Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's?
- Thread starter Leopardess
- Start date
Exactly. I believe there's a line between humans and animals when it comes to "morals." Instincts and learned behavior are different than moral values.OrionGirl said:
Animals don't have the higher cognitive process to make moral decisions.
And, affection, playfulness, anger, etc. are not displays of morality.
______________________
slip, sorry but the buzz may have got to you... I posted the definition of "morals" in the above post. Morals happen to be part of what separates humans from animals. There is no animal on this planet that can show a moral decision. They show animal behaviors and instincts with survival of the fittest.slipknottin said:
I have morals, and no animal is going to challenge my moral decisions...
:thm:
_________________
I argue that altering the definition depending on the species of the participants invalidates the concept. The bond between mother and offspring is totally instinctive--as proven by the number of females who don't develop this bond--and yet it is also one of the most moral commitments one can make. Morals and instincts aren't contradictory.
A moral commitment for humans, but an instinct for animals. "Survival instinct" it's called.OrionGirl said:
Let's take ants for a nice example.
They protect the queen ant, and fiercely at that!
With an "altered" definition of morals -- then ants have morals.
Ants now have a moral obligation to protect the queen from harm?
It doesn't 'work' for me...
I think it depends on what exactly "good" is. realistically I think everyone's moral opinon is as good as anyone else's. however, each individual person's idea of "right" and "wrong" is highly subjective. for example, driving a plane into a skyscraper and killing 3000 people is very wrong to me. very wrong. however, given a different set of criteria to base my idea of "right" and "wrong" it may have seemed like the right thing to do.
please don't take that as me justifying the crashes from 4 years ago. I was just using it as an example. the point is that because every person is different every person's idea of good and evil, right and wrong will be different as well, based on what we're taught by our parents and our experiences throughout life.
so I guess my short answer to the original question is that despite the fact that some people's moral opinions work out better for the population at large than others, the idea of a moral right and wrong is so subjective that no one person's opinons are really morally better than anyone else's. (which is a NO I think) unless of course a certain standard were present in all cultures that made what is morally right or wrong more of a black and white issue.
I do believe people make incorrect decisions based on flawed logic and fanatical beliefs with tragic results though, which in my opinion makes them morally inferior in my view of the world.
ugh... I need to lay off the philosophy making my head hurt :thud:
please don't take that as me justifying the crashes from 4 years ago. I was just using it as an example. the point is that because every person is different every person's idea of good and evil, right and wrong will be different as well, based on what we're taught by our parents and our experiences throughout life.
so I guess my short answer to the original question is that despite the fact that some people's moral opinions work out better for the population at large than others, the idea of a moral right and wrong is so subjective that no one person's opinons are really morally better than anyone else's. (which is a NO I think) unless of course a certain standard were present in all cultures that made what is morally right or wrong more of a black and white issue.
I do believe people make incorrect decisions based on flawed logic and fanatical beliefs with tragic results though, which in my opinion makes them morally inferior in my view of the world.
ugh... I need to lay off the philosophy making my head hurt :thud:
Again, limiting the definition of "moral" to those you agree with. If it's immoral to kill, it's immoral for ANYONE to kill. Disagreeing doesn't validate your morals anymore than it invalidates those of someone else. It's a circular argument--I don't agree with them, therefore they are immoral and uncivilized? Please. It's the same argument they use to justify their actions.
there definately IS a morality that applies to everybody, whether they like it or not, or whether they disregard it or not.
well, that was kinda my point. everyone thinks what they are doing is right, so what is right and wrong is too subjective to really have any concrete definition.
the world isn't black and white enough to be able to have a definite right and wrong... ther eis too much gray. stealing bread is supposedly wrong, but is stealing bread to feed a starving family? is it wrong to withold said bread from said starving family simply because they can't pay for it? that example is pretty cliche, but it is a simple illustration of how much gray area there is in life, and because of that gray area one can't simply say that someone else is morally wrong just because their belief systems don't agree on some issues.
look at pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers.... both sides believe they are morally justified in their stances, but both have valid opinions on the subject. neither side truly understands the other because of that deep belief, and thus they simply label the other side as "wrong".
the more I tihnk about it the more I feel like today's "right and wrong" are just words used to enable persecution in a society where old fashioned "burn em at the stake" persecution isn't allowed anymore. but then that is just an opinion.
the world isn't black and white enough to be able to have a definite right and wrong... ther eis too much gray. stealing bread is supposedly wrong, but is stealing bread to feed a starving family? is it wrong to withold said bread from said starving family simply because they can't pay for it? that example is pretty cliche, but it is a simple illustration of how much gray area there is in life, and because of that gray area one can't simply say that someone else is morally wrong just because their belief systems don't agree on some issues.
look at pro-lifers vs. pro-choicers.... both sides believe they are morally justified in their stances, but both have valid opinions on the subject. neither side truly understands the other because of that deep belief, and thus they simply label the other side as "wrong".
the more I tihnk about it the more I feel like today's "right and wrong" are just words used to enable persecution in a society where old fashioned "burn em at the stake" persecution isn't allowed anymore. but then that is just an opinion.
