• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moral Particularism

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
“When we try to explain why they are instances of good or bad, of right or wrong, we sound comic, as anyone does who gives elaborate reasons for the obvious, especially when these reasons are so shamefaced before reality, so miserably beside the point.” (W.H. Gass, ‘The Case of the Obliging Stranger’, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No.2, 1957, p.196.) If the particularist is pressed to explain why you should help the young girl on the railway tracks, then rather than appealing to some overarching impersonal principle, the particularist will reply with particular reasons, for example: “The girl will die if you do nothing,” or “Because she’s about to get crushed,” or “Her family will be devastated,” or “Wouldn’t you want to be saved if you were in her shoes?”

So the particularist has a different interpretation of the relationship between particular cases and moral principles. Exceptional cases do not trouble particularists, since principles are mere generalizations from cases anyway. For the particularists, principles are, at best, helpful moral crutches. We can fall back on them when we are unable to properly examine the details of a specific case, or when our judgement is impaired or untrustworthy, or when we do not have enough information to fully understand what makes a particular case unique. But it should be made clear that for particularists, moral principles are tools that exist only to serve and help us, and they should be ignored or modified when they don’t. On the contrary, for universalists (believers in universal principles), our moral competence depends on how well we serve universal principles. Yet there is something strange about the notion that morality is ultimately a matter of applying impersonal moral principles to particular cases – morality becomes a matter of calculation rather than care. M.U. Walker makes a similar point: “Even as the theories tell us how to live they defeat or defy motives of attachment to particular people that give us reasons to live or allow us to live well.”
Why You Shouldn’t Be A Person Of Principle | Issue 60 | Philosophy Now

Do you think one's morals should override their principles?
If so, then, then where do their morals come from if not principles?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
“When we try to explain why they are instances of good or bad, of right or wrong, we sound comic, as anyone does who gives elaborate reasons for the obvious, especially when these reasons are so shamefaced before reality, so miserably beside the point.” (W.H. Gass, ‘The Case of the Obliging Stranger’, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No.2, 1957, p.196.) If the particularist is pressed to explain why you should help the young girl on the railway tracks, then rather than appealing to some overarching impersonal principle, the particularist will reply with particular reasons, for example: “The girl will die if you do nothing,” or “Because she’s about to get crushed,” or “Her family will be devastated,” or “Wouldn’t you want to be saved if you were in her shoes?”

So the particularist has a different interpretation of the relationship between particular cases and moral principles. Exceptional cases do not trouble particularists, since principles are mere generalizations from cases anyway. For the particularists, principles are, at best, helpful moral crutches. We can fall back on them when we are unable to properly examine the details of a specific case, or when our judgement is impaired or untrustworthy, or when we do not have enough information to fully understand what makes a particular case unique. But it should be made clear that for particularists, moral principles are tools that exist only to serve and help us, and they should be ignored or modified when they don’t. On the contrary, for universalists (believers in universal principles), our moral competence depends on how well we serve universal principles. Yet there is something strange about the notion that morality is ultimately a matter of applying impersonal moral principles to particular cases – morality becomes a matter of calculation rather than care. M.U. Walker makes a similar point: “Even as the theories tell us how to live they defeat or defy motives of attachment to particular people that give us reasons to live or allow us to live well.”
Why You Shouldn’t Be A Person Of Principle | Issue 60 | Philosophy Now

Do you think one's morals should override their principles?
If so, then, then where do their morals come from if not principles?
Morals are a type of principle. Moral principles come from the same places other principles come from: learned, indoctrinated, epiphany, observation, contemplation, or intuition.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Yet there is something strange about the notion that morality is ultimately a matter of applying impersonal moral principles to particular cases – morality becomes a matter of calculation rather than care.

I see this as the core strength of moral universalism, particularly forms of consequentialism. It prevents the adherent from becoming blinded by emotional reasoning or having their moral principles change depending on what mood they're in.

It also allows us to make unambiguous judgments when faced with hard choices or gray situations. Otherwise, these ambiguous situations would leave us emotionally confused or even guilty no matter what decision we chose since we would be forced to compromise one of our conflicting desires. Making the choice ahead of time on what to prioritize reduces this strain.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I see this as the core strength of moral universalism, particularly forms of consequentialism. It prevents the adherent from becoming blinded by emotional reasoning or having their moral principles change depending on what mood they're in.

It also allows us to make unambiguous judgments when faced with hard choices or gray situations. Otherwise, these ambiguous situations would leave us emotionally confused or even guilty no matter what decision we chose since we would be forced to compromise one of our conflicting desires. Making the choice ahead of time on what to prioritize reduces this strain.

Morality is being confused. Morality is system of rules for social living, accepted by a group, designed with the team in mind. Individual choice is not morality. That is better called relative morality. The idea of the team in mind allows us to objectively compare moral systems. The best morals system will be reflected in objective outputs; minimal global costs for the team. It can also be reflected in the team affect where the team become more than the sum of its parts; advanced and happy. The stress and social costs in modern culture. is due relative morality causing the team to break down via added social costs.

The individual choices connected to relative morality, makes the individual become the team in a microcosm. The output is only objective to you and your criteria. The ax murderer may get a nice buzz out their relative morality of chopping down people, but this will add costs to the bigger social team. There are cases where the relative morality of one; King Author, was used to benefit the team. But more often, this is not the case, since being too much of a team player may add costs to the individual; greed is very hungry.

The classic marriage of a man and women is the most efficient family unit based on objective criteria. This is why it is included in most moral systems; objective scientific peer reviewable criteria. There are minimal costs in terms of STD's. Children have two parents with an instinctive connection to them. The intact family allows three of more generations to interact, as children also become parents. It thereby minimizes social spending for the elderly, children and single parents since they are not problems but family.

These high objective grades is why this is often included in most moral systems. Once this was disrupted by relative morality; alternate life styles, the social costs sky rocketed. These costs include more than material things. They also include emotional and psychological costs. This is based on science and peer review of duplicated results, over many centuries of testing.

Relative morality was never subject to the same type of science observation and peer review since it is more in the head of one person, and not subject to science via its third person philosophy. There is no valid science objectivity, since relative morality has sort of a faith element, that cannot be investigated, other than how it impacts the group and adds to the costs of others.

Censorship is part of relative morality as well as some forms of morality; group. This often leads to conflict as moral people attempt to keep facts ahead of the fiction. Good data can be proven by science to better at orientating one and all, to reality. Misinformation and censorship would get low objective scores for any moral system. It may be better for a group of relative moralists, who may benefit in their minds, even with the known cost to others.
 

Ella S.

Dispassionate Goth
Morality is being confused. Morality is system of rules for social living, accepted by a group, designed with the team in mind. Individual choice is not morality. That is better called relative morality. The idea of the team in mind allows us to objectively compare moral systems. The best morals system will be reflected in objective outputs; minimal global costs for the team. It can also be reflected in the team affect where the team become more than the sum of its parts; advanced and happy. The stress and social costs in modern culture. is due relative morality causing the team to break down via added social costs.

Morality is a collection of cultural norms and taboos. Adherence to cultural morality is called conformity, which is usually the result of a variety of pro-social emotions such as shame and guilt, and these same emotions form what we call a "conscience" or our "moral intuitions."

Morality is indeed relative because it depends on what culture or sub-culture you're looking at and when you're looking at it. There's even more variation between smaller communities within those cultures and between the groups that make up those communities all the way down to the level of the individual. None of it is objective. It can't be.

That's why I'm more interested in ethics, which is the philosophical discernment between right and wrong. Not all forms of ethics are objective, however I am an ethical universalist, which does believe in an objective ethical framework.

I do not believe that ethical decisions correlate with the minimal global costs for a team or when a team becomes more than the sum of its parts. Instead, I think ethical action is action that is done from a place of virtue. One of these virtues, in Stoicism, is "justice" and my concept of justice is utilitarian.

The individual choices connected to relative morality, makes the individual become the team in a microcosm. The output is only objective to you and your criteria. The ax murderer may get a nice buzz out their relative morality of chopping down people, but this will add costs to the bigger social team. There are cases where the relative morality of one; King Author, was used to benefit the team. But more often, this is not the case, since being too much of a team player may add costs to the individual; greed is very hungry.

Generally, ax murderers are not following a relative moral system. They're more frequently considered social deviants and their behavior is considered antisocial. Few of them bother to rationalize their actions according to any sort of ethical philosophy, either, outside of some "mission-oriented serial killers."

The classic marriage of a man and women is the most efficient family unit based on objective criteria.

As far as utility is concerned, all of the studies I've read on the topic disagree. Same-sex marriage, single parents, polygamy, and large-family households can be just as, if not more, efficient at providing long-term well-being to its members.

There are other, more causative factors that can be examined for the psychological and financial well-being of a family, such as class, mental health, etc.

This is why it is included in most moral systems; objective scientific peer reviewable criteria. There are minimal costs in terms of STD's.

That's not true. Heterosexual couples are susceptible to STD's. Committed homosexual and polygamous partners are less susceptible to STD's than straight people who have had many sexual partners. Single adoptive parents who have never had sex are, of course, the least at risk for contracting an STD.

Children have two parents with an instinctive connection to them. The intact family allows three of more generations to interact, as children also become parents. It thereby minimizes social spending for the elderly, children and single parents since they are not problems but family.

This is an ideal, not reality.

These high objective grades is why this is often included in most moral systems.

This isn't true, either. Polygamy and same-sex couplings are common in a variety of cultures.

Once this was disrupted by relative morality; alternate life styles, the social costs sky rocketed. These costs include more than material things. They also include emotional and psychological costs. This is based on science and peer review of duplicated results, over many centuries of testing.

No, it isn't. It's based on tradition, which means that your morality is relative to that tradition.

Your claims have no basis in science, as far as I can tell.

Relative morality was never subject to the same type of science observation and peer review since it is more in the head of one person, and not subject to science via its third person philosophy. There is no valid science objectivity, since relative morality has sort of a faith element, that cannot be investigated, other than how it impacts the group and adds to the costs of others.

Censorship is part of relative morality as well as some forms of morality; group. This often leads to conflict as moral people attempt to keep facts ahead of the fiction. Good data can be proven by science to better at orientating one and all, to reality. Misinformation and censorship would get low objective scores for any moral system. It may be better for a group of relative moralists, who may benefit in their minds, even with the known cost to others.

Data cannot make evaluative claims, and as such there is no way to decide what is "better at orienting one and all" based on data. You have to first decide what criteria you're using to determine "better."

The criteria you give is vague. It leads you to conclusions that I wouldn't have formed by my understanding of what "better" means. What do you mean by words like "benefit" and "better?" What is a "global cost?" How are you defining "happy?" What makes a family "efficient?"

I have my own answers to these questions but, since we come to radically different conclusions based on these concepts, I suspect that you're defining them in a very different way.
 
Last edited:
Top