good or evil: the same for everyone?

[OldTrees]

i have come VERY close to deciding to write a f***ing book on this topic. SERIOUSLY! this topic is just WAY too deep for ANYONE to ignore. hitler believed he was doing good, while the rest of the world believed he was evil. IMHO, morality is perception. i feel killing everyone on earth is good, while almost everyone else will think its evil (being serious too). humanity is a cancer that only special genocide can cure. (not types of humans, but humans in general)

I agree that Moral Judgements are usually if not always influenced by perception.
However, should we exclude the concept of objective moral truth merely because moral judgements are subjective?

[tyranim]

i have come VERY close to deciding to write a f***ing book on this topic. SERIOUSLY! this topic is just WAY too deep for ANYONE to ignore. hitler believed he was doing good, while the rest of the world believed he was evil. IMHO, morality is perception. i feel killing everyone on earth is good, while almost everyone else will think its evil (being serious too). humanity is a cancer that only special genocide can cure. (not types of humans, but humans in general)

I agree that Moral Judgements are usually if not always influenced by perception.
However, should we exclude the concept of objective moral truth merely because moral judgements are subjective?

the way i see it. moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era. when in complete reality, this is not the case. moral truth is a constantly changing idea that cannot and will not settle on any set of guidelines. in 100 years, unprovoced murder might end up being socially acceptable. while that example is pretty far fetched, it still holds some truth. it all ENTIRELY depends on the common knowledge and mentality of those in power. and power is usually derived from popularity.

[Tymalous]

Our view of what is good and what is bad depends on the current time and believe. For example you see a horrific murder. You can say 2 things about it:

A. The man had bad karma and therefore deserved to die, as nothing happens without a reason.
B. The man should not have been killed because its a horrible thing.

I think that 99 percent of you will choose B, because of the current situation.

Imo good and evil are both needed for progress and evolution. For the human race it is easier to start a war and get progress  than live in order and progress, but both are needed nonetheless.

[OldTrees]

i have come VERY close to deciding to write a f***ing book on this topic. SERIOUSLY! this topic is just WAY too deep for ANYONE to ignore. hitler believed he was doing good, while the rest of the world believed he was evil. IMHO, morality is perception. i feel killing everyone on earth is good, while almost everyone else will think its evil (being serious too). humanity is a cancer that only special genocide can cure. (not types of humans, but humans in general)

I agree that Moral Judgements are usually if not always influenced by perception.
However, should we exclude the concept of objective moral truth merely because moral judgements are subjective?

the way i see it. moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era. when in complete reality, this is not the case. moral truth is a constantly changing idea that cannot and will not settle on any set of guidelines. in 100 years, unprovoced murder might end up being socially acceptable. while that example is pretty far fetched, it still holds some truth. it all ENTIRELY depends on the common knowledge and mentality of those in power. and power is usually derived from popularity.

You appear to have contradicted yourself in your first sentence.
"moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era."
If this is true then whatever the popular opinion are is what the moral truth is.
If this is true then it is moral to follow the popular opinion.
If popular opinion includes rejecting authority then it is moral to reject authority.
Popular opinion is an authority.
It is immoral to not reject popular opinion.
It can be both moral and immoral to follow popular opinion.
Something cannot be morally permissible and morally impermissible.
There is a contradiction.
Contradictions imply a premises or a step in the argument is flawed.
The premise "moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era" is flawed

Therefore Moral Truth is not derived from constantly changing Moral Judgements nor from social acceptability.

PS: We are also speaking about what ought not what is. Might is thought to have little to do with Right.

[tyranim]

i have come VERY close to deciding to write a f***ing book on this topic. SERIOUSLY! this topic is just WAY too deep for ANYONE to ignore. hitler believed he was doing good, while the rest of the world believed he was evil. IMHO, morality is perception. i feel killing everyone on earth is good, while almost everyone else will think its evil (being serious too). humanity is a cancer that only special genocide can cure. (not types of humans, but humans in general)

I agree that Moral Judgements are usually if not always influenced by perception.
However, should we exclude the concept of objective moral truth merely because moral judgements are subjective?

the way i see it. moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era. when in complete reality, this is not the case. moral truth is a constantly changing idea that cannot and will not settle on any set of guidelines. in 100 years, unprovoced murder might end up being socially acceptable. while that example is pretty far fetched, it still holds some truth. it all ENTIRELY depends on the common knowledge and mentality of those in power. and power is usually derived from popularity.

You appear to have contradicted yourself in your first sentence.
"moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era."
If this is true then whatever the popular opinion are is what the moral truth is.
If this is true then it is moral to follow the popular opinion.
If popular opinion includes rejecting authority then it is moral to reject authority.
Popular opinion is an authority.
It is immoral to not reject popular opinion.
It can be both moral and immoral to follow popular opinion.
Something cannot be morally permissible and morally impermissible.
There is a contradiction.
Contradictions imply a premises or a step in the argument is flawed.
The premise "moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era" is flawed

Therefore Moral Truth is not derived from constantly changing Moral Judgements nor from social acceptability.

PS: We are also speaking about what ought not what is. Might is thought to have little to do with Right.

you know what i mean. besides opinion is opinion. and i can interpret you calling my opinion flawed as an insult. and if this is the case, i refuse to partake in this debate.

[OldTrees]

i have come VERY close to deciding to write a f***ing book on this topic. SERIOUSLY! this topic is just WAY too deep for ANYONE to ignore. hitler believed he was doing good, while the rest of the world believed he was evil. IMHO, morality is perception. i feel killing everyone on earth is good, while almost everyone else will think its evil (being serious too). humanity is a cancer that only special genocide can cure. (not types of humans, but humans in general)

I agree that Moral Judgements are usually if not always influenced by perception.
However, should we exclude the concept of objective moral truth merely because moral judgements are subjective?

the way i see it. moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era. when in complete reality, this is not the case. moral truth is a constantly changing idea that cannot and will not settle on any set of guidelines. in 100 years, unprovoced murder might end up being socially acceptable. while that example is pretty far fetched, it still holds some truth. it all ENTIRELY depends on the common knowledge and mentality of those in power. and power is usually derived from popularity.

You appear to have contradicted yourself in your first sentence.
"moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era."
If this is true then whatever the popular opinion is is what the moral truth is.
If this is true then it is moral to follow the popular opinion.
If popular opinion includes rejecting authority then it is moral to reject authority.
Popular opinion is an authority.
It is immoral to not reject popular opinion.
It can be both moral and immoral to follow popular opinion.
Something cannot be morally permissible and morally impermissible.
There is a contradiction.
Contradictions imply a premises or a step in the argument is flawed.
The premise "moral truth is simply what the popular opinion is of an area and era" is flawed

Therefore Moral Truth is not derived from constantly changing Moral Judgements nor from social acceptability.

PS: We are also speaking about what ought not what is. Might is thought to have little to do with Right.

you know what i mean. besides opinion is opinion. and i can interpret you calling my opinion flawed as an insult. and if this is the case, i refuse to partake in this debate.

1) It was not an insult. It was a philosophic critique in the form of an argument that you could attempt to refute. Note that I qualified what I said at many points (show with orange). Finally I was saying the idea might be flawed not you.
2) Obviously I do not know what you mean. I consider there to be an important distinction between opinion (moral judgement) and truth (moral truth). I interpreted what you said as a form of the theory Moral Relativism.

[darkrobe]

@OT. I am not sure what you mean by moral truth. Can you give an example of something that would be a moral truth?

[OldTrees]

@OT. I am not sure what you mean by moral truth. Can you give an example of something that would be a moral truth?

The philosophic field of Ethics deals with the question of "What ought one do?"
The answer is Moral Truth
My answer is Moral Judgement

Analogy
Q: 2+2=?
Bob: 4.
John: 5.
The correct answer (the truth) is 4
Bob's judgement was 4
John's judgement was 5

Is unprovoked killing immoral?
My judgement: Yes
The serial killer's judgement: No
The truth: ?

[darkrobe]

So moral truths may exist. but they are unknowable. Because they are unknowable, we make moral judgments. Which may or may not be the same as the moral truths if they exist.

Because we cannot compare moral judgements to moral truth, we are left with analyzing moral judgements based on the strength of the reasoning behind them.

Is killing someone morally wrong?

Yes, because i will go to jail 
(Weak Reasoning: If you are presented with a situation where you can kill someone without going to jail, you will not have a strong reason not to kill them)

Yes, because all people have a right to life. Their right to life supersedes any benefit i may gain from their death.
(Stronger Reasoning: It is much more difficult to find yourself in a situation where killing someone becomes acceptable according your reasoning.)


When we make moral judgements, We should make an effort to have clear and strong reasoning behind our judgements. My personal opinion is that the development of a strong sense of personal morals is more important than aligning yourself to some external moral code that might be imposed by an authority, because that may leave you with weak moral reasoning.

[OldTrees]

So moral truths may exist. but they are unknowable. Because they are unknowable, we make moral judgments. Which may or may not be the same as the moral truths if they exist.

-snip-

Whether moral truths are knowable/unknowable is debated.

Kant tried to derive a moral theory from pure reason in a similar way to how we learn the answer to mathematical questions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative)
One of his best examples is the prohibition against deception.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Deception)
Assume deception is morally permissible.
Imagine a situation where one would want to lie in order to deceive.
Since lying is permissible you would be expected to lie.
Since you are expected to lie you are unable to deceive.
Deception is morally impermissible because it results in a contradiction in conceivability.

[Cheesy111]

So moral truths may exist. but they are unknowable. Because they are unknowable, we make moral judgments. Which may or may not be the same as the moral truths if they exist.

-snip-

Whether moral truths are knowable/unknowable is debated.

Kant tried to derive a moral theory from pure reason in a similar way to how we learn the answer to mathematical questions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative)
One of his best examples is the prohibition against deception.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Deception)
Assume deception is morally permissible.
Imagine a situation where one would want to lie in order to deceive.
Since lying is permissible you would be expected to lie.
Since you are expected to lie you are unable to deceive.
Deception is morally impermissible because it results in a contradiction in conceivability.

Can you please explain this part further? It seems unclear to me how a societal or personal moral expectation of lying corresponds to an inability to deceive in a specific scenario.

[darkrobe]

I think the argument is that If eveyone lied in the same situation. everyone would expect people to lie and thus would not be deceived by the lying. The general concept seems to be to imagine that everyone does it, what would be the result.

Im not sure I agree with this argument. especially when it comes to deception. Some one who expects deception can still be deceived, depending on the skill of the deceiver and whether they know that the person being deceived knows the deceiver is trying to deceive them (run your mind over that twisted thought )

You also have the problem posed by Benjamin Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Inquiring_murderer) who said that if deception was never permissible. It would be morally wrong to lie to a murderer asking on the whereabouts of his target. You must tell them the true location of the person they wish to murder.

Considering the universality of deception among not only humans, but all living organism. i find it unlikely that telling the truth in all circumstances would be a moral imperative.