Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you are trying to arrive at the most moral decision, should you seek to reason as impartially and objectively as possible, or should you allow your biases and personal, subjective preferences to play a role?

Source: about.com

Seeing as morales come from your own biases and personal, subjective preferences yes you should.

Originally posted by Storm
If you are trying to arrive at the most moral decision, should you seek to reason as impartially and objectively as possible, or should you allow your biases and personal, subjective preferences to play a role?

Source: about.com

Morality must be objective to remove bias, because bias can distort the truth of things. I follow the simplest formula:

Intent > Action > Consequence.

For an act to be morally permissable, the Intent behind the action and the action must both be mroally good. The consequence can be good or bad. Case in point- Dictator tries to make the nation robust and strong. Good intent, but he seizes land from certain people and forces others into deathcamps or labor camps. Immoral. Therefore, the act itself is immoral. On the flip side, acts can be morally good but not produce good in the end. Take a doctor for instance: a doctor has the good intent to save a patient, and performs surgery which is good, but the patient still dies.

It really depends on if you buy into the irrational idea of consequentialism, which means do whatever so long as it produces good. Or subjectivism, which isn't much better.

This strikes me as another way of asking, Are Morals Relative? (in which case, you would be allowed your subjectivities/biases); or, Are There Moral Absolutes? (in which case, moral action should be based on objective truths).

Since I believe in moral absolutes, moral action should reflect them...this includes taking context into account.

I can't help thinking Mindship is right- this is asking if morals are absolute, but from a different angle.

in my opinion there can be no complete impartiality where moral decisions are concerned because every situation is different. Most philosophers, when creating a moral theory, attempt to ignore emotions, but it is undeniable that personal emotions and motives play a big part in all moral decisions that we make, because of this, our personal decisions can only be subjective.

Originally posted by Storm
If you are trying to arrive at the most moral decision, should you seek to reason as impartially and objectively as possible, or should you allow your biases and personal, subjective preferences to play a role?

Source: about.com

I think there are no morals so, you can'T behave morally anyways. You will always do what suits you most anyways, so the question is kind of pointless.

Originally posted by Storm
If you are trying to arrive at the most moral decision, should you seek to reason as impartially and objectively as possible, or should you allow your biases and personal, subjective preferences to play a role?

Source: about.com

Yes, but you will alway have some biases and personal, subjective preferences no matter how hard to try to avoid that.

I think it is impossible to be totally impartial, in the moment we choose a criterium to judge the situation be it reason or not, we are already biased, or inclined towards that.

Morality is subjective...I dont think anyone can make a valid argument against this?