I’m not clear on what you mean by “higher priority than”? Are you describing a situation where society is choosing FOR individuals? Or do you mean that individuals are choosing on their own?
What is used as the basis for resolving what is morally correct for an individual, for society and an agent acting on behalf of the society? Which would the morally correct choice in the case of individual benefit vs collective/community benefit. Perhaps group benefits at the cost of an individual's harm?
You seem to be saying that individual benefit comes at the cost of society and that society’s benefit comes at the cost of individual benefit. Is that what you’re thinking?
If you’re not thinking that, then I don’t understand your question. Could you clarify?
I understand that "feelings" are justifications. I was using it as an example of morals humanity have developed as many are appeals to emotion based on religious views. Do you dismiss all position based on social norms, ie context within the environment of the individual?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Some social norms are good, like murder is wrong, rape is wrong, stealing is wrong. But they are not good BECAUSE they are social norms.
Is your use of context only applicable for individual moral questions on a case by case?
I’m not clear on what you mean. Can you give me an example of a moral question that you want me to consider that is not related to individuals? [To be clear, society is a bunch of individuals, so individuals always matter. That’s why I’m not clear on what you’re asking.]
I just want some clarification on your use of contextual and it's limits to a moral question. Also if/what context becomes justification for modification by of a moral question.
I’m not clear on your question. To justify means to prove ideas true — which is the wrong way to determine knowledge. The right way is to prove ideas wrong — this is what we do in science and in court rooms.
Ex Is it right to save a drowning child? Context is only within the question posed
In general yes. In most cases the person considering jumping in to save the child isn’t at much risk of dying himself (let’s say he knows how to swim and it’s a 6 foot deep pool). What if we’re talking about a situation where the child fell off a boat in a huge storm in the middle of the ocean in -40 degree water and where the person considering jumping in the water has 5 children and is a single parent and no other family to take care of the 5 children? Then maybe jumping out of the boat to save the child is likely to lead to both of them dying, thus leaving the adult’s 5 children with no parent to take care them. Then I’d say it’s wrong to jump in the water to try to save the child.
Ex Same Question. Addition context requested. What is the child drowning in? What is the health of the child? Question modification. Is it right to save a drowning child infected with the black plague? Does probability of infection to the "rescuer" need to be evaluated? Does the addition context just create a new question in order to dodge answering the initial question or render it irrelevant due lacking context about the individuals involved?
I don’t think black plague, or any disease, can be contracted the way you’re describing.
Why are you talking about dodging questions? Oh wait I know. A lot of moral relativists (aka subjectivists) use their philosophy as a means to dodge questions posed by moral objectivists.
I think it’s bad to dodge questions. I think it’s bad to adopt a philosophy as a means of dodging questions.
you seem to be assuming that everybody in the world needs to know how much yelling hurts you, like on a number scale. But that’s a mistake. First of all, the only ones that need to know anything about you are the ones that would interact with you. And second, all they need to know is that you don’t prefer it — so it’s a 0 or 1 phenomena, not one of degrees.
This was more about direct and indirect results of an action or causality. For example the effects on the family of an individual I have directly effected.
I’m still not clear on what you mean. So I’ll bring back some text that you wrote prior to this part.
The issue I am having is truly separating subjectivity from an evaluation of data. Data which, to me, is comprised of social norms and personal opinions. Now I concede we can objectively look at subjective data. However in many cases we developed "tools" to do so. What I am missing is what are these "tools" used to "weed out" data interpretation of data. By allowing data to be seen in different contexts are you not arguing morality is subjective to begin with? Objectivity comes into question when subjective data is deemed accurate or not in certain contexts.
I think I understand what you’re saying now.
Let’s say that John is in a situation and he decides that action X is the right thing to do.
Let’s say that John seeks Paul’s help to figure out whether X really is the right thing to do. So John tells Paul of the details that John thinks Paul needs to know to make a moral determination. Now let’s say that after hearing all the details that John gave, Paul is not sure if X is right or wrong, and he has a question about another detail that John didn’t give. So Paul asks John the question, and John answers it, and the answer is a detail that wasn’t mentioned earlier. Now lets say Paul has enough information now, and he thinks that action X is wrong because action Y is better for a reason that Paul explains to John. Let’s say that John agrees with Paul’s reason, and let’s say John doesn’t have any new criticisms, so John agrees that action Y is better than action X so he chooses to do Y instead of X.
So let’s summarize what happened. John was in a situation and he thinks that the relevant contextual details are A, B, and C, and he decides that action X is his best course of action, but he wants other people’s help to make sure. John explains this context to Paul, and Paul thinks that the contextual details that John thought were enough, were not enough. So Paul asks John a question whose answer reveals contextual detail D. At this point, Paul and John agree that contextual detail D changes the context such that the best course of action is Y rather than X.
Now back to your question. Does this mean that morality is subjective? No. It’s possible for John and Paul to agree that John’s understanding of the context is missing some details that are relevant in determining what is the best course of action.
Topic: Is morality subjective or objective?