Of course, yes, everyone is always in complete agreement about what is right and wrong, because humans are always absolutely objective when it comes to moral decisions.
"everyone is right, and everyone is wrong" -- I know you didn't mean it literally as contradiction but probably expressing moral relativism - which could be a very difficult claim to support.
There certainly are objective 'right way' and grand plans of actions. As for the plans of action, they are almost never economical thus ignored.
I think you are confusing whether people agree on right and wrong with whether their is an objective right and wrong. It's entirely possible that there is an objective right and wrong but that some people are mistaken as to what it is.
Sure, but all meaning and interpretation of life, all ideas on what is right, and so on, are subjective. There is nothing wrong with that, since it's not like objectivity actually exists on the other side of the scale. When it comes to moral questions, what is "objectively right" simply doesn't apply, and isn't needed.
If everybody simply stuck to treating others how they would want to be treated, we'd live in a much better world already, even if it wasn't "perfect", and even if there were disagreements, and it all still always subject to constant learning and reflection.
Our main problems don't stem from out confusion about what we think is right (and by "we" I mean each of us as the individuals that actually exist, not as a collective abstraction), but from wanting what we think is right for ourselves, while having double standards for others, and rationalizations for those.
yes, this is aumann's agreement theorem; it has some preconditions
whether it applies to normative conclusions ('moral beliefs', you might say) depends on whether you believe that moral terminal values are based on evidence
but this post is about non-normative beliefs
it is observable that many existing humans are 'capable of understanding the wide variety of values people can share' and nevertheless think some of them are good while others are bad; there's no particular reason to believe that a strong ai would be different in this way
Don't take this negatively. Your comment is absolutely muddled up.
Just because there is an absolute morality does not mean everyone has to agree on it. Why? Ask yourself this question. Physics is absolute. Do physicists have 100% agreement?
Lets break it down. Is killing children always wrong?
In many countries it's legal (today) to kill children. In some cultures surplus children were left to die of exposure (Sparta for example).
And once the child is dead - well some cultures eat the dead as a form of burial.
There goes your absolute.
Just so you know: it's not possible to create a moral system from first principles. It always has to be imposed from outside. In most countries the bible serves as the starting point.
If you want, you can have one guy decide, and use his ideas. But you can never defend them as absolute and correct. Another person, just as logical, can come up with conflicting ideas, and you can never prove one is right and the other wrong.
But subjectiveness applies to everything. For instance, whether or not something is moral is subjective, and yet there is a collective notion of morality.
Except not all viewpoints are valid or true. If (as a vast majority of philosophers think) morality is objective, then those people are simply wrong about what is ethical/unethical.
As for morality, I don't see how it can be objective. It's not a feature of the universe, it's a feature of a mind. Humans have common values, because we naturally have common brain design.
I don't buy into moral relativism. There are things that result in more or less human flourishing. Often it's not that hard to see the right thing.
There is some room for different value judgements, but that's not the same as saying all choices are morally equal. Which I don't think you're proposing.
I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong.
If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism. Here's why...
Absolute morals (a perfect morality) can only be established by infinite knowledge... A perfect morality is knowing all information at once, weighing all that information, and then making the perfect decision.
We as humans are morally relative because we don't know all available information and knowledge. It's why a tribe on some island genuinely believes infanticide is acceptable (they genuinely believe the child is possessed), while you do not (you would know the child has a neurological disorder).
As I demonstrated by a simple human example, more information and knowledge = better moral decisions. Thus, an all knowing being, God, is the foundation for an absolute (and perfect) set of morals.
For #2 if we say "Then it would be incorrect to think that X is morally wrong" is there an "X" that is always true in all places and for all times? I ask because "boiling a human child alive for pleasure" seems to be safely chosen to be something that everyone in all places ought to be able to agree is wrong but there have been other chosen Xs at other times in our own culture that have changed and are now no longer considered "morally wrong". This would seem to indicate that the X is subjective. How subjective is it? What is it a function of?
I don't think it's necessarily "know it all". Atleast for me, the subjectivity of morality merely means that everyone's morality is correct. Of course, I will disagree when someone claims something is a natural X or inherent Y, but that's a debate that both sides can leave satisfied, usually.
I do. Moral and ethical relativism does not protect you from having to stake a claim on a set of thoughts and values and standing by them.
You're more than welcome to think not of course, however this is definitely a more common thought than not. There's a larger shared set of values that people tend to hold even if it's not objective and I think you'd have to go to great lengths to prove me incorrect regarding those things being good to the majority, and even greater lengths that the opposite thought is good at all.
reply