Moral Objectivism

What about the idea of morality arising from a sense of duty.

Duty Theory:
Quote: "Duty theory is the position that moral standards are grounded in instinctive obligations - or duties - that we have. It is also called deontological theory, from the Greek word duty."
Quote2: "Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Inspired by the Golden Rule,... offered the "categorical imperative"
Quote3: "The categorical imperative, for Kant, was this: Treat people as an end, and never merely as a means to an end. His point was that we should treat all people as beings that have value in and of themselves, and not treat anyone as a mere instrument for our own advantage."

Text: Introduction to Business Ethics
Author: James Fieser, Alexander Mosley
Publisher: Bridgepoint Education
ISBN: 9781935966722

I've read a little on Kant about it

I like Ayn Rand too.

Might I suprise everybody?

I am morally objective

sidvkili wrote: I've read a little on Kant about it

I like Ayn Rand too.

Might I suprise everybody?

I am morally objective

O? Really?
Will you please explain how you view yourself as a person who is morally objective in nature?

Duty

The meaning of some words becomes lost on us as the time when they were used differs from the time we live in. Duty… the system of honor that was in place when this word was in common use was different from now. Duty was not just a moral obligation but a privilege. It was considered honorable and thought that a person’s duty was something to rejoice.

As people began to use the word duty as a way to manipulate, the rejoicing trended away and it became a solemn moral privilege. Different cultures over different eras have attached a slightly different interpretation of Duty but at the core it has always been a moral obligation. (that I can remember)

Moral Objectivism

I have also heard this referred to as moral universalism. As far as I remember, it is the idea that there is a core system of ethics that applies universally; for "all similarly situated individuals", regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or any other distinguishing feature. The forms are not absolute and generally are opposed to moral nihilism. (whish would we would really have to go into detail about for that to make more sense.)

It is the idea that a core or ethics is universal and true on what could be called a spiritual level which can be referred to govern a dualism ethos. (right – wrong, good – bad) Which I have found few ethical guide lines which are viewed universally equal.

scott777ab wrote: I was wondering what the community here think about Moral Objectivism.

First let me give the definition as it is in my ethics book.

"Moral Objectivism has three components:
1. Morality is objective: the standards of morality are not created by human beings or society.
2. Unchanging: the standards of morality are unchangeable throughout time or place. No matter where the principles apply.
3. Universal: the standards are the same for all people, regardless of differences like race, gender, wealth, social standing, etc.

Known champion of this view: Greek philosopher Plato.

So what do you my friends think of Moral Objectivism?

vs.

Moral Relativism:
1: Morality is not objective. Moral standards are the invention of humans. They can be created by an individual or society.
2. Moral standards are not unchangeable. Standards will change through time and from society to society.
3. Moral standards are not universal. Standards don't apply to everyone everywhere at all times.

It seems to me that we are discussing two different subjects. Moral Relativism is the morality of man. I believe that is what most people are harping about when they say it is bullshit and unreliable. It is subjective and man made. There was a time when we sacrificed human beings to appease the Gods. It was the moral thing to do at the time. Moral Relativism is changeable depending on the time and the opinion of society.

To me Moral Objectivism is like the law of the Universe perhaps even Karma. No matter what planet we live on the basic laws of the Universe will apply. It doesn't depend on the will or manipulation of society or man. It is an unchangeable and a reliable fact. Like the law of gravity and Karma if understood correctly. An action will have a reaction.

Jayden
...
/|\

Ack! I'm definitely not smart enough to talk about Moral Relativism. I can speak to my (Buddhist) school's take on Moral Relativism. Shambhala teaches that each person has center of being called Basic Goodness. In reality, we all have the ability to act compassionately and for the betterment of the self and others in EVERY situation.

Unfortunately, we are not always consciously aware of how to do this. So, we can only listen and make our best guess. Sometimes we will, and sometimes we won't.

We can also, of course, choose not to listen.

Going by the barebone definition from the first post, I'd probably have to agree with that kind of objective nature of morality. Now, that being said, I am not claiming that morality is independant of humans or that there aren't reasons its standards should differ through time and culture.

However, my standard, against, let's say, slavery, for instance, is such that it includes people of all races, cultures and indeed times. I know it wasn't too big of a moral issue to the Egyptians or Romans, but I still feel entitled to say they were wrong since I only have the one moral system I do and while not everyone everywhere or at any time would agree, it is still a system exhaustive enough to build morals upon and to judge the morality of actions and customs. So no, morality isn't something that is embedded into the universe but rather into the human species as the social species it is, and as we evolve our morals obviously will be changing. The mistake I find many do, who claim to be moral relativists, and by doing it kind of make a bad name for moral relativism is, to say that since morality is not something eternal and unchanging, therefore everything goes depending on the respective cultural context. For if morality is so relative that it can be disregarded in almost every case, one might as well not establish any morality at all.

So yea, by that definition I'm a moral objectivist.. to some extent.. But that maybe because the definition isn't narrow enough.

scott777ab wrote:

sidvkili wrote: I've read a little on Kant about it

I like Ayn Rand too.

Might I suprise everybody?

I am morally objective

O? Really?
Will you please explain how you view yourself as a person who is morally objective in nature?

I hold myself to the standards that crimes like murder, rape etc are unforgivable. I say there is one way to deal with them. And I ain't a hypocrite, if I killed a murdering, raping pedophile, I'd accept the consequences of my actions

Resticon wrote:

Rickie The Grey wrote: Morality is that little voice inside up that tells us what is right or wrong ...if we choose to listen to it.

Ok, but does that little voice change based on how you were raised, what you believe and what you have experienced? Or does each person everywhere on the planet have the same tiny voice inside telling them that something which is wrong is wrong in every situation?

Maybe, depends, yes but what does your little voice tell you is right? That's what's important.

I care not for a label, I merely guide all decisions based upon morality with instinct. If it feels right to me, then it is my morally positive feedback that encourages that activity. However, that isn't to say that another person explains this the same way. When killing in defense of myself or others may be right for me, it is not necessarily right for someone else. I see morals as a fluid and ever-changing thing according to the individual. I appreciate everyone else's take on this and have read them thoroughly