What are the basis of making a moral judgment?
Moral judgments are evaluations or opinions formed as to whether some action or inaction, intention, motive, character trait, or a person as a whole is (more or less) Good or Bad as measured against some standard of Good. The moral judgments of actions (or inaction) are usually the primary focus of any discussion of Moral Judgments in particular, and Ethical analysis in general. This is because the judgments of intentions, character traits, and persons are generally based on the judgment of actions that the intention, motive, character trait, or person might potentially do or not do. So limiting the discussion to the moral judgments of actions (or inactions) will also, with suitable obvious modifications, address the moral judgment of intentions, motives, character traits and people. We can group moral judgments into two broad classes. There are "before-the-fact" moral judgments, and there are "after-the-fact" moral judgments. Before-the-fact judgments are those made before the action (or inaction) takes place. They are made based on the best information available at the time as to what the moral landscape holds and what its future shape will be. These are judgments about what you "ought to do (or not do)", and whether what you are planning to do (or not do) is Good or Bad. moral judgments is that they can only be made of an agent with the freedom or will to choose. Moral judgments are judgments of certain choices, or potential choices, where the one who chooses is aware that there is a choice, and has the capability to choose. A person who cannot do other than what was done, is not subject to moral judgment. But if a person has the freedom to choose alternatives, then that person's intentional, or unintentional actions or inaction can be subject to moral judgments. In order to be able to make a choice, you have to be aware that there are alternatives. If your knowledge about your current situation is thin, or your knowledge about how reality behaves is thin, then you might come to the conclusion that there are no better alternatives. You might make a choice that you believe is the correct one, but because your knowledge is thin, you overlook a better one. In such a case, we could make an after-the-fact judgment about what you ought to have done, if you had had better information, but any before-the-fact moral judgment we might make about what you did, has to be based on the knowledge available to you at that time.
Do people who make moral judgements?
No. People who make moral judgements are people who have probably made the same mistake as those who they are passing judgement on. I have been guilty of this myself. As a mother, I don't want my teen daughter to have sex and it pisses me off that she has...but I had sex as a teen. There you go. I don't want my son to sneak cigarettes, but I did....there ya go. Then we go deeper. Morally speaking, a man cheats on his wife but looks down on his son who has cheated on his. Mainly, in my opinion, it's about people who have been there and hate themselves for the deed so they judge others equally as they've judged themself. It has nothing to do with God.
What is "moral judgement"?
Morals I have always correlated to the Christian faith.Get married-stay married, don't mess around with married women, keep sex for the marriage bed. In regular dealing, always be honest. Differentiate from deception that may have to be used with the devil and his kind, but realize Satan is a master at deceit, all he is is a liar. He's a destroyer. So, try to be constructive. Help who you can, be kind when you can. Integrity is important, as is trust. This is just me. Others won't necessarily be so with you, but there's a day that they'll face death and have to give an account. Sometimes things come back on people naturally.Morals perception has changed over time.Again some would say obeying the law, which there's some who are unjust, but follow the law within reason. Common sense is more valuable. An example, there's a dual line meaning don't cross, but a car is on the edge of the road. What if a kid ran out from in front of the car? Did you break the law? Well you didn't violate the intent of the law. Laws are usually made for a lack of common sense, not as a replacement for it. Where it'd also be smart to slow down. Or say a police car. What if a police officer is having to retreat suddenly and steps out in front of you. You followed the law, but a hurt person is something that will stay with you. But consider their blinding lights at night. Using a bright flash of light is a self defence technique as it makes your eyes change. Police lights at night are terrible for this, so am extra margin of safety is needed. If the state considered it, they'd use a dinner switch for night time for everybody's safety. But, that's common sense, what can you expect from college kids mastering law? But that's a for example.
How do psychopaths make moral judgments?
Moral? If I'm not mistaken, psychopaths have had such trauma from early on in their lives, that their ability to reason is terribly distorted. THEIR World seen through your eyes, would indeed be surrealistic. Their thoughts, unidentifiable and incomprehensible. Probably as foreign to you, as viewing your surroundings thru the eyes and mind of a lizard. From what I've read and studied in psychology classes (Collage Level), something which most people never experience,so unbelievably horrible, can motivate an already unstable individual too set out on a mission ( in their minds), their way too correct what at the time of incident, unable to act, or too young to do something about the occurrence, to justify their actions. In their minds, they are absolutely just and saving the world from the demons that have haunted them, for their entire life.MICHAEL PEARSON
Strong and weak moral judgements?
strong morals: going thru a store while keeping your hands in your pockets and paying for what you buy. weak morals: shoplifting - - - - - - - strong morals: wearing clothing that amply covers onesself weak morals: can't figure out why wearing a small swimsuit or relevealing or provocative clothing brings on rape, prostitution and gives the girl a bad name.
What are the basis of making a moral judgment?
first i want to state something about morality. i think morality is a branch of philosophy which deals with human action. there are two kinds of human action which done by human, one is the one they called an act of man which is done by man beyond his control, some of these act is also done by animals. as an example for this is when you pee. B. is the on they called human act, which is an act done by man with his full knowledge, freedom and consent. it is an action that only human can do. lacking one of this 3 cannot be called human act. here now, the basis of making a moral judgment is by the modifiers of human act, which are: intention, mean, end.. here how it goes, for an example a man trying to steal some money because he has no money to send his mother to the hospital. that action could be judge as morally evil. because even if his intention is good but his means of fulfilling it is bad, since stealing is intrinsically evil, therefore what he did is morally bad. to make it clear, (apparently clear hehehe), the basis of makin a moral judgment is through the modifiers of human act, if the intention is good and the means is good but the end is bad that action is still bad. i hope you appreciate my effort in explaining this stuff. thanks..
What are some examples of poor judgment?
Typically, being a Labour Inspector in France, having to examine the case of Union representative being slandered by their bosses, who want to fire them (under French law I get the last say as to whether they can be fired), can get you to pass poor judgement.In 90% of the situations, the case in unfounded - known from experience. Experience can make you lazy, and in certain cases, it turns out the Union rep I was defending was actually guilty, or a complete creep, or downright corrupt, etc.Given the number of cases I had to react to in a given year, I was sometimes careless and let some creeps get away. Just an example.
What is the definition of moral judgment?
Its subjective. Every society defines it differently. There are certain morals that the whole society accepts to be good which are termed as norms and that acts as a guiding principle for people’s conduct.Some morals will always be valued but some of them can be modified to suit the needs of the society. We should be flexible as a person and as a society to accept certain changes. This transition can be a challenge and may not be taken well in the initial phase. This is where the judgement comes. We try to evaluate our present with the old system of beliefs and vice versa. We need to be more liberal and open in evaluation and see what works in the present.Apart from that, everybody has their own set of moral principles and few of them might be in conflict with the societal norms. We can try creating a balance of both at a public place but be true to what we believe while making personal choices.
What is the meaning of moral judgement?
"What people do when they make a moral judgement is to project their subjective mental state out into the world. They confuse their emotions with some object in the world and mistakenly take the feeling in them to be some property of the object. This is the most psychologically sophisticated version of relativism. An analogous theory might be held about colors: that when people see one of the objects we call "red," we have a certain characteristic sensation, which sensation we confuse with some property of the object that causes it and call the property of being red."
What is considered to be poor judgment?
Anything self defeating, self destructive, or brings harm to society. There are exceptions. Self sacrifice to preserve your family for example might be self destructive but is considered one of the highest acts of love. But these are very general rules for evaluating judgment.
ATHEISTS on what basis can we make moral judgements?
So, you claim that humans could not have had the concept of morality? I don’t see why not. We’re fairly intelligent. Human minds have created many ideas that are far more complex than morality. Why should morality be different? Two year-olds are not good representatives of humans. Their brains still have much developing to do. The idea that we humans didn't create morality — that it came from some god — is insulting to us. Explaining morality and altruistic behavior is not a problem, when we understand that humans are social animals. In order to survive, we mainly need to work together in groups. Groups of our distant ancestors that had individuals who worked together were more likely to succeed. Individuals who didn't cooperate in a group might have been kicked out of the group, and had their survival severely threatened. Groups that kept non-cooperative individuals were less likely to succeed. Laws are the explicit rules of interaction. Morality and laws are human constructs that come from basic human empathy, kindness and compassion, a desire to treat others as we wish to be treated, and our need to work together — not from some ancient static scriptures. Morality and laws have evolved as humans have evolved our culture. We are social animals evolved by natural selection, so the great majority of us will naturally desire the health of our families and the peace of our communities. Evolution has programmed us socially and biologically for morality and cooperation. Our morality comes out of our humanity. For god-fearing religions, the only reason to be moral is the child's concept of morality — be good or you will be punished. For healthy non-believers, we can see that altruistic behavior and morality grow out of the knowledge that making others happy makes us happy. Even other primates such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes exhibit empathy and morality. For more about this, see “Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior” at the first link below.
Passing moral judgments is intolerant...?
Judging other people for any of the above and many other things, is a curious phenomenon. As we judge others we are actually judging ourselves. If we feel we must judge, we automatically place ourselves in a position of "better" in some way than the other person. Much negativity is associated with judging others, beginning with that essence of feeling somehow better or more worthy, or holier, or less materialistic, or more law-abiding, or less vain, etc. than another. So in this comparison of ourselves and the other, we lose any possibility of connection with the other. If we lose that, we lose the most precious aspect of our time here: that of discovering our connection to all of humanity. “Do not judge, or you too will be judge ! Love & Blessings Milly
What are some examples of outstanding judgments?
Magic Johnson was an “outstanding basketball player”: a player of extraordinary ability (or so I’ve been led to believe – never followed sports much, myself).Albert Einstein was an outstanding theoretical physicist.An “outstanding judgment,” however, is nothing at all like an outstanding athlete or an outstanding scientist. It just means a judgment that has not yet been paid: I sue you; I win; a judgment for $10,000 is entered against you. Until you pay me $10,000, that judgment is outstanding against you. Banks will want to know about it when you apply for a loan. Prospective employers and business partners may ask about it.Once you’ve paid your “outstanding judgment,” you or I will file a “satisfaction of judgment,” to let the world know it is no longer outstanding.
Can you provide an example of a poor moral argument that contains logical errors?
Premise #1: If God existed, we would expect there to be morality. Premise #2: there is morality. Conclusion: Therefore God exists. Trans: If A, then B. B, Therefore A Eh, it just doesn't work like that. B can stand on it's own without A. However, if A is true then B MUST also be true, hence the "then". HOWEVER, the argument should be put like this: Premise #1: If there is morality, then there must be a God. Premise #2: There is morality, Conclusion: therefore there must also be a God. Trans: If A, then B, A, Therefore B This is perfectly valid reasoning. As to whether it's sound (I believe it is), is another matter. But neither of these arguments truly capture the meaning of religious people when they argue for God because of morality. The true essence of their argument is this. God = Morality Morality = God They are, in face, inseparable. If A = B Then B = A
Is it wrong to be a judgmental person?
If an action has no consequence there is no need to judge it.As soon as an action has consequence, then it can be looked at from the perspective of law, political correctness and any other perspective. All objective and absolute morals are external to the moral system of the perpetrator of the act. When external morals are applied we call this judgementMoral relativism begins and ends with the proposition that it is wrong to be judgemental. MR begins with a review of competing moral systems and concludes that they are all worthless.MR is a self refuting concept because it judges other moral systems at the same time holding MR above judgement. Get it? Other moral systems are wrong because they judge other moral systems. But not MR!The truth is every moral system has positives and negatives. They are clearly not all frivolous. They cannot all be heaped in the same trash bin as useless.Making a moral equivalence of cannibalism and a Christian religion for instance requires a person to reduce christianity to something it is not.Comparing the Holocaust to ordinary political situations takes an equally ludicrous morphing of facts to arrive at such a conclusion.How do we make moral judgements?. We use differing moral scales to shape our decisions. Moral scales are enormously useful in guiding our lives.So back to the question which presumes it is wrong to be judgemental. It is only wrong to be judgemental in a politically correct and morally relativistic mindset.For everybody else, it is the natural state of mind and the way we make decisions.We make judgements, and we are subject to judgements from others in our daily lives.
If the universe is deterministic, is moral judgment even meaningful?
From my manifesto:-The free-will/Predestination quandary and SoulAge Theory There is an ancient quandary that has plagued philosophers in the question regarding free-will vs predestination. It was thought that because of the nature of each, a person would be forced to cling to a belief in either one, or the other, as a basis for their life-philosophy. The reason, in short, being that if a person believes that each individual has a free will to make choices as they please, then there can be no predestined path in life. In other words, what is going to happen is not set in time as a fact, and vice-versa when the situation is reversed. I believe that the key to this seeming paradox lie in what is referred to as “Soul-age Theory”. Briefly, this theory hypothesizes that each individual, whether through reincarnation or Genetic-memory, are on this earth at a certain stage of spiritual development. There are five stages that a person’s soul goes through during various lives or during a single life. These stages mirror the personality characteristics of humans as they age. It is too much to go into here, but very briefly, the stages are: Infant soul, Baby, soul, Young soul, Mature soul, and Old Soul. Each containing their own set of characteristics and behavioral traits. These levels of development are pretty spot on, and we can recognize the levels of ourselves and others pretty easily if we are honest. The point is, that each level of development has a set of personality traits that will guide a person’s free-will in a certain direction of interest in their lifetime. Because of this, each individual is free to make their own choices, however their personalities are set in such modes of operation that their will to change and act only allows them to see certain opportunities. This is how I believe that we can explain and get past the predestination/free-will paradox. I encourage you all to do research on the Soul-age Theory for your own edification.
Is man a moral animal?
Directions:Many situations have ocvcurred through history that Man's abiliy to treat his own kind in a moral way.(ex:wars,murder ,crime,the holocaust,terrorisme,etc...) I would like for you to develop a theory to help explain how these incidents could have occurred.Relate your answer to the concept of morality.Try to be profound (deep thinking) and creative as possible.Pool some of your knowledge about the nature of man,leadership,power,authority,and group behavior.
Please state your own moral principle that you can use as basis for moral judgments?
Don't hurt people, unless they hurt you first...then kick their butt! Don't smoke; it gives you wrinkles, bad breath and is likely to cause you to burn to death in a house fire. Don't eat beans. It contributes to global warming and divorce. Wait until marriage to have sex and marry someone who waited too. It's the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Brush your teeth with soap. I'm not kidding. Brushing my teeth with soap cured my periodontal disease. I've been doing it for five years now and my teeth are white and cavity free and my gums are pink and healthy. http://www.tipking.co.uk/tip/6569.html Stay out of the sun. It will eventually make you look like a prune and gives you cancer. Drink milk if you want vitamin D. Make sure you and your kids get a college education. Studies have shown that people who go to college are a whole lot less likely to follow orders indiscriminately than people who only have a high school education or lower.
Do people deny the existence of moral absolutes?
It’s really a practical question.The problem is not the morals themselves, but rather their applicability.Ethics: it’s about hard questions, but everyone wants soft answers.Maybe that’s what you mean by a charade (‘children playing make believe’).But I think the response to morality is just as universal as morality.What if you love someone who has committed a horrible crime? Maybe this seems intuitive at first, but it isn’t. You have a choice between hate and hate. It is a catch-22: if you decide to be cold-hearted towards the killer and push justice, you yourself become similar to the killer. Because there are more people who are not murderers than murderers, making everyone who is not a murderer cold-hearted may be a worse option in the long -term, particularly if it is about how people feel. (e.g. as people say, ‘it is all of us: everyone is responsible’).And children definetely react when people are cold-hearted, sometimes by torturing animals and then becoming even more violent. Relativity is not a defense at this point, because if everyone is responsible, then if there is anything wrong, conditions could be improved. Otherwise, we conclude that people are pure evil, or that evil is meaningless, which leads to moral decay.The obligation of an ethical system is to provide a best option for every scenario. But in real life it is more likely to be divided between (1) obvious choices, (2) creative choices, and (3) confusing mistakes. Only the obvious choice is really ethical, but it is not really a choice. If it were a choice, it would be creative or a mistake.Some ethicists argue that free will is not what we mean by a choice, because there are some things over which we willingly relinquish control. But this seems to assume not only that ethics is understandable in every moment, but also that an attitude of passivity is conscionable. What is ethics if it is not an active principle? But if it were active, that would mean actually knowing what is right and wrong.Apparently, there is a double-bias: (1) For action, leading to mistakes and egalitarianism and forgiveness, and (2) Passivity, leading to absoluteness and cold-heartedness.Laziness, however, tends to reserve judgment, whereas action tends to pass judgment. So we are stuck with two basic legal attitudes: (1) The lenient judge who sometimes makes mistakes, and (2) The actual attitude towards the law, which is about being intimidated and then softening up (almost the opposite of the judge).
Is moral relativism a danger to society?
I would have to say that depends on what you mean by relativism? If you are asking this from a religious perspective, then you already have your answer. However, all societies are going to believe what they view as moral —or morally acceptable.Modern society believes, for example, living in a democracy is the moral thing for society as a whole. We believe people should be free to practice whatever religion they choose, but there are still morals we and other societies hold to be needed to keep society stable —no killing/murder, stealing, and adultery to name a few, which are many times prohibited throughout all societies, but some actions can be argued relative to the society and circumstance.In a primitive, harsh society where everyone is expected to pull their own weight, and if someone who is disabled endangers the rest of the community because they require too many resources and time, it could be morally acceptable to abandon or euthanize them to save the others. Such an action would be unacceptable to us since we have the means to care for them, but necessary in the situation I described. This in an example where morality can be culturally relative but acceptable to the culture in question. I hope this somewhat clarifies it.