Morality and Ethics, 2 questions for YOU!

	Duration: 06:57 minutes Upload Time: 07-03-25 18:22:13 User: g0at :::: Favorites
Description: Thanks for watching! Is Morality subjective because it is optional? Does preffered behavior exist?
Comments
BarnieGoogle ::: Favorites I'm actually taking a course on Religious Ethics, now let's see if I can put what I've learned to use... Determining right from wrong is a normative way of approaching morality and ranges on a rough scale from deontologicalism to consequentialism. So from complete absolutes to complete subjectivity is where these right/wrong decisions are based and for the person on the deontological extreme, I would argue that morality isn't even subjective for them but still necessary, not optional. 07-03-27 01:11:54 _____________________________________________________
g0at ::: Favorites optional as , you can chose to murder or not. 07-03-27 02:52:33 _____________________________________________________
BarnieGoogle ::: Favorites Well the correct choice still wouldn't be optional for them because in no case would they think it's right to murder. And this is where the controversy with capital punishment starts. 07-03-27 09:09:36 _____________________________________________________
g0at ::: Favorites oh, so you would agree with Kant with the statement: " Sometimes holding to a moral theory is more important than causing less harm" . For instance would you agree with this statement : " Using Condoms is morally wrong. So, Preaching to an aids ridden afrikan population to NOT use condoms is morally right, even though the end result is an INCREASE in deaths due to the spread of HIV"... i don't claim that you believe that condoms are wrong, but do you see what I am getting at? 07-03-27 03:02:32 _____________________________________________________
BarnieGoogle ::: Favorites I don't look at morals as absolutes, so no, I don't agree with Kant's view of it. Personally, I derive most of my morals from the congregation I attend and they are further influenced by society. I do understand that example, but even then there are different factors for which I think you can make a good moral argument against the absolute position and be correct in doing so. I don't agree with the absolute position because there's no action of judgement and weighing consequences. 07-03-27 09:10:29 _____________________________________________________
cmprewitt ::: Favorites If morality is prefered behavior then is it ok for the majority to impose their prefered behavior on the minority that prefer to steel and murder? What about issues that aren't black and white, how do we decide what is moral and what isn't? Is a majority vs minority issue? I look forward to your follow up video. 07-03-26 17:38:25 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
KasparHauser4 ::: Favorites Morality is a set of rules to follow by the weaker. Written by the stronger. 07-03-26 05:47:50 _____________________________________________________
Mjhavok ::: Favorites Some philosophers subscribe to moral realism which says that statements aren't just artefacts of the brain but in fact moral statements are part of the universe but you can't touch or see them, they are in a sort of platonic universe. The same as mathematical realism. They are really true, independent of our existence. It may be that they someone exist in the universe but only are only shown when a social species evolves. For instance all moral systems have a version of the golden rule. 07-03-25 23:02:06 _____________________________________________________
Mjhavok ::: Favorites If morality is just a figment of the brain. It is one that evolved in response to a real fact about the universe. In social species when people interact not all codes of behaviour lead to outcomes everyone wants. So there is a kind of logic to morality that benefits people who simultaneously adopt it compared to those who obdurate it. 07-03-25 22:52:24 _____________________________________________________