Universalist OR Anti-Essentialist?

Taken from: http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/universalist-or

Many of the posts on the front page right now are teetering in the realm of ethical debate or outright dilemma. What these conversations have in common is the theme of moral conflict. In each of these posts there is one individual who regards oneself as having a moral justification for committing or judging an action. While other individuals believe the others are in error. How do we account for this inconsistency in varying perspectives?

OA → ¬ O¬ A


The above is an illustration of the principle of Deontic Consistency which can be applied to morality stating that a moral principle or action cannot be both morally correct or in error. Is that even true? It depends on ones belief in truth. If you are a moral univeralist then this premise probably rings true to you because you most likely believe that ethics can exist as moral truths. But if you are a skeptic or better yet an anti-essentialist then you have absolutely no problem with moral systems conflicting with each other because morality doesn't reflect truth.

So Chainlink... Where do you fall? Universalism or Anti-Essentialism? Or will this conversation take us into the depths of Post-Modernity? Or do you even care?

Views: 426

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on July 27, 2010 at 4:53am
The reason I copied this from http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/universalist-or is because I think it's more relevant. I don't want to delete the original post because there was some interesting discussion happening.
Permalink Reply by Paul Gurns on July 28, 2010 at 4:55am
I would have to say anti-essentialist and here is why. In my opinion , morals are value judgements which are subjective. Certain things are labeled as "good" or "bad" usually based on some religious principles and are externally imposed on people.

Truths, in my opinion can and do change. I like John Deweys view on truths. He said "....(truths) are self-corrective over time if openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths"

I take issue with people who make moral judgements based on "truths" that they refuse to openly justify, refine,and test. What may be true for you may not be for me. Take the ten commandments for example. The value given to them depends entirely on whether or not you believe the Christian myth.

I know I can't write well and probably don't have the best vocabulary compared to some of the other posters, but I tried to explain my point of view as best as high school education would allow :)
Permalink Reply by Paul Gurns on July 28, 2010 at 5:04am
Just to add one more definition. to me ethics are about social rights and responsibilities that have evolved over time as a tool for furthering the welfare of the human race. I see morals as being externally imposed but ethics more self imposed.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service