Thread: Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

Originally Posted by gwahir

It's generally agreed upon (by me as well) that morality, well defined, is not up for interpretation. When you have a definition of "morality" as something like "the objective to serve the best interests of all beings with interests", which I think is a pretty good one, then all that is debatable is "what is best".

That means, in cases where something is best, there is no relativism to morality. Moral objectivism doesn't require something outside of humanity to "decide" or "dictate" what's right. That's the point; what is right isn't decided, it's discovered.

It sounds to me like you're just saying that moral value judgments are clearly defined within any system of thought that assumes clearly defined moral value judgments. Sure, if you have a definition of "morality" such as that one, there's little room for debate within that definition. But why is that definition of morality any better or more valid than anyone elses' definition of morality? Where did it come from? Didn't someone just make it up because it sounded good to them (the very definition of subjectivity)?

In this system you describe, objective moral certitudes may be "discovered", but they are only being "discovered" within the context of a system of thought that defines what morality is in the first place. You aren't discovering moral truth in an absolute or universal sense, only discovering what is morally true under Jem's Personal Conception of Morality. That's fine as far as it goes--a given moral idea may indeed be objectively correct within your moral framework--but this doesn't mean it's objectively true in any larger sense. It's really just descriptive of your moral thought. "Apples are better than oranges" is objectively true within the framework of a system of thought that defines apples as being better than oranges, because it correctly and objectively describes what that system of thought says about apples and oranges; but it isn't objectively true outside that system of thought. Likewise, "torturing babies is wrong" may be objectively true within your own framework of moral thought, because that statement is objectively consistent with your definition of morality, but it's still not objectively true in any larger sense, because your framework of moral thought, or your definition of morality, is itself subjective. To claim otherwise, you must assert belief in some larger moral truth that exists outside us--again, whether it's God, or some universal metaphysical moral law, or whatever. Otherwise all moral definitions and all systems of moral thought are all just things that people dreamed up.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Moral relativism halts ethical debate entirely. It doesn't just stop it, it prevents it and cancels it out. If there is no Right, then there's just opinions, and everyone's opinions have equal weight, from you to your neighbour to the members of Al Qaeda. Moral relativism prevents me from meaningfully making a statement like "torturing babies is wrong", and hence I find it completely objectionable. No matter what any society says, torturing babies is wrong.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences to me. I want you to explain WHY torturing babies is objectively wrong. Not by arbitrarily constructing a system of moral thought that says torturing babies is wrong and then saying that "torturing babies is wrong" is an objectively correct moral statement with that system of moral thought, but by actually explaining why any system of moral thought that condemns baby-torture is objectively more valid than a system of moral thought that doesn't. With all due respect, I suspect that at the bottom of it all, your aversion to baby-torture is based entirely on an instinctive or emotional or visceral revulsion towards the idea of torturing babies, which is fine and dandy (I feel the same revulsion towards the idea; it means we aren't sociopaths), but also definitely subjective.