Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Everybody has his own idea of what a "good man" is. Some think it's a man who went to church on Sundays. Some think it's a man who treated his family well. Some think it's a man who stood up for what he believed in. Most probably think a "good man" is basically somebody who doesn't do anything specifically bad.
Right..All of the above in other words. People agree on what a good man is. That's just a fact of life. And goodness is an objective property inhering in the man. Hence it is objective.
'
You are talking about a predominant attitude. You are making that assumption. Your own Wiki article doesn't even talk about a predominant attitude.
What I said is common sense. Do you have some argument to refute it?
The fact that there are ambiguous situations, no matter how rare, is why morality must be relative. A rigid, fixed moral structure isn't capable of handling the exceptions.
An exception to a universal rule doesn't mean there is no universal rule. It just means there are exceptions--exceptions that equally apply universally to everybody just as the rule does. The morality as well as it exceptions is still objective and absolute. Noone says: "Well the murderer had this particular situation that would never apply to anyone else." The moment an exception is moralized, it is objectified for everyone. Once again, and probably for the last time, moralization IS objectification of value for everyone.
There is no majority sentiment. We're all malcontents to some degree, or at least we ought to be. Reforms can't happen without malcontents. Some malcontents are labeled "criminals" and some are not. Some criminals may also be quite content.
Wow..that's a startling social theory--that members of a society agree on nothing, that there is no such thing as a common moral standard that binds them together, that social contracts don't really exist at all. So why call it a society at all? Why not just call it a mob of malcontents?
How do you know? How do you know that guy isn't out on bail or out on parole or on his way to court to be sentenced? How do you know that guy doesn't have a crimnal record?
I don't. That's why I only socialize with people I'm familiar with. Paying the bus driver or allowing a car to go ahead of you isn't socializing.
You're trying to demonize criminals and make them out to be different from you but the fact is that "they" look just like "us" because they are us. They happen to have made moral decisions that don't conform to the moral preferences of the society that they live in
Oh so NOW societies DO have generally-held moral preferences. I thought societies couldn't agree on anything. That we are all anarchists defying social order and just doin whatever we like at the moment. Are you now saying there are consensual moral principles for us and that people who don't agree with them and who violate them are criminals? What happened to them just being moral relativists who are only obligated to whatever they subjectively prefer?
You keep repeating that but you haven't backed it up. Your own Wiki article doesn't back you up.
I repeat it because it's true. And I don't need Wikipedia to confirm it either.
One more time, we are not idealizing it as "right". We are deciding that it's the right thing to do right now. Tomorrow, we might decide it's the wrong thing to do.
No..the right thing we do today may NOT become the wrong thing tomorrow given the exact same circumstances. When you call something right you are generalizing for yourself and for everybody else. Otherwise it is just your subjective whim.
It's the right decision at the time. Five mnutes later, you might decide it was the wrong decision.
Whatever you end up deciding it becomes right or wrong objectively. IOW, regardless of whoever does it given those same exact circumstances. In Texas for instance it's customary to pull over on the median and let other cars pass you on a two lane highway. It's done out of a sense of moral obligation, and is equally expected of others. Once again, that's moral objectification in action. What you do according to principle you expect from others as well.
We make "right" and "wrong" decisions all the time. Some of them are characterized as moral and some are not. Very few of them are idealized for all society and all time as you claim.
If we call it right or wrong we are idealizing that act beyond just our choice. There's no way around this. Doin something on moral principle is more than doin something on preference. You're saying there is a right and wrong way to choose. And that right and wrong applies to everyone given the same situation. That's the last time I'm goin to say this.
So illness is immoral?
To the extent it is devalued, bad, leads to inappropriate social behavior and is debilitating, yes..mental illness is "immoral". The "morality" in this case being what is normal and healthy for the average human being. And mental illness is universally bad for everyone. Another instance of moralization objectifying itself beyond the subjective.