But I'm still unsure of what claim you're trying to argue for. Are you saying that there are no moral principles as a matter of fact?
Sorry - I guess my post on page 2 was very unclear.
Personally, I believe there is an objective morality (as opposed to the subjective morality that states that our perception of murder as generally bad is only a product of evolution - there is an underlying reason why it is, at least generally, bad), I'm only confused as to what creates the morality - what is the "algorithm" for morality, so to speak? If morality is not purely subjective, then there are certainly underlying things that make actions good and bad.
Utilitarianism seems to offer a solution for this. The "greatest good for the greatest number" seems reasonable. BUT, there are certain counterexamples that make this seem unreasonable, especially when you consider that a person's perceived gain from actions may create situations such as the serial killer example above.
As for negative utilitarianism (an offshoot of utilitarianism that advocates diminishing of suffering), it discounts positive happiness, and secondly, it would advocate killing everybody in the least painful way possible to avoid a pinprick:
http://www.utilitarianism.com/pinprick-argument.htmlIronically, the above link defends the argument, but they do so only on technicality - they say that it is impossible to exterminate the human population without pain.
So, any ideas?
Just because two consenting adults participate in an act doesn't negate the immorality of the act. In this case, both parties would be morally culpable - at least it seems to me. Think of Oedipus Rex. He did the nasty with his mom without even knowing it was his mom. It was also fully consensual, yet it still seems prima facie to be an immoral act.
Is it immoral only because it is repulsive?
Most immoral actions seem to harm another person directly. If this makes an action immoral (Principle of Non-Aggression??), then this is not necessarily immoral.
From a utilitarian standpoint, it isn't immoral, in fact, if it is beneficial to both parties, it may be considered positive!
If you want to argue there are no moral principles just because there aren't, this isn't very convincing and it's philosophically uninteresting.
Even though I do believe there are moral principles, it seems as though the burden of proof is on the person trying to prove that morality exists - they must provide evidence for morality other than a purely emotional one.
get real the answers are all in the bible.
Thank you for bringing this up. It may be tempting to say that all the rules and morality come from some "divine writing" like the Bible or something. But again, you're failing to answer the question of WHY? Why are these things right, while others are wrong. Look at the Ten Commandments. Sure, "do not kill" may be wrong, but what about killing in self-defense? What if you are given the choice between killing actively or killing passively? Is there a difference?
Besides the apparent ambiguity of the laws laid out by the Bible, there is also the problem of correlation and causation - God would not accept virtues that were not, in themselves, virtuous. They must already be virtuous for God to accept them. Therefore, the Bible's "laws" and "moral teachings" are really meaningless, because they fail to answer the question of "why?".
