist, meaning I don't believe there is a such thing as objective moral truth. I believe that any and all moral views held by humans are subjective, with no one being intrinsically any more or less correct than anyone else. Essentially, I believe that a person's views on right and wrong are no more factually-based than their favorite musical genre. I know some people find this position an odd one to take, so I'm writing a little questionare below to learn more about how people of different religions view morals and morality.

THE SURVEY:

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

1) Morals exist because, we are social out of necessity, we need others to survive. Absolute morals are based on the human species survival. An example, being killing another human, even if you do it for self protection you will still have doubt and depression over it unless you are mentally unbalanced.

2)Its proven by the fact that we exist. If people did not act morally or even 51% of people did not act morally humans would go extinct.

3) All people would hold this moral views but we have the ability to justify and deny our actions and self. All people will still have self doubt and depression over breaking these natural moral values but will be able to survive and function in the world quite well.

 

[RedDragon94]

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

I believe that human law is given by human authorities to help us live lives that are profitable. Unless done in self defense or in war I don't see how murder is justifiable.

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

Experientially, does it help you and others or does it hurt? You have to experiment sort of with that though.

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views?

What other reason besides "it's the law" is there?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

THE SURVEY:

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

1. Morality is a perception of oneself designed by the three modes of material nature.
It's not a universal reality but that exists within our minds.
Good and bad are complimentary forces of nature and must be kept in balance. God is a mix of good, passion and evil.

2. It doesn't exists anywhere but our minds. All actions are governed by Newton's third law or the law of karma.

3. No is correct or wrong as again they are individual concepts.
One can believe that killing animals is sinful and mustnt do it because he will be punished for doing so but I refrain from it because of karma and also because I see myself as that animal.
In one case it's the fear of punishment that is controlling his urged while mine are controlled for my image of seeing myself as the animal.
One can be moral for the greed of rewards and higher births as Gods, but in my view rewards and punishments are beyond the control of humans.
Our limit is the action performed but not on the outcome.
Three people can dig the earth with equal capacity and dedication. But one might receive only more mud, second one rocks but the third one precious gems.
So results of the actions are beyond our control. So acting for the sake of results might not work out in one's favor.
Instead one could act simply to perform his prescribed duties in this life without any expectations.

"Karmanne Avikarasthe
Ma Flapheshu Kadachana
Ma karma phalahetur bhur
Maté sangostava Akarmani"

You have a right to perform you're prescribed duty.
But youre not entitled to the fruits of your results.
Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities.
And never be attached towards not doing your duty.

- Bhagavad Gita 2:43

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm a nihilist too so I pretty much agree with you.

 

[निताइ dasa]

My personal moral system, is based on the moral system of Srimad Bhagavatam. It actually meshes together the hedonic basis of utilitarianism while keeping in mind the rigit structure of Kant's deontology and while also respecting the intent of the agent.

Also moral nihilism is an interesting position. What would you say if I killed you? Would I be neither wrong/right in doing so? Because that is what nihilism curtails. The view that right and wrong are subjective to the individual/society is called moral relativism, which is closer to what you seem to be saying you are. Moral nihilism means that morality itself does not exist or has no purpose.

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

Yes, I believe there are absolute moral truths (in order to gauge the morality of actions), but not absolute moral actions in themselves

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

Yes. All proofs require assumptions (even scientific proofs). If we accept those assumptions, then we can prove a moral truth as absolute using a simple logical argument. Empirical-ism isn't so much a proof, as it is an assumption (i.e assumption that the senses observe reality as it is). Logic and mathematics however are computational methods which help us in processing assumptions and coming to a conclusion.

Actually, Kant uses what he called the formula of universal law to try and prove that certain actions are universally right/wrong. He assumes that actions are independent of everything else. He then argues that if an action is morally permissible for one agent, it is permissible for all agents . By this logic he concludes certain actions as wrong, because they would contradict with themselves when universalized (i.e lying is always wrong, because if everyone lied, then there would be no distinction between a truth and a lie, and therefore a lie would not exist; a logical contradiction).

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

So essentially you are asking, is the reason for having a moral position, important in determining the moral position itself? I would say yes. In the formulation of morality, intent is all that matters (I am against consequentialism), so if the intent is different, despite the actions having the same consequences, they will have different moral positions.




.

 

[ArtieE]

For me stuff like that would fall under subjective morals. I behave ethically and treat others respectfully, but I do it because I want to, not because I feel as though I'm obligated to.

Why do you "want to" behave ethically and treat others respectfully?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Morality is culturally constructed, but there are still better and worse moral systems to construct in terms of what brings about human well-being. I kinda like the aesthetics of nihilism tho.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally don't believe in morals, its what works for us that is important, if we start having a set rule of morals, then who's morals are we going to keep, your's, mine ?.

 

[ArtieE]

I personally don't believe in morals, its what works for us that is important, if we start having a set rule of morals, then who's morals are we going to keep, your's, mine ?.

Since you said that it's what works for us that is important we keep those morals that work for us of course.

 

[quasi-star-chaos]

Also moral nihilism is an interesting position. What would you say if I killed you? Would I be neither wrong/right in doing so?

You wouldn't be inherently right or wrong. If you considered your actions somehow rationally justified, then you could argue that you were right to kill me. Society in general, and likely the police officer arresting you, would likely believe you were wrong to kill me, especially if it wasn't in self defense. But I wouldn't have an opinion one way or the other, because I'd be dead.

Why do you "want to" behave ethically and treat others respectfully?

Because I don't really enjoy conflict much, and feel people are generally more friendly if you treat them respectfully and behave in an ethical manner.

 

[निताइ dasa]

. If you considered your actions somehow rationally justified, then you could argue that you were right to kill me. Society in general, and likely the police officer arresting you, would likely believe you were wrong to kill me, especially if it wasn't in self defense. But I wouldn't have an opinion one way or the other, because I'd be dead.

So are you saying that right and wrong is determined by society? Moral nihilists will say that even the right and wrong of society are pointless.

If you considered your actions somehow rationally justified, then you could argue that you were right to kill me

that's the thing. IMO, in moral nihilism, I don't even need a justification, even the act is done randomly, it cannot be called wrong. A moral nihilist would never say that I was right to kill them even by my standards because they believe that rightness and wrongness do not exist.

Again I feel like your philosophy is closer to moral relativism than nihilism (though your personal beliefs are nihilistic)

 

[ArtieE]

You wouldn't be inherently right or wrong. If you considered your actions somehow rationally justified, then you could argue that you were right to kill me. Society in general, and likely the police officer arresting you, would likely believe you were wrong to kill me, especially if it wasn't in self defense.

And how do we determine whether it was a justified killing or not if we didn't have an objective definition of which killings are right and which are wrong?

Because I don't really enjoy conflict much, and feel people are generally more friendly if you treat them respectfully and behave in an ethical manner.

And why is it important for you to avoid conflict and be among friendly people? Because organisms evolved a survival instinct and you want to live as long and good life as possible and avoiding conflict and being among friendly people helps a lot towards that goal. And was it your subjective choice to be born with a survival instinct?

 

[LuisDantas]

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths?

Yes.

Why or why not?

Because morality, far from being random, is a necessary, logical and unavoidable consequence of sentience. It is influenced by a great many things - in fact, one of its core attributes is that it must attempt to consider as much as the person's ability allows - but it is still guided by rational capability, empathy and fairness considerations.

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

Yes, but you would probably disagree if you say such a proof.

I suspect you may be asking for something similar to a static statement that is somehow uniformly moral and true. But if such a statement could be found, it would be useless even if true.

Why? Because while in mathematics one has absolute proofs because there is complete control over all concepts and entities involved, morality is all about accepting uncertainty and learning to responsibly navigate it. It can't be morality if it does not take circunstances and individual characteristics into account. Nor can it be true morality if it is ever delimited into rigid boundaries and thou-shalts/thou-shalt-nots.

Morality - TRUE morality - is applied reason, and one of its main directives is that it ought to ever expand itself as much as people's rational abilities allow. It can't afford to be constrained by written rules.

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views?

Sometimes. Definitely not always. People can and do have what is otherwise correct behavior for entirely unwholesome reasons.

Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

Insufficient information to answer. Because he or she is a different person, his or her stance may well be moral yet in sharp disagreement from mine. That does not mean that either of us is mistaken, but it does suggest that our perspectives, mental faculties and willingness to pay the prices involved differ.

 

[quasi-star-chaos]

IMO, in moral nihilism, I don't even need a justification, even the act is done randomly, it cannot be called wrong. A moral nihilist would never say that I was right to kill them even by my standards because they believe that rightness and wrongness do not exist.

Again I feel like your philosophy is closer to moral relativism than nihilism (though your personal beliefs are nihilistic)

I don't believe in an objective morality or any objective moral truths. I was speaking in terms of a person's subjective moral opinions.

In other words, I don't have any problem with someone choosing to believe a particular action is right or wrong. The problem is with people who believe their personal views on morality are indisputable facts.

 

[निताइ dasa]

In other words, I don't have any problem with someone choosing to believe a particular action is right or wrong.

Yes, but you see that is the position of a moral relativist. A moral nihilist would assert that even others choosing certain actions to be right or wrong, is incorrect, even for them. Moral nihilism is a view that all conceptions of morality whether they are subjective or objective are pointless/incorrect, hence the term nihilism. A moral relativist can have moral meaning, but this moral meaning is not universal. Moral nihilism simply denies there is moral meaning in the first place.