Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's?

[knotty47]

I agree with the person that said with out religion there is not such thing as morals

this would suggest athiests, such as myself have no moral standards to draw up on. people draw there own morals to define parameters for themselves and within these parameters that person therefore can be the only judge! so due to this one persons moral view isn't as good as another, they are in totally different contexts. i think, not to sure though!

 

[Leopardess]

Okay, some quotations from the Rachel's text I mentioned to help the process along and or stimulate conversation:

"[W]e may note two main points: first, that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons; and second, that morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual's interest" (Rachels 11).

"When we feel strongly about an issue, it is tempting to assume that we just know what the truth must be, without even having to consider the arguments on the other side. Unfortunately, however, we cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they may be. Our feelings may be irrational: they may be nothing but the products of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning. (At one time, for example, people's feelings told them that memebres of other races were inferior and that slavery was God's own plan.)" (Rachels 11).

"Thus, if we want to discover the truth, we must try to let our feelings be guided as much as possible by the arguments that can be given for the opposing views. Morality is, first and foremost, a matter of consulting reason. The morally right thing to do, in any circumstance, is whatever there are the best reasons for doing. [...] It is a general requirement of logic that must be accepted by everyone regardless of their position on any particular moral issue. [...] In this way, moral judgements are different from expressions of personal taste" (Rachels 12).

Then he continues to explain how one cannot rationally defend the preference of types of coffee; it does not imply that others should also feel that way. If it were a matter of morality, it would imply the speaker's belief that all others should like their coffee with two squirts of milk.

And also:

"This gives us, among other things, a picture of what it means to be a conscientious moral agent. The conscientious moral agent is someone who is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he or she does; who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications; who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make sure they are sound; who is willing to "listen to reason" even when it means that earlier convictions may bave to be revised; and who, finally, is willing to act on the results of this deliberation" (Rachels 15).

It also seems like some of the arguments presented are based on some version of Ethical Subjectivism, which to quote Rachels again, is summed up as:

"People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no "facts", and no one is "right". People just feel differently, and that's the end of it" (33).

But, one of the problems of this line of thinking (among a myriad of other glitches) is that it cannot account for our mistakes or our infallibility; it is possible someone can be wrong.

I will avoid the religious side of this and hope others will too as it is not only verboten in this forum, but I cannot entertain arguments for it because, scholarly-speaking, it is a separate entity entirely from the study of philosophical ethics and morality.

***
At any rate, I like how this discussion is headed. There truly is no right or wrong answer in this application, so keep that in mind

 

[born2lovefish]

In my opinion most of society has very fews morals...

 

[msouth468]

I would just say that everyone knows the difference between right or wrong. And they use things like morals, opinions and ethics as a shield to keep from having to face the consequences of there actions.

 

[125gJoe]

Just thought the definition is needed here...

"moral

**adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

**n.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct"



______________________

 

[125gJoe]

....to quote Rachels again, is summed up as:

Quote:
"People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no "facts", and no one is "right". People just feel differently, and that's the end of it" (33).

That's what I've been trying to say -- with examples. "No one is "right"."
The answer to the topic question is, 'no'.


_________________

.... Most animals kill only what they need for their survival--that's moral behavior. Very few animals deliberately hurt another animal outside of self-defense, also moral behavior. Many types of animals will care for an injured or sick member of their pack, including cleaning wounds, protecting the injured one from others and bringing them food--again, moral behavior. ... ..IMO.

I'm sorry OrionGirl, but I totally disagree that animals have "morals." Animals have survival instincts and exhibit learned behavior, some even go as far as showing affection - not to be confused with morals. The only creatures on this planet that have a sense of morality are human beings. ..IMO.

__________________

Sorry, I couldn't help it, I went off topic... I had to comment..

__________________


...

 

[Slick Fork]

Sorry OrionGirl, but I think I'm going to argue the point about animals and "moral" behaviour as well.

While it is true that your typical predator doesn't kill or fight for fun I think it is a survival instinct based on conservation of energy. The more energy expended the more they have to eat so why waste energy when you don't know where your next meal is going to come from.

Same goes for pack/herd animals nursing an injured member back to health. As long as the injured one needs their assistance they are a liability and therefore it is in the best interest of the pack to bring them up to full health so they can contribute to the communities well being. Conversely even the most "caring" animals will drive out/kill a member who is beyond help to prevent them from being a large enough liability to harm the group as a whole.

While we humans tend to transfer our values to these animals, I believe they are not driven by a sense of right and wrong as much as they are governed by a strict survival instinct.

Just my two cents

 

[OrionGirl]

So if a human displays those characteristics, it is moral, but if an animal does, it is not?

 

[Leopardess]

Joe, that veiwpoint you liked, as I mentioned, is called Ethical subjectivism and has some seroius flaws that I did not write out. I mentioned one of them. It's one of the arguments with the most holes in it. It assumes things that are relative or subjective can be factually true and cannot account for mistakes or human error in choosing something "wrong".

No is a valid answer to the question, but without using ethical subjectivism you'd have a better time with it, I think.

I couldn't find a website that was super good to explain it (but I didn't look hard). You may be interested in looking it up.

 

[pophead]

in reply to your earlier comment, I'm thinking capital M morals.

So if a human displays those characteristics, it is moral, but if an animal does, it is not?

I don't think that animals do things and don't do things because they think it's bad or good. sure, it might appear that when monkeys share a tree they are showing moral behaviour, but are they actually doing it BECAUSE IT IS GOOD?
I assosiate morals with a humans consience, of course, some people are so sick that they just basically destroy their consience...

btw, this is actually an interesting topic, and it doesn't seem to arouse too much attitude, like the other debates we've had... :rant2: :joke: