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

Leopardess

Leopardess

Everything's eventual.
Aug 13, 2003
1,955
0
0
New Hampshire Seacoast Area
Visit site
I am writing a paper on the title topic for my graduate ethics and morality course and am supposed to get other's views on the subject, partially to see who holds an opposing view to mine so I can see their argument.

The question is: Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's?

Please note the following points:
  • Do not consider religion in any way. Philosophically, morality is split from religion and is regarded as independent.
  • Regard the question as discussing one moral decision, not a moral character; in other words, consider it as a decision in one instance (like whether or not a person should steal food if they are starving).
  • Remember to consider things such as knowledge of the issue (are both people equally familiar with the circumstance - should they be?), whether or not the person is: Dogmatic, a self-justifier, or a relativist. The last three qualities are indicative of a person who is not fully open to moral decisions because they cannot see all sides of an issue.
  • Or, if you think that one person can make a moral decision (as good as another's) while still being a dogmatist, relativist, or self-justifier, explore that notion.
  • You can add stipulations as long as you still arrive at a final YES or NO answer.

Please bear in mind there is no right answer to this question for this application. Please try also to tell why you think the way you do. Some of you are likely also answering this without having read any texts on morality and what exactly the different philosophies are, but just tell what you feel.

If you feel particularly ambitious, you can discuss what the implications of your view may be.

And, please, keep it civil. There is no right or wrong answer here. Just consider the points I've bulleted when thinking about the issue.

Thanks for anyone who helps!:)

P.S. If you come up with a quick answer, keep thinking about it. The whole semester is dedicated to answering this question and many people never fully decide.
 
For people to answer the question?
 
Alright, well...you may be interested in reading some of the literature on philosophy and morality. Thanks though.

For anyone else who would like to actually answer the question, please feel free.
 
I guess many of us try to give the benifit of the doubt and say we don't want to force our morals on other people and that they have free choice, therefore their morals are just as good as ours, but really if a persons morals are significantly different than the ones we believe in (and we being the royal we) how can they really be as good in our own minds.

Sorry that was a bit muddled.
 
Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's?

It depends on whether or not one agrees with another's moral opinion.
Should one agree that any one opinion is as good as any other regardless of who's opinion may actually be right or wrong? Opinions are really worthless without proven facts to anyone other than the person forming the opinion.
 
I believe in self morals, we always believe our morals (as in a personal decision) is better than the next guys if the next guy does something that we may find unspeakable. Such as mentioned, stealing if you are starving. One guy might say stealing is wrong for their morals regardless because we can always do something to earn that keep while the lesser person may say they have no other choice and it was for the good of them and their family, if that applies. So, one's morals may be as good as the others but not in each's opinion. hmmmm..... does it make sense?
 
Wow...the explaination boggles the mind, but if I look back at the original question I have the thought to look at it backwards.

If there is a decision to steal food to keep from starving...is the moral rightness of the decision enhanced based on who decided it?

if we can assume that there was absolutely no way to get food unless steal it..then I can't see the difference between a prince or a pauper making the decision.

On the other hand...if you compare these 2 scenarios:
someone too lazy to make money to buy food..
someone too elderly and infirm to work, on a fixed income..
These 2 people deciding to steal are morally differenent, becasue the first person had a choice to obtain food in another manner but didn't. the second one had no choice.
Well, actually they do, and elderly people do starve to death in this country instead of stealing..now..where is the wrong in this case??

Did I answer anything or just muddle it up more?


I could tell you what question was the final exam in my bioethics class in college...it's another dilemma.
 
I'll have to digest more of what was said, I'm heading to bed, but I think I need to clarify.

I'm asking if, in truth, you believe that one person's moral opinion is as good as another's. Not necessarily if either person believes it is, but if YOU believe it is. Say like you're judging the situation (but do not have a preference of your own). Are there instances when (or always?) one person is better suited toward making a decision that is moral than someone else?

In any instance, with any two people, is one (due to experience, title, personal qualities, et cetera) going to necessarily have a "better" more "correct" moral judgment than the other?

For instance, does a certain leader have a better opinion because they are "a leader"? Does a smart person have a better moral judgment than someone less intelligent?

Okay, i'm going to bed now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom