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

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

"As good as" is the tricky part. To answer this we are expected to make a moral judgement on other people's moral judgement.

I think the answer is that it depends. If I value democracy most than yes, everyone's moral opinion is as important and as good as my own. If I value my culture most, then my culture's dominant moral values take precedence and are the foundation for judging another's opinion. My answer to the question will reflect what I value--is it religion? gender? status? intellect? age? economic status? equality?

In other words, my values/moral opinion will determine how I view other people's moral opinion!
 
Last edited:
hmm..... I'm about to wallpaper the bathroom but I just want to put a thought out that I don't think anyone else's moral judgement is better than someone else's when talking about an official, leader, more intelligent one.... I think it's in the opinion of the person only..... The big picture, rank doesn't make it better than the next guys though.... I am still thinking about it though...
 
I think your looking for an empirical answer from a subjective source(self analysis) however i'm going to give it a brief go from my perspective as an anthropologist who believes in cultural materialism rather than phenomenology.

No, one person's morals are not as good as another's. What a person percieves as morally right or wrong is completely dependent upon the coarse of thier life- the sum total of thier expiriences. This of course hinges on your opinion of nature vs. nurture but in all of my studies and research i have decided that while nature provided the canvas most things about a person are determined by the nurture factor.

This does not mean that those who grow up with the best care and edjucation will have the best morals.

Often times people who have been less fortunate are able to see the moral faults of the higher classes having not been raised in them provides them with a wider perspective.

Some one who grew up in a very destitute situation might feel morally numb towards the sale of narcotics for a living. when someone who has never been forced to that edge of society has the luxury of acknowledging the moral fault in such a life.

so no not equal.

but for those phenomenologists who've answerd the question with the 'ol "I accept that other people have other opinions and i accept thier right to have them" stuff- this is an answer given to you by your society to prevent open confrontation- agreeing to disagree doesn't get you any closer to the truth-

now whether or not you believe there is one truth is a whole other question and it's the big one the ontological question you have to look deep inside and even farther outside yourself to find the answer to that one.

hope my contribution is apreciated! -Kyle
 
I know the question is very difficult, if not impossible to answer (if aiming at obtaining some "truth" of the matter), I stated that in my first post. However, just because it's hard, if not impossible, doesn't stop philosophers or ethicists from discussing it :D There's a whole tradition on the subject. That said, I don't have a choice - it's the topic of the paper - and one of the topics within each section of this course across the university.

People are making a good go of it here, and I am reading every answer.

I myself am grappling with it because I feel one could argue it either way with the proper number of qualifications on either side. For instance, let's assume that we are to think all moral decisions ARE equal. Does this imply that a 5 year old's conception of morality is equally as "good" as a 50 year olds? If not, can you rely on chronological age? Mental age? Some 20 year olds act like 10 year olds, or 75 year olds. Then you get into the psychology of Stages of Morality, which argues there is a progression of stages that must be gone through in order.

Then, most of us agree that we would be weary of following, say, a rapist or a serial torturer's idea of morality. What is it that these people lack that make us question their moral ability?

Anyway, my spaghetti is ready and I'm hungry.

Keep the topic going, I'm still listening and it seems others are enjoying it as well:)
 
ummm, i'm thinking that 'is one persons moral view as good as another?' can only be answered with no. Peoples moral beliefs can only be drawn from circumstance, i doubt there is one person who solely sticks to there own morals as such. bit hard to explain this, so i'll delve in to a role play situation, type thing.
if a 'person' is dying and requires medical help via a blood transfusion, transplant, etc but the 'person' in question has commited some crime classed as unmoral by most, than the circumstance would dictate that most people would not help. Yet if 'person' is replaced with say 'mother', 'father', 'sibling', the circumstances change for a small few people and again the morals change.
Now morals seem to run closely with religion,faith and believes, all things that can change due to cirumstances and as so it seems to me that all we do is react to situations as they occur, without any pre or post thought to morals. so it is unlikely that two people will ever be in a similiar situation under the same circumstances, the outside factors that change morals will always be present and the moral view will differ, leading to moral oponions not being equal.
Right, now my head hurts and i think i'm gonna throw my 'morals' up! thats my oponions done for today. thanks
 
it sounds as though most people are of the opinion that some are better than others.

Are you looking for a standardized list of criteria to compare the moral reasoner to in order to decide if they're good or bad?

If you are: GOOOOOD LUCK- i've read A LOT on this subject and taken as many classes in and around the topic- lots have tried i don't know that i can say any have succeeded- lots of good ideas but none without disqualifying elements.
 
kyle3 said:
Are you looking for a standardized list of criteria to compare the moral reasoner to in order to decide if they're good or bad?
Click to expand...


No:) As you can see, the question itself is troubling enough.
 
its not that we're looking to standardise them, i'm saying that two peoples morals can't be compared, all your morals do is effect your actions, you can change your morals to get what you want. its just a case of being at ease with what you choose and with that you do away with morals and stumble into wants and 2 peoples wants are never the same. All thats morals are for a for the individual person, anothers person morals can't or shouldn't be compared or thought of as an equal, better or worse. Ones persons morals are not limted to good or bad, what is percieved by one person is there judgement only and so you can only ever go off your own morals no one elses.
what ever the question asked it can only be answered by your own standards.
 
Last edited:
Knotty, there are several modes of thinking that say they can compare morality between people. In fact, some say there is a "minimum conception of morality" that holds true under all societies. For instance, one is honesty. Society could not function if we were not relatively certain that most of the time people would be telling us the truth. If we were to ask "What time is it?" and the person said "Four o'clock" when it was really ten o'clock, it would be exceedingly hard to function or communicate effectively. The same goes for murder. Honesty is a virtue/moral that all societies value.

You can compare moral decisions between people....at least from my standpoint based on what I have read.

It seems you may be falling under the "relativist" category...which can lead to some very tricky places!

For instance, let's take...I don't know. Murder again. The anti-murderer says "What you did was wrong. How could you kill that little girl?" The murderer says "What does it matter? I think it was right - she looked at me funny (or whatever)...you think it was wrong. I'm entitled to my own beliefs". Just because they disagree does not mean there is not some moral truth. It does not mean it was not morally wrong to kill the child. It's just that one side cannot see it.

An example like that was worded so much more eloquently in one of my texts, but as it is not within reach, and I am Lazy (with a capital L), I'll just hope you get what I mean.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom