You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Morality: Only Subjective Or Objective?
As such, I wrote down my thoughts on this. I don't know if this corresponds to some subset of philosophical thought
just as you called it: 'moral relativism'or moral/ethical relativism. It gets mucky to not chop up morality debate into finer pieces; utilitarian, consequential, etc.
I've no formal learning in philosophy, myself. I prefer philosphical fiction than strictly philosophical papers (for the most part). how is that Coursera course? Is it an intro to philosophy?
From your post and replies I think you are mostly concerned with being/ontology and existential views, correct? Maybe even moral nihilism?
It is an intro and I am enjoying it.
I don't know that I'm a moral nihilist, though I have called myself a 'hopeful nihilist' from time to time in that I'm pretty sure that there's no point to any of this and it doesn't matter, but I'm hoping I'm wrong and so I act as though it may matter.
I believe that morality, the morality we can discuss, debate and act upon, is purely subject to perspective, both individual and collective. If there is an objective morality, there is no evidence of it that we can point to outside of ourselves and society and cultures. Unless we consider the way of the natural world, sans mankind, to be an example of morality, and then morality has nothing to do with consent, injury or death. It is simply survival and what it takes to achieve that both individually and as a species since, in nature, we see that the 'morality', if it is that, allows for rape, murder, theft, neglect, et cetera, all to serve the purpose of the individual's own survival and the overall survival of the species and, thus, systems it is involved in.
All that said, I believe that, though morality be relative, that does not mean that this is a justification to moralize things such as rape and murder. While one is certainly free to do so, those that perceive this morality to be, in 'fact', immoral are free to not only disagree but to intercede and at upon their own morality in attempts to deter, prevent, subdue and end the threat such a moralization of rape presents to individuals, communities and society at large.
Perhaps to put it, hopefully, more simply, I believe that our moralities are relative culturally and individually but that the prevailing moralities and overlaps in moralities will be the normative morality at the time and in the place and thus may be used, in that time and place, to determine, to a degree, morality.
However, even this fails to truly encompass what I 'believe' in this vein as I do not believe that accepted notions of 'morality' or norms are, in fact, moral. My morals say that, above all else, what is moral does not cause undue harm to the unconsenting accept when necessary to protect oneself or another.
As I pointed out above, there is no way to create a truly static normative definition of morality in order to then be able to derive what is or is not moral on a 'universal' scale per cultural and individual perception. Morality is, in addition to being relative in all practicality, fluid. It changes with our perception and with the perceptions of the culture.
And this is where Kant likely helps to describe much of my outlook, intellectual autonomy. I weigh and determine the credibility of things based on my own reasoning and rationale. Often, I will oppose the norm simply because I find it to be lacking in reason, logic or rational thought.
Rants aside, I really don't know where I stand in terms of philosophical position. I see credibility in many 'opposing' principles and schools of thought and often forge my own 'hybridized' lines of reasoning based on those and my own experience and perception. While I am not arrogant enough to believe that my conclusions are truly unique, I will say that I have not read the book, paper, or statement that emulates how I view the world in these things, as well or better than I can vocalize them.
It sounds like you have a mash-up of rationalism, constructivism, and nihilism. I'm enjoying trying to place your ideas within a schema. If you have been reading mostly the older philosophical works like Kant , I don't think that you'd find a definite ethos there; being living in a time where post-modern questions arise. Have you read any Foucault?
Are you attempting to develop an ethos of sorts? What is bringing you to philosophy?
There are lots of Ayn Rand fans around Steemit; if you consider reason, logic, rational thought one of the highest functions/values. Is she mentioned in the Coursera syllabus? I'm interested to learn more about her. I want to refute her stubborn rationalist thought. I don't think that rationalism is the highest virtue of thought to strive for. We can't seperate ourselves from the primordial functions of mind, I think we live less full lives doing so, not more. I want to deconstruct it, and learn the arguments against rationalism which are out there.
I'm also having fun trying to define active nihilism; where nihilism as an ethos is non-contradictory. But I don't want to read tons of dry philosophy to do it. I think I will reread Crime and Punishment to start. Do you like philosophical fiction or you prefer learning theory 'straight-up'?
“He [Foucault] struck my as completely amoral,” said Chomsky. “I’d never met anyone who was so totally amoral.”
http://www.critical-theory.com/that-time-foucault-got-paid-in-hash-to-debate-noam-chomsky/
It seems this course is focusing on the more 'classical' works. I do find some purchase with more modern philosophers such as Rand but even they fail to 'epitomize' how I see things. Which is to be expected. I find it a ridiculous notion to think that any two people would so completely share a philosophical view on life as to not find disagreements in that philosophy. It is my opinion that, in my opinion, like morals, ethics, 'rights' and principles, philosophy is little more than a manmade concept turned social construct that is nearly, if not entirely, dependent on perspective and is thusly fluid and not to be completely shared with any other person.
We each have our own perspectives, uniquely tweaked here and there by our past, memories, thoughts, ruminations, culture and everything else that makes the us in the present, us.
Therefore I don't expect to 'find' a philosophy I fit into. Rather, I expect to learn all I can about what has been thought and said on the subjects and make my own conclusions and forge my own paths forward from what is already available.
In that sense, I think I am very amiable to the basic premise of Kant in that I don't simply accept things as they are presented, I base my perspectives on what I think about what is presented in addition to all else that I have knowledge about. I may be open to what others think and say but I will run it all through the filter of my own perception and allow myself to dissolve it through reasoned and logical thought until I produce whatever 'substance' may result.
Often I find myself at odds with most others, often I find myself between those at odds. Rarely do I find myself unequivocally standing shoulder to shoulder with anyone.