Incubator escapee wiki:Articles for deletion/Objective morality
Revision as of 07:04, 23 April 2006 by imported>Cydebot (Robot: Fixing up links to AfD templates.)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Objective moralityEdit
- This page was nominated for deletion in 2004, but appears to have slipped through the cracks until now. I'd close this as a decision to keep, except that a fair proportion of the votes are highly suspect. See the edit history of this discussion and the (lack of) contributions of some of the voters. So I'm re-listing this discussion for further input, and (I hope) closure this time around. This is not a vote. Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
Seems to be original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Though it may seem to be origional research, it is not. It is merely a definition followed by debate. I'm illustrating the opposing views of proponent's and detractor's, those who do or do not hold the concept to be the truth. - Warren Graham 4:40, 11.11.2004 (EST)
- Keep. Has no one else voted yet? Both these posts are old. The topic is a good topic for wiki to cover. Right now the article is short, but it seems to be mostly NPOV and will grow in time. millerc 00:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs a little work, but keep. It's a valid article, and not original research(How could it be[it's not a new philosophy])Superm401 05:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs more content though. Hgebel 17:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Hgebal, it is good as far as it goes and the subject is discussed in a variety of philosophical books published in the UK. Omega5000 20:42 1/2/05 [GMT]
- Just rewrite completely because it is such a simplistic definition. I don't see these points going anywhere.
- Move. It is the opposite of moral relativism, so should be renamed moral objectivism. Expansion (and metaphysical/religious take) is warranted. JFW | T@lk 02:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Rename and tag for expansion. -Sean Curtin 04:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Seems like a valid topic if a somewhat lacking article. Keep (including move/rename as above). A cleanup tag would be appropriate. Radiant! 10:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Merge and redirect to Moral realism -- objectivism is a subset of realism. let's move it there, eh? Ungtss 15:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)- Delete. Currently original research. What objectivity means in the context of morality is a subtopic of Moral philosophy, and it does not make sense to have a separate article on it. --BM 15:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to moral absolutism, which is the usual term for the opposite of moral relativism. — Gwalla | Talk 04:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge & redirect to moral absolutism. Lacrimosus 07:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to moral absolutism. --Viriditas | Talk 04:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Objective morality is distinct from moral absolutism, yet the article lacks content and clarity. 3.22.2005 5:50 (EST)
- This is getting confusing, because someone has renamed it "moral objectivism." There's no such thing in philosophy as "objective morality," but there is a position called "moral objectivism." But it's not what this article says it is. Moral objectivism is roughly the view that morality is a product of our natures as rational beings who can empathize with other sentient beings. Therefore, I vote to delete the title "objective morality" but to keep the title "moral objectivism" so long as there's content change. SlimVirgin 23:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- And to clarify: "moral objectivism" is not the same position as "moral absolutism." SlimVirgin 23:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- hmm ... i'm seeing that moral objectivism is the idea that at least some things are wrong according to some external standard, moral absolutism is the idea that some things are wrong regardless of context, and moral relativism is the idea that things are right and wrong according to one's culture, so that moral objectivism is opposed to moral relativism, but moral ABSOLUTISM can be either objective or relative? Is this getting closer? Ungtss 23:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Roughly, moral absolutism is the view that certain acts are right or wrong regardless of context and regardless of consequences: an absolutist would not hold that the truth of moral judgments varies across cultures (relativism). Moral relativism takes a number of forms, but is more or less the view that whether acts are regarded as right or wrong varies across societies, time, and even individual circumstances, and that moral judgments are not capable of being true or false: the relativist argues that moral judgments are invented, not discovered. Moral objectivism is a subset of moral realism, which I now see has its own page: moral realism holds that moral judgments are capable of being true or false; that moral values are discovered, not invented; and that their truth is not affected by what anyone thinks about them. Moral realism and moral absolutism are related, but are not the same: a moral realist would say of a "good" act that, if its consequences were likely to be dreadful, then it would no longer be the right thing to do. A moral absolutist, however, would argue that certain moral judgments ought to be acted upon regardless of consequences. However, both the absolutist and the realist/objectivist share the view that moral judgments are discovered, not invented by human beings. To make it even more confusing, I should add that these terms are not used in the same way by all philosophers, so they're actually not very helpful. As moral realism has its own page, it would make sense to delete the content of objective morality, or moral objectivism as it's now called, and redirect the title moral objectivism to moral realism, but delete the title objective morality. And leave moral absolutism as it is. You're probably wishing you hadn't asked. ;-) SlimVirgin 00:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation:). I had always used objectivism and absolutism interchangeably, but i see now that there's an important distinction between the two:). I agree with your conclusion -- we can redirect to moral realism and develop the subset on the page for the full set, yes? Ungtss 01:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Roughly, moral absolutism is the view that certain acts are right or wrong regardless of context and regardless of consequences: an absolutist would not hold that the truth of moral judgments varies across cultures (relativism). Moral relativism takes a number of forms, but is more or less the view that whether acts are regarded as right or wrong varies across societies, time, and even individual circumstances, and that moral judgments are not capable of being true or false: the relativist argues that moral judgments are invented, not discovered. Moral objectivism is a subset of moral realism, which I now see has its own page: moral realism holds that moral judgments are capable of being true or false; that moral values are discovered, not invented; and that their truth is not affected by what anyone thinks about them. Moral realism and moral absolutism are related, but are not the same: a moral realist would say of a "good" act that, if its consequences were likely to be dreadful, then it would no longer be the right thing to do. A moral absolutist, however, would argue that certain moral judgments ought to be acted upon regardless of consequences. However, both the absolutist and the realist/objectivist share the view that moral judgments are discovered, not invented by human beings. To make it even more confusing, I should add that these terms are not used in the same way by all philosophers, so they're actually not very helpful. As moral realism has its own page, it would make sense to delete the content of objective morality, or moral objectivism as it's now called, and redirect the title moral objectivism to moral realism, but delete the title objective morality. And leave moral absolutism as it is. You're probably wishing you hadn't asked. ;-) SlimVirgin 00:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
- hmm ... i'm seeing that moral objectivism is the idea that at least some things are wrong according to some external standard, moral absolutism is the idea that some things are wrong regardless of context, and moral relativism is the idea that things are right and wrong according to one's culture, so that moral objectivism is opposed to moral relativism, but moral ABSOLUTISM can be either objective or relative? Is this getting closer? Ungtss 23:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- And to clarify: "moral objectivism" is not the same position as "moral absolutism." SlimVirgin 23:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.