FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2002, 02:04 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 78
Post What is it to be morally wrong/right?

Some quotes from another thread will set the stage for the question I have in mind here.

In response to a question about whether under hypothesized conditions women would have an obligation to have children, tronvillain responded by saying
Quote:
No, they wouldn't be morally obligated to children. Of course, I don't think that anyone is ever morally obligated to do anything.
(The emphasis in the quotation is mine)

I asked tronvillain the following:
Quote:
A consequence of 'No one is ever morally obligated to do anything' is 'no one ever violates a moral obligation'. If morality is understood as a set of moral obligations, and moral wrongs are violations of moral obligations (allowing violations by omissions), then it also seems to be a consequence of 'No one is ever morally obligated to do anything' that no one ever does anything morally wrong. Is that your view? that no one ever does anything that is morally wrong?
Tronvillain's response was
Quote:
No one ever does violate a moral obligation, for the simple reason that they do not exist. In other words, morality is not accurately understood as a set of moral obligations and moral wrongs are not violations of moral obligations. Oh, and yes, it is my view that no on ever does anything that is morally wrong, at least in the sense that you mean.
As I read tronvillain's closing comment, it suggests that he/she thinks there are ways of being morally wrong that don't involve violations of moral obligations. The first question I'd like to pose here is,

1. Is it true that one can do something that is morally wrong without violating a moral obligation? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

The second question I would like to pose is

2. If one is a moral subjectivist, can one ever find another person morally blameworthy? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

I don't have any particular notion of 'moral subjectivism' in mind here, nor can I propose a definition. Part of my reason for posing this question is to try to find out what some of you mean by 'moral subjectivism'.

Tom

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>
Tom Piper is offline  
Old 04-12-2002, 02:20 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,029
Post

This tread will quickly turn into yet another predictable sub/ob jective argument.

I think ill try to stay out of this one
vixstile is offline  
Old 04-12-2002, 03:07 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Indianapolis area
Posts: 3,468
Post

Tom,

As another moral subjectivist, I'll take a shot at answering these questions.

1. Is it true that one can do something that is morally wrong without violating a moral obligation? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

It depends a bit on how you define "morally wrong," and I usually try to avoid such loaded terms, but the short answer is "Yes." The fact that we are not obligated to obey normative moral principles does not mean that we cannot be termed "morally wrong" when we violate them. As an analogy, I am under no obligation to obey the standards of dinner party ettiquette, but it makes perfect sense to say that my actions are "wrong" with respect to those standards if I slurp my soup and wipe my mouth on my sleeve. Similarly, I am under to obligation to obey normative moral principles, but it makes perfect sense to say that my actions are "wrong" with respect to those principles if I walk out into the street and start shooting.

2. If one is a moral subjectivist, can one ever find another person morally blameworthy? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "morally blameworthy," so forgive me if the question I answer is not the question you asked. I think the question you are asking is something like "If no one set of values is objectively valid, how can we ever fault an agent for pursuing his/her own values, even when that pursuit is detrimental to the rest of us?"

The subjectivist answer, of course, is that we can find fault with the behavior of an agent merely because it is detrimental to our own values. No special moral case need be made. For example, I find fault with people who hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers because I abhor unnecessary violence, not because such violence is "wrong."

Part of my reason for posing this question is to try to find out what some of you mean by 'moral subjectivism'.

I hope my answers here are helpful. On this same note, I am trying to compose an essay describing my own subjectivist moral views, which I hope to post here soon.
Pomp is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.