Which works better?
I thought deontological meant the study of teeth.
Utilitarianism.
I use them both, as circumstances dictate.
The main problem with absolutism is that it raises a question for which there is no clear solution: Whose morals are are we going to use for our universal moral code?
Of course, nobody would dispute that things like murder, rape, stealing, etc. are immoral. But what about things like unmarried sex, polygamy, pornography, masturbation, recreational drug usage? Who decides whether such things are “wrong”? And then you have the issue of moral obligations - Who decides how far one is expected to go to help others? If we bring religion into the equation, which religion are we going to use for our universal moral standards?
There will always be disagreement over what’s right and what’s wrong. And for the most part, the only rational thing to do is to agree to disagree.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
Why, mine, of course, silly.
That’ll be a dark day.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
Kant tell.
(sorry)
Sincerely,
Hardwood Paneling
You’d better be. That was in-Hume-an. You’d better Sartre yourself out in a hurry, and stop Milling for puns. Hobbes to it, man!
(And I won’t comment on your putting Decartes before the horse. It’s been done. :D)
-andros-
I wouldn’t say nobody would dispute those things. The difference between murder and a ‘justifiable killing’ is a matter of definition; a medieval Japanese Samurai was within his rights to kill a peasant in cold blood if the peasant didn’t show proper respect. Stealing didn’t exist as a concept for some peoples who had no concept of ownership, such as some Native American tribes who practiced a form of tribal socialism in which everything belonged to everyone – if you needed something you took it.
I’m not going to say anything about rape because there are too many people around here who feel very strongly about it (to the point of irrationality).
SingleDad:
That’s the point of absolutism: it’s absolute.
sixseatport:
If you aren’t going to talk about rape, why point that out?
It’s not how you pick your nose, it’s where you put the boogers
I hold certain principles to be absolute, but their application is always relative to the circumstances.
For instance, I hold as absolute that I shouldn’t hurt someone.
I generally hold truthfulness superior to deceit, but if the truth would hurt someone without any compensating value, I would tell a white lie.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
Well, moral relativism tastes great, but deontological absolutism is less filling…
Hey, if you can’t Bentham, join 'em.
But really, I agree with RoboDude. When we declare “absolute” morals, we are really only renaming our subjective morals as absolutes.
When you boil it down, deontological absolutism is based in something seperate from human subjectivity: the truth. The problem lies in human interpretation of truth. At least, that’s my understanding.
And to be a real strict absolutist, one can never waver. For instance, I hold that lying and murder are both absolute wrongs. I might be hiding Jews in my attic when the SS knocks on the door, asking if I know the location of any Jews. I (and I think most of us) would lie to them. I have averted a greater tragedy by going against my principle of truthfulness, but I have also given up any claims to being an absolutist.