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

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

Too late to change the question. .. ;)

Two people can have very different views on morality.

I still can only answer "no" to the question. You only have to look at recent events overseas to get the answer.

A few cartoons caused thousands to go beserk over "their morals"! They burned Embassys, they screamed for beheadings, they want to kill -- ....it's their "morality".

I would hope most here at AC have "good" morals, which are better than what I mentioned going on overseas.

So it seems, one persons morality can not be as good as anothers'.

-----

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

No, not at all...




___________________________



______________________
 
Last edited:
OK...here's a question........


What are morals ? .....and where do they come from ??

For ex....where does the idea come from that murder is wrong ?.....It's a pretty universal "moral" standard.....we know it's wrong...even folks who DO or have done murder, know it's wrong (even if they come up with all kinds of reasons to justify what they did, they still know it's wrong or they woulnd't have to explain themselves).....well...where did that idea come from ?

Who set the standards that determine "morality" ? I'm not talking about cultural morals...but the way down deep "you just KNOW it's wrong because it's just WRONG" kind of feelings/morals. Where does that little voice come from ? You can choose to listen to it or ignore it....but we all have it unless we've gone on ignoring it so long that it no longer speaks to us.... "??"
 
Last edited:
Leopardess said:
Tomm, you said:

You are getting at the heart of the issue, but I feel that your supporting statements contradict your first statement of "Yes." You make the inference that some people cannot see the "truly" moral decision..so how can their morality be equally as decent as one who "does see the truth"?
Click to expand...

Okay, now you refining the question. I take "as good as" to mean "valid." I say every person's morals are valid because they are shaped by their life. To say they aren't valid is to judge that person which I try very hard not to do.

If morality is the Truth, then your vision of that truth may be different depending upon your life situation. For example, a tribe called the Sentinelese in the Indian Ocean just killed a couple of fisherman whose boat drifted near the island they inhabited. They're a stone age tribe that have had very limited contact with the civilized world. Certainly, killing a couple of unarmed men, passed out in a boat simply because the boat drifts too close to your shore couldn't be considered moral by the larger standards of Truth. To this tribe however, it was the only thing to do. They don't consider it wrong.

Its very easy from my white collar job in cushy middle class white America to declare them savages and immoral because they don't play by the same rules as I do. However, they live a very different life from me. One that is largely untouched by the civilized world, so how can I criticize the set of morals that they have developed as a result of their lifestyle?

In this sense, morality can be individual and therefore valid from person to person. I have yet to meet, however, a person who lives a truly moral life. We all take shortcuts.
 
tomm10 said:
Okay, now you refining the question. I take "as good as" to mean "valid." I say every person's morals are valid because they are shaped by their life. To say they aren't valid is to judge that person which I try very hard not to do.
Click to expand...
How does the concept of immorality fit in? Different people will have different life experiences which shape them into who they are at any given point in their life. I see your point about a person's morals being valid but at some point we have to involve "right" and "wrong" so we can know which sets of morals are desired and which sets are not.

Peace...
 
an atheists morality is only his point of view of what is right and wrong. we DO need a higher authority that makes morality law, either the Government or Religion, or both. Since Government is reluctant to put in their say on contraversial issues, I believe that religion is the answer.


slipknottin said:
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.
Click to expand...

tell me of one animal that shows moral discression.
 
I agree with the person that said with out religion there is not such thing as morals or it was said something along these lines. In my opinion...not that anyone cares since we are all entitled to our own opinion, I believe morals came from religion. If you are talking about how we judge right and wrong that is. First of all, everything bad once came from something good. Take a piece of spoiled bread for an example. Before it was spoiled it was good. I'm done talking because morals is a hard subject to cover. Everyone has a right to their own morals and one person really can not say theirs are better than the others, however, I believe if a persons morals are based on wrong he or she is certainly wrong, but I am not the one to judge.
 
Well, if we place religion into the morality debate then the answer to Leopardess' question is obvious. Anyone who bases their morality in religion will not accept the morality of a person from another religion because they will always differ. Oh sure, the big stuff like murder will tend to be the same but much will vary.

Morality is separate from religion. In fact, you could argue that religion is an attempt to explain or rationalize morality.
 
pophead said:
tell me of one animal that shows moral discression.
Click to expand...

Goes back to defining morals. 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.

Define morals as the social structures which allow groups to live together in harmony and there are lots of animals that live morally. Is an animal that uses stealth to hunt 'lying'? Not really. Simpler motives operate within broader moral umbrellas, IMO.
 
From my perspective? Yes. I do not have a problem with killing those who represent a serious threat to society. Rapists, serial murderers, and pedophiles are all groups that IMO do not deserve to live, and killing them remains the best option in my opinion, far better than incarceration. I do NOT believe that 'every life is precious and worth saving". Some serve no positive role and should be eliminated.

No, this does not mean that I'm sniping from my roof. Society has rules to deal with these individuals, and while I may not agree with it's effectiveness, I am well enough socialized to behave within the norms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom