To claim there is no objective reality, implies there is no objective truth. This is a slippery slope to relativism in which truth is done away with, being usurped by opinion and feelings. With no sturdy ground upon which to stand, right and wrong will never have sufficient weight to reliably guide moral thinking and actions. All is in a continual state of flux, with nothing to take one’s bearings by. All is confusion and uncertainty. From a psychological perspective a world of confusion and uncertainty breeds misery and suffering. Just my 2 cents.
Why are lawyers and judges not moralists or philosophers?? They do not have advanced sensitivity to be a philosopher or moralist. Philosophers may not want to be judge or lawyer, he might go into idealstic path that might be inconclusive. In court of law, we need guidlines to decide on infringement of rights of one affected by errant in the shortest possible time. Philosophy is not about infringement of rights alone. It is wholistic in its scope, what would prompt a community to be violent and opportunistic, not one man but the equations that alter all men for good or worse. It is study of man himself, his capability and his limitation. Lawyers and judges need not think and analyze wholistic, for that very resson easier to recriut in big numbers or could be terminated for infusing personal whim or has confused law to be personal merit or personal domain. However, a rare judge or lawyer has been found to be an above average philosopher, he however has to differentiate the domains. His role as judge or lawyer has commonality with the other in his profession, he has no right to be philosopher in order to be seen or thought of as exceptional.
The most basic of moral principles is the notion of truth. A society cannot move forward with groups of people with different ideas of what 1+1=? At this point the society disintegrates. Not all cultural groups can coexist. They need to separate and live in different countries. Countries can trade with each other….leave it at that!
If you think your own moral judgement is subjective why do you credit it above others, or even spend any time morally reflecting? If one view is no better than the next why not simply toss a coin? Feeding a hungry child is better than pushing it into a freezing pond.😊
There is no such thing as objective morality or objective ethics. The closest we can get is "broad agreement", and then who measures that agreement and declares that it is broad? That's why we should demand impartial treatment in law. The fairest thing we can do is treat everyone equally under the law. Law is not morality, or at least it shouldn't be, but it should neither fear nor favour any person or group. That way, people can have their own morals but behave within the law.
There’s no such thing as “objective morality.“ update your education and learn more about evolutionary psychology, and you will find that morals arise primarily from our genetic dispositions, not Bibles and philosophers. I highly recommend the book by Robert Wright called “the moral animal.”
To claim there is no objective reality, implies there is no objective truth. This is a slippery slope to relativism in which truth is done away with, being usurped by opinion and feelings. With no sturdy ground upon which to stand, right and wrong will never have sufficient weight to reliably guide moral thinking and actions. All is in a continual state of flux, with nothing to take one’s bearings by. All is confusion and uncertainty. From a psychological perspective a world of confusion and uncertainty breeds misery and suffering. Just my 2 cents.
Does the principle of the “Golden Rule”, extend into the nature of retribution? Are the events transpiring in Palestine a form of its reciprocate?
People just be saying anything
Why are lawyers and judges not moralists or philosophers?? They do not have advanced sensitivity to be a philosopher or moralist. Philosophers may not want to be judge or lawyer, he might go into idealstic path that might be inconclusive. In court of law, we need guidlines to decide on infringement of rights of one affected by errant in the shortest possible time. Philosophy is not about infringement of rights alone. It is wholistic in its scope, what would prompt a community to be violent and opportunistic, not one man but the equations that alter all men for good or worse. It is study of man himself, his capability and his limitation.
Lawyers and judges need not think and analyze wholistic, for that very resson easier to recriut in big numbers or could be terminated for infusing personal whim or has confused law to be personal merit or personal domain.
However, a rare judge or lawyer has been found to be an above average philosopher, he however has to differentiate the domains. His role as judge or lawyer has commonality with the other in his profession, he has no right to be philosopher in order to be seen or thought of as exceptional.
The most basic of moral principles is the notion of truth. A society cannot move forward with groups of people with different ideas of what
1+1=? At this point the society disintegrates. Not all cultural groups can coexist. They need to separate and live in different countries. Countries can trade with each other….leave it at that!
end of?! When did it ever start???
If you think your own moral judgement is subjective why do you credit it above others, or even spend any time morally reflecting?
If one view is no better than the next why not simply toss a coin? Feeding a hungry child is better than pushing it into a freezing pond.😊
There is no such thing as objective morality or objective ethics. The closest we can get is "broad agreement", and then who measures that agreement and declares that it is broad? That's why we should demand impartial treatment in law. The fairest thing we can do is treat everyone equally under the law. Law is not morality, or at least it shouldn't be, but it should neither fear nor favour any person or group. That way, people can have their own morals but behave within the law.
agree about "objective morality or objective ethics."
morality and ethics are purely human mental concepts. Not objective in the least.
Our cognition it-self is grounded, situated and embodied. So how we can establish an impartiality?
Daniel Markovits! I read your book!!
There’s no such thing as “objective morality.“ update your education and learn more about evolutionary psychology, and you will find that morals arise primarily from our genetic dispositions, not Bibles and philosophers. I highly recommend the book by Robert Wright called “the moral animal.”