ToothyMaw

Okay, yes, I see what you are saying - if the dilemma is merely that which course of action causes less suffering then it isn't really a moral dilemma...

I'm not sure I understand. Unless I'm mistaken you are saying that suffering is caused by every action, so we cannot weigh one course of action agains...

Cool that you can take criticism!

But I get what you are saying.

But whether or not morality is objective is still independent of anyone's feelings by definition. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean he ...

But, once again, you are just claiming I was being uncharitable without engaging with me - an indication that you have no responses to my criticisms. ...

(not because it's wrong)

That was funny.

No, I criticized you before I said more succinctly that I didn't think you made a good argument for moral objectivity. Go back and read what I wrote i...

No, because living in poverty would lead to more suffering than someone stubbing their toe. Obviously. I disagree; just because suffering is subjectiv...

It does if I can actually make a case for suffering being inherently wrong. Which I really can't except for the idea of expanding my own experience to...

Then reply to my criticisms, please. Saying I was uncharitable doesn't negate them.

I know. But I think moral absolutism might be possible, along with objectivity. I suppose I could arbitrarily specify that suffering is inherently bad...

That is similar to the two horned Euthyphro Dilemma. Either what god commands is arbitrary, or moral facts exist independently of god. Most theists wo...

"worst possible misery for everyone" he calls it.

Oh yeah, I just assume that minimizing suffering is pretty much indisputably right, because that is how I and many people other feel. At its base I ha...

Meanders and needs re-formatting. A distinct thesis statement at the beginning might help - you only mention the "crux" of your paper halfway through.

Read your essay. It would help to change the format and have an introductory paragraph. It is difficult to tell where it is going; it meanders.

Plug your papers elsewhere please. And if no one wants to comment on your threads you should just write better OP's.

The one that causes less suffering seems best to me.

It is totally possible my perception is skewed - I mostly hear about people on ethics committees from people who have talked about ethics committees w...

Yeah, I corrected myself. Sorry.

My former post doesn't totally make sense. I should have said: if there is an absolute morality and what is absolute is absolute because it causes les...

If they believe in absolute morality then they won't simply posit that ethics is relative - which is often equivalent to permitting just about anythin...

That is interesting stuff; I remember being taught about it in psychology in high school. Many students appeared to be stuck at stage four of conventi...

Potentially, but not necessarily. There could be the law: "Do not steal", which has no context, as opposed to the law: "Do not steal on the Sabbath". ...

There may be some truth to this but ethicists/bio-ethicists contribute disproportionately to the policies of organizations/corporations/government, an...

At the very least we could justify implementing laws that prevent things like FGM if there were an absolute morality. Furthermore, there is obviously ...

What would a charitable reading look like? And yes, I am looking for a discussion, I just think you made a poor case for objective morality, that's al...

Good point. I agree. I was talking to Tom, I know you meant that.

That was unintended.

No, I see what you are saying, I just don't see why it matters. And it isn't a matter of perspective which beliefs are justified in this case - one be...

Yes, but it is more difficult to justify an objective morality than an absolute morality it seems to me. If you just want the act to be right regardle...

I think that there might be some moral facts, and that maybe good can exist, but I have no faith in the matter. That would be the most important diffe...

Suffering may be observable and obvious, but how does suffering constitute a moral fact? A moral fact is an invariable law, not a subjective experienc...

I do, however, think beliefs are highly relevant when it comes to moral culpability, which I've written about elsewhere.

I think that all religions are latently dangerous, but Islam is probably the worst. In general, however, no. I know what you are getting at - if I ass...

I'm not even sure what my question means.

Not going to lie, dude - that was exceedingly abstruse. What does any of that even mean? That genocide was necessary as part of the evolution of a mor...

Yes, I get that, but on one side you have justified beliefs, and on the other totally unjustified. There is no symmetry except in terms of zeal perhap...

I literally said that beliefs cause many good people to do bad things; I totally acknowledge this here: I must correct myself, however: some evil peop...

I think it is situational. Many evil people try to justify their evil actions, whereas some believe they are, as you say, agents of good. Appealing to...

And it happens that humans are fallible enough to believe some of these justifications.

Good point. But I think many evil people will create justifications for evil acts because of a deeper issue - a lack of empathy, fanaticism, tribalism...

I'm saying accepting that morality is subjective gives cover for some pretty horrible beliefs - such as female genital mutilation being acceptable. I ...

Whether or not an action is objectively wrong is different from an action being right/wrong independent of the actor/situation. Moral absolutism says ...

Same here.

Unless I'm mistaken, act utilitarianism doesn't rule out much of any means at all. Whatever action produces the best outcome is right.

Excuse my error; I meant the net amount of pleasure, not suffering/pleasure.

I have read some of that stuff. How is weighing the happiness derived from an act against the suffering caused by it inconsistent with the goals of ut...