morality defined :Webster's 'character/conduct from the point of right or wrong'. Right or not right behavior why does it matter who makes the decission if right is always right regardless of who makes the decission. Unless of course the option of situation ethics(right is not an absolute but can appear right/wrong depending on the person/situation. If i got the question right i must make a decission wheter or not two different individuals moral decision are equally right. If they make opposing decissions and i believe in absolutes i would say one was right and the other wrong.
Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's?
- Thread starter Leopardess
- Start date
Perhaps Im a little too buzzed to bring up Kantian ethics, but morals are universal. They have always existed, much like math. Animals besides humans show moral behavior, so its impossible to attribute it to the religions we created.
No. As a society (all 6.5 billon people in the world) have defined the default answer to that question as no. If it wasn't then we wouldn't have religion, government, social norms, ect. telling us what morals we should have. I think that basically we have decided that one mans morals aren't as good as anothers, thus the need to establish a broad range recognized morals.
If I'm reading the question right, as in "Are there instances/circumstances where one persons set of morals are clearly superior to another persons set of morals" than the answer is yes.
To me a persons morals are created by their upbringing, perception of the world around them, religion, and events/experiences in their life that have provided fundamental change. Broken down, morals are simply a code of conduct that an individual adheres to. For example if you take 2 people and give them fundamentally different upbringings and experiences you can bet your money that they will have a completely different moral code.
Person A might have been brought up in a caring loving family with nothing but good and charitable experiences and examples to show him how to live. Person B may have been brought up and taught about how to manipulate and decieve, that violence and hatred don't matter as it is the ends rather than the means that matters. These 2 people will have a completely different sense of what is "Right" and what is "Wrong"
History has proven time and time again that horrible things can be done out of misguided morality. Want some examples; how about the crusade's, the spanish inquisition, Hitler and Saddam Hussein as well as millions of other atrocities/injustices over the years. I'll bet that if you talked to any of the key players in any of these or other events throughout history you will find that they were all acting according to their own personal set of Morals. They didn't lose any sleep at night because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
A great example looking at today's newspaper would be the current nuclear crisis in Iran. The Iranians want nuclear weapons in order to expand their influence and control in the region as well as provide themselves with some security against the United States who everybody in the region seems to view as an aggressor (right or wrong is another thread!) The rest of the western world is extremely concerned as to the consequences of having a nuclear stand-off develop in the mid-east (here our morality seems to be defined by our pocket book because I don't remember this much fuss when India and Pakistan developed nukes). So in this example who's morality is better or are they both valid? The Iranians don't have a problem with their acquisition of nuclear technology, yet we don't want to allow them to proceed with it.
If we operate under the assumption that their morals (which have guided them down this road) are just as valid as ours then what on earth are we doing interfering with them. If their morals are as good/valid as ours we should just let them develop their weapons and mind our own business. The reality however, is that nuclear weapons would be an extremely destabilizing element in a region just waiting to be touched off. Our common sense is telling us that it would be a terrible idea to let Iran proceed with this and therefore we are making a statement that their set of moral's are NOT as valid as ours and we are going to make them see things our way.
Wow, didn't mean to write that much. I don't know if it's because I'm up later than I should be or what but I guess I was feeling philisophical.
The short answer to what I was trying to say is that because morals are a direct result of imperfect conditions that there is no such thing as a perfect moral. This should be a good little debate!!
To me a persons morals are created by their upbringing, perception of the world around them, religion, and events/experiences in their life that have provided fundamental change. Broken down, morals are simply a code of conduct that an individual adheres to. For example if you take 2 people and give them fundamentally different upbringings and experiences you can bet your money that they will have a completely different moral code.
Person A might have been brought up in a caring loving family with nothing but good and charitable experiences and examples to show him how to live. Person B may have been brought up and taught about how to manipulate and decieve, that violence and hatred don't matter as it is the ends rather than the means that matters. These 2 people will have a completely different sense of what is "Right" and what is "Wrong"
History has proven time and time again that horrible things can be done out of misguided morality. Want some examples; how about the crusade's, the spanish inquisition, Hitler and Saddam Hussein as well as millions of other atrocities/injustices over the years. I'll bet that if you talked to any of the key players in any of these or other events throughout history you will find that they were all acting according to their own personal set of Morals. They didn't lose any sleep at night because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
A great example looking at today's newspaper would be the current nuclear crisis in Iran. The Iranians want nuclear weapons in order to expand their influence and control in the region as well as provide themselves with some security against the United States who everybody in the region seems to view as an aggressor (right or wrong is another thread!) The rest of the western world is extremely concerned as to the consequences of having a nuclear stand-off develop in the mid-east (here our morality seems to be defined by our pocket book because I don't remember this much fuss when India and Pakistan developed nukes). So in this example who's morality is better or are they both valid? The Iranians don't have a problem with their acquisition of nuclear technology, yet we don't want to allow them to proceed with it.
If we operate under the assumption that their morals (which have guided them down this road) are just as valid as ours then what on earth are we doing interfering with them. If their morals are as good/valid as ours we should just let them develop their weapons and mind our own business. The reality however, is that nuclear weapons would be an extremely destabilizing element in a region just waiting to be touched off. Our common sense is telling us that it would be a terrible idea to let Iran proceed with this and therefore we are making a statement that their set of moral's are NOT as valid as ours and we are going to make them see things our way.
Wow, didn't mean to write that much. I don't know if it's because I'm up later than I should be or what but I guess I was feeling philisophical.
The short answer to what I was trying to say is that because morals are a direct result of imperfect conditions that there is no such thing as a perfect moral. This should be a good little debate!!
Is one person's moral opinion as good as another's ?
Well, an opinion is one's thoughts and beliefs on a particular subject.....anyone can believe or think what they want about something....and that's fine.....whatever floats your boat I suppose....
However, that doesn't mean that the person's opinions are "right"...or based on anything other than their own particular viewpoint.
For me, truth plays a big part in my opinions or viewpoint on any given topic. In otherwords, I'm not a reletivist....I don't believe that truth is reletive at all. It either is or isn't the truth, no grey area where truth is concerned in my world. But, one can't always know what the "truth" is about everything so, opinions and beliefs are formed....hopefully based on information and evidence observed by that individual....but not always.
I think all of us base at least some of our opinions on what we would LIKE to be true...and not necessarily on what we KNOW or Think might be true....lol....the "cover your eyes and don't look because you may not like what you see" approach. If you see the truth you may have to change your ways and you don't want to because you like things fine just how they are.
So...to shorten this, No...I don't think that everyone's "MORAL" opinions are as good as everyone else's....because not all opinions are based on truth.
Well, an opinion is one's thoughts and beliefs on a particular subject.....anyone can believe or think what they want about something....and that's fine.....whatever floats your boat I suppose....
However, that doesn't mean that the person's opinions are "right"...or based on anything other than their own particular viewpoint.
For me, truth plays a big part in my opinions or viewpoint on any given topic. In otherwords, I'm not a reletivist....I don't believe that truth is reletive at all. It either is or isn't the truth, no grey area where truth is concerned in my world. But, one can't always know what the "truth" is about everything so, opinions and beliefs are formed....hopefully based on information and evidence observed by that individual....but not always.
I think all of us base at least some of our opinions on what we would LIKE to be true...and not necessarily on what we KNOW or Think might be true....lol....the "cover your eyes and don't look because you may not like what you see" approach. If you see the truth you may have to change your ways and you don't want to because you like things fine just how they are.
So...to shorten this, No...I don't think that everyone's "MORAL" opinions are as good as everyone else's....because not all opinions are based on truth.
Last edited:
This is a heavy question loaded with assumptions.
I'll preface what is bound to be a long-winded speach by my opinion that no, not all people have equally good morally opinions.
But to pick apart the question, first off we need to assume that both hypothetical characters will act with the best intentions. Now the answer comes to whether our observations are Eularian or Lagrangian.
If the case were studied in an Eularian manner (viewing it from a godlike perspective, knowing all the facts and with the time to deliberate), then clearly the people with fewer pre-conceived prejudices and more knowledge and reasoning ability will make better moral decisions than an indoctrinated individual who has a deep seeded sense of "right" and "wrong", but no real ability to judge or reason beyond a somewhat myopic perception of the world.
Conversely, from a Lagrangian perspective (viewing it from the eyes of the people making the decision, with only their knowledge), both people, acting with the best intentions in mind must be considered to be acting with equally sound morality.
This, of course, should indicate that obviously the answer is no, some people's moral opinions are more sound than others. Clearly, one who has the ability to step back and examine the evidence from as many angles as possible (without discriminating between the pieces of evidence to lead to a pre-conceived conclusion) has a much better moral opinion than one who enters a situation with the answer already on hand. In other words, one who believes that there is an absolute right and wrong has a much poorer moral opinion than one who deals with situations on a case by case basis.
In the example of stealing to eat, as Nursie pointed out there are many permutations to the example. Did the thief attempt to recompense the victim in any way or to attone in some other way? Did the theft of food lead to someone else starving? If it was a last resort, then most people would argue that the act was morally justified, no matter whether your viewing is Eularian or Lagrangian. However, if you put yourself in their shoes and there are alternate avenues that could have been taken with equal results, but perhaps more effort, then most would conclude that the act was not justified, but merely laziness. The truth is usually somewhere in between, imo.
I'll preface what is bound to be a long-winded speach by my opinion that no, not all people have equally good morally opinions.
But to pick apart the question, first off we need to assume that both hypothetical characters will act with the best intentions. Now the answer comes to whether our observations are Eularian or Lagrangian.
If the case were studied in an Eularian manner (viewing it from a godlike perspective, knowing all the facts and with the time to deliberate), then clearly the people with fewer pre-conceived prejudices and more knowledge and reasoning ability will make better moral decisions than an indoctrinated individual who has a deep seeded sense of "right" and "wrong", but no real ability to judge or reason beyond a somewhat myopic perception of the world.
Conversely, from a Lagrangian perspective (viewing it from the eyes of the people making the decision, with only their knowledge), both people, acting with the best intentions in mind must be considered to be acting with equally sound morality.
This, of course, should indicate that obviously the answer is no, some people's moral opinions are more sound than others. Clearly, one who has the ability to step back and examine the evidence from as many angles as possible (without discriminating between the pieces of evidence to lead to a pre-conceived conclusion) has a much better moral opinion than one who enters a situation with the answer already on hand. In other words, one who believes that there is an absolute right and wrong has a much poorer moral opinion than one who deals with situations on a case by case basis.
In the example of stealing to eat, as Nursie pointed out there are many permutations to the example. Did the thief attempt to recompense the victim in any way or to attone in some other way? Did the theft of food lead to someone else starving? If it was a last resort, then most people would argue that the act was morally justified, no matter whether your viewing is Eularian or Lagrangian. However, if you put yourself in their shoes and there are alternate avenues that could have been taken with equal results, but perhaps more effort, then most would conclude that the act was not justified, but merely laziness. The truth is usually somewhere in between, imo.
Stepping out of myself to answer this, I can say that one persons opinion is just as valuable as the next. I doubt Hitler ever thought what he was doing was wrong, he thought he was doing it for the good of his people. Of course I strongly disagree with him, but does he not (or is it would he not have?) disagree with me?
Now stepping back into myself
Everyone elsed moral oppinion is crap unless it is the same as mine :joke:
Now stepping back into myself
Everyone elsed moral oppinion is crap unless it is the same as mine :joke:
In the spectrum of nearly infinite human circumstances, there are many shades of gray between black and white, metaphorically speaking. I believe there are situations that are clearly defined as black and white, however, there are also circumstances where an individual's perception of the world is so different that it stands in indifference to either side.
Factors of upbringing, education, disposition and such all come into play. Certain individuals are often predisposed to disagree with or dislike others that are of a said group that either the parents/religion have always taught them is wrong no matter what. This kind of moral opinion in my own view is so very wrong due to the fact that for the most part, religion often teaches us to love one another regardless of difference. No matter who we are or who our neighbors are, we should try to accept and love them for their respective differences. I'm sorry if I'm getting off topic or anything, but this kind of thing happens often and why I brought this up is because it is occasionally a contributing factor in the thinking of others opinions.
Morality is considerably a universal knowledge either gained by the parents instilling the values of what is right and wrong, or possibly something we are born with to a certain extent, or something we learn on our own from life's experiences. As was said before, there are many shades of gray concerning right and wrong, and often only knowledge of the circumstances can verify as to what degree in the spectrum the individual's morality lies. ~Angela
Factors of upbringing, education, disposition and such all come into play. Certain individuals are often predisposed to disagree with or dislike others that are of a said group that either the parents/religion have always taught them is wrong no matter what. This kind of moral opinion in my own view is so very wrong due to the fact that for the most part, religion often teaches us to love one another regardless of difference. No matter who we are or who our neighbors are, we should try to accept and love them for their respective differences. I'm sorry if I'm getting off topic or anything, but this kind of thing happens often and why I brought this up is because it is occasionally a contributing factor in the thinking of others opinions.
Morality is considerably a universal knowledge either gained by the parents instilling the values of what is right and wrong, or possibly something we are born with to a certain extent, or something we learn on our own from life's experiences. As was said before, there are many shades of gray concerning right and wrong, and often only knowledge of the circumstances can verify as to what degree in the spectrum the individual's morality lies. ~Angela
Last edited:
First of all, I am thoroughly enjoying this post and the well thought out responses already given.
I think that it is obvious that some people are more capable of make better moral decisions (at least some specific decisions). A adolescent hitting certain points of puberty where hormones make them extra emotional and when the “selfish” part of their brains are become well developed, but before the “empathetic” sections are still the same as they were in childhood; is most likely not as capable make some decisions as an adult who has more balances cognitive and emotional thoughts, and a better grasp of abstract thoughts. (I’m not saying that all adults are necessarily smarter or more mature than all adolescents, just that adolescent go through a period where there judgment is more self-involved than at other time of life. Plus, some adult never mature much).
However, I think that there are many cases where it is not possible understand who is more capable of making the better decision. Different backgrounds, levels of intelligences, levels of empathy, and other factor could balance each other out. Even if one assumes that they can know everything about he decision makers (which practically we cannot).
I may write more later, but I look forward to reading other responses.
I think that it is obvious that some people are more capable of make better moral decisions (at least some specific decisions). A adolescent hitting certain points of puberty where hormones make them extra emotional and when the “selfish” part of their brains are become well developed, but before the “empathetic” sections are still the same as they were in childhood; is most likely not as capable make some decisions as an adult who has more balances cognitive and emotional thoughts, and a better grasp of abstract thoughts. (I’m not saying that all adults are necessarily smarter or more mature than all adolescents, just that adolescent go through a period where there judgment is more self-involved than at other time of life. Plus, some adult never mature much).
However, I think that there are many cases where it is not possible understand who is more capable of making the better decision. Different backgrounds, levels of intelligences, levels of empathy, and other factor could balance each other out. Even if one assumes that they can know everything about he decision makers (which practically we cannot).
I may write more later, but I look forward to reading other responses.
Last edited:
